Digital upgrade path

[david_ralph1]

<p>Like you, my move to digital SLR was the D70s. I have had the D300 for over a year now (I love it -- the D70s sits in the bag or gets handed over to my fiance at times), and I recently acquired the D700. I just had to have that low light ability of the D700 (which I have wanted since I used ASA 32 Kodachrome many moons ago). And, I have some <em>older</em> MF Nikkor lenses that will fill the D700 sensor, along with some modern full frame lenses which I bought while shooting the D70s and D300. I bought the recent lenses in anticipation that there would be a full sensor size shift at some point. But, the truth is that because I have been shooting small birds a lot, and doing some long range landscapes across Lake Champlain, the crop sensor of the D300 has been my better friend. A 200mm plus a teleconverter on a D300 is 50% longer than on the D700. One long lens for the D700 can easily cost more than multiple D700's.</p>

<p>So, I am not giving either camera back. For interior available light shots, the high ISO D700 is my baby. For reach, the D300 is going to be my gun for a long time.</p>

<p>So, I suppose a question to ask yourself is what do you shoot or want to shoot and how much reach do you want? If it means putting super telephotos on a D700, consider that expense versus the 50% added reach of the D300 with the same number of pixels. If you are going to shoot available light at closer range, the speed and dynamic range of the D700 may be the path to go.</p>

<p>Telling us what you do shoot or want to shoot might be helpful information for those who would reply to you.</p>

[david_ralph1]

<p>Scott, you mentioned using film medium format. FX by itself does not approach digital medium format image quality. D700 is "only" 12 megapixel. The FX Nikon that is compared to digital MF digital quality is the D3x, with 24 megapixels, not the D700. D3x also sells for $7,300 at B&H. Not a bargain unless compared to the cost of a MF digital back, which costs more than my parents' house did. I have not used the D3x, and not likely to for a long time. The reviews claim that it has a slight edge to the 24 megapixel SONY A900 at $2700, the claimed edge in image being higher noise at higher ISO's for the SONY and maybe an image processor that yields a somewhat different image for the NIKON.</p>

<p> </p>

[david_ralph1]

<p>Correction. I meant to say that the Nikon Dx3 has the edge in better noise control and, some say, an edge in image quality.</p>

<p>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d3x.shtml</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3x/</p>

[joe_a2]

<p>Scott....?</p>

[schristian1]

<p>I have the kit 18-70 mm DX, Micro 105mm 2.8 D, and 85mm 1.8 D. The D300 is pretty much at the top end of my budget.</p>