Makten wrote:
I'm not interested in those photographic applications. For the stuff I do, I could not do "more" with a D300 and other lenses.
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?
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 had no tripod, so that's totally irrelevant.
yes i could have i could have shot it at a slower, but it's top iso and a slower shutter speed speed and it would have been just as noisy.
I can hand hold a prime like my 85 really slow, especially whith trees around to brace against like in your picture.
SO yes i could have done it, the out come would have been the same regardless of what the exif reads, is that what's important to you , the exif not the print, oh wait you don't print sorry my bad.
The issue I have with video in my still camera is that is it really is not designed to be held and manipulated for video use, the ergonamics are wrong. Yes you can do it, but a video camera holds better and steadier at least for me. Also, for they cost, I seem to get better video with a video camera than I have seen my friend take with his Canon 5DmkII. Do not get me wrong it is good but not what I would want when I want 'Video'.
As for D300 vs D700, I have both along with a D200 and they all have there uses in my book. the D200 is a backup still for my D300 in the field when shooting wildlife for the 1.5x value as it were on the lenses. when I am using the D700 on trips etc the D300 is my backup. Until I get something else I will keep the D200 on hand. If I were starting out with gear as you seem to be I think I would get the D300 and that way I would have a good solid backup in the D80. I say this because D300 is an excellent performer in its own right and you really are only gaining alittle real usable speed on the noise level (I say this from experience with both cameras).
Good luck with whatever you get and shoot the hell out it until you can get your next toy.
Makten wrote:
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?
I had no tripod, so that's totally irrelevant.
So 2 points here.
If you don't print, then how can you be so adamant that the D700 is loads better than the D300? I think this is what is surprising about your stance. Look, most people do photography to print out stuff, so that's why all this 100%+ viewing on a monitor is not really that useful to them. This is why Andre keeps making the assertion that there are very little (to no) differences between a D300 and a D700 or a D40
Second point is about that tripod... That shot on a tripod with (pick your camera here) would be even better! I do understand though, that you don't want to be "tied down" by a t-pod. But sometimes, shot discipline with a t-pod makes you rethink the shot... But the freedom way (where you can shoot whenever, wherever) must be nice also
90 5.0 wrote:
yes i could have i could have shot it at a slower, but it's top iso and a slower shutter speed speed and it would have been just as noisy.
I can hand hold a prime like my 85 really slow, especially whith trees around to brace against like in your picture.
That's good for you. I probably could have managed 1/10, but not slower if motion blur shouldn't be worse than noise in the picture posted.
By the way, there were no trees around. I stood in a field looking into a very dark forrest. No AF in the world would work, and composition wasn't really easy.
SO yes i could have done it, the out come would have been the same regardless of what the exif reads, is that what's important to you , the exif not the print, oh wait you don't print sorry my bad.
What's important to me is that I could take the picture and that I like it. Plus, I couldn't have shot it with DX, even if people with very steady hands might.
I know the example is extreme, so lets take a look at a shot a little bit earlier, at the same spot.
Avi B wrote:
If you don't print, then how can you be so adamant that the D700 is loads better than the D300?
I use fast lenses that has no equivalents on DX. I like a large viewfinder. That's it, for me!
...so that's why all this 100%+ viewing on a monitor is not really that useful to them.
I don't care much for 100% viewing. For what I do, I see a difference even at small sizes like the one above.
There's too much talk about large prints and crops in my opinion. Just look at the pictures instead. You see what you see.
Second point is about that tripod... That shot on a tripod with (pick your camera here) would be even better!
Of course! But I didn't bring one, and if I had the D40 mentioned, I would get home without pictures.
millsart wrote:
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 ...Show more →
lol look at my profile, i got my first slr a nikon em in the early 80's and still have it. Used 28 2.8 ai-s, 50 1.8 e and 135 2.8 ais for almost everything.
Didn't upgrade from that till my dad passed on his fm to me, the N75 after that and I'm still rockin a D80.
All of my tech friends went through the camera phase, buying the latest and greatest and they always only had one lens. For some it was the rebel and a 18-55 and maybe added a 50 1.8, then a d300 and 18-200 after that and then one friend sold his d300 and 18-200 and got a d700 but couldn't afford a lens for a few months so borrowed some of mine for a while.
I know all to well the "i have to have the newest camera scheme"
For me Dx was a blessing, I love to shoot wilf life and that's what my dad shot when i was growing up. When I got my D80 and took the 70-300 ed off of my N75 and stuck it on there i had 450mm, i had never had 400mm without a converter before and so light, so much easier to carry around than my dads 300 2.8 with a 1.7 on it.( I was used as a pack mule at a young age lol).
So what can i do with a D300 or a D80 in my case that i can't do with a D700, well i can't get to 450mm without a converter cheap now can I??
This photo I won in a local photography contest wouldn't have been possible, the crane would have been out of focal range and would have been way to small for this was as much as it could be cropped...
Not the greatest work of art but technically couldn't have been done with A D700 and a 70-300
90 5.0 wrote:
...well i can't get to 450mm without a converter cheap now can I??
Why do you care if it is with a converter or not? Cropping the image circle is sort of the same as adding a converter to project the center of the image on the full frame. You lose the same amount of light. If the converter is good, sharpness can be about as good too.
Makten wrote:
Why do you care if it is with a converter or not? Cropping the image circle is sort of the same as adding a converter to project the center of the image on the full frame. You lose the same amount of light. If the converter is good, sharpness can be about as good too.
Stick a 1.7x on a 70-300 vr and tell me how good it is at 5.6
You obviously don't have enough experience to argue with me, bye bye...
90 5.0 wrote:
lol look at my profile, i got my first slr a nikon em in the early 80's and still have it. Used 28 2.8 ai-s, 50 1.8 e and 135 2.8 ais for almost everything.
Didn't upgrade from that till my dad passed on his fm to me, the N75 after that and I'm still rockin a D80.
All of my tech friends went through the camera phase, buying the latest and greatest and they always only had one lens. For some it was the rebel and a 18-55 and maybe added a 50 1.8, then a d300 and 18-200 after that and then one friend sold his d300 and 18-200 and got a d700 but couldn't afford a lens for a few months so borrowed some of mine for a while.
I know all to well the "i have to have the newest camera scheme"
For me Dx was a blessing, I love to shoot wilf life and that's what my dad shot when i was growing up. When I got my D80 and took the 70-300 ed off of my N75 and stuck it on there i had 450mm, i had never had 400mm without a converter before and so light, so much easier to carry around than my dads 300 2.8 with a 1.7 on it.( I was used as a pack mule at a young age lol).
So what can i do with a D300 or a D80 in my case that i can't do with a D700, well i can't get to 450mm without a converter cheap now can I??
This photo I won in a local photography contest wouldn't have been possible, the crane would have been out of focal range and would have been way to small for this was as much as it could be cropped...
Not the greatest work of art but technically couldn't have been done with A D700 and a 70-300
MajinHurricane wrote:
YOU DO RELIZE THAT IF YOU CROP THE SAME IMAGE FROM A D700 TO THE 1.5 YOU GET THE SAME IMAGE FROM THE D300.
No you don't, the amount of pixels and resulting image will be different, and cropping afterwords makes framing and focus harder because the image is smaller in your viewfinder and you might not of even hit the bird with your a/f.
Both these tools are great image makers! Im 45 and now require reading glasses for close up stuff. The only Nikon body I have yet to use is the D1. All the rest have been in my hands. When the D3 came out and got into my hands I was blown away by what a pleasure it was to use. I kinda think of the D3 and D300 as a Honda Accord vs. a civic. They both get you were you need to be in the end. What it comes down to is how big do you want your front windshield? What size motor? Do you want a quiet interior? How do you want the car to adapt to your body type when you get into drive it? The list goes on. It all comes down to "you" and your personal needs. None of us know you personally. It also gets down to your cash flow. How much are you willing to spend? Will it be a tool for income or pleasure? Will you want a new one in 2 years when the D700X comes out. NAS, has nailed my ass already. Thank God my Bride of 20 years has faith in my ability to professionally keep an income going with my tools! If I were not doing this professionally I think the D300 would be just fine for me, but the D700 would tempt me because of my poor eye sight. I do just fine with glasses but it sucks having them on your face when your workin your ass off at a wedding. They become a liability and get dirty really fast. Someday I will be getting lasik and that will change everything. For now I would lean toward a D700 for you only because it is a pleasure to shoot with. If you find yourself needing a little 1.5 crop reach get a used D90 thats what I did. The D90 is a gem one of the best at its price point.
90 5.0 wrote:
No you don't, the amount of pixels and resulting image will be different, and cropping afterwords makes framing and focus harder because the image is smaller in your viewfinder and you might not of even hit the bird with your a/f.
