Another D300s or D700 Question....

[greg_jones1]

<p>Normally, I dont post "what should I buy" questions on these forums as I usually can figure that out myself. However I am in a position to upgrade from a lowly (but quite functional) D200 to either a D300 or a D700. <br>

What do I shoot? Well, landscapes, environmental portraits, flowers, and virtually anything else that catches my attention. I no longer do photography professionally so am not selling my work. I do enjoy and feel that I need quality gear. I like abstract, as found, and wildlife although I haven't convinced myself to buy the zillion dollar long lenses that are necessary for that. Anyway, I shoot a wide variety of stuff. My largest prints are 16X20, generally.<br>

This will make Kent in SD cringe, but I am trying to decide on either a D300s and a AFS 17-35mm or buying a D700 to use the following old-timer lenses on it:<br>

24 f2.8 AIS, 35 f2.0 AIS, 25-50mm AIS, 50-135mm AIS (this zoom is ungodly sharp), 85mm f1.4, 105 f2.5, 180mm f2.8 ED. Oh, I do have one of those little 50 f1.8 AF lenses but dont like it-doesnt seem as good as my 50mm f1.8 AI version. Build quality is "a la Mattel."<br>

My reason for leaning towards the D700 is the low light capability and full frame. I used to use the 85mm f1.4 and especially the 105mm f2.5 in low light and caught some magical moments. These lenses dont do the same thing on DX of course and become "longer" lenses in practice. (No, the focal length of 85mm and 105mm REALLY do not change-the field of view changes.) So I have it in my head that I could work with a D700 much like I did on my F2AS cameras. The samples of these ancient lenses are excellent and I have produced very sharp images on the D200. (except for CA on the 24mm which makes it unuseable on the D200) However, the D200 is best used at or about its native ISO without pumping up too much. Hence my desire for 1) low light capability and 2) for my Nikkors to behave with the field of view that I grew up on in the film era. For the time being auto focus is not a big deal to me as I am not shooting so fast that I need it. I would like it but that is down the road.<br>

Cons with the D700: expensive, and you just know the minute I buy one something better will pop out albeit for even more money<br>

Then I come back to the D300s. It is about a thousand USD less expensive. I have always coveted the 17-35mm Nikkor having used one for a while. That would give me something like a 25-52 FOV equivalent which is generally wide enough for me except in rare cases. <br>

So...if you had an allowance of $2500 USD what choice would you make? Get a D700 and use the oldie but goodie glass at its originally intended FOV, or stick with DX and a new zoom lens (at a little bit more than $2500 USD-more like $3000)?</p>

<p> </p>

[holger]

<p>D700. You have the lenses, you don't seem to need the crop factor for wildlife or sports, you love the FX feeling. In the end both will get you the same shots, but with the D300s, you will always feel, well, cropped, regarding your existing lenses. I would not care at all about new cameras coming out, a D700s/x or whatever. Todays D700 output is better than anything we have had in this class since Daguerre, and if you take a look at the galleries, perfect pictures can be had from any camera around, even a D40 would limit you in handling, but not in getting good pictures.</p>

<p>I had a similar choice to take, but ended up with the D300 instead. Main reason: lenses. I don't own FX lenses any more, so getting a D700 would have meant getting the 27-70 or 28-70 1:2.8, too, pushing the D700 completely out of my financial reach. So I decided to build a perfect DX world, in which I am completely happy now. In your situation, I would have gone D700, without looking back.</p>

<p>Holger</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Those lenses should work great on the D700. Personally I wouldn't want to go back to the small viewfinder and reduced field of view of DX. The benefits in SNR today are substantial (and in future there will be higher resolution available) not to mention being able to use existing lenses close to the way as they were designed to be used.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>To add, if you're considering the 17-35/2.8 you might also look into the 16-35/4 which is newer and is likely to be better optimized for the sensors used in Nikon's current cameras. Of course, it's f/4 and not f/2.8 but worth a look.</p>

<p>Also, the 17-55/2.8 DX is a good lens for use on DX cameras.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>What do I shoot? Well, landscapes, environmental portraits, flowers, and virtually anything else that catches my attention.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>None of those seems to require excellent high-ISO capability. I wonder exactly what is so wrong with the D200 for shooting those subjects? The D300/D300S will give you one more stop of high ISO results and the D700 will give you another one. Are those really necessary? Only the OP can tell.</p>

<p>In this case getting a D700 seems to be spending a lot of money for the sake of getting FX. To me, there is little doubt that the D700 is late in its production cycle and is a body which will depreciate rapidly once something newer comes on the scene, most likely within months.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>If you need better low light then a D700 will deliver an extra stop as Shun mentions. I use a D700 with older AIS primes. IMHO your weak link will be the 24mm with soft corners and the 35mm less so. I use them often as well as the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8. You should see less CA using these lenses with the D700. Why don't you rent a D700 body and see how the wide primes perform for you? If you go FX you may want a wide zoom like the 17-35mm or new 16-35mm or pick on Zeiss prime for wide angle.</p>

[Two23]

<p>LOL. You need to decide if wildlife is more important than the other subjects. If so, get the D300. D300 plus a nice $1,000 lens is what I would probably do. I think you'll see a bigger difference with the lens.<br />Kent in SD</p>

[holger]

<p>>>To me, there is little doubt that the D700 is late in its production cycle and is a body which will depreciate rapidly once something newer comes on the scene, most likely within months<<</p>

<p>Not so sure of this: as in analog times, bodies tend to hold prices better now. The D700 will be a good body even with D700s/x/... coming out. You won't own a worthless old body right after stepping out of the shop. Look at D300 prices: the price I payed for the used D300 I bought last week was only 250 EUR lower than what I payed for a new D300 a year ago. Obviously movie mode and second card slot and whatever nearly did not change a thing on D300 prices. D200 is different, not because it's old, but because it's never been good. When the D80 was launched, many of us (me included) sticked to D70, simply because upgrading wasn't worth it and in some situations even gave worse results (high ISO and such). The initial run for the D200 was caused mainly by its rugged body, the digital F100 everyone had been waiting for. It gives good results, yes, but while the D200 sensor was maybe 1/2 step up from D70, the D300 is 1.5 steps up from D200, and, maybe more important, good enough in most situations.</p>

<p>In my opinion a D700 will never "depreciate rapidly". Many of us poorer shooters, hobbyists and amateurs are waiting eagerly for D700 falling from professionals heaven, and as with the D300, yes, every used gear loses some value, but we will never see a D700 at half the price just because the D700s/x/... came out. It's too good a camera, and too many of us know this. I stick to my D300, it has been a financial decision and I love the camera, but every time I look through the wonderful D700 viewfinder, I can see my D300 being passed on to my sons and me finally switching back to FX. </p>

[Two23]

<p>Holger--</p>

<p>I'll point out that Canon 5D are selling for just under $1,000 now. That was a pretty big drop from original retail. There is still tremendous downward pressure on camera bodies. Currency fluctuations play a big role also.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

[holger]

<p>Kent: the Canon 5D has never been a "perfect" body, and the Mark II is a much improved camera in comparison. Sure a used D700 will lose a bit of value compared to a new D700 today, but not as much as a 5D lost with a Mark II appearing on the market. That at least is my personal impression I got watching price and product development used and new in the last months. </p>

<p>You are right with currency fluctuations. But that applies to all of the camera makers alike. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Holger, I would strongly disagree with your accessments. The D200 has always been a fine camera, but Nikon put so much into the D300 that once it appeared on the scene, value for the D200 and D2X just had to drop like a rock. Likewise, Canon's 5D and 5D Mark II are not that difference except for the pixel count progression and the added video capability. To me, the main drawback for the 5D was its IMO out-of-date AF system when it was introduced. To my surprise, Canon retained that same AF system 3 years later when they introduced the 5D Mark II.</p>

<p>Perhaps I am a somewhat influenced by my experience with the D2X. Back in 2005, I paid close to the original $5000 for one and it was far superior to any Nikon camera I had used prior to it. But once the D300 appeared on the scene, the D2X/D2XS immediately lost like 2/3 of its value almost overnight.</p>

<p>Given that Nikon has already put an imporved sensor onto the D3S, I have every reason to believe that the difference between the D700 and its successor will be consierably bigger than the D300 and D300S. I have had a D300 from the very beginning and see no reason to upgrade to a D300S.</p>

[greg_jones1]

<p>Perhaps I could have been a little clearer about what I shoot. For example, my landscapes are rarely in the blazing hot sun of the day. Instead I shoot in the early morning or late evening. Penumbra light is the best! And even though I usually shoot landscapes on a tripod, it is nice to be able to stop tree branches and things from moving about. Or sometimes not.....</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Greg, by far the majority of good landscape images are captured early in the morning or late evening. People have been doing that for decades with ISO 25 or 50 film with no major issues. When I shoot landscape on a tripod with DSLRs, I rarely deviate from the base ISO.</p>

<p>Even though modern DSLRs have very good high ISO capabilities, there is still a difference for each stop you raise above the base. At least I wouldn't throw away quality unless there are good reasons to do so.</p>

[greg_jones1]

<p>Shun-<br>

I must confess that I am confused. Everything I read and what people tell me is that the image quality "straight out of the camera" is much better in either a D300 and a D700 than a D200, regardless of ISO used. So are you telling me that a D200 is as good a camera as the D300 and or D700 with the exception of high-ISO sensitivity? I should probably rent both cameras and see for myself.</p>

[photo5]

<p>Greg,<br>

In my experience D300 and D700 are a big leap forward from the D200 in terms of image quality regardless of ISO used.<br>

Hope this helps,<br>

Dave</p>

[greg_kowalczewski]

<p>Hire or borrow the D700 (FX format) for a weekend and try it out under the "low light" conditions that you intend to shoot. Then you will know first hand whether the perceived benefits in your mind match up with printed reality by way of comparison with what your D200 (DX format) can deliver under the same "low light" conditions, notwithstanding the differences in the formats. (I have made the assumption that you would still continue to make prints).</p>

[breogan_gomez]

<p>There are several comparisons between D200 and D300 at base ISO. Users and technical tests show the benefit of having the D300 over the D200 at base ISO is marginal. I can not coment on the D700 but I wouldn't be surprised that this is the same case.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>In my experience D300 and D700 are a big leap forward from the D200 in terms of image quality regardless of ISO used.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dave, I am very interested in seeling some A/B comparisons to demonstrate this claim.</p>

<p>I have the D2X, D200, D300 and D700. At least I have a hard time seeing any significant difference among them at the base ISO under usual shooting conditions.</p>

<p>The D200 has the weakest AF among the four, and the D300 and D700 have live view. There are certainly differences if you need excellent AF or live view can help you focus.</p>

[holger]

<p>Shun, I agree that IQ at base Iso and modest enlargement is not visibly different between sensors. But as soon as you go above ISO 400, it is not only visible, but limiting too in terms of cropping, color correction, sharpness and details. I work both with a D200 and D300 and had a D700 at hand for testing. Most of my work is in places like churches, no flash allowed. Going from D200 to D300 was a huge improvement for me, with visible difference in IQ. Plus better AF. Now, I agree that the step from D300 to D700 is not so impressive. If I had the money, I would get the D700 mostly for the much better viewfinder, plus a little better IQ. With little to spend, no FX lenses around and no real need for highest ISO (above 1600) there is no point in going FX for me as of today. The OP, on the other hand, does own a bag full of great FX lenses, so I don't see why he should not make the switch.</p>

<p>Maybe one detail that supports your point of view: I have to admit that all this IQ talk is very personal. My customers were absolutely happy with my D70 pictures, equally happy with the ones from my D200, as well as with the latest ones from D300. I doubt that anyone would return the pictures ranting about the antique camera I had been using, should I make another shooting with my D200 or even D70. They would probably see more of a difference if I returned to my 18-70 AF-S lens. But to me, sitting in front of my computer screen working on the pictures in detail, there is a difference. Not only from the aesthetic point of view, but with influence on the work I have to do in order to get the pictures to the point of my liking. In the end however there is not too much of a difference to see.</p>

<p>So you may be well right, even if we don't agree on the value of a D700 in the near future. </p>

[fun]

<p>I have a D700 and I tasted a D300. D700 it is better and will work perfect with your great old lenses. For me the verdict it is 100% sure: D700.<br>

Best regards,<br>

Emilian</p>

[garrison_k.]

<blockquote>

<p><em>In my experience D300 and D700 are a big leap forward from the D200 in terms of image quality regardless of ISO used.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree. It's hard to pick up the D200 after using anything newer. Shun, is there a difference in dynamic range?</p>

<p>If you can swing it, Greg, I'd go for the D700. But wait a couple months.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I agree. It's hard to pick up the D200 after using anything newer. Shun, is there a difference in dynamic range?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Garrison, as I challenged Dave Lee, could you guys post some A/B comparisons to demonstrate your point, e.g. dynamic range differences? Otherwise, it is merely meaningless empty claims.</p>

<p>There may be a difference in dynamic range, but that is not something I pay much attention to. In the past I mainly shot slide film with 5 stops of dynamic range, and I could even lived with that for decades. Any DSLR is a huge improvement over slide film in terms of dynamic range.</p>

<p>As I said, I currently have the D200, D300, and D700. If I want to I can do an A/B/C test any day, but it shouldn't be me who does the hard work all the time in order to dispute these empty claims.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>BTW, DPReview has just published an interview with Nikon's General Manager for Marketing: <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10022304nikonbalance.asp">http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10022304nikonbalance.asp</a></p>

<p>It is very clear that while the D3S is optimized for high-ISO performance, the up-coming Nikon (FX) DSLRs will have more than 12MP. While I still feel hat 12MP is plenty, at least for me, for landscape work such as the OP's, more pixels will be an advantage. Expect to pay for 20+MP with Nikon's best AF on the D700 type body, though. In any case, that is another sign that the D700's value will drop quickly when those new DSLRs are announced. Whether they really need it or not, plenty of people will upgrade for more pixels.</p>

[jwallphoto]

<p>I'm still using my D200 and will keep it until it goes belly-up. But then I only stopped using my film camera when all the local E6 labs closed down for lack of business. I'm waiting at least for the next iteration of the D700. It's a boatload of bucks for a guy who works at a non-profit organization, so I'm really hoping for perfection, and that doesn't mean 95% viewfinder accuracy and playing second fiddle to the Canon 5D Mk II.</p>

[garrison_k.]

<p><em>As I said, I currently have the D200, D300, and D700. If I want to I can do an A/B/C test any day, but it shouldn't be me who does the hard work all the time in order to dispute these empty claims.</em></p>

<p>As you "challenged David"? Empty claims? Well, someone needs coffee don't they? It was an opinion, not a claim. I don't seem to be alone, either.</p>

<p>Shun, are you saying the two bodies are on par in terms of file quality at low iso? A simple yes or no is the the only hard work I wish to see.</p>

<p>The D200 became my back up when I got the D300. Sometimes I shot them side by side at events and had to post pro them together. I recall the D200 blowing highlights and not having the shadow detail that the D300 could retain/achieve. From what I recall, the D200 had more shadow noise at all iso's. Out of the D200 and D300, only one was considered a "D2x killer".</p>

<p>They is plenty fine folk here that have shot both; that have upgraded to the D300 from the D200. Maybe banter back and forth with them?</p>

<p> </p>