Serously considering the D700

[BourbonCowboy]

First off, I know this topic's been beaten to death. Second, I'm happy with my D300. Now, with that out of the way, I'll get to heart of my skewed logic.

I'm thinking about buying a D700. I don't need the camera, but it's definitely aroused my curiousity. Here's my thoughts:

- full frame intrigues me. I shoot a lot in low-light situations, and the idea of clean shots at ISO 1600+ is a major advantage. True ultrawide capabilities offered by FF cameras are also a plus.

- compatible grip. I won't have to buy a new grip for the D700. This means a lot to me, as I've based my entire photographic kit an the use of AA batteries (grip, flashes, Hyperdrive storage, etc.) Of course, the ability to use the D700 without a grip is also an advantage.

- my lens kit consists of mostly FF lenses. I won't have to retool my entire kit. The 17-55 is the exception, but it's just too good to part with. I might pick up the 14-24 later.

- I'll no longer need to find another camera for an IR conversion. I can now convert my D50 to IR and use the D300 as a backup/travel camera. The only down side to using the D300 in such a manner is the weight and size will be a bit more than I'd like.

- both the D700 and D300 will accept CF cards. This really isn't a huge issue, but I'll no longer have to worry about packing different cards when I shoot weddings or events.

- similar ergonomics/button layouts. I won't have to think about these changes when I swap cameras in the middle of a shoot.

- Keeping the D300 will allow me to use the "lengthened" DX crop when shooting at greater distances. Of course, the option to shoot FX will also be available.

- the option of using the WT-4 transmitter for both cameras is handy.


Now, with this being said, I think I'll wait a while until the D700 craze subsides a bit before I plunk down $3K. This really isn't an option, since I don't have $3K to spend on my hobby. But the opportunity to pick up a FF camera that will be instantly integrated into my kit without the need to purchase multiple, extraneous accessories and peripherials is appealing.

 

[vinman]

I'm with ya for most of the same reasons except I'm still shooting a 200.

The thing I'm most interested in is the incredible dynamic range (based on what I've seen from D3 images).

My lack of DX lenses and the ability to swap parts with an eventual D300 makes this camera very appealing.

One thing different, though - I'm planning to be an uncharacteristically early adopter. I'm just going to trust that most of the bugs have been worked out in the D300/D3.

Looks like I'm gonna have to pick up a few udma cards, though.

 

[Tom Swaman]

Just a constructive thought, but what would you think of moving this thread to the D700 forum. I think it fits better there and the comments/posts may be of more interests to the readers there.

Thanks for thinking about this,
Tom

 

[Commodorefirst]

Just saw this and it is moved to D700 forum.

Excellent post Mark with good thoughts and reflection on your needs and questions about your uses. Good for folks to read through.

Wade

 

[Big Daddy]

...

- full frame intrigues me. I shoot a lot in low-light situations, and the idea of clean shots at ISO 1600+ is a major advantage. True ultrawide capabilities offered by FF cameras are also a plus.

...

Mark,

Your thought process is logical to me. If you have an actual need for cleaner high ISO, want to use the 14-24/2.8 to its widest, and will maintain a D300 -- a D700 does sound quite useful.

I think it'd be a different decision process if you weren't going to hold on to the D300 (and lose the reach of some of your lenses).

Only other factor to consider may not be important to you -- additional size/weight of the D700 over your D50. (I'm assuming you carry two bodies? The D300 and D50 today?)

 

[crashmeister]

Mark, I couldn't agree more. As I posted elsewhere, for me this is not an either/or situation. If I get a D700, I'll definitely keep the D300 for the longer reach.

I have been re-kitting after selling most of my stuff. My lens lineup has D700 written all over it.

 

[wbeem]

I think it's likely that I'll pick up the D700. Whether I need it or not is superfluous. I don't need any of this, so those argument against my need for it essentially fall on deaf ears.

I'm intrigued by full frame, but not mystified by it. For all the talk about it, I think that's mostly hyperbole. However, it does affect me financially due to some of my existing lens purchases. There's nothing comparable to my 18-200 VR. My 12-24 and 10.5 Fisheye are DX lenses, so I'll want to replace them with their full frame counterparts. My 28-70 and 70-200 shouldn't be a problem.

The low light capabilities are what interest me in this camera, as the D3 before it. Let's face it, there's no comparison between this full frame sensor and my D200. I recently shot an event on stage where the light was ultra violet to show off the body paint of the performers. It made for a spectacular stage presentation, but an AWFUL environment to shoot with a D200. I wished for a D3 the entire time. With my D200, I have some very colorful blurs with noise.

Will I get a D3? Perhaps if the speculated D3x comes out with 25 megapickles, I may get it someday. That's a LOT of disk space to consume for a photo, but it more than makes up for the alleged "reach" of DX cameras. You can crop that sucker down and still have more pixel density than a DX would provide.

I kept my D200 instead of moving up to the D300 because I didn't really see enough of an advantage to make the switch. I think that I do see that change that I wanted with the D700.

Of course, my next concern is when Apple will release the RAW file compatibility updates, as I use Aperture for my RAW processor and library. Apple doesn't have an excellent track record for being snappy with these updates. It took them quite a while to get the D3 update out.

 

[Tom Swaman]

Mark,

I agree with your thoughts. I might add that I am in a very similar position except that I have 2 D300s now and I have become very use to these and have put a whole lot of time and effort into learning to use this camera through trial and error and digesting or trying to digest 100% of Thom Hogan's massive e-book. My lenses are all FX capable except for the 12-24mm f/4 AF-S G DX. I rather like the latter lens and I can readily use this with a polarizing filter for landscapes with skies on a bright day or for shooting over water, etc.

I can make good 16" X 20" or even a 17" X 22" finished prints at home with no problems if I shoot a good image.

I sure would prefer the D700 for FX, but I sure would prefer the D300 for DX. I would prefer one to one and one half stps better native noise reduction than posessed by the D300 and that spells D700. Then again, I rarely shoot at ISO values above 800 and I get good to great results with the D300.

My ThinkTank bag of tricks is full to the brim and the overflow is in my desk drawers and closet. I really do not need or want any more glass beyond what I now have and can presently accomodate in my dreams.

Oh what a dilemma, to D700 or not to D700? What a mind-taxing, pocketbook-ripping question!

Well, I intend to stand fast with my gear, enjoy what I have, practice my craft and pleasure in DX format and hope to live long enough to debate whether I will buy Nikon's FX model D85,000 when it is released. Of course, by then the money issue will also require revisiting.....

Just my thoughts,

Happy Fourth to all,
Tom

 

[Triggaaar]

Perhaps if the speculated D3x comes out with 25 megapickles, I may get it someday. That's a LOT of disk space to consume for a photo, but it more than makes up for the alleged "reach" of DX cameras. You can crop that sucker down and still have more pixel density than a DX would provide.

A 25mp fx sensor would be great for fx and dx, but it doesn't have as high pixel desnsity as the D300. DX cameras don't have 'alleged' reach. Due to the high image quality despite high pixel density, it's a very real reach advantage. The reach advantage will probably mean I go for the D300 instead of the D700, and then upgrade the D300 when the D3x sensor (or beyond) trickles it's way down.

 

[Donzo98]

I agree as well... makes total sense to me. :wink:

I see the following combos as "naturals"... same body and ergononomics. DX and FX for reach and wide angle/ lowlight.

D300 + D700

D2X/S + D3

 

[jamesd3rd]

95% viewfinder

For the D300 owners, how much of a factor do you feel is the 95% viewfinder coverage of the D700?

 

[BourbonCowboy]

For the D300 owners, how much of a factor do you feel is the 95% viewfinder coverage of the D700?

That's a good question. I hope someone can answer it. I'd also like to know if the L-brackets that fit the D300 will fit the D700. That would really be a bonus.

 

[MikeMcA²]

I wish my D300 had 95% of the D3's clarity, brightness, FOV, etc. It is so much easier to manually focus the D3, things are brighter/clearer, etc.

 

[Tom Swaman]

IMHO, the viewfinder coverage and eyepoint issues deped upon the type of photography you do and your eyes. I have spent much of my life doing close-up, macro and scientific photograpphy. Therefore, 100% coverage of the frame by the viewfinder is very important to me. For general shooting, this truly makes very little difference. In fact, viewfinder brightness is probably a bigger issue than is viewfinder coverage for general shooting.

Tom

 

[jamesd3rd]

Mark, I couldn't agree more. As I posted elsewhere, for me this is not an either/or situation. If I get a D700, I'll definitely keep the D300 for the longer reach.

I keep on seeing people mentioning the "reach" thing when they talk about DX bodies. I assume it has to do with the crop factor but it's not clear to me how that statement is intended. I know that with a DX body there is a different FOV because of the sensor size but does longer reach mean the subject appears closer when looking through the viewfinder?

If I drew a big red rectangle on the wall and composed a shot so it filled the entire viewfinder of a DX body then switched to an FX body and staying in the same spot, would I see space around the outside edges of the rectangle or would it also fill the viewfinder? If it did not fill it, to me that means it would appear as if I was farther away even though I didn't move.

 

[crashmeister]

James,

Short answer is yes, it would appear as if you were further away, and hence have a wider field of view. Good for the short end, bad for the long end.

 

[RogDen31]

I keep on seeing people mentioning the "reach" thing when they talk about DX bodies. I assume it has to do with the crop factor but it's not clear to me how that statement is intended. I know that with a DX body there is a different FOV because of the sensor size but does longer reach mean the subject appears closer when looking through the viewfinder?

If I drew a big red rectangle on the wall and composed a shot so it filled the entire viewfinder of a DX body then switched to an FX body and staying in the same spot, would I see space around the outside edges of the rectangle or would it also fill the viewfinder? If it did not fill it, to me that means it would appear as if I was farther away even though I didn't move.

it should appear the same size with the space around it as the FX viewfinder is meant to be larger than the DX one

 

[MikeMcA²]

it should appear the same size with the space around it as the FX viewfinder is meant to be larger than the DX one

I don't think that's accurate. If you frame something to fill the viewfimder on a D300, it will not fill the D3 viewfinder at the same distance.

 

[TomD.]

Good Post. I am in the same situtation and will sell the D200 leaving me the D300, D700.
I have the 12-24 which I will sell and pick up the 14-24. The 17 -35 would work as well but do not see to many used and new they are less than $100 diff. A good thought for a new thread. Lastly and most importantly, I am done for quite a while regarding bodies. What is left to come out with other than higher pixel count which is not important to me. My wife and probably 50% of you are laughing but it is true!

 

[jStat]

For the D300 owners, how much of a factor do you feel is the 95% viewfinder coverage of the D700?

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. The viewfinder for me is this: calibrate VF, look through it, and shoot.