Makten wrote:
I'm still not convinced with that cost thing. A D300 with 17-55/2.8 costs more than a D700 with Tamron 28-75/2.8. I'd never ever choose DX if these were my options.
By my math (based on B&H pricing), the D700/Tamron combo is $300 more than the D300/Nikkor combo.
I think we should get real about the differences between the D300 and D700. To read some of the posts in this thread and other threads (both in this forum and around the Internet), you would start to think shooting with the D300 is a painful experience -- it is not. For the difference in price between a D300 and D700, straight up, I can afford an 85 PC-micro: http://photos.imageevent.com/tonybeach/mypicturesfolder/august2009/websize/_3A37004%201280x1024.jpg
Is it really that bad? What did we do before the D3/D700? Yes the D700 is the better camera, and I never said it wasn't; but if I really believed I was being crippled by the D300, I would already own a D700 (I have the money to buy one today, no problem).
Steezus wrote:
I saved a significant amount of money, not just on the body, but mainly on the lenses; I would also have to purchase a 300 2.8 to match my current coverage on DX.
Probably a 300/4 or a TC14eII would do.
Aug 12, 2009 at 03:44 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
hashaama wrote:
Thanks people for suggestions. As I said in my first post don't need any camera actually come to think of it don't even need what I have. Photography being my hobby to means I do things that I enjoy so the argument that I don't need one thing or the other doesn't quite convince on the other hand if someone tells me I will have fun using something will.
Thanks
Hash
BRAVO! Well said. Now when that new D700 comes in, be sure to post some shots! This is afer all, a photography forum.
Steezus wrote:
I personally feel that I prefer the relative cheapness of obtaining a great 2.8 zoom lens that reaches out to 300mm on a DX body. You have to trade off either IQ, or weight and money to get that with FX. The wide end of the range does not make much difference on either format, and if you really want to recover those extra 5mm, the Nikon 10.5 2.8 and a simple program to correct distortion is all you need.
Thing to remember though is that while the crop factor can get you out to 300mm and f2.8, its not the same thing as a real 300mm f2.8 lens shot on FX.
Thats not to say the crop factor doesn't have its advantages, but as I've had both the D300 w/ 70-200 2.8 and a D3 with 300 2.8, while the framing is the same, the overall look, compression, sharpness and bokeh, not to mention focus speed of the actual 300mm is far better. So you can't just say a DX body is a good way to turn a 200mm into a 300mm because thats not quite the truth
millsart wrote:
Having had a D300, D700 and D3, I just recently sold the D300. 99 times out of 100 I always prefer the D3 or D700 with the exception of when I was shooting baseball from center field and already had an extender on my 400 and still needed more reach to fill the frame.
The crop factor advantage for maximum reach, for something like shooting homeplate, or wildlife photography are really the only advantages I can see to the D300(s).
Otherwise the D700 has better overall IQ, better viewfinder and IMHO is just plain more enjoyable to use/shoot
Same here I have owned all 3 and also sold my D300 because I also pull for my D700 and now my D3. I just love the high iso on this camera over the D300 and the IQ. But it just comes down to what you can afford and what features you are looking for. If high iso is your thing and shooting more FPS using 14-bit raw files and IQ then go D700. But I'm not putting down the D300 it is also a nice camera just to me a different tool.
millsart wrote:
Thing to remember though is that while the crop factor can get you out to 300mm and f2.8, its not the same thing as a real 300mm f2.8 lens shot on FX.
Thats not to say the crop factor doesn't have its advantages, but as I've had both the D300 w/ 70-200 2.8 and a D3 with 300 2.8, while the framing is the same, the overall look, compression, sharpness and bokeh, not to mention focus speed of the actual 300mm is far better. So you can't just say a DX body is a good way to turn a 200mm into a 300mm because thats not quite the truth ...Show more →
Thank you very much for mentioning that. It's not a 1:1 comparison.
I barely use the D3 now, mainly because of the weight when shooting for 8+ hours.
I use the D700's with an 85/1.4 and Sigma 50/1.4 pretty much all the time.
I use the D300's with Tokina 16-50/2.8 and 50-135/2.8 then when needed the 70-200/2.8
Way more of my images come from the crop factor bodies/lenses and that is why I have a preference for them. Not the norm I agree, and not even the best, but still what I prefer most of the time.
The differences are unimportant only when you don't care about them. But for me the differences are more significant. DOF reduced in the FX which can be good, or bad depending. More DOF when using a crop body at the same settings as the FX (apparent) can be (and for me is) a great help.
Makten wrote:
As usual almost all replies claiming the difference between DX and FX to be unimportant, comes from DX camera owners. I wonder why...
I think you will enjoy the D700. Then again, I would have said the same thing for the D300s.
I use both the D700 and D300, and I like each for different purposes. For the most part, I use the D300 when I need more distance and the D700 for everything else. The low-noise performance is great on both cameras, but the D700 is better in my opinion.
As for the viewfinder, I find the D700's to be superior to the D300 viewfinder. True, it might be only 95%, but frankly that is so little of the actual photograph that it is a non-issue for me. (Consider how much 5% of a shot actually is and you will see what I mean.) The big bright viewfinder is one of my favorite parts of that camera, as it was when I tried my friend's 5D - which also has a great viewfinder.
The only downside to the D700 is cost and the different lenses you will need (more cost.) That, and the camera is a bit bigger and heavier. As long as you are okay with that you will be fine.
millsart wroteThats not to say the crop factor doesn't have its advantages, but as I've had both the D300 w/ 70-200 2.8 and a D3 with 300 2.8, while the framing is the same, the overall look, compression, sharpness and bokeh, not to mention focus speed of the actual 300mm is far better. So you can't just say a DX body is a good way to turn a 200mm into a 300mm because thats not quite the truth
I have heard this before, but I have never actually seen a perceptible difference in image quality when comparison shots are posted with a full frame + 300 2.8 and a APS-C with a 70-200 2.8 @ 300 equivalent. I would definitely be interested in seeing a comparison that clearly shows a difference though.
I can still cancel my D300s pre-order and go the FX route, but something tells me any difference will be so small that it could basically go for either DX or FX in the comparison depending on the skill of the photographer.
If you take pictures in good light and shoot from a distance the D300 is your friend. If shooting in poor light and like to go wide, the D700 is your friend.
This morning the postie brought me CF card and 24-85 afs (I think I paid a bit too much for this lens but the shop I bought it from was the only one that had them new in stock). I need to charge the battery from D80 tonight (it is the same battery isn't it?) and tomorrow morning I will pick up D700 at the airport!
I am headed to Greece for a sailing holiday, thinking of taking 24-85 and 70-300 with me. Also need to sort out camera insurance as couple of weeks ago my tripod with D80 mounted on it toppled over, the camera still works perfectly but is bit bruised now and that has made me a bit cautious (plus the fact that D700 costs a lot more to replace).
Thanks again for all your kind suggestions.
Hash
Edit: stupid spell check changed haf to had when it should have changed it to has
Aug 13, 2009 at 07:54 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Steezus wrote:
.... but something tells me any difference will be so small that it could basically go for either DX or FX in the comparison depending on the skill of the photographer.
Correct! And that has been my point from the begining. FX DOES matter in a significant way in CERTAIN situations; e.g. pushing the limits of: shallow DOF, resolution (D3x) or high ISO (D3 & D700). Also, if lens aberations are particularly bad and you do large enough prints, FX for the same MP is more forgiving in the center of the image but the corners suffer more. For diffraction limited optics it does not much matter. Modern zooms are approaching this limit; old primes do not approach this limit wide open, thus the reason they are softer wide open.
BUT for most practical situations, the differences are inperceptible. In these cases, composition and skill matter more.
Aug 13, 2009 at 08:02 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
This morning the postie brought me CF card and 24-85 afs (I think I paid a bit too much for this lens but the shop I bought it from was the only one that had them new in stock). I need to charge the battery from D80 tonight (it is the same battery isn't it?) and tomorrow morning I will pick up D700 at the airport!
I am headed to Greece for a sailing holiday, thinking of taking 24-85 and 70-300 with me. Also need to sort out camera insurance as couple of weeks ago my tripod with D80 mounted on it toppled over, the camera still works perfectly but is bit bruised now and that has made me a bit cautious (plus the fact that D700 costs a lot more to replace).
Thanks again for all your kind suggestions.
Hash
Edit: stupid spell check changed haf to had when it should have changed it to has...Show more →
Yee Ha! Sounds like a fun trip you have planned. For insurance, I got a rider on my home-owners policy. It costs about $100-$120 per year to insure $7500 dollars worth of stuff with a $500 deductible. Well worth having the protection.
The difference between the D300 and D700 is perceptible for me. My D700 shots have more of a bite to them than most of my D300 shots did, and it is particularly noticeable at mid-level ISOs (600-1600 or so). The colors are richer and more detailed than those of the D300.
Aug 13, 2009 at 08:10 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
luminosity wrote:
The difference between the D300 and D700 is perceptible for me. My D700 shots have more of a bite to them than most of my D300 shots did, and it is particularly noticeable at mid-level ISOs (600-1600 or so). The colors are richer and more detailed than those of the D300.
Yes, your powers of preception are orders of magnitude better than the average human. And your needs exceed the average photographer as well. All hail.
With the new viewfinder on the d300s I would go for the newer and more advanced features of the d300s. I have owned both cameras and will tell you they are both stellar in all departments. I can't imagine why the d300s iso wouldn't match the d700. My only gripe is with the poor iso performance of our d3x. Because when shooting availible light I'd rather have my d300 than my d3x. Bottom line is the d300 is a amazing camera and I can't imagine he d300s falling short in any category. Go with the d300s and have a blast trying some new technology.
luminosity wrote:
The difference between the D300 and D700 is perceptible for me. My D700 shots have more of a bite to them than most of my D300 shots did, and it is particularly noticeable at mid-level ISOs (600-1600 or so). The colors are richer and more detailed than those of the D300.
I'm with you luminosity. I have both the D700 and the D300 and the only time I grab the D300 is if I have to have the reach along with the 12MP. It might be the better dynamic range of the D700 over the D300 or some other factor, but even at base ISO shooting the same composition I prefer the D700 file.
I'm going to say get the D300s (but if you can wait, wait till its out and see what the reviews have to say).
I have so far owned a D90, but a copy of 50mm 1.8d which would front focus quite a bit made me realise I liked the adjustment options on the DXXX versions of Nikon. I sold the D90 and purchased a D300 which I returned due to F errors I got with my Tamron lens (in humid conditions). The issues would get resolved by cleaning the contacts but I had not noticed the issue on the D90.
I've since got the D700 and I can certainly say that images are definitely better in my opinion. I can't quite figure out what it is that makes them different, but I definitely find myself gravitating to the pictures out of the D700. They are just more pleasing. YMMV
I will be honest, at times I do miss the crop. I have also just realised that that we - meaning the wife, needs a new car. FX lenses cost money and I'm seriously considering selling or trading the D700 for a D300 and a good 17-5x Nikon 2.8 lens.
So if money is not a concern, sure get the D700 and dont look back. Else, pre=order the D300s with the bing cashback from J&R for 1589 and have fun.
Chefdaniel wrote:
I can't imagine why the d300s iso wouldn't match the d700.
Because even with 1.5 years of development on the sensor after the D300 release the crop sensor will not match the bigger pixels of the D700 full frame sensor when they are both around 12MP. You must remember the sensor optimizations that went into the D700 are only a little over a year old.
