D700 - Should I upgrade from my D300?

kirbinster

D700 - Should I upgrade from my D300?
<HR style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff; COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->I have the itch to upgrade, for the high ISO capability - but is that enough? Should I do it or not? I've found a nice on with about 5k clicks for $1,700.

I currently have a D300, D90 and D5000, and figure if I get this I'll sell the D300. You can see my glass in my sig.

What are the pro's and con's of going with the D700?

catspaw

ISO is nice, but the full frame capability is a HUGE factor as well -- is that the next step for you?

Eyeballing your lenses, it looks like three of them will work FX (85mm, 70-200, 24-70 ... and really you are nicely covered w/ just those. sell the rest if you need money!), the rest are DX (not as familiar w/ the Tamrons I admit). Overall, it seems like you have a bit ... much. I'd classify the D90/D5000 in the same boat. Pick one, sell the other. Then decide if you want to go full frame with a D700 or upgrade to a D300s if you feel your D300 isn't cutting it. Again, weigh out the pros and cons for that one (FX, DX, ISO, costs, etc)

good luck!

Art Scott

Why on earth would you sell off the D300?? Just because it will bring more money than the other 2.......I would ditch the D500 and D90....keep the 300 to accompany the D700.......

Is it worht it to upgrade just for the Higher ISO......For me it would be....but that is due to my shooting............How often do you really need to shoot at Iso 3200 and above???

For me I do shoot a lot of High ISO events....Mimes and Dance troups....concerts...so being able to go higher would be nice but not necessary.......I want to go back to the ease I had in framing with a 35mm
film camera......after 6 yrs I still have to stop and think bout how to frame with the DX sensor for what I want out of the shot....then crop it.........I can't shoot as tight as I did with 35mm or medium format......
When I go to a city such as Lexington Ky to shoot the city FF would be great and so would the higher iso...as I always do shoot a lot of night time street scenes and city light shots for the book publisher.....

Just giving you something to think about...................

kirbinster

Thanks. The 70-300VR is DX as well. I look at the D700 as a replacement for the D300, I would keep the D90 and the D5000. I like the 1.5x factor for daytime use of shooting animals, and the D5000 is a great walk around body as it is so light weight. Figure if I go with the D700 I will have to buy a wide FX lens before too long, but I don't think I would sell anything other than the D300 and possibly the Tamron 200-500 that I don't use that much.

As far as selling the D90 rather than the D300 I don't think so. I am very happy with the D90, and if it existed when I got the D300 I don't think I would have gotten the D300. Plus the D700 has all the features of the D300 plus the full frame. I know the D90 does not have all the autofocus points, but I don't see that I would miss that most of the time.

Icebear

kirbinster wrote: »

Thanks. The 70-300VR is DX as well.

Don't think so . . .

kirbinster

Really? I'll have to double check I always thought it was.

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2161/AF-S-VR-Zoom-NIKKOR-70-300mm-f%252F4.5-5.6G-IF-ED.html#tab-ProductDetail.ProductTabs.TechSpecs

Says: FX, DX, FX in crop mode, and 35mm

ARKreations

kirbinster wrote: »

Really? I'll have to double check I always thought it was.

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2161/AF-S-VR-Zoom-NIKKOR-70-300mm-f%252F4.5-5.6G-IF-ED.html#tab-ProductDetail.ProductTabs.TechSpecs

Says: FX, DX, FX in crop mode, and 35mm

I take that to meant it will work in both FX and FX crop.
My understanding is that it is a full FX lens. (I'll be very disappointed if it's not...)

Icebear

kirbinster wrote: »

Really? I'll have to double check I always thought it was.

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2161/AF-S-VR-Zoom-NIKKOR-70-300mm-f%252F4.5-5.6G-IF-ED.html#tab-ProductDetail.ProductTabs.TechSpecs

Says: FX, DX, FX in crop mode, and 35mm

If it were a DX lens, it would not say FX. An FX lens will work on a DX camera. Not so much vice-versa.

Matthew Saville

Honestly? It just sounds like you're buying more and more expensive toys. You have three DSLR's already. I know this is going to sound elitist and condescending, but if you were my BEST friend, this is the coldhearted truth I'd advise you with:

Focus on your craft, not your tools. I know that buying new gear makes you feel great, but it won't inherently make your pictures that much better.

I know people will argue that the D700 is the paramount champion (well except for the $5500 D3s) in low light, and FX is "essential" for it's shallow depth and "classic" field of view.

I'm not denying that. A D700 (or better) is in almost *every* serious portrait / event photographer's future, especially professionals. I have a D300 and will eventually *add* a D700 to my bag.

So call me pot VS kettle if you want. But my point is, at first glance, your gear list in your signature leads me to believe that you're not placing the most emphasis where it ought to go. No offense, and maybe I'm totally wrong about this, but when people list every last bit of their equipment (sometimes right down to the memory cards they use) in their signature, I get a sneaking suspicion that they're more gearhead than they are in pursuit of an artistic craft.

That's fine, I'm a HUGE geek and I'll talk your ear off about anything. But my point is that everyone, myself incuded, need to regularly check themselves and ask whether they're buying a new camera just for the thrill of it, the bragging rights, jealousy etc. that it will create, OR if it's truly the right tool for the pursuit of our craft.

Honestly, after glancing at your Flickr, I'm almost inclined to say that your style is very much suited to the DX field of view.

But don't take my word for it, just ask yourself, what do I shoot the most? What areas do I feel my camera is lacking? Then, consider what you might miss if you had a D700 instead of a D300. The extra reach for shooting wildlife etc? The extra AF point spread? (Click HERE to read my article about focus point spread on FX vs DX...)

The bottom line is, I honestly think you could do a lot more with $1700. Use it to improve your craft in some other way.

Unless I'm totally wrong and you do LOTS of extremely low light work, or portraiture where field of view and depth are extremely critical. Then maybe I'd say get the D700 in a heartbeat!

BTW in case you're wondering, my entire portfolio (in my sig) was made on a D300 or a D200, or even a D70 from 2006, or an FM2 that I recently bought on eBay. (My only "full-frame" camera lol...) There might be a couple images here and there that I made on borrowed Canon 5D's from a few years back, but other than that I shoot 99% Nikon DX. Not to brag or anything, just as a point of reference...

=Matt=

kirbinster

Matthew-- Thank very much for your well thought out reply. While I am not looking at it just to say I have a D700, maybe you are right that I don't need it. While I can easily aford it, I don't want to get something that won't provide value for me. My goal was higher ISO, but losing the 1.5x magnification for the type stuff I typically shoot may be more of a negative. Thanks.

Matthew Saville

kirbinster wrote: »

Matthew-- Thank very much for your well thought out reply. While I am not looking at it just to say I have a D700, maybe you are right that I don't need it. While I can easily aford it, I don't want to get something that won't provide value for me. My goal was higher ISO, but losing the 1.5x magnification for the type stuff I typically shoot may be more of a negative. Thanks.

If you shoot just a fair number of low-light images at higher ISO's, then I'd say your money would be better invested in some f/1.4 primes, instead of a D700. The Sigma 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 are stellar lenses, and we're expecting more from Nikon any day now too.

As a full-time wedding shooter, I'd MUCH rather have my D300 and my pick of f/1.4 primes and maybe the Sigma 10-20 and 50-150 2.8, instead of a D700 and the 24-70. Hands down without question. Only get the D700 if you find yourself REALLY pushing the envelope for low-light and shallow depth, ALL the time. Otherwise, you can get the same images from the D300 except with more reach and better focus point spread...

Take care,
=Matt=

studio1972

I recently moved from a canon 40d to 5dII which is probably the equivalent transition in Canon terms. It was very much ready for it and feeling the limitations of the 40d (it took years to get to that stage) and the 5dII has enabled me to do lots of things creatively that I couldn't do with the 40d. My advice would be only to upgrade when you feel the DX format cameras are limiting your creativity, but if that is the situation you are in now, you wont regret the d700.

borrowlenses.com

Rent one and see what it does for you -- the high ISO is really pretty incredible but may not be worth it to you ultimately.

ritewinger

kirbinster wrote: »

Matthew-- Thank very much for your well thought out reply. While I am not looking at it just to say I have a D700, maybe you are right that I don't need it. While I can easily aford it, I don't want to get something that won't provide value for me. My goal was higher ISO, but losing the 1.5x magnification for the type stuff I typically shoot may be more of a negative. Thanks.

This is why you should keep the D300, even though the D700 rocks, the
D300 is the perfect back up. Mine are a set......

Icebear

ritewinger wrote: »

This is why you should keep the D300, even though the D700 rocks, the
D300 is the perfect back up. Mine are a set......

The D300 and D700 feel like the same camera in my hand. I use the D300 like a 1.5X teleconverter. The D90 feels so different, I have to reaquaint my muscles with it every time I grab it.

Qarik

kirbinster wrote: »

D700 - Should I upgrade from my D300?

<HR style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff; COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->I have the itch to upgrade, for the high ISO capability - but is that enough? Should I do it or not? I've found a nice on with about 5k clicks for $1,700.

I currently have a D300, D90 and D5000, and figure if I get this I'll sell the D300. You can see my glass in my sig.

What are the pro's and con's of going with the D700?

from a gear POV only..sell off the d90 and d5000, the 18-200mm, the 70-300mm..then get the d700. these all seem redundant or not worth pairing on d700.

catspaw

Qarik wrote: »

from a gear POV only..sell off the d90 and d5000, the 18-200mm, the 70-300mm..then get the d700. these all seem redundant or not worth pairing on d700.

thanks for saying that - I said as much but perhaps not as bluntly. too much redundant gear, not enough focus. no pun

kirbinster

Well last night when I went to bed I decided not to get the D700, but when I woke up today I decided I will -- let's see what tomorrow (which is deal day) brings. Its really (fortunately) not an issue that I need to sell anything to get it, I just want to make sure that I will get value out of it if I buy it. Don't want its biggest use to be as a paperweight

Icebear

kirbinster wrote: »

I just want to make sure that I will get value out of it if I buy it. Don't want its biggest use to be as a paperweight

Well, I doubt you'll use it as a paperweight. I love my D300, and it has served me well, but OH, MY, there is a real difference. Here's a post in the "People" forum of a shot that I know I couldn't have got with the D300. For me it's not a matter of economics so much as satisfaction.

How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm after they've seen Paree?

jonh68

I have both cameras. If you can afford to get the D700, get it. It's the only camera I would suggest getting over glass. High ISO performance can open up new and creative ways to photograph. I would also keep the D300 as both cameras feel about the same in regards to ergonomics and menu settings.

angevin1

kirbinster wrote: »

Well last night when I went to bed I decided not to get the D700, but when I woke up today I decided I will -- let's see what tomorrow (which is deal day) brings. Its really (fortunately) not an issue that I need to sell anything to get it, I just want to make sure that I will get value out of it if I buy it. Don't want its biggest use to be as a paperweight

I think Matthew Saville, hit the nail squarely on the head, and it seemed to resonate with you as well. I have a D700 and have had a D300 and currently own a D70 and D90. I will say if it weren't for the High ISO abilities and the direction my shooting was going at the time, I would have simply kept my D200. It was a Tank and I loved it! Just in case Money is no object, why stop at the D700. Why not go for the D3S? I hemed and hawed over that one not too many Months ago and Bought into Canon's system in the 5DM2, Because I wanted video. My ego told me to get the D3S, but I am so glad I chose not to.

Most of us get what we need. However there is a caveat, and it says to get what you want also.


The only value you will for certain get out of that D700 purchase is depreciative!

jrmyrnsm

Ok my advice is going to go against the grain a little. While at first I was going to tell the same thing the others are that unless the d300 somehow doesnt meet your needs that theres no reason to get another body... but heck, if you found a D700 with low clicks for $1700 and have the money, I say get it. Use it for a little bit and see how it fits your needs and if you dont feel like your gaining anything by having it then sell it back and get your $1700 back... It seems like a pretty good deal and cheaper than most D700s are going so you shouldnt have a problem reselling it... And if you like it, sell of the d90 and the d5000 and some possibly some of the DX glass... But if you have the money sitting around and think its something you want(obviously you do...), I think its a pretty safe deal...