millsart wrote:
I guess what Nikon really needs is a D700x that has a DX crop mode of 12megs, and a price of $1799, so then if you've got DX glass your still getting every bit the quality and attributes of using a D300 for not additional expense, while still getting the unique benefits of a 24meg full frame sensor.
Its "the peoples camera" Does everything a DX d300 can give you. Does everything a D700 can give you and then some, all without any extra cost. Put those savings into glass if you, or don't, because any and all DX glass will work just as well as before on your d300.
Problem totally solved.
You can't complain about cost. You can't complain about lens choices, You can't complain about IQ or crop factor advantage, or full frame advantages or anything else.
I'm ready to pay $4000 for one -- today if it's available. I don't want FX for high ISO, I want it for high resolution. For smaller files I will be satisfied with the 10 MP DX crop from a "D700X."
millsart wrote:
I guess what Nikon really needs is a D700x that has a DX crop mode of 12megs, and a price of $1799, so then if you've got DX glass your still getting every bit the quality and attributes of using a D300 for not additional expense, while still getting the unique benefits of a 24meg full frame sensor.
I'll take one please,
Yes, that would be nice, except for the folks that use very high ISO, I suppose. Regardless, I hope that they do that soon, while keeping the d3/d700. Given that I already have most of what that camera would offer, I'll wait until my current cameras go belly up. But it would be nice to know that was there. Unfortunately, I don't see how a price of $1799 would ever work. $3k to $4k would be very reasonable. It cost me a little over $4k for the d300 and d700.
Kerry Pierce wrote:
OTOH, makten has made some pretty outrageous statements, amounting to magical qualities of an FX camera.
Please enlighten me. When have I written something so stupid?
Edit: About income and budget; I get ~2300 dollars a month after taxes. It has taken me about a year to pay the D700 and 24-70. I don't mind that at all.
I didn't read the other posts (time constraints) so my response to the OP is D700, and speaking as an ex-D300 owner.
reasons: low light/high ISO performance, DOF control, and being an ex-film 35mm pro (where "85mm lens" means 85mm lens) and loving the 14–24 lens on FX. Just 2¢'s worth.
I'd say get the D700. The 12mp sensor in 36x24mm format is really a sweet spot. When I added Nikon to my Canon gear, I started with a D300. It's a very, very capable camera, but the images from the full-frame D700 have a certain quality I like. (I did bite the bullet and get the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200. Spendy, but will last a lifetime)
Nobody will be able to convince you one way or the other. I've asked lots of questions here, but after some basic fact gathering, it's upto the individual to interpret the info.
Makten wrote:
Please enlighten me. When have I written something so stupid?
Edit: About income and budget; I get ~2300 dollars a month after taxes. It has taken me about a year to pay the D700 and 24-70. I don't mind that at all.
That's kinda the point, you bought a camera and one lens , for the same amount you could have gotten more lenses or gear and been able to do more than you would have with the D700 and one lens,
Post up something of yours magical by the way i couldn't accomplish with a D300,
I appreciate I am coming in late on this but I regularly shoot D3 and D300 along side each other to cover 14mm to 600mm effective with fewer lenses.
For general shots 19 times out of 20 up to 400 ISO I have to look at the EXIF and 18 out of 20 times at 800 I have to look at the EXIF to be sure which body I used. At modest ISO's image quality is that close.
Things I like about the D300 include the brighter viewfinder for only about a 12% reduction in apparent size compared to the D3, getting 600mm reach with the 200-400, and getting extra depth of field or 1 shutter speed faster (for the same viewfinder crop) - and extra working distance when I find a poisonous snake
The AF points covering a greater percentage of the screen help with moving targets.
Things I like about the D3 (sorry I do not have a D700) are the 3200 ISO quality, minimal dof when I need it, and 14mm f2.8 with the 14-24 - though the corner quality and shading on FX is not quite up to internet hype.
The thing I do not like about FX digital is corner quality at or near maximum aperture with several wide angle primes is much worse than with film - because of the digital "well" issue.
I regard it as so bad that my 14 and 20mm primes were up for sale within a day of getting the D3. I keep the 35mm f2 as a small f2 lens - but corner quality is not as good as on film.
Which is "best" seems definitely part internet hype - which is best for a particular photographer (assuming only 1 format is within budget) depends on usage.
Which is truly "best" for many photographers is owning both and a range of lenses - which not everyone can afford.
Pick the D700 for a whole slew of reasons or pick the D300 for many other yet valid reasons. Just don't pick one because it has better image quality than the other. Or if there is a difference, it just doesn't matter.
90 5.0 wrote:
That's kinda the point, you bought a camera and one lens , for the same amount you could have gotten more lenses or gear and been able to do more than you would have with the D700 and one lens,
That's a bad point, because I rarely use the 24-70. The lenses I use cost me like 50-300 dollars each.
Besides, I can't "do more" the more lenses I've got.
Post up something of yours magical by the way i couldn't accomplish with a D300,
Makten wrote:
That's a bad point, because I rarely use the 24-70. The lenses I use cost me like 50-300 dollars each.
Besides, I can't "do more" the more lenses I've got.
ISO 25600, 85 mm @ f/1.4, 1/20 handheld, high contrast PP and no noise reduction. Good luck.
How can you not do more?? So with a 24-70 you can shoot wildlife off in the distance? Macro? Flash, gel color correction? It's a tripod
You don't even make print's I don't even know why i bother arguing with you. You are clearly a gadget freak and care about the latest gear not the end result.
So i can't make a noisy ugly picture with a D300 Especially with all the other gear i have because of the money i saved on a body.
I'll set a D40 on a tripod and shoot it at a good iso with a longer exposure. My pick would win.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the differences in the AF system between the two. The D300 is no slouch, but the D700 does track a little better (both with latest firmwares)
Not a huge difference, but rather akin to the difference between the D3 and D700. D700 defiantly gets the job done, but the D3 feels/reacts just a little better.
Prior to selling my D300 I gave it and the D700 some serious testing at MLS games, shooting back and forth about 10 minutes at a time, same camera settings, same shooting position, 400 2.8 and 70-200, mb-10 grip, and the D700 was just a little snappier and could track more accurately as action was fast approaching.
D300 as I said wasn't bad by any means, but isn't quite an equal of the D700 in AF performance.
As has been mentioned it does have the AF points covering more of the frame though which can be nice for somethings.
Simply something else to consider on a pro/con list
90 5.0 wrote:
So i can't make a noisy ugly picture with a D300 Especially with all the other gear i have because of the money i saved on a body.
What if you could buy the same gear regardless of the body though ?
Your argument that the D300 allows you to buy more lens with the cost savings is certainly valid, but specific to your situation (though others certainly would share it)
I just don't think its logical to say one camera is better because it means you can then buy other other with the money you save.
Just because someone buys a D700, which is more expensive, doesn't mean they are going to therefore purchase less other equipment.
I'd actually be willing to bet the typical D700 owner probably has more lens and accessories on the average than a D300 user.
Really they aren't all that far apart pricewise either. I paid $1799 for my D300 when it came out, and I picked up a D700 for $2300 and also saved another $100 or so with MS Cashback so it was only $400 more expensive.
Thats not really going to buy that much more equipment these days. Which in itself is sort of sad. I mean come on Nikon, $500 for a SB900 flash ?? Never thought I'd see a day when something like a flash is 5 bills.
90 5.0 wrote:
That's kinda the point, you bought a camera and one lens , for the same amount you could have gotten more lenses or gear and been able to do more than you would have with the D700 and one lens,
I think its also worth pointing out that not everyone has a need or want to "do more"
I think many of us, heck, most of us, probably enjoy a wide range of photography, from landscapes, to wildlife, to sports, to portraits, to weddings to _________
But there certainly are those folks who do have a very narrow window of things they like shooting, perhaps just macro, and theres nothing wrong with that.
If you have no intrest in sports or wildlife, why spend any money on a long/fast lens. Don't shoot things you don't enjoy to justify purchasing more gear.
One camera/one lens can keep some people happy for a lifetime
Why I remember when I was younger most everyone only owned 1 camera/one lens, a 50mm f1.8 or 1.4 if they upgraded.
That was really all the more most people had. Stores weren't full of glass, we didnt have 100's of choices from a ton of companies.
Other lens did exist of course but really only those using them for professional applications bought them.
It was just a different time than it is now. Now days its pretty common to see the hobbyist shooter with a bag of glass, maybe a second body, wide angle, their fast primes, a speedlight or two, telephoto etc.
So many people dont leave the house without 10mm-300 or 400mm covered these days. Before it was maybe a 28mm, 50mm and 105mm and that was a "big" kit.
Multiple cameras ? New camera every year ? Not hardly.
You bought a camera once and pretty much stuck with it. The technology didn't really change. We got faster films but those didnt require a new camera.
Now every year its going from 10meg to 12meg and everyone sells what they've got or adds the latest and greatest.
If you've been doing this hobby for just 5 years, how many cameras have you owned ?
Ask that question today, and ask it 15 years ago and you'll get very different answers
90 5.0 wrote:
How can you not do more?? So with a 24-70 you can shoot wildlife off in the distance? Macro? Flash, gel color correction? It's a tripod
I'm not interested in those photographic applications. For the stuff I do, I could not do "more" with a D300 and other lenses.
You don't even make print's I don't even know why i bother arguing with you. You are clearly a gadget freak and care about the latest gear not the end result.
I've never understood the "rule of prints". I don't do prints but I still benefit from using a D700 over a D300. What's your problem with that?
So i can't make a noisy ugly picture with a D300 Especially with all the other gear i have because of the money i saved on a body.
I don't care about your "noisy ugly pictures" from your D300. You couldn't have done the picture I posted with your D300, and that's what you asked for.
I'll set a D40 on a tripod and shoot it at a good iso with a longer exposure. My pick would win.
