i am considering whether to upgrade from my d300 to a d700 and want some honest opinion.
is it really worth it? i am very happy with my d300 but am wondering if the full frame is really worth spending £1700 to get. i do have all full frame lenses, so that isn't an issue. i like the idea of the higher iso quality images, but in reality if i am using the camera at 200iso would i see much difference, apart from the obvious dof difference.
I upgraded from the D300 to full frame and it was worth it for me. The high iso is pretty amazing. I captured shots my daughter's dance recital last week that I could not have done with my D300. I shot the D300 at the December recital and the D3 is a very nice upgrade.
if your shoot like me and rarely shoot over 100-800 ISO than the upgrade is pointless, you have an intresting dynamic with the FF and landscape work, but other than that i'd keep the D300.
It all depends on how much you want to pay for your camera. In my case, I don't make single dime out of my hobby and decided that D300 + 16-85 VR + 70-300 VR is good enough for me. If I ever go D700, I would get 24-70 + 70-200 VR which add $3000+ on top of my current equipments. I have no doubt that D700 setup will be better than my current setup, and I settled with what I have myself. Only you get to decide how much better is enough for you and how much money you want to spend on it.
Yes, the camera is sooo good. I ended up selling my D300 after about a week with the D700. Unless you are at all concerned about "reach" for wildlife or sports, do it.
I say why look at it as an upgrade? I have a D300 and intend to purchase a D700 to complement it. The controls are basically the same and the grip is the same. Once I get both, I'll be able to use FX for wides and DX for tele shots taking advantage of the crop. Best of both worlds.
What are you shooting? Would losing the "reach" of dx be worth it for you? I'll agree with the above posts for sure - that FX sensor is really nice and the files are incredible. However, if it's the wrong camera for the job, doesn't matter how good it is.
I shoot as a hobbyist wildlife - I do NOT SELL my photos .. my D300 was trashed in an accident so I bought a D700 with the insurance money plus boot ..... I wish I had bought another D300 rather than the D700.
For close up shots, the D700 on my 600mm works beautifully, but I REALLY MISS THE REACH and excellent photos the D300 produces !!
I've only had mine for 5 days, but I can tell you the pics are richer,,more intense.
But I shoot some sports and need the reach,not sure the dx mode will be enough
So I got a 1.4 to help out.
I considered this same question last year shortly after the D700 came out and decided to pass on it. I still have no regrets whatsoever, shooting to this day with my D300. I'm waiting for a "D700x" because I want to use the extra sensor space for more resolution; higher ISO performance is a very low priority for me which is why I passed on the D700 last year.
I recently bought the Nikkor 35/1.8 and 10.5/2.8, which are both DX lenses, and those lenses are a real treat to use on the D300. Today I placed an order for the Voigtlander Nokton 58/1.4 as my go-to portrait lens because that will provide an ideal head and shoulders portrait perspective on my D300. The way I see it right now, the total cost of these lenses is a lot less than the cost of a D700, and they give me most of what I would have wanted the D700 for; also, I sometimes use the reach (i.e., pixel density) of the D300 and there is no FX equivalent of the 10.5 fisheye -- a D3x would address these issues, but it's too expensive, so I am waiting.
I went from d300 to d700 and it was one of the best moves. They say that glass is the best investment and it is, but with the d700 I am motivated to take way more pictures due to seeing my lenses the way they were meant to be used.
Find a used d700 or a refurb and never look back.
Cheers,
Tobin
Jun 14, 2009 at 08:30 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
I think Thom Hogan has some great advice on this issue. Image quality is the same below a certain ISO so the answer is dependent on what you shoot. Forget all the "its worth it" advice and think thru what you shoot and let that guide you.
I enjoy shooting wildlife, landscape and air shows most of the time, thus I need the pixel density of the DX format. I'd only consider the D700 as a second body, but not a replacement for my D300.
On top of that, I already own several of DX lenses that I like:
* Tokina 12-24: Any FX variant is 3-4 times as expensive and way bulkier.
* Nikon 18-200 VR: This convenient travel lens has no exact match on the FX side.
* Nikon 10.5 fisheye
So the overall cost is not just the body alone. Let's suppose that I'd get a D700. I'd have to replace every wide angle and normal zoom. I could only use 3 of my current lenses, the 35mm, the 50mm, and the 70-200 VR, and that latter one would no longer be a long telephoto. Knowing myself, this could trigger a number of purchases. Considering that this is a hobby for me, and I don't intend to make any money with it, it's very hard to justify that right now. Buying further gear certainly wouldn't make me a better photographer. If I were to spend more money, it'd be something long, like a 200-400 VR, which is probably more reasonable to rent anyway.
Of course there is a different point of view. Some don't need the long range, but shoot indoors all the time. If that was me, I'd own a D700 already. But I think both formats will remain viable for the time being, as the ultra pixel density will keep going against the overall image quality of the fat pixels. Some people will just need to have both.
In short:
* D300 for the reach, less expensive, lighter system
* D700 if you can afford it and don't need the ultra high pixel density, especially if you shoot at available light.
BTW, being able to afford something doesn't automatically mean it's worth it. I'd rather go to Denali with my D300 than sit at home with my D3x.
rjk55425 wrote:
I think Thom Hogan has some great advice on this issue. Image quality is the same below a certain ISO so the answer is dependent on what you shoot. Forget all the "its worth it" advice and think thru what you shoot and let that guide you.
+10. Excellent advice. There's a lot of horse sh-- about FX having some magical quality. Just remember, magic is imaginary. Both formats work great if it's the right format for what you do.
Andre Labonte wrote:
Unless you need the high iso or the extra shallow DOF it's not worth it.
Also, if you're not filling the frame with the D700. At low ISOs the files from both cams are amazingly similar. If you're not able to fill the frame since you're focal length constrained or can't get closer to your subject (common in sports and wildlife) there's no point if you are shooting in decent lighting- the pixel density of the D300 is very nice. I totally agree with Steve on this- the D700 is an amazing camera, but in many ways- if you can't take advantage of it, you're actually better off with the D300.
spentomuch wrote:
I've only had mine for 5 days, but I can tell you the pics are richer,,more intense.
But I shoot some sports and need the reach,not sure the dx mode will be enough
So I got a 1.4 to help out.
Richer and more intense are all characteristics that depend heavily on your post processing workflow. In decent lighting, say, below ISO 640 or so- the results with a D300+ typical supertele would be better vs the D700 + 1.4x.
