fredmiranda.com

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1 2 3 … 5

7 8 9 end

Archive 2009 · D300s or D700

Andre Labonte
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #1 · D300s or D700

Steezus,

You will prove nothing to the FX fanboys no matter what you do, so don't make a decision about your gear based on what they say.

If high ISO performance is something you need, then indeed, you should go with a moderate resolution FX camera like the D700 or D3. The question you have to ask yourself is do you use it enough to justify the extra cost and/or weight in long leses should you use those? If budget and weight are not the issue, then get what you want and screw what other people think.

Aug 14, 2009 at 11:43 AM

Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #2 · D300s or D700

TonyBeach wrote:
Really, I find the tone of many of your posts in this thread downright offensive. As if the D300 does not have "nice image quality." Arguing that the D700 is miles ahead of the D300 is tiresome fanboyism.

The D300 does give nice image quality. I never said anything about that. I really can't help if you're being offended by my arguments.
I'm not a "fanboy". I'm realistic about larger sensors giving other possibilities for better IQ. That goes for Canon cameras too. Or MF, or LF.

There are more situations where FX is more expensive, and offers no significant advantages.

Such as?

----------------------

Andre; it's not only about high ISO performance. I've said it hundreds of times. It's about available lenses for your purposes.

Aug 14, 2009 at 12:44 PM

millsart
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #3 · D300s or D700

Steezus wrote:
I am pretty sure that is a DX lens. The Sigma 14-24 is their wide angle for FX at the moment.

The more I think about long term--have one camera for 5 years--I do want that D700 for the extremely high iso ability, but seriously, there is an absolute terrible selection for ultra wide angle on FX and unless I am completely missing something, my only real wide angle zoom options are the Sigma 14-24 with flare issues and the Nikkor 14-24 murder weapon that I don't even dare mention to my wife...

I hope I am just omitting a UWA lens...Show more →

How exactly does FX have a "terrible gap" in terms of wide angle options

Aug 14, 2009 at 12:55 PM

millsart
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #4 · D300s or D700

Kerry Pierce wrote:
For me, it's a joy to have both cameras and I simply don't understand why some people bash DX as if it is trash, incapable of producing excellent photos. IMO, in many cases, DX is capable producing photos that are every bit as good as FX.

What do you use the D300 for though ? As I've mentioned before, I can see its advantage for wildlife, but otherwise when you've got a D300 and a D700 both sitting on the table, I'd pick up the D700 everytime.

I'm not knocking the D300, its fine, but I owned one just about a year and hardly touched the thing as I always prefered the D700 as a second body to the D3 99 times out of 100. I just ended up selling it because it got used so little and it seemed a waste of money sitting around gathering dust. Bought a 85mm f1.4 AFD with the money. Can't say I miss the D300 at all

I'm just curious what some people who own both choose to pick up the D300 for ?? Its not really any smaller or lighter. The crop factor annoyed me more than it was useful as well, as I'd have the 24-70 on it and it wouldn't be quite wide enough, where as on the FX I'm more used to shooting, the range is fine. Same goes for when the lighting is dim and I have to bump the ISO. ISO800 on the DX is about the max I try to stay under where with the D700 I'm fine up to ISO2000 easily. Even the viewfinder is better on the D700.

Thats all IMHO of course and to each his own, but I'm really curious what makes people grab for a D300 when they've got the D700 in the bag, with the exception of wanting to shoot some eagles nest or something with a 600mm and your still not getting the framing you want so the crop factor comes in handy.

Crop factors don't seem very useful in normal photography to me though

Aug 14, 2009 at 01:07 PM

Smiert Spionam
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #5 · D300s or D700

Kerry Pierce wrote:
The fast WA thing is a red herring. Not many want to pay the premium for fast WA lenses. Personally, I couldn't care less about fast WA. I bought my first one a couple of weeks ago, simply to try to understand why some folks want them. I don't see the big deal with it. It's nice for certain applications, but not something that would have mass appeal when price is factored in.

You might not care about it, but it's no red herring. It's important to some people, especially those who remember shooting with light, high quality primes. I'm still using a D90, but one of the biggest draws of FX for me is the possibility of using wide primes again. I'm old-fashioned, I guess -- I hate Nikon's movement toward zooms for most new lenses, and miss carrying a 20/35/85 combo with my FE2.

Aug 14, 2009 at 01:08 PM

millsart
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #6 · D300s or D700

Smiert Spionam wrote:
You might not care about it, but it's no red herring. It's important to some people, especially those who remember shooting with light, high quality primes. I'm still using a D90, but one of the biggest draws of FX for me is the possibility of using wide primes again. I'm old-fashioned, I guess -- I hate Nikon's movement toward zooms for most new lenses, and miss carrying a 20/35/85 combo with my FE2.

"Some people" being the key though, and unless something is important to enough people to make it profitable I just don't think we'll see a fully revamped range of fast primes.

I think for the average hobbyist shooter, the 50mm f1.8 and f1.4 AFD as well as the new 1.4 AFS serve the purpose of their "low light" lens.

Even if Nikon came out with a new 24mm f1.4G and 35mm f1.4G I just can't see many people buying them, especially as the price point would no doubt be well over $1000

When I was a Canon shooter I owned the Canon primes and while optically very good, especially the 35mm f1.4L, I could count the times on one hand I really used it.

Theres just not that many times the average shooter needs both 24mm and f1.4 I dont think. Heck, I can't think of any times when I really need. The 14-24 and 24-70 2.8's along with the D3's high ISO ability, or a tripod, have always meet all my needs, both professional and personal.

One area of exception is the 85mm f1.4, which I think would sell pretty well if they updated it, as a "cream machine" portrait lens is something that not only appeals to wedding and commerical pro's but also the more serious amatuers who want to take their availible light portraits to the next level.

Again though, something like a 24mm f1.4 ? I couldnt see myself buying one unless it was just a few hundred bucks, but at the likely price of $1499 or so it would just be something I'd buy, play with for a day doing shallow DOF shots, and then sit on the shelf, after which I'd sell it 6 months later because it would seem a waste of money tied up in something I dont use.

Aug 14, 2009 at 01:48 PM

Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #7 · D300s or D700

millsart wrote:
I think for the average hobbyist shooter, the 50mm f1.8 and f1.4 AFD as well as the new 1.4 AFS serve the purpose of their "low light" lens.

The question here is: does "average hobbyist shooters" buy a D700? Or even a D300?
If you even consider the D700, you're probably a gearhead or very much aware of the benefits with expensive gear, and that you can afford it and make use of it.

Even if Nikon came out with a new 24mm f1.4G and 35mm f1.4G I just can't see many people buying them, especially as the price point would no doubt be well over $1000.

I'd do fine with a 35/1.4 as my only lens. I did own one of those (AI-S), but disliked the rendering. I will switch my 24-70 for a new 35/1.4 instantly if it will be better wide open.

Edit: The price will likely be more like $1500-2000.

Aug 14, 2009 at 02:09 PM

Smiert Spionam
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #8 · D300s or D700

millsart wrote:
"Some people" being the key though, and unless something is important to enough people to make it profitable I just don't think we'll see a fully revamped range of fast primes.

I think for the average hobbyist shooter, the 50mm f1.8 and f1.4 AFD as well as the new 1.4 AFS serve the purpose of their "low light" lens.

Even if Nikon came out with a new 24mm f1.4G and 35mm f1.4G I just can't see many people buying them, especially as the price point would no doubt be well over $1000

When I was a Canon shooter I owned the Canon primes...Show more →

My point wasn't so much to advocate for a new line of superfast primes -- it was about the central point that FX bodies give shooters more prime options on the wide end. Personally, I'd probably be most happy with an updated 20/2.8, an excellent 24/2, and a refreshed 35/2. Any of those could reasonably be well below $1000. Add another stop of speed, and the price goes up 50% or more.

The bigger point, though, is that there are few, if any, equivalents to this for DX. I would LOVE a 14/2.8, or even 14/4, that was a DX only lens with a weight to match. It doesn't exist. Add in a 24/2 (either FX or DX), and I'd likely never leave DX.

I travel light, like to hike, and am really disappointed that for all the high quality of Nikon's new zooms, they're fat, heavy monsters.

Aug 14, 2009 at 02:42 PM

Steezus
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #9 · D300s or D700

millsart wrote:
How exactly does FX have a "terrible gap" in terms of wide angle options

The Nikon 14-24 for example is the best UWA zoom lens on the market. Even plenty of Canon folks are using them with adapters on the 5D mkII because its just an exceptional lens. The corner performance of that lens is just stellar and when you factor in that its also a zoom, and also f2.8 thats just mindblowing.

I agree that the 14-24 takes some sweet photos and is the best UWA I can think of. But that is one option of about 3 in that range for FX. Not only that, it is heavy as hell and very expensive. The DX has the 15mm equivalency beat by a mile. Every brand has a lens at that range that can produce some pretty amazing results as well. Hell, even Tokina 11-16 is relatively cheap, pretty damn light, has very little distortion, and is a 2.8.

I seriously need to just toss a coin in the air on this decision though. I like to hike up mountains with my gear and travel all over the world, but I am a gear head and always want the best gear within reason. So one has a far reach, price, and weight advantage, still takes badass photos, and the other is heavy as all hell, extremely expensive (factoring in FX lenses), but has amazing ISO ability.

Another odd reason I fret over this is that I love the 14-24 2.8 and would buy it in a second with a D700, but living in Turkey, I much prefer to not have a massive lens on my camera all the time (I usually shoot wide) that just screams, "please steal all my shit". I know most people don't have to worry about that much, but I am in areas were you really have to be smart about your actions at times. My current Sigma 10-20 doesn't scream "shank me with a knife and steal my gear" quite like the 14-24 does.

Aug 14, 2009 at 03:31 PM

Kerry Pierce
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #10 · D300s or D700

millsart wrote:
What do you use the D300 for though ? As I've mentioned before, I can see its advantage for wildlife, but otherwise when you've got a D300 and a D700 both sitting on the table, I'd pick up the D700 everytime.

I'm just curious what some people who own both choose to pick up the D300 for ?? Its not really any smaller or lighter. The crop factor annoyed me more than it was useful as well, as I'd have the 24-70 on it and it wouldn't be quite wide enough, where as on the FX I'm more used to...Show more →

For many things, it simply doesn't matter to me. Which body I use will depend on which lens I want to use and for what purpose. Functionally, they're identical from a practical POV. Of course, I choose from them when their strengths are necessary, ie d700 for low light stuff and d300 for long lenses.

I find the crop factor of significant benefit, rather than annoying. I like the FOV offered by the 24-70 on the d300, for example. It's a more useful range for the way I often shoot that lens. I'd love to have a 36-105 f/2.8 to use on FX. OTOH, I like to use the 70-200vr on the d700 when shooting people, because it doesn't have the crop factor. When not shooting people, I use the 70-200vr on the d300, for the added reach. I normally use the 100-300 f/4 on the d300, but I used it on the d700, a couple of days ago, to shoot flowers at minimum focus distance, even though it was full daylight, low ISO shooting.

In short, I really like having 2 sets of lenses to choose from. I know what approximate FOV that I get from the 105 DC on both cameras, for example, and choose the camera based on which FOV I want to use.

To be honest, I don't get it when people say they want to use their lenses "as intended", meaning 50mm FOV on 35mm film not 75mm FOV on DX. When I was a pup, I used both MF and 35mm. 50mm is normal on 35mm and 50mm is a WA on MF. So, which focal length is being used as intended? The MFDB are cropped sensors too, right?

Certainly more than a few lenses benefit from only using the center of the lens. In the end, it's just not a big deal to me.

Aug 14, 2009 at 04:18 PM

Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #11 · D300s or D700

Kerry Pierce wrote:
To be honest, I don't get it when people say they want to use their lenses "as intended", meaning 50mm FOV on 35mm film not 75mm FOV on DX.

It's not about FOV for a certain FL. It's about using as much as possible of the image circle of the lens. Hence, a DX lens could be as good on DX as an FX lens on FX. But an FX lens on DX will in most cases not be as good as on FX.

Aug 14, 2009 at 05:02 PM

Kerry Pierce
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #12 · D300s or D700

Makten wrote:

That makes even less sense. Most, if not all, lenses have better center performance than edge performance, so throwing away the bad parts of the image circle certainly doesn't hurt the image.

Hence, a DX lens could be as good on DX as an FX lens on FX. But an FX lens on DX will in most cases not be as good as on FX.

You keep saying this, but it isn't any more true now than it was before. An excellent example is the 70-200vr. It has exceptional performance on DX but falls down on FX because of poor edge and corner performance. It's worse on the d3x than it is the d3. That's why there is a new model coming.

I'm sure that there are lenses that don't have the optical performance to meet the demands of the d300 sensor and will seemingly perform better on the d700, because of the lower pixel density of the d700 sensor, but so what? That same lens is certainly not going to perform well on the FX sensor of the d3x, if it can't handle the d300 sensor.

Aug 14, 2009 at 05:33 PM

Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #13 · D300s or D700

Kerry Pierce wrote:
That makes even less sense. Most, if not all, lenses have better center performance than edge performance, so throwing away the bad parts of the image circle certainly doesn't hurt the image.

It makes less sense if you are more interested in corner sharpness than in middle sharpness, yes. Cropping the image circle means magnifying the center more, which also means magnifying all the aberrations.

You keep saying this, but it isn't any more true now than it was before. An excellent example is the 70-200vr. It has exceptional performance on DX but falls down on FX because of poor edge and corner performance. It's worse on the d3x than it is the d3. That's why there is a new model coming.

Yup, and that is an exception from the "rules". There are FX lenses that perform better on DX, but as I wrote: most FX lenses perform better on FX than on DX.

I'm sure that there are lenses that don't have the optical performance to meet the demands of the d300 sensor and will seemingly perform better on the d700, because of the lower pixel density of the d700 sensor, but so what? That same lens is certainly not going to perform well on the FX sensor of the d3x, if it can't handle the d300 sensor.

Again, it's all about what you want in terms of IQ. If you need uniform sharpness from center to corner, FX lenses on DX might be better. But then your center and overall sharpness will be lower than if you use the full image circle.

Aug 14, 2009 at 06:00 PM

TonyBeach
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #14 · D300s or D700

TonyBeach wrote:
There are more situations where FX is more expensive, and offers no significant advantages.

Makten wrote:
Such as?

Start with the fact that the D700 costs nearly a $1000 more than the D300, then start putting "equivalent" lenses on them.

16mm fisheye for $920 versus 10.5 DX fisheye for $700.

14-24/2.8 for $1830 versus 10-24/3.5-4.5 for $810.

24-70/2.8 for $1800 versus 17-55/2.8 for $1260.

Any telephoto lens 200mm or longer.

If you want to argue on behalf of third party lens options for FX, there are a slew of affordable DX zooms which are smaller and less expensive. Yes, D700 offers better image quality, and most of the lens comparisons above (probably not the fisheye lenses) are better if you pay more for the FX version; that's always been my point though, to get better you pay more. The argument that you can get more for less with FX doesn't hold water -- it's a peculiar form of format chauvinism.

Aug 14, 2009 at 09:33 PM

luminosity
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #15 · D300s or D700

If you're primarily a prime shooter, FX can be relatively cheap. That's my case, at least.

Aug 14, 2009 at 10:13 PM

Andre Labonte
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #16 · D300s or D700

luminosity wrote:
If you're primarily a prime shooter, FX can be relatively cheap. That's my case, at least.

AND don't need the long primes (i.e. 200mm and longer). In that relatively special case which makes up a very small minority of photographers, then yes, you are quite correct.

But, is that what most people do, pros or even avid ametures? No.

The point of the non-FX fanboys is that for most shooting conditions and print sizes needed by most people, including many pros and avid ametures, the differences between DX and FX are negligible. I said MOST, but not all. I'm happy to admit FX has clear advantages that are very noticable in some cases, but if you hardly ever shoot those settings/conditions and are zoom shooter (i.e. the vast majority of photogs), then DX makes the most sense from a cost & weight perspective with little to no loss of apparent quality for what is being done.

So, the conclusion is that for MOST people in MOST situations, FX is a want and NOT a need or even a significant improvement.

Aug 15, 2009 at 12:07 AM

luminosity
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #17 · D300s or D700

Is one automatically a "fanboy" because they prefer FX? That's absurd. I don't need long telephotos and I much prefer shooting with primes. I like shooting with film and that's part of what got me into preferring the FX perspective. My N80 cost me $60, and I've made most of my best shots on it. What an expensive piece of equipment, no? I learned a lot from it, got to use FX more and moved on to the D700 by selling my DX equipment.

I have praised the D300 many times, and again, I owned one. The D700 suits my needs and preferences more than the D300 did. This does not in any way make me a "fanboy." The D300 is a terrific camera, and even as I type this, is serving the needs of a lot of photographers somewhere in the world.

So, the conclusion is that for MOST people in MOST situations, FX is a want and NOT a need or even a significant improvement.

So, I guess that makes one wonder how anyone survived in ye old days of film.

Aug 15, 2009 at 12:33 AM

Kerry Pierce
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #18 · D300s or D700

millsart wrote:
What do you use the D300 for though ?

Here is another big factor for me, that completely slipped my mind. I much prefer the placement of the AF points in the DX frame over the FX AF point placement. I use the outer points a lot, probably as much or more than I use the center points.

The d700 AF points are all clustered in the center of the frame and aren't really all that useful for off-center compositions when compared to the d300. The d300 outer AF points are much farther out into the frame, well into the outer 1/4 of the frame, horizontally, where the d700 points don't even get to the outer 1/4 of the frame.

Here are some visuals for those that don't have both.

d700
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond700/page4.asp

d300
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD300/page4.asp

Aug 15, 2009 at 12:43 AM

luminosity
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #19 · D300s or D700

A good point, Kerry. I'm surprised no one made it until now.

Aug 15, 2009 at 12:48 AM

Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #20 · D300s or D700

TonyBeach wrote:
Start with the fact that the D700 costs nearly a $1000 more than the D300, then start putting "equivalent" lenses on them.

16mm fisheye for $920 versus 10.5 DX fisheye for $700.

14-24/2.8 for $1830 versus 10-24/3.5-4.5 for $810.

24-70/2.8 for $1800 versus 17-55/2.8 for $1260.

Any telephoto lens 200mm or longer.

And these give "no significant advantage"? Give me a break.

If you want to argue on behalf of third party lens options for FX, there are a slew of affordable DX zooms which are smaller and less expensive.

F/2.8 on DX is not equivalent to f/2.8 on FX. How many times must this myth be broken?

Yes, D700 offers better image quality, and most of the lens comparisons above (probably not the fisheye lenses) are better if you pay more for the FX version; that's always been my point though, to get better you pay more.

You wrote: "There are more situations where FX is more expensive, and offers no significant advantages." Just must not have tried yourself then.
Of all lenses I've used and tried on both DX and FX, all have been significantly better on FX.

The argument that you can get more for less with FX doesn't hold water -- it's a peculiar form of format chauvinism.

You can, if you like fast and short lenses. A 28/1.4 on DX is way more expensive and less good than a 35/2 or 50/1.4 on FX. Sure, there is the Sigma 30/1.4, but it's still a smaller aperture than 50/1.4, or even 50/1.8.

Edit: And I hope you got that I'm talking about lenses. The camera itself is never gonna be cheaper.

Andre Labonte wrote:
The point of the non-FX fanboys is that for most shooting conditions and print sizes needed by most people, including many pros and avid ametures, the differences between DX and FX are negligible.

About as negligible as the difference between a D300 and a D40.

Aug 15, 2009 at 03:14 AM

1 2 3 … 5 6 7 8 9 end
FM Forums \| Nikon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 5 6 7 8 9 end