Determining "when" to move from D300 to D700

[chawn_crawley]

Hello all. After reading a recent thread, I decided to post a question that has been chewing at me for several weeks. Precisely "when" is it

time to jump into the FX format?

 

At present, I have a D200, D300, D40, 17-55, 70-200vr, and 50mm 1.4. I'll also soon get a hold of a Tokina 11-16 if they ever become

available again :)

 

I, more or less, understand the basic distinctions between FX and DX formats. Having never had an FX camera however, it's hard to

actually get a feel for just how much I would ever benefit from it.

 

I cannot tell you that I shoot "landscapes", or "Weddings", etc. Rather, I dabble in many aspects of photography and am yet to find a

single genre that I prefer to stick to.

 

For instance, the D700 is universally said to be superior at high ISO's and low-light. However, with a 50mm 1.4 and a D300 very usefull @

ISO 1600, how much am I really missing with regard to ISO capability? I'm just wondering if there is a "whole world of photography" that

I'm missing, or is it more about investing substantially more to eek out that last bit of performance?

 

This is an especially significant question for me. I have very respectable lenses for the bodies I presently have. I would be down to 2

lenses to properly fit a d700. Frankly, I could spend the $3000 of a D700 on a photo vacation, studio lights, etc. ...But if there is a whole

world of added performance out there....

 

I would greatly any posts that help illustrate "when" you know it's time to move into FX.

 

Thanks you all.

 

Chawn

[John Crowe]

The primary advantage that a full frame body has over a crop body is the abiltiy of the larger sensor to record detail in superwide angle photography. Lenses from circular fisheye to 14mm (full frame equivalency) are more suited to full frame bodies. A 1.5x body would need a 9.33mm lens to equal a 14mm lens and even then the image from the full frame sensor and 14mm would contain much more detail. Some specific lenses of various focal lengths may provide superior results at specific shooting distances on full frame. For example at a given shooting distance one may prefer the results from an 85/1.4 lens on full frame to results from a 50/1.4 on a crop body.

 

 

It is these few instances where one may desire/require a full frame body.

 

 

I specifically bought a full frame body for use with my 14mm lens for landscapes. I will however also use it with other lenses on "landscape" excursions since I usually prefer one digital body only.

[elliot1]

"...'when' you know it's time to move into FX."

 

When you no longer question whether you should or not.

[chawn_crawley]

Thanks, John. I rarely use my 17-55 below 28mm and suspect the Tokina 11-16 will either open my to something or be a

bit of a novelty for the things I tend to do.

[chawn_crawley]

Elliot, I knew that was coming :)

[rarmstrong]

Chawn, I purchased a D300 in January and chose it over a Canon 5D. I shot film for years and was waiting for a good full frame DSLR. I spent a month researching all of my options and concluded that the D300 was ahead of the curve technically and had a better build. After using the D300 for almost 9 months I couldn't be more pleased. As you must be aware, it is an excellent camera. So, why upgrade? If you need higher iso performance...maybe. If you shoot a lot of wide angle work, like interiors and architecture...maybe. If you have a lot of usable full frame Nikon lenses...maybe. But, even though there are times when I have D700 envy, I think that the D300 will be great for several years. By then, who knows what Nikon will have available. So, I'd buy more lenses, take a vacation and relax:-).

 

Dick

[photo5]

It's so interesting how people paint a full-frame digital SLR as somehow automatically *better* than a DX format digital SLR.

 

The fact is, it is not inherently better at all. It's a different format.

 

DX is cheaper, lenses are cheaper, quality is more or less equal up to ISO 1600.

[Two23]

I agree with Dave above. For some things a D700 would be better, for other things a D300 or even D90 would be better. I'm always hesitant to jump on a wagon with the rest of the crowd and will continue my strategy of building up my lens selection to perfection while prices on cameras continue to drop. A D700 will be a much easier choice when it's $2,000 rather than $2,700. See, already it is dropping in price.

 

 

Kent in SD

[warrenlewis]

How about "WHY"? With whatever I do , my D300 can handle it. Yes, perhaps I'm a bit not wide on the wide side (I have a

Sigma 10-20, that is somewhat "equivalent" to a 15mm. That's fine, i've never missed anything for not being wide enough. I

really like that my longer lenses are even longer. Great for shots of kids expressions and, the 70-200 becomes a 300 f2.8.

Fabulous!!<P>There is really nothing to say that FX is an ideal or "better" size/format. Yes, most of us are used to the

layout because we've used 35mm film, and can relate to it. I wonder if the LF photographers had the same conversation

when 120 film came out. <P> Realistically, with the bodies you have, your best financial move would be to get rid of the

D200, pick up an interesting lens or 2 (try the lensbaby) and spend the rest on, maybe a flash, and a trip somewhere to

take pictures.<P>Isn't there a big photo show soon? Certainly something else will catch your eye....<P>Warren

[Ed_Ingold]

The rational decision is based on two factors. Does the D700 do something you NEED to do for which the D300 is not satisfactory. Secondly, does the D700 regain your standing when competing with other photographers doing the same job. None of this matters much if you are shooting for fun. In that case, do you want it and can you afford it?

 

The main difference between the D300 and D700 is the sensor size. The D700 has an FX sized sensor, which will have a larger field of view than the DX-sized D300. The resolution (12MP) is virtually the same. This has two ramifications. A 17-35mm zoom, times the cropping factor of 1.5x, is a "normal" lens on the D300 but a super-wide zoom lens on the D700. On the other hand a 70-200mm lens has much more "reach" on a D300. You would have to crop the image on a D700, leaving only about 5MP of the original 12.1MP.

 

Having a larger sensor with the same 12MP means the light-sensitive cells are larger. This results in a better signal to noise ratio. As a result, the noise level of the D700 is about the same at ISO 6400 as the D300 at ISO 3200. The difference is significant if you shoot for publication in low available light, as for theater or concert photography.

 

Whether to buy a D3 instead of a D700 is a much harder question. From a professional standpoint, my current thinking is a D300 AND a D700 for about the same money - the best of two worlds. Would I jump for a small-format, 24MP upgrade? Probably not. I'd rather spend about the same the money for an used 22MP medium-format back with twice the image quality.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

I'd settle for a 6 MP DX version of the D700 sensor. It would be perfect for shooting indoor sports, and it would be a lot less expensive. So common, Nikon. Give us a few more options in the D90 and D300 classes of cameras.

[carl_becker2]

I don't really think FX is much better than DX for wide to normal focals lengths. If I needed the best for low light shooting then I would consider FX. I have the Tokina 11-16mm which is plenty wide enough for me, there are other good wide zooms to pick from. What I really like about DX is the crop factor when using long lenses. FX doesn't offer me much.

[Matthew Brennan]

Chawn,

 

I recently moved on from D300 to D700. Financing the change over is not an issue for me as I have no other 'vices' and

saved up until I had sufficient funds- selling three AF-S DX lenses assisted greatly I must add. So I, nor anyone else can

not tell you when it makes financial sense to switch.

 

I shoot wide angle images a lot - about 4 frames out of every 5 I have shot in the last 5 years have been under 40mm focal

length, many at 20mm or less. The FX format made sense to me as I enjoy wider angles. You may not shoot enough

frames that wide to justify a switch if you need to use that as a measure. The D700 makes a 20mm prime lens really wide -

i know it's only a case of doing the mathematics DX vs. FX @ 20mm but it was quite a revelation to me to mount the 20mm

prime onto the D700 for the 1st time and be quite taken by the difference in WOW factor.

 

By switching to FX via the D700 I have noted that I lose the tighter cropped framing 'factor' of the DX format - no problem

for me - common knowledge. I have also observed that I have to stop down my lenses considerably harder on the D700 to

achieve similar depth of field when compared to DX bodies I used prior to FX. Conversely I get much shallower depth of

field without having to open lenses right up to max. aperture - this can be a benefit as some of my lenses lose critical

sharpness when opened up widest - now on FX, I can achieve a similar shallow depth of field and still stop down one or two

settings to gain sharpness.

 

I have several old Ai and AiS prime lenses which have minor or mild vignetting on my D700 when used wide open - the

50mm f/1.4 is one of those lenses. The 50mm f/1.4 appears to be still nice and sharp in the corners of my frames on the

D700. The beauty of using full frame lenses such as your 70-200mm VR and 50mm f/1.4 on the DX format is that you use

the 'sweet spot' on these lenses and forgo any vignetting or corner sharpness losses. This is a big bonus of DX format in

my opinion.

 

The D700 is very capable of suppressing noise at ISO 3600 and has opened up a lot of opportunities for me to keep fast

shutter speeds whilst shooting all manor of subject matter in poor lighting conditions. I'm no diagnostic expert buy I'd say

the D300 at ISO 1,600 performed for me in a very similar fashion to the D700 does at ISO 3,200. The gain is def. there

and it's very usable. I don't think you are missing a 'whole world of photography' but the ISO gain sure helps my unsteady

hands when shooting hand held shots with my 300mm f/4.

 

If you don't shoot heaps of wide angle frames and need the bigger FX senor to hold all the detail resolution of an extra wide

image to make prints from then the D700 is perhaps an un necessary expense. I loved the D300 - it's is just as good to

operate as the D700. I made the personal decision to switch simply because I can justify it to myself. I hope i have shared

something of worth to assist you to decide if you can / can't justify it too.

[Brad_]

Can you succinctly describe how are you being limited with your current set of cams?

 

If you can't, switching to a more

advanced camera will not make you a better photographer.

[aaron l]

I agree with Warren - It's a "why" question, not a "when" question. If you need telephoto reach, the D300 is a much better choice per unit cost. If you need the wider or a stop less noise, the D700 is the choice.

[sandysocks]

Well, let's see. Prices may drop a bit in the competition for holiday sales. They may drop again after the buying frenzy is over. They will probably drop again next spring when the new models are announced. They will most likely drop again when the D700 replacement is announced. How long do you want to wait?

[nolan_ross]

Upgrading to every new body that comes out should keep a person busy..But if you want the camera and you have the means to purchase it then why not. I would probably purchase something myself If I didn't have kids in college right now.

[jimwww]

Well if I had a D300 I would stick with it and spend my money on glass not more expensive camera bodies. My next body I will add is the D200 to compliment my D100...