The D700 is the first DSLR that truly satisfies every thing I think a digital camera should have. it's got a FX sensor which is a HUGE deal. I can shoot up to 6400 no problem whatsoever because of it. And as a wedding photog being able to crank up the ISO as the situation dictates is an incredible advantage. I just could not pull of half the shots I take now with anything less.
The VF is HUGE, not quite D3 big, but it finally isn't a little tunnel I struggle to see through.
And having my 28mm shoot as a 28mm with no crop, is freaking awesome. Don't let anyone tell you its not.
Granted whenever I shoot the basketball or football team I toss on a grip, but that's just for making it easier to handhold the 300mm 2.8.
And for the record I've had a D1H, a D2H, 2x D2Hs, 1x D2X, 4x D200, and a D50, and each time I bought a new one I still eagerly anticipated the next body to see if finally Nikon would put out something that would suit my needs, and up until the D700 they failed to do so. Now I go about my photography with no real care as to what the next generation brings because I'm completely in love with the D700 and have absolutely no need for anything more at this point.
i know i have all fx lenses, but i think getting the tokina 11-16mm fill fulfil the majority of my needs, and is more cost effective.
have done some tests at 1000ISO plus and processing in LR and the results are very good!
getting the tokina means i will then have 11-16mm (tokina), 17-35mm (nikon), 35-70mm (nikon), 75-300mm (nikon) which gives me all the range i need, plus 105mm macro (nikon)
Jul 03, 2009 at 05:52 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Andre wrote: Will going to the D700 make your images better, make your life easier or make you more money? If yes, then it is worth the price of conversion.
Andre you have some great arguments, but for many of us photography is a hobby.
And as such, is hard to argue the need, you just want.
well, have now ordered the lens. its in stock, so should be with me in a couple of days. will let you know what i think of it, but all the reviews i have read are glowing, with no negatives against it apart from the limited focal range
Jul 03, 2009 at 09:03 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Andre you have some great arguments, but for many of us photography is a hobby.
And as such, is hard to argue the need, you just want.
Oh I agree. But the OP was specifically asking if the cost of FX was worth it. I was focusing my arguments on that. For example, for what I do, I don't need a D300, 17-55, 70-200 with a Gitzo tripod most of the time, but I wanted it! Now that I have it, I use it. But, I asked myself all the above questions when fitting my hobby into my budget as a way of keeping my greed for more and more in check.
Wow. This thread seems to have gotten pretty heated, though finally toned down at the end. (A lot happens when you are busy and not paying attention to the computer for a day.) I suppose that is to be expected. In reality, it is just people defending their choices by using the arguments they used to justify the purchases they made or didn't make. At least that's how I see it.
I think that there really isn't an answer as to which system is better, because it is an open ended question with too many variables. For me, both serve their own purpose so I use both. I went from D100 to D200 to D300 to D700 (I guess I like that Dxxx series - great cost / perfomance ratio.) The best one as far as I am concerned is the D700, but again that depends on the situation. If I could only keep one DSLR, it would be the D700. But I would miss the D300. (The D100 and D200 were fine as well, but outshined by the D300 of course.)
The D300 / D700 combo is a great pair to have in the bag. There are only a couple of lenses that were needed to flesh out my kit for DX, as most of what I have works fine on either. I may add the 17-55 in place of the 18-70, but if I am shooting in that range I'll probably be using the D700 with the 24-70 so it really would just be redundancy. A backup is nice though - as if I really need that!
Ultimately, it looks like the OP decided to stay with DX. Great choice. So would have been going to the D700, albeit a bit more expensive. There is no losing here. Maybe what should be taken out of this is that either system can do wonders. Each has its strong points, and decisions should be made in light of that. I've seen photographers here do things with a D40 and kit lens that I would struggle to do with my D700 and 24-70, so it really isn't just the gear. Granted, my photographs are better now than when I was shooting with the D100, but hopefully I've gotten better since then as well. I still stink at long lens photography though - and as my hands are getting shakier as I age that is going to be harder to overcome. Maybe I will be going for a long VR lens in the future.
Let's just remember that in the end we are all photographers who have different opinions and methods for acheiving the results we want. I have a lot of respect for a number of people here who have helped me get better as a photographer. Not everything worked for me, but that is always the case with advice. I hope this thread was helpful to the OP in making his decision, if for no other reason than making him think about why he was choosing the way he did. If so, then it was a successful post.
I just upgraded after being very happy with my D300. Two things that most stand out to me that the D700 is better is: lower high ISO noise, and slightly more solid focusing on fast moving targets (jet fighters).
In good light and same FOV I don't think there is much differance as this point. It is supposed to have better dynamic range, but it is too new in my ownership to confirm.
The two bodies handle extermely similar, due to there very similar design and controls. It is easy to use both. I will do that myself and use each for their strengths.
D700:
Low noise at higher ISO (and in dark shadows)
D300:
Increased reach for distant planes, or wildlife
Hang in there! Once Nikon brings out the D700x or S, the equipment geeks will sell off their perfectly good D700 bodies! I went from a D200 to D300. The value of my D200 dropped through the floor. Digital cameras seem to depreciate faster than computers these days.
I now have the Tokina 11-16mm - arrived today. Haven't had much chance to test it yet.
I have noticed that when processing the images in LR I need to switch all sharpening off, compared to when I use my other lenses. Bit of a weird one that. Maybe its super sharp compared to my Nikon lenses. The edges at 11mm do get distortion and look soft when focused in close, but showing a whele room its not so bad. Guess thats to be expected as I'm not used to a superwide. 16mm is fine.
Now that I have it, I use it. But, I asked myself all the above questions when fitting my hobby into my budget as a way of keeping my greed for more and more in check.