D300 or D700

[IamJeFfy]

Bingo. It is all about what you want, what you have and what you wish for hard to make comparison.

humans. are. never. satisfied.

who is anyway? :think:

anyway the point here is, other than the DX lenses, the TS don't even have some decent FX lenses to use on FF. so my point is not worth the investment to go FF and shoot DX lenses with it because it is like a broken pencil, POINTLESS.

no?

 

[tkbonz]

i agree with the first part, but no comments for the second.

:thumbsup:

 

[Randius]

i agree with the first part, but no comments for the second.

+1 :thumbsup:

Total embarrassment to the D700. Better off to stick with D80 or move up to D300 if cannot afford D700 and a good quality FX lens.

 

[twt]

I don't see why most people think its a waste to use DX lens on FF body. You know what is a real waste, to shoot raw at 12MP only to view them on your computer screen.

Isn't the main reason for going FF is for superior low light performance? Suddenly you can use all your cheap lenses indoors at night! With the D700 you can shoot at max iso 25600 which is 4 stops faster than my D50 at iso1600 (and may well be look better too!). That means I can use F5.6 instead of F1.4 in the same low light conditions! Wow!!! The question is whether that is worth the extra $$$.

If I were to get a D700, I'll happily use my DX lens and shoot at 5MP jpeg! In fact I'll probably shoot FF at 5MP too! I can't imagine a 10mb photo... I still have the 16MB memory card from my first camera LOL!

 

[Xiao_shin]

Don't think the jump from D80 to D700 is very big as compare to jump from D80 to D300.

Only the field of view changed (if you are using same lens). The weight and function of D700 and D300 is quite identical. D700 do have a better high iso performance though.

All that being said.. Go for D700.

 

[Xiao_shin]

I don't see why most people think its a waste to use DX lens on FF body. You know what is a real waste, to shoot raw at 12MP only to view them on your computer screen.

Isn't the main reason for going FF is for superior low light performance? Suddenly you can use all your cheap lenses indoors at night! With the D700 you can shoot at max iso 25600 which is 4 stops faster than my D50 at iso1600 (and may well be look better too!). That means I can use F5.6 instead of F1.4 in the same low light conditions! Wow!!! The question is whether that is worth the extra $$$.

If I were to get a D700, I'll happily use my DX lens and shoot at 5MP jpeg! In fact I'll probably shoot FF at 5MP too! I can't imagine a 10mb photo... I still have the 16MB memory card from my first camera LOL!

Wasted because you can get a DX camera to go the same job as D700. Less than half the price with 1-2 stop of ISO limitation.

 

[Big Kahuna]

The big and bright viewfinder of the D700 is already a winner.....it makes manual focusing so much accurate....it's impossible to get OOF picture....you can even see the bokeh throught the lens if shooting at large aperture :thumbsup:

 

[mcn]

d300? d700?
dx? fx?

when in doubt, buy both :devil:

 

[Big Kahuna]

d300? d700?
dx? fx?

when in doubt, buy both :devil:

Or wait for D800 and Gx :sweatsm:

 

[mcn]

Or wait for D800 and Gx :sweatsm:

d800 i understand

but what's Gx ?

 

[IamJeFfy]

....

Isn't the main reason for going FF is for superior low light performance? Suddenly you can use all your cheap lenses indoors at night! With the D700 you can shoot at max iso 25600 which is 4 stops faster than my D50 at iso1600 (and may well be look better too!). That means I can use F5.6 instead of F1.4 in the same low light conditions! Wow!!! The question is whether that is worth the extra $$$.

......

sorry but could you please enlighten me? because i don't see how ISO will affect my choice of F value that i wanna shoot at.

if you need f/5.6 to have what you want to be in focus, say a night scene, then f/1.4 or even f/0.95 doesn't make any difference since the DOF is simply too shallow and ultimately you will still need to shoot at f/5.6 for a decent shot.

correct me if i am wrong.

 

[aspenx]

sorry but could you please enlighten me? because i don't see how ISO will affect my choice of F value that i wanna shoot at.

if you need f/5.6 to have what you want to be in focus, say a night scene, then f/1.4 or even f/0.95 doesn't make any difference since the DOF is simply too shallow and ultimately you will still need to shoot at f/5.6 for a decent shot.

correct me if i am wrong.

He just means that his slow kit lens can take photos under low light more conveniently too with D700 rather than getting a noctilux f/0.95 and hacking it to fit his camera and of cos using it wide open just to get the same light exposure at a reasonable noise level in the image.

 

[spheredome]

Not point buying a D700 FF camera and use lower grade lens. One may not need to get the best lens but at least a lens that is optimized for it. The whole idea of getting a FF is to experience it's ability and expand your photographic usage, one example is low light. If Nikon lens is too expensive, then get Sigma.

 

[Big Kahuna]

d800 i understand

but what's Gx ?

Sorry TS for oop....really can't help it :kiss:

Dx = Deluxe
Fx = Fullaxe
Gx = Good Lux

:sweatsm:

 

[twt]

sorry but could you please enlighten me? because i don't see how ISO will affect my choice of F value that i wanna shoot at.

if you need f/5.6 to have what you want to be in focus, say a night scene, then f/1.4 or even f/0.95 doesn't make any difference since the DOF is simply too shallow and ultimately you will still need to shoot at f/5.6 for a decent shot.

correct me if i am wrong.

Actually you are correct. You don't want to be limited to full open apertures in low light and the only way to do that is to bump up the iso and as I see it, going FF is the only way to do that. DX format just doesn't give you the latitude to shoot low light at anything but full open apertures. So in that sense, ISO does affect your choice of aperture value at the same exposure setting. If you can't boost your ISO, you have to increase the aperture size (or slow your shutter).

For me I shoot a lot in low light and I just find that f1.8 requires you to have very accurate focusing which my D50 just doesn't cut it.

Waiting for a FF D50 replacement!

 

[twt]

Not point buying a D700 FF camera and use lower grade lens. One may not need to get the best lens but at least a lens that is optimized for it. The whole idea of getting a FF is to experience it's ability and expand your photographic usage, one example is low light. If Nikon lens is too expensive, then get Sigma.

Actually I would argue that one reason for getting a D700 would be for the ability to use lower end lenses and still be able to shoot low light. If you have F1.4 lenses and are able to shoot low light with a DX camera then you don't "really need" a FF camera (other than to optimize what you can already shoot). But someone who can't shoot low light with his existing lens/body will benefit from FF.

The question is do you spend additional $2500 (over a D90) on a new F1.4 lens or on a FF body which will let you use all your existing lenses for low light?

 

[sf_kang]

Hi Melvin, you are currently shooting with a DX body and DX lenses. What is the reason you want to upgrade? If you are keeping your two DX lenses and just want to upgrade the body, then my question is 'What features in the D80 are missing, that you must have, and that is found in the D300 or D700?
Also, to buy a FX body and use DX lenses on it does make sense.

My point is this - if you intend to stay with DX lenses, and want a 'tougher and more well-equipped' body, then go for the D300.
If you buy the D700, then it only makes sense if you eventually wish to move to FX lenses.

I have heard of people using FX lenses on DX bodies (including myself) but never about people using DX lenses on FX bodies.

Fred

 

[rain5533]

Hi Melvin, you are currently shooting with a DX body and DX lenses. What is the reason you want to upgrade? If you are keeping your two DX lenses and just want to upgrade the body, then my question is 'What features in the D80 are missing, that you must have, and that is found in the D300 or D700?
Also, to buy a FX body and use DX lenses on it does make sense.

My point is this - if you intend to stay with DX lenses, and want a 'tougher and more well-equipped' body, then go for the D300.
If you buy the D700, then it only makes sense if you eventually wish to move to FX lenses.

I have heard of people using FX lenses on DX bodies (including myself) but never about people using DX lenses on FX bodies.

Fred

YA, you are rite, i'm the canon user before, just turn over to nikon camera.
now i'm currently used D300 with Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 HSM DX Lens also
and 60mm f2.8D Macro & 50mm f1.4D too.
so from now i just do my collection for FX lens.
maybe next time i got my budget and just to upgrade into D700 or D3.
that so.

 

[musicpls]

Just a thought, IF TS can do with just 1 cam body. Why not just sell away the present DX system and use the money to upgrade to a FX system.

IMHO, D700 is worth every penny I have spent.

 

[mcn]

IMHO, D700 is worth every penny I have spent.

can tell me why?

i have this d50 and the cult af44-200mm f4-5.6 NON VR for a few years now...
itch for upgrade (if d50 to d700 can be call upgrade :dunno

of course, even if i buy d700, no way am i parting with the cult lens

i simply :heart: it