I'm a heretic but maybe the D300 has some advantages over a D700.

[Vernon t]

If ever there was a "grass is greener phenomena it was in our lust for a FF sensor in recent years.

Before you leap to the D700 from a D300 ask yourself what the D300 isn't doing well enough for you.

I'm a happy D3 owner but I miss the reach of the D2x's DX crop.

You, in a move to FF/FX will spend a lot.
Lenses, my moves:
12-24 to a 17-35
17-55 to a 24-70.
10.5 to a 16.
My 300 isn't a 500 any more and I won't buy a 500.
Not to mention my 14-24 lust.

Still....the D700 is a sweet camera.

But think carefully, do you need a D700.
If you want it buy it. You may not need it.

I've spent my life as a heretic/infidel. Why change now??:biggrin:
Do you need it or want it.

If I was to buy a camera to back up my D3 it would be a D300, not a D700.
Come to think of it think of it, there should be some cherry D300's hitting the sale forum for a nice discount......well......we'll see.

 

[Muonic]

Exactly why I want a pro body, 12Mp, DX crop camera, that has the same speed and high ISO capabilities of the D3. I like the DX crop.

Think I'll get it anytime soon? :biggrin:

 

[Vernon t]

Exactly why I want a pro body, 12Mp, DX crop camera, that has the same speed and high ISO capabilities of the D3. I like the DX crop.

Think I'll get it anytime soon? :biggrin:

Sadly, no.
The D300 is an awesome camera but the pro bodies are just something special. To know them is to love them. I shot some in the last couple of weeks with a D200 and a Canon pro-body and loved my D3 all the more but I still miss the D2x.

 

[Muonic]

Yeah, I'm hanging on to my D2x. But I may have to get a D3 to go with it.

 

[Donzo98]

Vernon... look at my sig...

D3 + D2XS = :Love:

Both pro bodies... same ergos, DX for reach in good light, FX for wide angle and low light.

I have been saying this for months now... :wink:

 

[Creative Edge]

not me...got rid of the d2x, replaced with a d300...
loving every minute of it....:biggrin::biggrin:

 

[SP77]

My D40 still has 1/500s flash sync!! :biggrin:

 

[plaifatt]

Fully agree with the cost factor Vernon......but.
Having shot film for years, I have always looked at DX as a stepping stone towards full frame. Once I committed to Nikon, I said I would buy their first FF camera and I did. It has cost me a lot so far , but I still believe FF is the future and eventually most DSLR's will have them. It's still realtively new and so the costs are high. DX has it's advantages with reach, P&S for portability, but FF will eventually rule (IMHO).

 

[wbeem]

Why do so many people ask if we need a FF camera? Need is irrelevant to many of us. If we want it, that's enough.

People have different desires.

 

[Vernon t]

Fully agree with the cost factor Vernon......but.
Having shot film for years, I have always looked at DX as a stepping stone towards full frame. Once I committed to Nikon, I said I would buy their first FF camera and I did. It has cost me a lot so far , but I still believe FF is the future and eventually most DSLR's will have them. It's still realtively new and so the costs are high. DX has it's advantages with reach, P&S for portability, but FF will eventually rule (IMHO).

No way that I can disagree but....

We on this board are not at all representative of a "typical" Nikon buyer, whatever the heck that is. We are the high end buyers.

I was in Costco twice on the same day around Xmas and noticed an entire end-cap display pile of D40 kits disappear in a few hours....maybe 100 of them. Costco has 537 stores.
I suspect that that market segment is efficiently and economically well served by the diminutive DX sensor and light DX lenses.

If we enjoy debating DX/FX I suspect we could do so for quite some years.

I know I'll sell my dusty D2H soon. To get a D2x or a D300.....Hmmmmmm:biggrin:
Oh, who am I kidding....I'll get that 14-24 first.

 

[Nuteshack]

superior? no more than it is to the d3..come on man, u been standing on your head too long ..lol

;-)))

 

[Vernon t]

Why do so many people ask if we need a FF camera? Need is irrelevant to many of us. If we want it, that's enough.

People have different desires.

Sorry, you may be missing my point.

I think some people who don't particularly want or need FX will move in that direction (insert sheep analogy PRN) only to be struck by the not insignificant cost of migration.

As a current owner of DX and FX pro bodies and DX and FX Nikkors I'm just asserting an informed move to FX is needed, rather that ill prepared mass migration

For years many FX proponents have been profoundly well versed in FX's advantages. Many, however, have been bandwagon groupies or smitten with Canon envy.

You and I may buy things merely based on "want" but quite a few others might not be so fortunate.

V

 

[Retief]

Can someone please explaing to me why we continue to have the "is this one better than that one" debates? This conitnuing "debate" of "Pro" vs "other" bodies, different features, yada-yada-yada, isn't it really a matter of what each indivicual needs/wants and can afford? What the heck is the point? How many of you actually outperform the camera's you have now? For me, what I shoot, what I can afford, the D300 is far superior to the D3 and the D700, big deal. Are there some features of the D3/D700 I'd like to have? Yeah, 1/8000 of a second in Auto ISO is one small example :wink:.

You mention "need" Vernon, I'll bet you that only a small percentage of D3 owners actually "need" the features of the D3, but in the long run, so what?

 

[Vernon t]

superior? no more than it is to the d3..come on man, u been standing on your head too long ..lol

;-)))

Gotta' keep the blood up (er...down) there in my cortex.:biggrin:

 

[Retief]

Sorry, you may be missing my point.

....
You and I may buy things merely based on "want" but quite a few others might not be so fortunate.

V

And so what? It seems to me that we survived for a lot of years in an "FX only" world, didn't we? This debate has been hashed, rehashed and the poor horse has been so kicked that it has had to be resurrected multiple times.

To be honest, this is almost as bad as the constant reminders of TV going All-Digital next year, so we better be prepared :wink:

 

[ssjarz]

For the cost of a D700, one can almost buy TWO pro lens. Glass in my opinion is more important than the FF sensor. I also don't like relearning the idiosyncrasies of yet another camera every two years. Having said the above, I will probably get a D700 if and when the price goes down to something more reasonable, like $2500, and stick with it. My personal goal is to eventually find one body that does 99% of what I want it to do and then learn the camera so well that it becomes transparent to my goal of taking great pictures.

 

[MikeMcA²]

Arrrggggh. :smile:

The D300 is not "superior" to any camera, nor is the D3, nor will the D700 be. It's like claiming a chainsaw is superior to a jackhammer. They are all tools, and all "superior" in doing the certain things they do well. D300 is likely "superior" to the D3/D700 to bird photographers. D3 and D700 are likely far superior to the D300 for wedding photographers and to us "oldsters" who shot 35mm for years and love that a 85mm once again plays like 85mm. The D3 is likely superior to PJs needing to get that combat shot in low light without drawing fire with a speedlight. The D300/D700 will be superior to the D3 for those who cherish lighter body weight and a smaller package. The D3 will be superior for those who need 11 FPS. D700 will be superior (and less costly) for those who don't. D300 will remain superior for those with vast DX lens collections.

And I cannot fathom why someone so new to photography and so unfamiliar with basic digital photographic facts as to not understand the difference between DX and 35mm/FX-oriented lenses/bodies would fork out the $2995 for the D700 just 'cause it's new (and in doing so with their DX glass assortment end up with a $2995, 5.1 MP, better high ISO D300), but if they can afford to, it will be a valuable/expensive lesson and more power to them. And if they do dump their D300 for a D700, and they suddenly find they've wasted a certain amount of cash because they bought before doing basic research/education, is that Nikon's or the inanimate D700's fault?

 

[gavin]

Personally, I want full frame so that my 105dc shines as it really should.

My photography doesn't use long reach, so I won't miss that. But I surely love how a 50, a 20, etc feel in FF. That's one of the reasons I use my FM2 more than my digital bodies nowadays.

So yeah, no camera is inherently superior to any other. Just different uses and users.

 

[Vernon t]

The inherent flaw in my OP was my failure to define "superior" and for that I apologize.:redface:

So I readily recognize that I may have annoyed a few posters with this thread but the essence of the responses is quite heartening.

A couple of years age the cry for FF was often an ill directed dysfunctional cacophony.

Now the DX/FX discussion is grounded on needs rather than wants. Nice.
Despite my having thought it through rather carefully the FX-migration price was rather steep for me, even more so than anticipated.

 

[TonyBeach]

Glass is an issue, and not least of these considerations is the reportedly poor performance of the legendary 70-200/2.8 VR on the D3 at longer focal lengths. So whether I buy a D700 (it's very tempting) or an eventual higher resolution FX DSLR, I'll be keeping my D300 and the 70-200 will probably live on it (Note to self: I'm going to need a bigger camera backpack).