Wait for successor to D700?

[g-man1]

<p>Kent, a couple of the best lenses are the nikon 28mm ais f/2.8 and nikon 50-200mm f/4.5 ais, both cheap ($200 and $100) used; the larger viewfinder of the D700 allows you to use manual focus lenses with ease.</p>

[Two23]

<p>@Jordan<br>

I used to use single focal lenses but found I was losing too many shots with fast action. I also like to keep lens changes down since I'm an outdoor photographer. I can see a difference in my shots with lenses that have modern lens coatings too. The lens selection I want for a D700 is: 14-24mm f2.8, 24-70mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8, TC-17E, 24mm f3.5 PCE. Will likely add a 300mm f4 VR when one gets made. Fast, versatile, state of art image quality. As a night photographer I do like f2.8 speed.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>You get a larger viewfinder image, the full angle of view of non-DX lenses, you can take advantage of lenses such as 24mm PC-E, you generally get better quality at wide apertures and wide angles (assuming both are properly designed for the recording medium), and you get lower noise, especially visible at high ISO. </p>

<p>It never even crossed my mind to question whether to go full frame or not personally, as PC wide angles and fast lenses are very important to my photography. If Nikon had made a 6 MP FX camera at the same time they made the D70, I would have purchased the former.</p>

[nolax_montemar]

<p>Coming from nikon d80 and d300 i would say the d700 has the best image quality. You can see the difference on the tones that isn't there on the d80 and d300. The dynamic range is just different, you don't wanna edit your picture anymore, d700 is that good. It's not just the high ISO settings though it's a major plus on the d700 image quality. Why wait when you can have it now? Buy the d700, you won't regret a thing.</p>

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>Thankyou for all the great replies!<br>

It's interesting that there seems to be two sharply divided camps: the photographers who feel that getting a D700 is no-brainer, that the IQ and all the other advantages of FF are well-worth it, and the other side, seemingly a smaller group, who believe that a D300 is good enough for any discriminating photographer.<br>

In the end, it seems that my question can only be answered by the person asking the question, me, and that it truly is a personal decision based upon the type of photography one does, and all the other personal considerations.<br>

For the type of photography I'm interested in, I would be willing to sacrifice some low-light ability for higher resolution, and in the meantime I'm happy with what I have.<br>

Thanks again for taking the time to respond. Happy New Year to all!</p>

[howard_cummer1]

<p>I am changing the bayonet on my Leica 19mm Elmarit V 1 to use on the D700. You can't get that angle of view on a D300. And the low noise of high ISOs on the D700 is simply sublime.</p>

[colda]

<p>I have a D200, a D300, an S3 and an S5 (the Fuji's only bought recently) Jeffery, in your last post you state that you would be willing to sacrifice low-light capability for better resolution, I'm the exact opposite so not sure how much use my post will be to you</p>

<p>When I upgraded from the D200 to the D300 I have to be honest, I was not impressed, losing the group dynamic focusing mode upset me and the high ISO images, whist certainly much cleaner than the D200 have got a far to 'processed/plastic' feel to them. Within a week I wanted to return it and go for used D2X instead, fortunately the dealer was less than helpful and I ended up sticking with it, I say fortunately because after a week of learning how to use the D300 I loved it and was more than happy with the autofocus system, although the look of ISO 3200 images continued to bother me</p>

<p>The announcement of the D700 seemed like the way to go as far as the low-light capability goes but the majority of my work is football (and the stadum lights at lower league clubs are not the brightest) and live music. My decision not to go with FX comes down costs, my use of telephoto lenses and also the simple fact that FX lenses are nice and sharp on DX as they just use the good bit in the centre, I started on digital so never really needed my lenses to be like they used to be. So instead I put my money into a 10.5/2.8 and a 17-55/2.8</p>

<p>Fuji's S3 has had my interest for a long time and the chance came to buy a good example and a good price, I used it alongside the D300 during the summer and simply loved it, with the drop in price of the S5 I couldn't resist. The S5 has now become my primary camera I won't go on about the S5 too much on this thread, just to say that the ISO 3200 images are more pleasing in my opinion as they are more 'real' and do not lose saturation (like the Nikons do), and of course the dynamic range is awesome</p>

<p>So, I'm very much in camp DX and also am happy to sacrifice resolution for better looking images, am I the only one that's very happy shooting at 6mp?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>...am I the only one that's very happy shooting at 6mp?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nope. I'm gonna need a heckuva lot more computer power to handle anything more than batch processing NEFs from my D2H. Not ready to go down that road just yet.</p>

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>Darren, just to come clean, I don't even have a D300; I have a D200 and a D80. I tried to avoid the controversy of how much superior the D300 is to to the D200, and if I had started this thread with the truth of having a D200 and wondering if the addition of a D700 would be worth my while, I knew what the responses would be. The D300 is fairer comparison with similar resolution and decent lowlight performance compared to the D700. Personally, I don't think it's worth it to upgrade to a D300 from my D200; the D700 is more problematic.</p>

[colda]

In that case Jeffery, if you have the opportunity you should try the S5 - about £420 new you can't go wrong, and it's the kind of camera that can easily fill a specialist need and be an excellent back-up to the D700x in the future :)

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>Darren, never heard of the S5, who makes that? Does it take Nikon lenses? Thanks.</p>

[pge]

<p>I am also waiting for the successor to the d700 so I can buy a d700 at a great price. <br /> <br /> I shoot a d200 and marvel at how such a great camera can sell for $700 on the used market so I am waiting for the d700 to do the same.</p>

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>lol, Phil, that's a different spin on the conundrum. If you're patient enough, I'm sure you'll get your wish. The D700 has already dropped a lot since it was introduced.</p>

[jeffrey_aiello_photography]

<p>I have both.. the D700 and the D300.. on my last trip I used my D700 for wide angle and landscapes, stills.. I used the d300 with my 70-200 f/2.8 and teleconverter for shooting wildlife.. the combo works great.</p>

 

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>Jeff, that sounds ideal for you. Happy shooting!</p>

[stevenseelig]

<p>I went with the D700 for higher ISO capabilities. Use to shoot a D200 and still have it but rarely use it. With the D200, the highest ISO I was comfortable with was 400. With the D700, I am very comfortable at ISO 1600, will go to 3200 and when pushed I have shot at ~6400. Example attached is ISO 5000, f2.8, 1/25 @ 70mm shot under tungsten normal room light.</p><div></div>

[billfoster]

<p>Hi Jeff,</p>

<p>See? The picture above is what I am speaking of... ISO 5000! I really think that people undervalue this attribute. It's not just a slight improvement. This is, to my mind, absolutely revolutionary for anyone who shoots indoors or at night.</p>

<p>Aslo, you wrote: "I would be willing to sacrifice some low-light ability for higher resolution." I might agree with that statement, in theory, but I would be careful to ensure that I am actually getting more resolution. When we talk about low-light ability, we are talking about low noise. Noise destroys resolution so if you have a higher resolution sensor in theory, but it is noiser, then you may not have any actual advantage in image quality. For instance, when I pixel peep my canon G10 against shots taken with my 30 D, I don't really see much difference even though we are going from 8 MP to 14.7 MP. Of course, it's not a great comparison because of differences in lenses, etc., but it's what I have. I am just saying, be careful as it takes a really huge MP difference to make an appreciable difference in IQ and other factors, such as lenses, often limit it anyway.</p>

<p> </p>

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>Steven, Wow, that's phenomenal for ISO 5000! Nice photograph too! Thanks for sharing.</p>

[joshua_mortel]

<p>I got the D300 because that was what was available at the time. Quite honestly, I didn't think Nikon would release a camera like the D700. It even uses the same grip as the D300. I am kicking myself because it's FF, but what do you do. I'm just glad Nikon is back in the game!</p>

<p>You should first look at your own photography, and think about the kinds of problems you run into. If the problem is not enough light then you're going to get your stops from the sensor, your lens, or your speedlight. I think you should always try to solve your problem before getting the new equipment.</p>

<p>The image you take is all that is important. As good as the D700 is, even that camera will have its limitations. You have to think about your subjects, your lenses and your bodies --the various personalities these tools exhibit-- and use the best combination in concert with your camera mastery.</p>

<p>When the time comes, I will look at what the new camera options are, but --for me-- now is the time to start learning and shooting!</p>

[stevenseelig]

<p>I mostly do portrait work and I wanted to be able to natural light work. This was a critical need as I attempt to transition from studio based to a location based business. I would like more megapixels as I think it would help with sharpness, but I would not want to compromise the high ISO capability. I figure I will be able to wait at least one or two generations of camera before something will be substantially better than the D700. Given the price differential between the D3 or D3x vs performance/storage needs, the D700 seems to hit a great sweet spot. A lot of it has to with physics and I am not sure how easy it will be able to move the D700 upstream. But I might compromise with more mexapixels and a small decrease in ISO performance. Not sure that will drive me to buy.<br>

Thanks for the kind comments. Oh, I should add that it my fourth grandson... I was just practicing! Another example follows...</p><div></div>

[stevenseelig]

<p>I mostly do portrait work and I wanted to be able to natural light work. This was a critical need as I attempt to transition from studio based to a location based business. I would like more megapixels as I think it would help with sharpness, but I would not want to compromise the high ISO capability. I figure I will be able to wait at least one or two generations of camera before something will be substantially better than the D700. Given the price differential between the D3 or D3x vs performance/storage needs, the D700 seems to hit a great sweet spot. A lot of it has to with physics and I am not sure how easy it will be able to move the D700 upstream. But I might compromise with more mexapixels and a small decrease in ISO performance. Not sure that will drive me to buy.<br>

Thanks for the kind comments. Oh, I should add that it my fourth grandson... I was just practicing! Another example follows...</p>

[bob_bill]

<p> If you regularly need the new d700 technology, its a no brainer. If it only occasionally will help make better pictures, then perhaps staying with a d300 is fine. It depends how and what you shoot and its end use. That all has to be balanced with the cost factor unless that amount of money is of no consequence to you. Its an individual thing you have to decide for yourself. The high iso really appeals to me. It opens up huge possibilities. It enables me to get shots not otherwise possible. That's why I'll take high iso over high megapixels. I rarely print huge, but am often fighting speed. I still have that "need for speed." At this time, I think the d700 is the right compromise between resolution and speed. I guess I could wait for a 45 megapixel, oversized format, 128,000 iso camera, but I want to shoot this weekend. I know for many this is an expensive, discretionary purchase accompanied by sticker shock, but quit agonizing over how many angels you can get on the head of a pin- or sensor- this year. It'll be a paper weight in 8 years. (What percentage of people are still shooting with a pre 2000 digital?) Worry more about the overall quality of the photos you make, 8 years from now you will still be enjoying them. I dare say way more photos would be much more improved by better lighting and composition than tons more resolution. Light and light modifiers are relatively inexpensive. I think most would be better off with less fussing over pixels and more concern about photons. </p>

[david_tolcher]

<p>I have both and in general prefer the D700 because of the viewfinder but there is a rub... its not 100% and it really irritates me when I have been used to 100% for probably the last 10yrs worth of Nikons. Reviewing always has perceptably more in than you think when you are trying to compose tight to the edge. YMMV but it really takes the camera down a few pegs for me for landscape usage where you are trying to squeeze every pixel out of an image and it slows the workflow down. In that respect the D300 is much better.<br>

On image quality - nothing to add except to concur on noise. for my usage at 800iso the d700 has no shadow noise and the d300 normally requires it to be dealt with post capture. Any differences in detail / sharpness are much more likely to be lens or technique related.<br>

I didnt see whether you had a 70-200mm nikkor but if so then there are some difficult choices with the D700, along with others my copy is not usable for landscape work without heavy cropping of the corners due to sharpness issues. </p>

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>Great replies all! I'm very appreciative!<br>

I have no doubt now that a D700 would definitely improve the technical quality of my pictures, as well as open up new opportunities.<br>

I think my mindset has been somewhat greedy in the sense of wanting my next purchase to be the be all/ end all of my photographic needs. I know the D700 would be a great camera for me right now, but I've been wanting to eliminate the mental anguish that is sure to occur when the D700x is released, but then again, even if I had a D700x something else would come along and trigger the same response. I guess since digital become a reality there's no mental peace possible for photographers. :-)<br>

Again, thankyou kindly.</p>

[fran__ois_p._weill]

<p>Gents,<br>

I think there is two ways to estimate a camera and the same applies when you compare two :<br>

You can be satisfied with a camera because it just suits your personal needs well, which almost always drives you to belittle the advantages of another model in a comparasion...<br>

This is the subjective way to see the things.The other way is try to stay objective and not go too far on personal considerations.<br>

I presently use my son's now obsolete Canon EOS 30 D as it is the only digital camera i have on hand, being presently saving for a D700 (or hopefully a D3).<br>

This Canon produces very good imagery at low and medium ISO settings for prints of A4 format (my favourite size) but they need to be tweaked in Photoshop with a considerable amount of sharpening from RAW files to look good enough and they are just acceptable in A3+ format, when examined from the normal reading distance (more or les 30cm) even if they obviously look better at the required distance of vision to appreciate the print as a whole.<br>

I'm convinced the D300 is able to do better... and for a while, with the introductory price of the D3 and before the D700 appeared I considered it for budget considerations, and thought I will be forced to turn to a croppped format D300 as my personal DSLR.<br>

The apperance of the D700 changes all...<br>

Nobody can contest the fact this camera - like the D3 - has unequalled high ISO-low noise performance which a D300 is unable to provide.<br>

And here I listen the choir of D300 owners saying "<em>and if you don't use these performance, what's the relevance to pay more</em> "<br>

But it is not the only advantages of the D700 over the D300...<br>

Even if you don't use very much the high ISO settings, the full format has definite advantages over the cropped one, including some budgetary considerations as I will show you :<br>

The more performing status with wide angles of an FF camera is only part of these advantages and long tele-lens users can object the D300 gives them more (apparent) reach.<br>

But, first, there is a problem once emphasized on this forum by Illka which may be ignored by most users : if you use a smaller sensor with the same amount of pixels, you will need an even optically better lens to get the necessary resolving power to obtain the same image quality. I'm not sure that the lenses usually bought by those of us who are on a budget to afford the difference between a D300 and a D700 will be able to afford the premium quality - even if they are shorter - tele-lens compliant with this need.<br>

Then, for the others who seldom need long tele-lenses, enters budget considerations :<br>

It is unquestionably true the D700 and moreover the D3 are more expensive than a D300. However, without a lens, all these three cameras are useless.<br>

So another factor must be introduced : the number and the nature of compatible lenses you already own.<br>

For a long time DX lenses owner, neglecting the rather amateurish kind of zooms available in that range and the general lack of constant maximum aperture ones and of nearly any prime, and taking only budget considerations into the balance, a D300 might be the right choice.<br>

But for other people, the price difference, particularly when it goes to the D700, will soon be erased by a clever choice of lenses :<br>

Ask you some simple questions<br>

With lenses shorter than 35mm do you really need a zoom and AF ?<br>

If the answer is negative, then - avoiding the few lenses with an optical compatibility problem with DSLR's - the large "retro-compatibility" of Nikon semi-pro and pro DSLR's allows you to buy dirt cheap second hand wides of the Ai or even Ai'ed type and use them at their nominal field of view.<br>

Do I really need a zoom instead of primes between 35mm and 105mm ?<br>

Again if the answer is negative, you can rely on excellent AF primes second hand which despite being more pricey than the Ai lenses on the market are far more affordable than the latest zooms lenses and probably with few if any degradation of the IQ in current use. This let you the time to save for more recent and up to date lenses, while you can actually use your camera.<br>

I have personally calculated the price of my equipment with French prices and the total amount with the second hand lenses I expect to buy is less than a the one of a D300 with DX zooms covering more or less the same range of angles bought new...<br>

Looking to the expected useful life of a D700 when compared with a D300 before obsolescence, I consider most probable the DX format will be dropped by Nikon at semi-pro and pro camera level from the next generation on... So, unless you have a bunch of DX lenses already at hand and do not expect to get pro level lenses in the future, I consider very improbable you can expect the long awaited pro DX zooms with constant wide maximum aperture and even more the very large aperture primes often figuring on wish lists from DX camera owners to appear. It is not a new DX 30mm f/1.4 which is the newest prime from Nikon but a 50mm f/1.4 AF-G... Even if I had a DX format Nikon DSLR, I wouldn't buy anymore DX lenses anyway... knowing most probably the next body will be a FX one.<br>

My personal feeling is for those who absolutely want DX format the D90 is a far better choice as the amateur range (with all its limitations) is likely to stay in DX format for some years.<br>

But anyone wishing to get or stay in the pro-semi-pro line will fair better with an FX format body and FX lens in the long run.<br>

So, as objective as anybody can try to stay, I consider buying an FX format body and FX compatible lenses is almost always a better deal in the long run.<br>

FPW</p>