Moving to FX D700 - what really changes?

<p>...In addition to Per-Christian's question (if I may be so bold): How many of you would suddenly regret having bought the 12Mpx D700 when a (D3X-like 24Mpx) follow-up model would be introduced sometime soon, at a 'reasonable' pricepoint?</p>

<p>That's a question from someone who is for sometime now postponing the acquisition of a D700 (..money being one reason there). </p>

<p>Well, I thought about waiting for the follow-up and probably should have, but I "lost" (ie, stupidly left it in an airport while boarding) my D300 and waited six months to replace it and I was just going crazy without one. I realize it may not be the best decsion, but there is always something new coming along and I don't regret it. It is a great camera.</p>

<p>As far as being unsatisfied, I am really happy with the IQ. But, think hard about the weight. It's not a trivial thing. The camera is big, but the glass is huge. I decided that I really cared about getting the best I could and hopefully using the lenses for a decade or more so I didn't skimp, but I seriously underestimated how much trouble they are too lug around and how much trouble changing lenses frequently can be. Some things to think about:</p>

<p>1. A super-zoom, such as a 4.5 18-200 (which is a 27-350 on DX) is just so versatile. You have to use a tripod more and can't get the same DOF, but for walking around in a dusty city, it's hard to beat. When I was just exploring, not looking for serious work, I could carry the D300 and one lens and not even take a bag.</p>

<p>2. Changing lenses with that 70-200 is cumbersome and difficult. I worry about dust getting in the sensor (although it hasn't been a problem so far) as it takes me about 30 seconds to change a lens. I could do it in 5 or so on the D300. The mechanism is the same, but the logistics of taking the lenses in and out of the bags and trying to hold them is different. I also worry about someone snatching something while I am fiddling.</p>

<p>3. It is REALLY noticable. The D300 with a super zoom has more reach (although you may have camera shake issues that stop you from using it) so you can sometimes get a street shot from further away and is somewhat smaller. When I put the D700 with that 70-200 up to my eye, it's like a movie when a stranger walks in a bar and everything comes to a halt. people NOTICE. That said, when I shot a concert the other night, people assumed I was a pro and just moved right out of my way and let me to the front.</p>

<p>"<em>3. It is REALLY noticable.</em>" is an interesting argument!</p>

<p>I had difficulty accepting that my D200 needed the 12-24 for normal wide-angle photography, especially for walking-around photography. Because that combination feels so "<em>really noticable</em>" - on an african village road, for example. I started using my F3 + 24/2.8 instead, because that felt so much more comfortable and less obtrusive. I am actually hoping that a D700 + 24/2.8 will give me something of that old feeling back!</p>

<p>"In addition to Per-Christian's question (if I may be so bold): How many of you would suddenly regret having bought the 12Mpx D700 when a (D3X-like 24Mpx) follow-up model would be introduced sometime soon, at a 'reasonable' pricepoint?"</p>

<p>I don't need more pixels, and I'm very happy with the high ISO performance. So, for me, no regrets.</p>