I disagree on the prosumer assessment. It is similar in size to the F6 film camera, and certainly is able to do just about anything. It's body, weather sealing, shutter life are every bit as capable as the D2xs.
I think it offers more flexibility than the D3 because you can shed the bulkiness when you don't need it by leaving off the vertical grip. Prosumer?... nope. To be a prosumer, it would have more of the D70/D80 sort of build and features.
>>It's a prosumer level camera. > >I disagree on the prosumer assessment. It is similar in size >to the F6 film camera, and certainly is able to do just about >anything. It's body, weather sealing, shutter life are every >bit as capable as the D2xs. >
It's a prosumer camera, because it doesn't have the 100% analog viewfinder coverage of a pro camera.
Of course, if you really need 100% viewfinder coverage, it's provided by the digital viewfinder (live view).
>“I won't buy ANYTHING that doesn't have a 100% viewfinder.”
I want a 100% viewfinder but it is not a deal breaker as your statement implies.
>”Yes, I'd really would have liked the D700 to have had 100% but 95% is not really a big issue and I have more pressing concerns than that.”
By itself it really is not a big issue. However, when combined with other important missing features, such as interchangeable view screens and interchangeable viewfinders, it becomes a pressing concern for me.
Like using a Nikormat instead of an Nikon F. This has been a standard difference between the consumer and professional line of cameras. Also when printing the standard enlarger mask covered 5% of the negative so only 95% was printed unless one had a special 100% mask.
>For those who want a safety buffer, a 95% viewfinder is a >blessing. > >For those who want precise framing, a 95% viewfinder is a >curse. > >For me, it depends on what I am shooting. > >Some of my cameras have a 100% viewfinder; some have less than >100%; and some have more than 100%. > >For architectural work, macro work, copy stand work, and >shooting slides, I prefer the 100% viewfinder for critical >framing. > >When I have neither the time nor the opportunity for >postproduction cropping to remove something undesirable from >the edges of the image, I prefer a 100% viewfinder. > >For street candids, I prefer viewfinders with more than 100% >so that I can see the action that is happening outside of the >frame. > >For most other work, it makes little difference. > >Yes, I would have preferred a 100% viewfinder in the D700; >however, its absence is not a critical issue. >
This post above is a great reply.
Although I prefer a 100% viewfinder, I've always had less than 100% prior to getting the D300, and with the exception of a few instances I didn't have any problems.
I got to play around with a D700 for a few minutes last week when a Nikon rep brought a few of them to a local camera store near me to demo, and I shot some images and looked at the LCD screen to see how much more was in the image from what I saw in the viewfinder. It looked like only a little extra got in the image.
It's more important for DX design as you get more 'reach' than on an FX design. FX or 35mm cameras will be brought primarily for wide angle and medium FL lenses so the imperative is not there for full coverage. Personally I rather have a DX view with 100% and such a finder would have made the D700 a lot nicer and more accurate.