D700 with Dx lenses

OK....here goes,

 

I'm looking to add to my arsenal, a D700 Body for the low light shooting that i do, specifically, dance competitions.

 

I'm currently shooting with a a D200 and a D300, but i know the D700 will be a vast improvement even over the D300

in this area.

 

What i'd like to know is, on the D700, does this camera switch over to DX mode automatically when using DX lenses?

and if so,m can this be over ridden?

For example, if i put my Nikon 17-55mm on this camera, i know at the wide end there will be vignetting, so that

camera (i assume) goes in to DX shooting mode.

But if i don't shoot at 17mm, and stay around 20mm and above, can i keep it in FX mode without vignetting? AN

override button/setting?

 

Thanks for your help with this.

 

JV

"does this camera switch over to DX mode automatically when using DX lenses? "

 

Yes.

 

 

"and if so can this be over ridden? "

 

Yes.

I should add, I wll be dumping the D200 and a Tokina 12-24 f4 to aid in funding this purchase, but i do plan on keeping the Nikon 17-55 f2.8.

As Ellis points out, automatic DX switch is an option. You can switch that on or off. When you switch that off, you can force the D700 to always capture in the FX or DX format, regardless of which lens you have mounted. (On the D3, you have an additional 5:4 format to choose from.)

Have you considered a fast(er) lens for your D300 rather than a new body? Or both (D700 and fast(er) lens)?

Can you live with 5 megapixels when you shoot DX lens on a D700 though?

I think the whole point of turning off DX is to capture an image at full resolution not 5meg. A fast prime might also help.

Elliot,

 

I shoot the dance competitions presently with the D300, with Nikon VR 70-200 f 2.8

 

This is THE lens for the this typ of photography. the rest of my lenses are a 50mm f1.4, A nikon 300 f2.8 AF-I, a Nikon 17-55 f2.8, and a 500mm F4.

 

I think the only thing i would need left would be a 85f1.8, or a 135 f2.0, but i do need the range of the 70-200.

 

So to answer your question, i think i do have enough lens speed.

Good point Carl, and the answer is no. However, one does not have to shoot in DX mode (cropped) on a D700 with a DX lens. x works as long as it's not at the widest focal length.

John, what ISO are you typically shooting at?

John, I tested all of my DX lenses on the D3 a few months back, including the 12-24mm/f4 DX and 17-55mm/f2.8 DX.

See my test samples of the 12-24 in the following thread:

http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00QgSE

 

While the 17-55mm/f2.8 DX can cover the entire FX frame from 28mm and longer, IMO the edge results on the full FX

frame is still very poor at 45mm. At 55mm it is fine. In other words, the 17-55mm/f2.8 DX is only useful on the full FX

frame as a fixed 55mm/f2.8 "prime."

 

I would suggest getting a 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S (despite its vignetting issues) if you go FX.

Elliot,

 

Typically, i shoot at ISO 3200 to achieve marginal results even with the D300. I get slight underexposure there causing great noise, and ore often than not. some motion blur.

 

If i get get better results with the D700, with 3200 ISO that would be my dream, and i think i can acheive this one dream.

 

I like the range of the 24-70, and theoreticaly, can afford to lose the 17-55 also from the camera bag with the 24-70. I'd have to mull that over some i guess. In your esting Shun, DOes the 24-70 on FX out perform IQ wise the 17-55 on DX? or is that not really a fair comparision?

John, to date, I still do not own an FX body although I am planning to buy one soon, after all pre-Photokina announcements are out. The D3 I used earlier this year was on loan to photo.net from Nikon USA.

 

To me, the reason to get an FX body is for high-ISO results and wide angle usage, including the 24mm PC lens. If you shoot outdoors, the D300 with 17-55 is perfectly fine. The D3 and D700 will be far better for indoor, especially existing light type photography.

As i indicated Shun, I have a gap for my low light indoor shooting at dance competitions.

 

While i will maintain the D300 for my wildlife sports shooting, I hinsetly feel the D700 ill help me in that area, additionally, ith the landscape area where i have just begun dabbling.

 

With the dance competitions, as you are probably familiar, are typically low, colored lighting, with much movement, so shutter speed is critical. ISO3200 (and above) is the norm for best results.

John, you will be thrilled with the D700 at ISO 3200. And the larger viewfinder!

 

Shun's suggestion on the 24-70mm is an excellent one. I like with the D300 and love it on an FX body.

 

Your biggest improvement in overall IQ will be to go with a fast prime or primes. I understand the usefulness of a zoom lens but shooting at f1/8 or f1.4 will give you a huge jump in IQ with either the D300 or D700.

Elliot,

 

How much will I "miss" with the 24-70 on FX, that I get now with the 17-55 on the DX?

I don't understand exactly what you mean by "miss".

 

As a general statement though, it doesn't really make a lot of sense to invest in a full frame camera only to use

DX lenses on it.

John,

 

If I understand your question correctly, the 24-70mm on FX will give you about the same angle of view as the

17-55mm on DX. So in that sense, you wont "miss" anything. What you will gain is the 1-2 stops improvement in

light sensitivity.

Sorry for not being clear, But yes, basically, FOV is what i was wondering.

If the 70-200 f/2.8 is a workhorse for the environment you're shooting and the high ISOs I'd have to put a vote in for

the 85 f/1.4 over the 85 f/1.8. There are 2 reasons I chose the 1.4 over the 1.8. The first one is that the lense is wide

open to take light and focus settings prior to the picture being taken (somewhere on Thom's site). I think this is a big

advantage for large apeture lenses that isn't much discussed. The second is a bit of math that I may also have

corrections suggested (formula from Wikipedia) but:

Apeture Math

N=f/#=f/D,

f = focal distance,

D = diameter to the lense,

85/1.8 = 47.2,

85/1.4 = 60.7,

60.7/47.2 = 1.29 = 29% more light

Leland....Thanks for your insight. I can't argue with math. I'll have to trust you on the formulation(s) :-))

However, the 85mm reach (even on DX) is about 75mm short.

My only point in indicating those lenses was to show that i do have enough (faster) glass.

I don't think the 55mm on DX vs. 70mm on FX FOV difference should be a real consideration in choosing between the

two lenses. The 24-70 is in my experience sharp enough that you may easily crop from 70mm to 82.5mm in post-

processing and still have room to spare.

 

Either lens is very good for its intended format. The 17-55 is a bit more compact and lighter whereas the 24-70 is not

at all compact or lightweight. :-) The 24-70 is a generation newer and it shows in the optical quality. The 24-70 takes

advantage of nano-coating (it's virtually impossible to make it ghost), whereas ghosting is a frequent problem when

shooting in the city at night with the 17-55. In side by side tests the 24-70 has always turned out a bit crisper images

at wide apertures, both on DX as well as between formats (so that the 24-70 is used on FX and the 17-55 on DX, with

equal FOV). IMO the biggest issues with these lenses are that they're not particularly sharp at infinity and stopped

down sharpness is not as good as with some of the Zeiss and Nikkor primes.

 

I haven't been able to put myself to selling the 17-55 as it is a compact and versatile lens with robust build and I have

many good images taken with it. But when I use it, it's always on my DX camera (the D200). It rarely disappoints and

handlingwise it's less of a burden than its bigger FX counterpart. I find the 17-55 to be an excellent portrait lens also,

and a bit less intimidating than the 24-70. In the long run I will have to decide whether it's worth keeping a separate

DX standard zoom lens that takes space in my bag.

 

The 24-70 is a considerable investment but I am sure if you get it you'll find it has substance to back its hefty price

tag and weight. BTW. I managed to scratch the front element of my 24-70, the first time in 15 years that I've been

taking pictures actively. This makes me reluctant to buy the famous 14-24; instead I will probably replace the wide

end of the 17-55 with the 18mm Zeiss and use the 24-70 for the rest of the range when I shoot DX.

How much do you want for your D200, I'm in the market for one right now.

All of your lenses cover the FX format except the 17-55. I can't really tell from your posting if you use the

17-55 for the dance work. If you want the D700 for long lenses in the dark, the 70-200, the 300 and the 500 all

cover the FX format as does your 50mm. <p>If you need wide for dance, the 24-70 is excellent, but expensive. It

is a much better lens than the 17-55. I own a 17-55 and rent the 24-70 (used it tonight). The 14-24 is an

amazingly crisp lens, worth the money if you have it to spend. I rented it for high contrast interiors and it is

beautiful, with almost no CA even with florescent fixtures in the corners of the image at 14mm. Images shot at

5.6 to 16 needed no sharpening. <p>The 17-55 on the D700 yields a fun but seriously compromised image... t

>>>>>>>How much do you want for your D200, I'm in the market for one right now

 

Sam, If you throw me an email, i can give you the information on purchasing it. I have original boxes, paperwork manual etc, as well as an MB-D200 grip and an extra battery for it. It's on the big auction site right now.

Throw me an email when you get a chance.