Nikon D700, Full Frame & Lenses

<p>Hello,</p>

<p>I have a burning question concerning the full frame Nikon D700 I just bought and it's full frame capability and lenses. Please be patient an break down your answers to Sesame Street Simple being that I'm still learning about photography and how to use all of the functions on my camera.</p>

<p>I traded in my Nikon D200 & Nikon D300 for a Nikon D700.</p>

<p>I have the following lenses:<br>

1. AF-S Nikkor 18-200mm 1.3.5-5.6 G ED DX<br>

2. AF Nikkor 50mm 1:1.8D<br>

3. Sigma 170-500mm 1:5-6.3 APO DG</p>

<p>As I was trading in the camera I was told that the lenses that I have would only produce a 6.1 megapixel image and that the images would be cropped. Also, it was explained to me that the reasoning behind this is because the D200/D300 have what was referred to slangly as a "half sensor" and that the D700 has a "full sensor." Furthermore, because the camera can sense that the lenses weren't designed for the full sensor that the camera would default the images to 6.1 megapixels and the image would be cropped.</p>

<p>Could someone please explain to me the truth behind this & how this works? Thanks for your time and I'll be looking forward to your replies.</p>

<p>All the Best!</p>

<p>~ Joseph.</p>

 

<p>Joseph<br>

Why didn't you ask the question before you did the deal ? it seems to me you were sold a bill of goods, what exactly about the D300 and D200 did not meet your requirements? You now have traded two perfectly good cameras and lenses for 1 camera and effectively just 1 lens and the gobbleydook you are spouting makes makes no sense buddy .<br>

The D700 has what is known as a full frame sensor that is the size of a 35mm film frame while the D200 and the D300 have a DX sensor the size of an aps film frame which is smaller.<br>

The 18-200 mm lens you have is designed to cover a DX frame it will not cover the full frame so you need to toss it. The Sigma lens you have on a D700 is like putting diesel in a Maserati. <br>

Lastly the guy you bought the camera off is wasted, he should be on Wall Street or better still a lobbyist for the insurance companies.<br>

Good luck Steve</p>

<p>You were slightly (significantly) misinformed.</p>

<p>Both the AF Nikkor 50mm 1:1.8D and (AFAIK) Sigma 170-500mm 1:5-6.3 APO DG will produce a full resolution 12.1 megapixel full frame image on the D700, and will not be cropped. I'm not familiar with the Sigma, but some quick research seems to indicate that the APO DG version is designed to cover both film and digital (DX and FX) formats. If that's not correct, I'm sure that any owners of this particular lens can set me straight.</p>

<p>The AF-S Nikkor 18-200mm 1.3.5-5.6 G ED DX is a DX lens and does not project an image circle large enough to cover the FX (35mm size) sensor of the D700. Because it is a Nikkor lens, the D700 can recognize it as DX and automatically crop the image to a 6MP DX sized format. So you'll see the same angle of view with this lens on the D700 and you did on the D200/300. If you look through your D700 manual (p. 58-61), you'll see the section that explains all of this.</p>

<p>Your D200 and D300 had "DX" format sensors. Yes, they are smaller than the D700's "FX" format sensor - which just happens to be the same size as a classic 35mm film frame.<br /><br />Your 18-200 is a DX format lens. It projects a smaller image circle into the camera, and that projected image can't fully cover the D700's full size sensor. The camera will recognize the presence of that lens and can be told to automatically only use a part of the sensor that's the same size as the smaller DX sensor bodies. <br /><br />Your 50/1.8, though, <em>is</em> a full-frame capable lens. A very effective one, actually - you'll find it to be quite useful on that D700. <br /><br />The Sigma? I believe it will also work fine on an FX body.</p>

<p>sell your 18-200 and get a (used) 28-200 nikkor G.</p>

<p>No big deal. Just sell your 18-200 and get a used 28-200 ED G. You get (IMHO) a lighter and optically better all arround lens. So you lose VR but you gain $200+ toward you 17-35/2.8 :-)</p>

<p>The real bummer may be is the 500mm lens is not so long any more.</p>

<p>Considering the lenses you have, you pretty much have just bought yourself a $2,500 Nikon D300, LOL. It was your lenses that were weak, not your camera body. My thinking is you've made a very big mistake.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Was the D700 new, or was it used? If new, then the deal wasn't bad at all from a $$$ standpoint, given what you could get for a D200 and D300 on eBay. </p>

<p>However, as others have said, the new body didn't really get you much improvement given your lens line up. </p>

<p>To add to what's already been stated, I think the Sigma is an FX lens and in theory, should work as such, but Sigma lenses have forward compatibility with nw Nikon bodies, soyou'd want to test it out to make sure. I had a Sigma 30mm lens (recently sold) when I bought a D700, and with the correct setting, the D700 should have automatically recognized the DX lens and automatically shifted to DX mode. It didn't, and I had to manually set the body to DX mode when using this lens.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"Considering the lenses you have, you pretty much have just bought yourself a $2,500 Nikon D300, LOL."</p>

<p>Not quite. The D700 is an excellent camera and has much better low light performance than does the D300. So now it's just a matter of rationalizing lenses so that you can take advantage of the FX sensor.</p>

<p>What lenses? It depends on what you shoot. But, as a first step, you might sell your 18-200mm. Better yet, why don't you use it a bit? Yes, you'll only use a portion of the D700 sensor, but you'll still be able to easily print stunning 8x10's.</p>

<p>Do you have a strong arm and some money to burn? If so, and you can afford a 24-70 f2.8 from Nikon (it's big, expensive and heavy), you will have between that camera and that lens, no excuse not to make the best possible images from a camera in this class. If you can't afford really great lenses, you were better off with the D300, and should see if you can trade back.</p>

<p>Alternatively, you could do what we all used to do years ago. Keep the 50mm lens (it's GREAT on that camera), and get a 24mm f2.8 wide angle lens for when you go wide and just use your feet.</p>

<p>If you love the 18-200 and what it gave you in terms of range... add a D40 to your line up as a "high end point and shoot" solution and just leave that lens on that camera forever. That would be a GREAT camera for family snapshots.</p>

<p>I don't think it could ever be a "mistake" getting a D700. He just needs to get some lenses to go with it. So what!? And there is no comparison between the D200/300 and a D700, although I would have held onto one of them for telephoto shots.</p>

<p>It certainly can be a big mistake getting a D700; in fact, merely based on the threads here from the last week or two, I see quite a few people making that mistake. The most common one is spending most of the budget on the D700 body with little left for some good lenses.</p>

<p>The D700 is expensive, fairly big and heavy. If you don't have the right lenses for it, you cannot take advantage of its capabilities. For more beginngers and casual photographers, using a lower end DX body with convenient lenses such as the 18-200 can easily lead to more and better images.<br />Moreover, while the D3 and D700 indeed have excellent low-light capabilities, it is merely a stop to a stop and half better than the D300. It isn't like there is a huge difference that everybody needs.</p>

<p>I see your point Shun, and it's a good one. I'm just too enthusiastic about my D700. :)</p>

<p>"And there is no comparison between the D200/300 and a D700"<br>

This sort of drivel is great for camera salesman but does not really help beginner photographers, I would rather use my old D70 and a 300.2.8 rather than a D700 with a Sigma 170-500 Zoom, okay so the D700 is a great camera but only in specific circumstances is it better than a D300 and with crap lenses any advantage is negated.<br>

One of the reasons we have rank beginners going out and spending stupid money on equipment they don't need is because of the rubbish written here. The OP would have been much better off with some sound advice and maybe even some help with his photography before he met the snake oil salesman. <br>

This is how it should work use the equipment you have until you reach it's absolute limits and then trade up, the same goes for lenses. Frankly I think only about 10% of photographers on this site would really benefit with a D700 over a D300 in most circumstances, I wouldn't and I've been doing this since the 70's.<br>

As to the Sigma lens somebody correct me if I'm wrong would not even a D200 with a 300mm prime produce better images than that lens and a D700.<br>

excuse the rant<br>

Steve</p>

<p>From the OP's post I see no reason to blame the salesman here. What I like to hear from the OP is his reasoning behind making the trade in the first place without apparently doing any research into the subject beforehand...</p>

<p>Lighten Steve buddy. We're not exactly curing cancer here. And actually there is no comparison between between a D200/D300 considering the extra light gathering ability and FF sensor of the D700. Whether someone is able to exploit the differences is another story.</p>

<p>The 18-200 is the only one that will produce a cropped image. The other two lenses will work fine. Any lens made by Sigma that carries the DG emblem is a full frame lens. DC is the one you would want to stay away from since it is designed for the DX sensor. The 50mm is a full frame lens and will work just fine.</p>

<p>I would agree, the low light ability of this camera is worth the price for me. I had shooting flash photography, so this was the ideal camera for me. Going from a D200 the difference is huge. I can't speak for the D300 but I'm sure it is still better given the bigger pixels. For what it is worth, I even sold my flash to buy a battery grip. Most people would scoff at selling a flash but I hardly used if before and now with my 50mm 1.4 on the D700 I never used it. In the rare times I might need a flash I get by with the built in.</p>

<p>Joseph, don't press the panic button. I too sold my brand-new D300 after using it for only three months to get full-frame.<br />Sell your 18-200 and sigma. With that money you can buy Nikon 35-70mm f2.8 and 28-200 ED G (both used). I have both and they are great. You have done NOTHING wrong by buying full-frame D700 provided you now upgrade your skills quickly to use it effectively.<br />D300 is great, but still NO match for D700 in low light and wide-angle photography. D200 is too old now.<br />Happy shooting.<br>

Brian, I agree with you. No need for flash with D700.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You have done NOTHING wrong by buying full-frame D700 provided you now upgrade your skills quickly to use it effectively.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is silly - do you mean to imply that there are less skills required to shoot with a D300? Why would one need to "upgrade the skills" when going from DX to FX? It's still the "10 inches behind the camera" that make the difference...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>No need for flash with D700</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Like all generalizations, this one is silly too...</p>

<p>You don't have to spend a lot on lenses if you buya few nice primes. </p>

<p>Why do so many people seem to think that you have to spen $$$ to get excellent lenses? Or that you need to cover all focal lengths?</p>

<p>Relax, Dieter. It is a forum and keep your language civil.<br>

When did I say ``that there are less skills required to shoot with a D300?'' <br>

When I wrote ``you now upgrade your skills quickly to use it effectively'', it was in reference to the OP who said ``I'm still learning about photography.'' That's it.<br>

I hope you understand the English language.<br>

As for flash with D700, I hope you have ever used this camera. </p>

<p>I am relaxed, thank you. I don't see where I was using "uncivil" language. You can read my post again and tell me "where I said less skill required" - I phrased a question and used the word "imply" - looks like it isn't me that has problems with the English language. And if you can't think of scenarios where a flash might be useful/necessary despite the low-light capabilities, I suggest you follow your own advice.</p>

<p>Jeffrey<br>

My second post didn't make it where I apologised to you for my sharp tongue, Shun's post was so much more eloquent and temperate than mine that it shamed me in to an apology.<br>

People do seek advice on these forums and frankly even the best intentioned post can be misconstrued. With the lenses the OP has, and taking in to account his level of expertise, trading his two cameras and probably a nice chunk of cash for a D700 makes no sense whatsoever and no amount of partisanship or gobblydgook can alter that, <br>

cheers Steve</p>

<p>No problem Steve, thanks for manning up.</p>

<p>My comments didn't really take into the account the OP since I thought his questions were already adequately addressed before I posted. With that said, I still don't see that the OP is in such bad shape as a newbie photographer if he gets his lens situation squared-away (which is something we all have to do anyway). He has a superb camera that he can grow with for a long time to come (assuming that's his intention, if not, then yes, he wasted his money). I know if I was moving from film to digital today, instead of five years ago when I did, I would go straight to a D700 and probably never consider an APS-C sensored camera. FWIW.</p>