I really agree with everything about sticking with DX if you need the reach, the D300 + a trip to actually spend time making photos is more valuable than a D700 in your backyard, etc. Even the high ISO ability isn't huge because unless you're a special case, that extra stop really isn't going to change your photography. But...
Andre Labonte wrote:
+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.
Here's the whole reason I love the photos from my D700 much more than the D300 files. Maybe I'm sipping from the Kool Aid, but being able to use all of an FX lens rather than the center is the whole "magic," to me. It's a completely different "look" than DX, just like 120 is completely different than 135. To me, that's the whole reason for switching over. And for someone looking into weddings I think that's of value if the price works.
I plan on going D700 soon, and i use a D80. I don't plan on giving up my D80 when i go FF. (mainly because it's not worth selling). I'll still use my D80 and 70-300VR for street and candid stuff.
pr4photos wrote:
. . .wanting to get into the wedding market. . .
. . .wider angle for some shots. . .
. . .low available light. . .higher iso shots.
Pr4photos, those needs fall right into the D700's sweet spot. Sounds like its the ideal camera for you.
I strongly agree with penghai that having a higher range of useful ISOs is a huge advantage for some of us. For me, it's revolutionary. The D700 gives me far more keepers in marginal conditions, and gives me images under conditions where in the past I simply would have put the camera away. My objection is with people who imply that a camera is better in every way that its forbears; that's rarely true--but the D700 is dramatically better in a few particulars than its forbears, and for you, two of those particulars sound like just what you need.
"Upgrade" is the probably wrong word.
By all means change if the D700 best meets your needs.
I use D300 and D3 alongside each other - and I find Nikon's claims and most reviews are right - i.e. no difference in sharpness, resolution, colour saturation etc to 400 ISO, a slight gain in dynamic range at 800 - and beyond 800 increasing noise, dynamic range and colour saturation for the D3.
The D300 obviously has more reach so if you need reach it costs a lot less and weighs a lot less than FX - 70-200 on DX having the same reach as 300 f2.8 on FX.
For the same viewfinder crop DX has 1 stop more depth of field or if not shooting wide open the option of 1 shutter speed faster - often useful in wildlife and macro.
FX has more wide angle advantage (with FX lenses) and better noise at higher ISO but (depending on lens combination) more corner shading. FX has 1 stop less dof for the same viewfinder crop - useful when you want to limit dof.
The AF zone covers more of the screen on the D300 and the D300 screen although about 15% effectively smaller (100% mag compared to about 72% offsets the smaller sensor) is brighter than the D3.
There is a lot to be said (if you can afford it) for owning both formats to take advantage of the pluses of each format.
If you can only afford 1 body and DX best meets your photographic needs trading from a D300 to a D700 is a downgrade.
Chris S. wrote:
I have a D700 and a D200. At high ISO, the D700 is as good as people say. At base ISOs (ISO 200 on the D700, ISO 100 on the D200), the D200 produces noticebly better images--before and after RAW processing in Nikon Capture 2 Nx. This is especially true in the shadows.
Makten wrote:
You better be kidding. I went from D200 to D700, and the difference is huge. Especially in the shadows, which can be lifted like 3-4 stops from ISO 200 without disaster.
On the other hand, the D200 gave higher sharpness on a pixel level, at low ISO:s. But there are few lenses that hold up as well on DX as whatever simple lens does on FX. If we're ignoring blurry corners (I do).
Not kidding at all, Makten. Shooting tethered with proper lighting and exposure settings, my D200 shoots better images than my D700 at base ISO.
If you are lifting shadows 3-4 stops at ISO 200, you are effectively shooting those shadows at ISO 1600-3200--something that the D700 clearly does better than the D200. When I need to shoot under conditions where I can so little control contrast that I might need to lift shadows that much in post, I use the D700. But at other times, needing to adjust that much in post would imply a mistake had been made during capture. In that case, I'd be looking to improve my skills in lighting and contrast control, rather than switching cameras.
Where I often prefer the D200 is in macro and closeup work, where I can control light and contrast very precisely--either with flashes or available light plus reflectors. I keep wanting to prefer the D700 here, but the D200 is better.
By the way, I don't ignore blurry corners--yeckh. Also, I would strongly question the choice of a hypothetical person with poor lenses on an expensive camera. Glass first, then bodies.
Of course all our opinions are worth what you're paying but I stick to my original opinion. A D700 would be a great complement to your D300 especially if you're shooting weddings. You need two bodies anyway, both as a backup and to have a long and wide both ready.
I can't speak to why pp would be harder with files from each - just batch one then the other. The controls are the same so it's an easy switch during a wedding and you get the benefits of DX and FX.
One note, because I plan on getting a D700 to complement my D300, I don't by DX lenses anymore although I may get the 10mm fish-eye one day.
+1 to all those standing up to the Kool-aid drinkers.
I have a D700 and a D200. At high ISO, the D700 is as good as people say. At base ISOs (ISO 200 on the D700, ISO 100 on the D200), the D200 produces noticebly better images--before and after RAW processing in Nikon Capture 2 Nx. This is especially true in the shadows.
If high ISO performance and wider viewing angle with FX lenses is worth the money to a particular individual, the D700 is worth every penny-I did it and never looked back. If not, the D300 or D200 may be better choices. I still prefer the D200 for telephoto in good light where the reach is important and high ISOs are not, for macro work, and other things where I'm shooting at base ISO. That said, the D700 is my workhorse camera and worth every penny if it's particular strengths shoot a shooter's needs.
But anyone talking about "full frame goodness being better in every way" is just simply wrong.
--Chris
+1
I have a D200 I bought a couple years ago. Had some good lens. Upgraded my lens collection to much better stuff. I'll stick with the 200 for awhile. What I'm getting now is sooo!! better than a month or so ago I can not believe it.
http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/columns/tech-tips/scanning-for-the-big-print.html?start=1
Comparing Sensors
Q I’m trying to understand the difference in capture quality obtained from a full-frame sensor and a 1.6x (APS) sensor. If I were to take exactly the same photo from the same position with a 400mm lens on a Canon 50D and a Canon 5D Mark II, then crop the 5D image in Photoshop to give the same composition as the 50D’s, which image would be better?
Steve Dimock
Via the Internet
A A Canon EOS 5D Mark II has a full-frame, 21-megapixel sensor. The size of each pixel is 6.4 microns. The Canon EOS 50D’s 1.6x APS sensor has 15.1 megapixels at 4.7 microns. If you crop the image generated by the 5D Mark II to match the image generated by the 50D at 1.6x, the area covered is 11 to 12 megapixels, less than the number of megapixels in the 50D’s image. So you’d think that the 50D’s image would be of higher quality. However, the 5D Mark II’s larger pixels have greater light-gathering capability and less noise at higher ISOs. In the end, you probably wouldn’t see a significant difference between the two images.
If you find you’re always cropping images from the full-frame sensor because you can’t get close enough to your subjects, then you’re probably better off using the 50D. The real advantage of the 5D Mark II is when you do fill the full frame, using all of its pixels and its higher ISO capabilities, the captures can generate a very high-quality, large-format print.
In the end, you should be making your decision based on what your primary subjects are. The 50D’s 1.6x APS sensor and its faster capture rate (6.3 frames per second) are an ideal combination for wildlife photography. The 5D Mark II’s full-frame sensor and higher ISO capabilities (due to the larger pixels) perform exceptionally well in landscapes. The price point also may be a factor, as the 50D runs about half the cost of the 5D Mark II.
- George Lepp
http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/how-to/shooting/ask-the-pros.html?start=1
Q. I am considering upgrading my Nikon D80 (which is a great camera) to the Nikon D700 because it is an FX format. If I want to advance my skills and produce the best possible images (keeping in mind I am still an amateur), which format would you recommend? (Money is somewhat of a consideration.)
—Dick Karch
A. Dick,
If you are happy with your D80, you need to ask yourself why get a D700. The so-called full-frame sensor has become this odd goal for photographers, yet most photographers will never see a difference in image quality. The full 35mm-size sensor does offer advantages in better high-ISO performance and the ability to use fast wide-angle lenses at their normal angle of view. However, for standard nature photography shot at normal ISOs, you would be hard pressed to see any difference on prints less than 16x24 inches.
The APS-C-sized sensors today are excellent. They also have some big benefits. You get a smaller camera and a magnification factor for lenses, which will get you more power from smaller, less expensive lenses. The D300 is less expensive than your D700 choice, would be less weight to carry on your shoulder and back, would act like your D80, would give you outstanding image quality and would upgrade your camera to the latest technologies.
—Rob Sheppard
Jun 15, 2009 at 07:04 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
I have a D300 and a D3, and I use them both. I shoot mainly sports, and for indoor events, the FF is wonderful. Having said that, I have gymnastics shots at 3200 iso on the D300, and you can not see the noise on the prints. Sure if you pixel peep you can see it, but the D300 is fantastic well above 400 iso. When outside shooting baseball, soccer, LAX...... the D300 with a 300 2.8 and 1.4 tc (630 eq) is my work horse. I carry along the D3 w/the 70-200 or the 24-70 for head shots and group pix. Analyze what you are going to be shooting, and keep in mind, that the D300 is a better camera than any digital camera Nikon had made up that point.
brianfreed wrote:
I have gymnastics shots at 3200 iso on the D300, and you can not see the noise on the prints. Sure if you pixel peep you can see it, but the D300 is fantastic well above 400 iso.
You don't see that written too often, that the D300 can do a decent quality ISO 3200 for indoor sports (gymnastics, volleyball, basketball). I went with the D700 partially because our daughter has two more years of HS basketball, and I figured I needed the high ISO capability of the D700.
The reality is, she would rather have some pre-game, halftime, and post-game photos and candids, as she is not really interested in game photos. All of these will not be enlarged past 8x10" (more likely 5x7" and 4x6'), and the odds are I really don't need 1/400s to stop action during these non-game segments, so my ISO need is a bit less.
I guess this is a roundabout way of saying that I think I would have been better off (cost-wise, lens-wise) with a D300 (or two!) instead of a D700.
Interesting take on it. I was thinking more along the lines of a setup like this:
D700 + 24-70
D300 + 70-200 (the extra reach is great for long churches)
Throw in a 50 f/1.4 for the extra low light/shallow DOF stuff and an AF extension tube for the mandatory ring shot.
Cheers,
Andre
There has been some discussion here of using the D300 like as a "TC15", but there's actually a TC14eII that is designed specifically for that purpose when the need arises. The problem with using a D300 and a D700 interchangeably is that there will be subtle but noticeable differences between them and a critical observer will know every time you switched cameras during the shoot. You can never exactly equalize the images, and any attempt to do so will just add to post processing. Using one camera for narrow AOV shots and the other for wide AOV shots will only make the differences between them even more obvious [I can imagine the bride asking why all the close-up shots look noisier or otherwise different than the group shots].
Another issue is lenses. A 50/1.4 for low light is fine, but that lens is different on a D300 than it is on a D700 in terms of DOF, AOV, and in how low you dim the lighting can be. Likewise, using an extension tube and presumably the D300 with the 50/1.4 is no substitute for even a moderately priced macro lens. Also, I'm not so sure that 24mm on FX is really wide enough; the 11-16 on DX is wider, as is the 14-24 on FX -- they are in fact much wider. My point here is don't skimp on lenses -- they are the priority.
Finally there's the back-up issue, which while unlikely, is still something you want to be prepared for. If you are relying on the D700 to do some things and the D300 to do other things, then you don't really have a back-up camera as those things you are relying on one camera to do will no longer be possible if that camera fails. If you need to skimp, then build the system around the D300 bodies until you can divest those bodies and any DX lenses you use (primarily that Tokina 11-16, and perhaps a 35/1.8 DX).
Jun 15, 2009 at 11:17 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
All valid points, but we can over-split hairs too. I can shoot a wedding using either format and get equally good results. In that sense, the D300 is a backup to the D700 or vice-versa. As for the differences in the formats, a way over-blown issue IMO and you can come damb near matching the output from the two without PP, it just takes a different set of lenses and settings. So, take advantage of the two formats when you can, and quickly adjust when one camera decides not to work ... honestly though, how often does that happen... then again, you must be prepared.
As for the quality of the glass, I think the 3 lenses I mention are considered among Nikon's best. For weddings, 24mm on a D700 is plenty wide, though wider is nice, but wider takes more money. You are correct though, if taking about backups, 24mm on the D300 would be limiting. In that regards, I would suggest getting the 17-35 as it provides wider as needed on the D700 but is still a quite usable solution of the D300. Of course then the money you spend on a D300 & 17-35 could instead be used to get a 2nd D700 and a 1.4 TC instead. .... Hmmmm that may just be the deal-breaker in favor of choosing a single format.
Finally, you are correct that getting a 60mm micro is the best solution for close-up work, but I think you might be surprised by the image quality of a 50mm lens combined with tubes. A 60mm micro is needed more for ease of use and greater flex in focus distance.
Ultimately, I think your last line is the BEST advice I have seen:
TonyBeach wrote:
If you need to skimp, then build the system around the D300 bodies until you can divest those bodies and any DX lenses you use
Build a system around one format or the other. If you can't build the entire system around FX due to cost, build a DX system around the D300 until you make the money you need to "upgrade".
Andre Labonte wrote:
I can shoot a wedding using either format and get equally good results.
That doesn't mean that other people also are unable to get better results from the larger format.
As for the differences in the formats, a way over-blown issue IMO...
Funny that this is rarely said by people owning cameras with the larger format.
...and you can come damb near matching the output from the two without PP, it just takes a different set of lenses and settings.
I've never seen faked short DOF looking good. Noise reduction is never as good as low noise either.
If there was some really fast lenses for DX that could compare to FX, sure. But unfortunately there isn't.
DX is fine, but the the difference between formats is not at all "over-blown". It's all about what you are willing to pay to get certain results. I can't motivate buying a medium format camera, but I'd never say that the difference from FX is "over-blown". The difference is there, wether you want it to be or not.
That is a great way to think of it! 