Hi all. Early in the new year I will be selling off my D200 and looking to upgrade my body to either a D300s or D700. I know these are two completely different animals and I'm having a difficult time deciding which route to go. I own many lenses (probably too many) as well as a solid range of DX "Pro" glass. One of the reasons I am considering FX is the low light performance capabilities. Quite often I find myself taking pics of my kids in some dimly lit school gymnasium or sports arena's. I find I'm pretty limited to around ISO800 with my D200 before things start to get too noisy. A secondary reason for considering the D700 is the brighter viewfinder which would be great as I find myself using primes (MF) quite a bit. Not sure if the D700 would have a much brighter viewfinder than the D300s but I would like to hear from you guys. The extra MP's of the D700 could also be an advantage for better image quality and enlargements. One of the things which concerns me with going FX is the choice of mid-range everyday zooms. I don't want to lug around a big 24-70mm as an everyday lens - it's just too big for me. I prefer to go light. I really enjoyed my 18-70mm on the D200 and I'd like a similar range on FX. I don't need a "Pro" lens for this range - just something comparable to the 18-70mm. Recommendations? I would sell off quite a few of my lenses to fund the D700 but I need to be sure I am making the right decision first. I am looking to buy a body which I can keep and enjoy for a long time. PS - I rarely need more "reach" and typically shoot (mostly landscapes) on the wider end of things. Any advice would be appreciated.

I doubt the D700 VF will be brighter, just bigger. For your subjects D700 is definitely the way to go, but on the downside you will have to sell your DX glass, and the walkaround zooms aren't quite as compact. When I want to travel light with D700 I use an AiS prime.

Gary Clennan wrote:
A secondary reason for considering the D700 is the brighter viewfinder

Straight facts - the D300 viewfinder is slightly brighter than the D3 Also the D300 viewfinder is 100% magnification compared to 70% on the D3 so the apparent difference in size is slight. I use D3 and D300 side by side.
The D700 viewfinder crops the image slightly.
The D300 is quite usable at 1600 and the D300s is widely reported as better.
The D300/s AF points cover a greater percentage of the viewfinder area - helpful with some subjects.

I can not comment on viewfinder brightness of D300s as I haven't used D300/D300s. But just looking at the numbers D300(s) has some advantages over D700 - 100% viewfinder coverage, focus points more spread-out so are closer to the edges and magnification of 100%. You also seem to like your DX lens collection which goes in the favor of D300s.

I thought of all this and then still went from D80 to D700 . Simply because whenever I picked up my film cameras I found I was happier with the way things looked in terms of FOV. Though I must say D700 viewfinder is no where as good as FE2 viewfinder (a camera I have had for almost 20 years and you can pick it second hand for couple of hundred pounds).

If you do decide to go for D700, the lens to reproduce the exact same effective focal length and FOV will be 28-105, I used this lens 6 years on film camera and find it quite good. If I hadn't sold my AF film camera to just focus on MF Film and digital AF setup before I upgraded to D700, I still would have been using it, by all accounts it works very well on FX. You will need to buy it second hand as its no longer produced by Nikon, goes for about £150 here in the UK for mint/near mint boxed copy. For the price and intended use I think this is a very good lens. If you want to go slightly wider and not as long then 24-85 afs is my current lightweight lens for D700 and am quite happy with it, more distortion than 28-105, but I use NX2 to correct that in batch mode and works fine for me. 28-105 also gives you 2:1 macro-ish ability which you may or may not want.

I went for big intimidating 24-70 lens on D700, I am quite happy with the move. But since I don't shoot people that much intimidation factor for 24-70 doesn't matter that much to me. I did buy a good holster to carry around my stuff and that has made things easier in terms of weight, I got Kata H-16 and now can carry D700 with 24-70, SB900, 70-300 and 50mm 1.8 without too much physical strain.

Cheers
Hash

D700 viewfinder is much bigger. 94% of a FX frame is more area than 100% of a DX. Brightness of the viewfinder depends on the max aperture of the lens you're using.

Because it has a relatively low pixel density, the D700 is actually not very demanding on glass. My trusty, old, 28-105 f3.5-4.5 has become my standard zoom once on the D700, even though I wasn't happy with it's results on the D300. Could be why KEH is selling them for a healthy bit of cash...

Nikon hasn't really produced any 'prosumer' FX lenses yet. After the great lens purge of 2005-2006 we really don't have many choices left for a standard zoom. I envy those Canon guys with their F4 zooms.

I got the d700 recently, i also jumped from d200. And im glad i did, i thinkt that if i had chosen the d300 instead i would still look back and envy that FX camera. And i also think that the d700 is so good that i wouldnt have the need to upgrade for the next 5 years or so.

Iso on d200 compared to todays standard is low and you will really appreciate the high iso on the d700.

Its true there isnt a lightweight zoom for FX, but couldnt you use a prime instead ? I usually put a 35mm or 50mm on for almost 90% of my daily shots.

Sounds like I need to bring a few primes into a store and do a comparison.... Great advice everyone - thanks.

yukselserdar wrote:

I got the d700 recently, i also jumped from d200. And im glad i did, i thinkt that if i had chosen the d300 instead i would still look back and envy that FX camera. And i also think that the d700 is so good that i wouldnt have the need to upgrade for the next 5 years or so.

Exactly, in the end it was cheaper for me to go from a D80>D700 and have 5 years of kickass instead of D80>D300s and develope kickass envy after a year or two of using it, then going out and buying another DX camera or finally going to FX anyways. I am so happy I did it this way.

I've tried both D300 and D700. I am a night photographer and low light performance is important to me. The D700 shot clean at ISO 3200; the D300 looks similar at ISO 1600. I will not compromise lens quality to buy a camera. For the cost, a one stop or so improvement was just not worth it to me. Prices of D700 continue to fall like a rock, and I'll re-evaluate this spring. It's now the price of lens switch that's holding me back. I don't won't to use the 20 yr. old ancient Nikon "primes." Tried that on D300 already and was very unhappy with lens performance, and the inconvenience of changing lenses on the fly. I will not compromise on lenses. For family outings I have returned to my Nikon D80. It's much more compact and lighter. I hate lugging heavy camera gear around for family fun times.


Kent in SD

Two23 wrote:
I've tried both D300 and D700. I am a night photographer and low light performance is important to me. The D700 shot clean at ISO 3200; the D300 looks similar at ISO 1600. I will not compromise lens quality to buy a camera. For the cost, a one stop or so improvement was just not worth it to me. Prices of D700 continue to fall like a rock, and I'll re-evaluate this spring. It's now the price of lens switch that's holding me back. I don't won't to use the 20 yr. old ancient Nikon "primes." Tried that on D300 already and was very unhappy with lens performance, and the inconvenience of changing lenses on the fly. I will not compromise on lenses. For family outings I have returned to my Nikon D80. It's much more compact and lighter. I hate lugging heavy camera gear around for family fun times.


Kent in SD

Thanks Kent. What primes were you using? The primes I use (older MF) perform as well as my "pro" glass - most of the time. This is on a D200 so I would imagine it would be even better on a D300. Even if I make the switch to FF I would still make sure I had great quality lenses so that is not an issue. Many FX users also claim that some lenses (with a so-so reputation) perform much better on FX than DX...

I moved from the D200 with Nikkor 12-24, 17-55 and 70-200VR to the D700 with Nikkor 14-24, 24-70 and still the 70-200 VR.

I was initially concerned about the added weight. It proved to be justified. I do not carry my stuff in a shoulder bag anymore as I used to. But with a backpack the added weight is not an issue.

People seem to think that the only advantage of FX is better high ISO perfomance. This is not the case. It is just better at all ISO setting. The dynamic range, color depth and noise are all better. The files take post-processing much better, shadows can be lifted with low or no noise and the colors are retained and are better right off the bat. Also the per pixel sharpness with my lenses are better than they where on DX with my previous lenses.

Summary: Going to D700 from D200 improves image quality considerably in all aspects.

I was using 20mm f2.8 AFD, 28mm f1.8 AFD, 50mm f1.8 AFD, 85mm f1.8 AFD. These just weren't very well suited to what I was doing. First off, it's often dusty/snowy when I photo and I had problems with dust getting on sensor during lens changes. Second was I missing shots because I had to change lenses. Third, these are older lenses with older coatings and design. I had problems with CA on all of them. The 85mm f1.8 was the worst lens I've ever owned for flare/ghosting, and that was a big factor for me. The 20mm f2.8 was just soft until stopped down. Just as cameras have improved over the past 20 years, so have lenses. At one time so-called primes were clearly better than zooms. That's no longer true. With new coatings, ED elements, computer design, the latest state of art pro zooms are out performing the old lenses. Add to that VR, AFS. For me, I don't see the point of buying an expensive state of art camera and then going cheap on lenses. It's sort of like buying a Chevy Corvette and putting $20 tires on it. The lens is the single most critical link to any photo SYSTEM. It is the lens that determines what you can photo, and where.

I have doubts that a lens that is mediocre on DX will improve on FX. Two reasons. First, on DX only the center portion of the lens is used, and that's always the sharpest part. Second reason is that we are fast approaching the time when modern digital sensors are out-resolving those old lenses designed for relatively low resolution film.

Nikon really doesn't have the lens selection yet to fully support their newer cameras. Your choice is either the "holy trinity" of 14-24mm f2.8, 24-70mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8 VR, or try to cobble together a hodge podge of cheaper lenses in the hope that they are at least mediocre. The previous generation of pro zooms--17-35mm f2.8, 28-80mm f2.8, 80-200mm f2.8 AFS do seem to still be performing well on modern cameras There isn't a great cost savings on them though. (Some pro grade third party lenses are definitely worth looking at.) What Nikon badlly needs are the f4 VR zooms like Canon has. It just baffles me that they don't have them. Clearly, not everyone needs f2.8, but the newer coatings and design are clearly better. I'm just not seeing the point of buying a camera for its high ISO performance, and then crippling it with consumer grade f5.6 zooms either.

What it always comes down to for me is, if I spend the money what do I get? I just can't justify a relatively small increase in image quality for the thousands of dollars it will cost. Luckily, the prices of cameras do nothing but drop drop drop. I take advantage of that and buy a used/refurb one after someone else had taken the thousand dollar hit. I tend to analyze things by looking at the cost vs. the benefit. If I had paid $2,500 for D700, $1,800 each for 24-70mm f2.8 + 14-24mm f2.8, that would cost me about $6,100! Worth it? No way. Instead, my strategy is to wait and take advantage of somebody else taking the loss on the camera. When a used D700 hits $1,600 (and is certainly will) I can then sell my pro f2.8 DX zooms and buy D700 + 24-70mm f2.8 + 14-24mm f2.8 for maybe $3,700, net. For that, it becomes a bit more palatable. All the while I'm waiting, I'm using Nikon's best lenses to take my shots.

I've been around awhile, and people on message boards have always hyped whatever the latest "hot" camera was. At one time the D1 was the "hot" camera, with 2.74mp. Just nine years ago it was $5,000. Today it's worth a tenth of that--$400 on eBay. If you had bought the f2.8 pro zooms at the same time, they have substantially appreciated in value, and are still good on the D700. Cameras are disposable and in the long run don't matter all that much. Good lenses and tripods you keep. Remember my first paragraph, where I was complaining about the older Nikon lenses I tried? I sold each one for slightly more than I had paid the year before.


Kent in SD

Kaj E wrote:
I moved from the D200 with Nikkor 12-24, 17-55 and 70-200VR to the D700 with Nikkor 14-24, 24-70 and still the 70-200 VR.

I was initially concerned about the added weight. It proved to be justified. I do not carry my stuff in a shoulder bag anymore as I used to. But with a backpack the added weight is not an issue.

People seem to think that the only advantage of FX is better high ISO perfomance. This is not the case. It is just better at all ISO setting. The dynamic range, color depth and noise are all better. The files take post-processing much better, shadows can be lifted with low or no noise and the colors are retained and are better right off the bat. Also the per pixel sharpness with my lenses are better than they where on DX with my previous lenses.

Summary: Going to D700 from D200 improves image quality considerably in all aspects.

I have heard this from quite a few D700 owners that the image quality is better than with a cropped sensor. Quality is subjective but I am confident this is more/less a true statement. When you are creeping up to the pro-level equipment, one always pays more money for smaller improvements. It's all a matter of whether or not those "smaller" improvements are worth the cost...

Two23: With all respect, but primes require understanding and patience. Yes the 20 and 28mm 2.8 arent very good, they are old design. Dont expect a wide-angle prime like the 20mm to be sharp at 2.8. Thats not the point with that lens, instead you should evaluate it in corner sharpness when stopped down. Because this lens is mostly used for landscapes and such.

I used to have both the 50 and 85mm 1.8, and i also had the 17-55mm and 28-70mm, and the primes are way sharper at 2.8 then the zooms. And these primes are just "budget" primes, the 85mm 1.4, 135mm f2, 200mm f2 are much better, so i disagree with you, and say that zooms still have a long way. Not to mention the weight.

Kent in SD,

Lens doesn't have to be expensive to be good neither does it need to fast, if you need fast lenses then that might well be your definition of good lens, it doesn't have to be everyones definition. Its getting tiring people repeating the same thing over and over "buy lenses before camera" let people make their own decisions. Buying lenses before cameras was important for non-digital film cameras but not always the best way forward for digital. for film cameras people serious about photography used the treat the film as the most important component of their equipment. For digital the film is the camera itself. This is something people keep forgetting.

The most important bit for me is the medium of capture the film or the camera sensor, lens is important but nowhere as important. camera body and gizmos don't matter at all.

Some people use shallow depth of field in their photographs and it is a part of their style, in certain kind of professional photography it is very important to look the part and some times people buy bulky lenses just for that. These is a specific need - with a specfic solutions. Though I have seen shallow depth of field applied so many times in pictures where it actually makes them worse, still I see people obsessing over it in forums all over the web.

DX sensor cameras are great tools and if thats what I had I would be happy with that, but why tell every one and anyone that they need to spend on lenses, maybe they already have. Maybe they just don't want big bulky lenses.

You gave a long list of prime lenses that you say weren't good enough. In right hands 50mm 1.8 will out perform any zoom at equivalent aperture, I have both 24-70 and 50 and I know 50 is not worse than 24-70 in any way other than the ability to zoom. 20mm AFD is a great lens to I have used it and it will outperform any zoom, there hugely successful landscape photographers of international renown who use this lens regularly in their work.

Also you referred to your pro 2.8 DX zooms - there is only one pro 2.8 DX zoom from Nikon - 17-55, which is good but not a great lens. I know people do achieve great results - frankly I think these people will get great results with 18-55 DX as well.

Having said all that I still wonder at times if D300s was better suited for me.

Hash

yukselserdar wrote:

....i disagree with you, and say that zooms still have a long way. Not to mention the weight.

I also will disagree with you.

The new Nikon primes are as good as most primes if not better. The 24-70 equals prime quality and the 14-24 exceeds most primes in the range. I await the new 70-200 VRII with great interest.

Cheers!

hashaama wrote:
Kent in SD,

(1) Lens doesn't have to be expensive to be good neither does it need to fast. If you need fast lenses then that might well be your definition of good lens, it doesn't have to be everyones definition.

(2) Its getting tiring people repeating the same thing over and over "buy lenses before camera" let people make their own decisions. Buying lenses before cameras was important for non-digital film cameras but not always the best way forward for digital. for film cameras people serious about photography used the treat the film as the most important component of their equipment.

(3) The most important bit for me is the medium of capture the film or the camera sensor, lens is important but nowhere as important. camera body and gizmos don't matter at all.

(4) DX sensor cameras are great tools and if thats what I had I would be happy with that, but why tell every one and anyone that they need to spend on lenses, maybe they already have. Maybe they just don't want big bulky lenses.

(5) You gave a long list of prime lenses that you say weren't good enough. In right hands 50mm 1.8 will out perform any zoom at equivalent aperture, I have both 24-70 and 50 and I know 50 is not worse than 24-70 in any way other than the ability to zoom.

(6) 20mm AFD is a great lens to I have used it and it will outperform any zoom, there hugely successful landscape photographers of international renown who use this lens regularly in their work.


(7)Having said all that I still wonder at times if D300s was better suited for me.

Hash


I love good discussions. Keep in mind people ask for advice on message boards, and everyone responds in the context of their own personal experiences.

1. That is true, good lenses don't have to be expensive, but OTOH they are very rarely cheap either. Note I have been lamenting that Nikon has no pro f4 zooms, which would be mid priced and not ultra fast either. On most internet forums we do see many beginners who write something like, "I just paid $2,700 for a camera. I don't have any money left for a lens. Will a Vivitar 500mm f11 mirror lens be a good one?" Or something to that effect.

2. I am coming at this from both economic value and also image quality. No one can deny that expensive cameras are a tremendous money pit. If you are constantly buying the latest hot camera, you will be losing thousands of dollars in a relatively short length of time. Good lenses keep their value and you aren't rebuying them every two years either. Second, it actually is the lens that determines what you can photo more so than the camera. If you shoot macro, you need a macro lens. If you shoot wildlife, you will need a long and somewhat fast lens. If you like to shoot architecture, you could benefit from a PCE lens. If you shoot in dim light, (as I do,) it's still the lens that increases your chance of success because they are easier to focus with.

3. What about distortion in cheap lenses? Flare? And, we are now approaching (or have even passed) the resolution limits of the old lenses. While sensor is important of course, they are now disposable. The lens is still primary. Note that even with Hassy MF digi-backs, people keep same lenses but swap out the backs now. I will agree that most "gizmos" on cameras seem to only add cost for most people.

4. For my night shots and most others, I do need f2.8, and sometimes that's too slow. As for bulky f2.8 zooms, again we are back to my point of Nikon does not have the f4 zooms they need, like Canon has. That is the missing piece of the system. If someone already has great lenses, then I certainly agree that part of the system is out of consideration and we can move down the line to the next components.

5. My copy of 50mm f1.8 does not outperform the 17-55mm f2.8 or the 24-70mm f2.8. While sharpness is about the same, the older lens has tons of CA and the color does not seem as intense. I attribute the latter to the new coatings. I have replaced it with the Sigma 30mm f1.4 for times I need ultra speed. It's an outstanding lens and handles CA much better than the NIkon 50mm (old & new.)

6. I've had two copies of 20mm f2.8 AFD and both were at best mediocre. Even my 18-55mm VR kit lens outperforms it. Note the "standard" Nikon reviewers also pass over this lens. Bjorn R. rates it among the lowest performer of Nikon lenses. a quarter century ago it was state of art, but there are new choices now. However, I'll agree that if someone thinks it's good enough for what they're doing, then it certainly is for them.

7. I used to lug a 4x5 view camera around, if you can believe that. Ever carry something like that up to 14,000 ft? It's not pleasant. I replaced it with a field camera. Up until last summer I was also lugging around D300 and the f2.8 zooms on family outings and vacations. Yikes! I finally wised up and went back to my old D80 and some compact zooms for that. Really, the image quality from the D80 is plenty good enough. I think what you're saying is that it's easy to get hung up on small improvements in performance and lose sight of the convenience factor. Often, that can be just as important. Last summer I saw some poor guy at DisneyWorld carrying around a backpack full of heavy pro photo gear and a tripod. Crying out loud! I only had D80 and two small zooms. I seemed to be having more fun!

Where we seem to disagree is that you think a camera is the most important of all, and most of your resources (money) should go into that. My thinking is that photo gear works as a SYSTEM, and the system will only be as good as its weakest piece. Where we seem to agree is that individual skill and what I'll call "vision" are by far the most important things. We do tend to obsess over tiny, generally insignifcant differences in photo gear while missing the Big Picture."

Anyway, don't take anything personally. I like hearing other points of view.


Kent in SD

An excellent example of how much impact a lens can make vs a new body would be the d40x 200vr examples in the 200vr thread.

I am a firm believer in lenses and associated gear first.

Like stated before, do you have a good tri/mono set up? Good heads, flash, remotes light stands gels umbrellas filters

My thinking is that photo gear works as a SYSTEM, and the system will only be as good as its weakest piece.

Kent in SD


Exactly. Right now my weakest point is my camera body. Even with the high quality glass I own, I am limited in certain situations. I am pretty well set up with everything else and money is not a huge factor for me right now. I plan to buy a new body and keep it for at least 5yrs. I am trying to avoid going through two bodies in the same amount of time. If I can justify going FX - that is what I'll do. Thanks for the advice everyone.

Kent,

The point I was trying to make was:

a - in digital we do not have the ability to change film without changing the camera - the body on its own is quite irrelevant.

b - not everyone has same needs, so the lenses they go for will be different too.

I do agree with you the lenses are very important, however matching the lens to you needs is important too. For example if you are trying to shoot a portrait of child smiling and the best lens available for portraits looks like a torture device then no matter how good technically that lens is you will find it difficult to get the picture you want.

One difference to consider, and perhaps thats why older lenses work better on FX, is that D700 has about the same pixel density as D40. This translate into two things its less demanding on the lens to create a picture with the same resolution when compared to DX camera, and FX handles diffraction at smaller apertures better.

It is not personal at all, exchanging ideas helps me learn new things, and I do appreciate your taking time to reply and explain your experience and point of view. I agree with you on almost all points you listed with the exception of the 2 points I stated earlier and if I understood correctly you don't completely disagree with that either its just a matter of slightly different priority.

Cheers
Hash

I use both.

The D700 is a great camera, wonderful files, excellent AF and high iso, however it is heavier, and lenses used on it are heavier and more costly.

The D300s is not as quick as the D700, but only very, very slightly slower and only in ultra low light. It has a great VF and I don't notice any real difference when using MF, esp. in any reasonable light. The advantage is in the smaller form and smaller/less costly lenses, plus the dual cards (for me at least).

Looks like I will spring for the D700. I did a side-by-side comparison today with the D300s and I think the D700 will suit my needs better. The bigger, brighter VF is quite noticible between the two cameras. I was suprised to see that the D700 is almost identical in size and weight - only slightly taller. The store owner and myself took a lot of pics with both camera's (indoor & outdoor) and he even printed out two pics (8"X12") from each camera. It was quite evident that the D700 files printed much better with more resolution, were sharper, and the range of colors seemed better to me. I may have been seeing things but I feel the prints looked much better out of the D700. For me, this is a big selling point. Thanks again everyone!

hashaama wrote:
I do agree with you the lenses are very important, however matching the lens to you needs is important too. For example if you are trying to shoot a portrait of child smiling and the best lens available for portraits looks like a torture device then no matter how good technically that lens is you will find it difficult to get the picture you want.




Oh, I totally agree. If you come across the places where advice is asked and I offer an opinion, you'll see I do put a lot of thought into it. I even look things up to pass along. Totally agree that the whole secret is match your needs to what's available. One of the kinds of posts that gets me a little peeved go something like this: "I have a D90. What's the best lens I can buy?" And absolutely no clue is given what they photo, want to spend, and so on. I mean, here! The OP here was much more specific, and that's appreciated.


Kent in SD

At my paper we have a D200, D300, and D700.
My D700 lives in my bag with the D300 relegated to being body capped and put in a side pocket for tele use with the 80-200.
The ISO performance of the D300 is a huge let down when compared to the D700.
The ability to have my 17-35 be actually wide, is awesome.

I am eager for the D3s chip to hit the D700s so I can grab one of those suckers.

D700 is splended!

If you want a lens (but not an expenxive one) to go with this camera, you might want to try the Tamron 28-75/2.8 I used it some time before I got the Nikkor 28-70/2.8

Both are excellent lenses, optically they quite close IMHO

Other option: Nikkor 24-85 AFS (not the 2.8-4, but the slower version). It's the bigger brother of the 18-70 - more or less the same optical quality.

Both can be found (mint quality) used for somewhere between $ 200 and $ 300