D700

[scott_murphy_photography]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4470462">Jean-Yves Mead</a> "It's a fairly low resolution camera."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Says who? I have had 24 x 36 inch prints made from this "fairly low resolution camera" that are <em><strong>sharp as a tack</strong></em>. Several images I have shot for jewelry stores have made it to <em><strong>billboards. </strong></em>Not bad for a "fairly low resolution camera"</p>

[Two23]

<p>One other thought. You shoot portraits. The difference between a "pro" portrait and an amateur one is the lighting, not the camera gear. What lighting system do you have? For me, I've found that a large and capable lighting system has opened up entire ways of shooting just not possible before I had it.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

[shadforth_stephen]

<p>If one waits for the best, there will always be one better. I had a D300 and sold it only because of the finder and DX issues with all my old film lenses.<br>

The jump to FX for me is a step back to what I like about Nikons F film models. The D700 will satisfy me and at less than $2k used, thats a lot of camera for the money. I was also tempted to go to $3k and get a used D3, but it would be too big for me.<br>

That $1k difference buys me a good landscape lens and I considering the alternatives there.</p>

[stevenseelig]

<p>This probably will not answer your question, but maybe it will help. I shoot portraits and weddings. The full frame sensor and low light performance were critical to my decision to purchase the body and it has been a wonderful performing camera. <br>

What do I miss? Well, I am beginning to understand why I would want to have HD video built into my still camera. The other thing I would like to have would be higher resolution (16-18 megapixels), but not at the expense of ISO performance. Dual card functionality with video on one card and stills on the other card would be a nice feature as well.</p>

[bill_dewberry]

<p>Well maybe; as " Marc Hauser " was taught photography by his dad, " cropping is for famers ".<br>

Just depends .</p>

[photo5]

<p>I crop in camera, never in post unless I'm selling an image to a client. I also shot film and printed the entire image as often as I could. I guess I'm a purist in that way. Having the ability to shoot a clean image without needing cropping afterwards is an important skill. And I prefer the 3:2 aspect ratio to remain a constant in all my images for slideshows, etc. The D300 is as close to 100% as I've ever experienced in a digital camera, and I can't go down from there. The 89% of the D700 is just a joke, frankly, at the price they charge for it.<br>

And Kent is spot on, the lighting and lenses matter more than FX or DX. Save your money on the camera body with the D300s, and spend the leftover on a good lens. You won't regret it.</p>

[Albins images]

<p>I had to buy myself an expensive 12-24mm zoomlens to 'regain' wide angle performance on my then new DX D200. That was $1100 (or so) that could have been saved if I could have used my old-'n-trusted 24/2.8's on a FX body..</p>

<p>Amazing! After 5 years I'm still mourning and moaning about that.</p>

[john_n._wall]

<p>The D700 is the single most satisfying camera I've used, and I've used lots of cameras. I love the feel of the body, the flexibility the chip gives me for adapting to changing light levels when shooting hand-held, the fact that I can use all the f/2.8 zooms and fast primes I used to use on my film cameras, the infinite range of things I can do with the image once I've made it, and on and on.</p>

<p>Yes, the slightly cropped viewfinder takes a bit of time to get used to, but there is nothing wrong with the image that was posted that a flick of the mouse won't fix in PhotoShop. We aren't shooting slides any longer, folks.</p>

<p>On the other hand, the simple fix for the viewfinder is to crop one's images to what the viewfinder shows, and voila, a 100% viewfinder. I bet it can be done automatically.</p>

<p>Must be the season, but many of the responses on this thread to the original question are especially testy, uncivil, and downright grouchy. This is supposed to be a kind of community, folks; lets try to be neighborly.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p><em>If you don't need modern f/2.8 zoom lenses with vibration reduction, there are lots of inexpensive lenses that work beautifully on FX -- especially low resolution FX like the D700 and D3.</em></p>

<p>there's two sides to this argument.<br>

1) if you do need a 2.8 VR zoom, nikon currently doesnt make one in the all-important 24-70 (FX) or 17-55 (DX) range -- but both tamron and sigma do, for DX. these are relatively inexpensive as well, certainly less than the non-VR nikkors.<br>

2) having a d700 or d3 series camera opens up new possibilities. a 300/4, for instance, can be had used for under $1000. the slower aperture, as opposed to the 2.8 version, can be compensated for with little image quality loss by raising the ISO and maintaining a high shutter, on an FX camera.</p>

<p>this brings us to another salient point: "low resolution FX"</p>

<p>12mp isnt exactly low resolution, but its a truism that the higher the rez, the better the glass needs to be. this is true throughout the nikon line. for instance, the 18-70 was great on the 6mp d70. but even on my 10mp d80, its shortcomings became more apparent. or take the 70-200 VR I, which was developed before nikon had an FX camera. d3 and d700 users noticed fairly quickly the corners dropped way off on FX, necessitating nikon to come up with the VR II. and if you look at the DPreview article on the d7000, they state in no uncertain terms that the 18-105 VR kit is underpowered for a 16mp Dx sensor.</p>

<p>all of which means that, as mp counts rise, legacy glass may not be up to the challenge. my suggestion, therefore, is to find a medium between sensor and glass that's right for you. 12mp is a decent benchmark--most older nikkors work well on d700/d3/d300/d90--but there are already reports that "my lens isnt as sharp as i thought it was" on a 16mp d7000. this could lead to either increased cost or increased frustration, unless a sensible lens/body strategy is pursued.</p>

<p>btw, my sigma 15-30, purchased for $160 used, is looking pretty spiffy on my $5k D3s. i'm sure the 14-24 would be better, but i'm pretty pleased with the results.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>