Longtime D200 user w/ DX Lenses thinking about the switch to D700

[CoryAmmerman]

<p>I think that, if I were in your shoes, my plan would be to wait until the supply issues get sorted out and then sell the 17-55 and one of the d200's and maybe the 10.5. Then I'd get either the d700 replacement (or the D700 when/if the price drops after it's replaced) and a 24-70 and an 80-200 or 70-200 depending on what your budget allows. I'd keep the 24-70 on the D700 and the xx-200 on the d200 that you kept. That way you don't have to deal with the crop factor on the wide end and you can use it to your advantage on the long end. Later on, you can upgrade the remaining D200, but I'd stay with a crop sensor, since the extra reach can be useful.</p>

<p>Like you, I started out with film and now shoot DX digital. I still shoot some film every now and then. Every time I pick up one of my film cameras, I'm constantly reminded of the difference between FX and DX. Getting back to having my lenses have a field of view that I'm used to would seal the deal for me. Although, I primarily shoot landscapes and don't currently own a lens wider than 20mm, so the crop factor may be more of a hindrance to me than it is to you.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>you'll get better glass with a 1.4, brighter viewfinder, and gain two stops of ISO.......to me it's the obvious first step</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Aside from the things that Shun already pointed out, the "brighter viewfinder" is a myth.</p>

<p>Modern "bright screen" focusing screens scatter light mostly over a 10-15 degree cone, so only light from the f4-5.6 portion of a lens's exit pupil contributes significantly to what you see in the viewfinder. You see some slight brightening with an f2.8 lens, but it's less than a stop above what you see at f4. You see virtually no difference at f2.0 or f1.4.</p>

<p>If you want a brighter viewfinder, springing for full frame is basically your only choice. They are both larger and brighter (I measure them, I don't just repeat incorrect "common knowledge") than APS cameras.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>I don't notice a difference the last time I change from a f2.8 lens to a f2 lens on my D700.<br>

You have a lens set for DX and the D7000 looks to be a very good body. It might be wise to stay with DX unless you have some pressing need for FX. I had a bad case of NAS a few years back when I upgraded from a D200.</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>Joseph makes a good point. The same question comes up a lot with rifle scopes; the theory is that a larger diameter scope will transmit more light to your eye. However, during the day even inexpensive scopes will give you all the light your eye can actually see at low to mid magnification. The idea of a brighter viewfinder is no different. It will be brighter, but it <em>won't</em> be brighter at the settings you'll actually be using most of the time.</p>

[eric friedemann]

<p>The D200 isn't a body with a dim viewfinder to begin with. With the D200, Nikon included a new, redesigned finder with better magnification to match the APS-C sensor. With my eyes not being what the were when I was young, the D200 finder was a swell feature. I didn't feel the need for added finder "brightness" with my D200 that might be provided by my f/1.4 lenses versus, say, my 17-55mm f/2.8 DX lens.</p>

<p>This was in marked contrast to my previous D100 bodies. The D100 body appeared to have the same finder as an N80 film body, one which appeared designed for full frame viewing. The DX finder image appeared small and dim. I will say that I perceived my f/1.4 lenses as providing a better viewing experience on my D100 bodies than my f/2.8 lenses. </p>

<p>The new f/1.4 Nikkor lenses I've played with are beautiful- I may yet trade in my 85mm f/1.4 AF-D lens for the new version. However, my go-to lens for shooting event stuff was a 17-55mm f/2.8 DX lens on D100/D200 bodies and is a 24-70mm f/2.8 Nikkor with my D700 bodies.</p>

[tuomas_kaira]

<p>Hi<br>

I have similar dilemma. I have D200 now and I'm planning on upgrading. What I'm not happy about with the D200 is high ISO performance and also I could use better auto-focus. My choices are pretty much D300, D700 and D7000.</p>

<p>With D7000 I think I would get the high ISO performance I need (want). But is the af significantly better? Exposure bracketing is only 3 frames (maybe I could live with that). and I would have to get new memory cards and batteries.</p>

<p>With D300(s) I would have the better af. I could use my extra batteries and CF cards. I would also have all the controls and features that I now have with D200. Also the buffer is way bigger than the one in D7000.</p>

<p>With the D700 I would get the better auto-focus, better high ISO performance all the controls and features I want and I would be able to use my batteries and CF cards. And thats the camera I want.</p>

<p>But as always there is a but. I have some good (or at least decent) lenses, but most of theme DX. My zooms are sigma 10-20, 50-150/2.8 and nikkor 17-55/2.8. I also have couple of primes: nikkor 35/1.8, 50/1.4 af(non-D), 85/1.8 and 55/2.8 micro. <br>

If I went the D700 route, I would sell all three zooms and the D200, witch would hopefully get me enough money to buy the d700. Of course I would be left only with the 50 and 85. In addition I would get something wide, probably some wide prime or cheap zoom (like 18-35) at first and get better one later if needed. And then I would need also a tele zoom. Probably nikkor 70-300, 80-200 or sigma 70-200.<br>

And for the record photography is just a hobby for me. Here are some examples of what I shoot <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tkaira/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/tkaira/</a> <br>

Does this sound stupid? Would I be better of picking up one of the DX options?<br>

Thank you for any help!</p>