# Nikon d300 and d700



## Golfer_Cody (Jul 3, 2008)

Ok so I just have a couple questions to get everything straight, If you have something dumb or negative to say like some of you in the last things I have ask dont reply. So the d300 is dx format and with the 18-200 mm lens will use all 12.3 megapixels right? and the d700 is both dx and fx, but will only use about 5mp with that same lens correct? Is fx a way better picture quality? I was looking at some examples and it looked a little better I thought but what do you think? I have more but Ill leave it to that for awhile.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 3, 2008)

Yes, the D300, or any other DX formatted camera will use the whole sensor when fitted with either a DX of FX lens.  When you put a DX lens on an FX body however, it automatically reduces the number of pixels used to that which is in the DX-size sensor area.  

With respect to your question of picture quality, you will be very hard-pressed to tell the difference between an image shot on a D300 and one on a D700.  You will see some difference at high ISOs, but for regular shooting, it will be indistinguishable.


----------



## TamiyaGuy (Jul 3, 2008)

With an FX sensor being used to its full potential, yes, the FX sensor will give you a much better image quality, as the pixels are more spaced out. Noise at high ISOs will improve, as will the viewfinder brightness (if a 35mm film camera is anything to go by). However, the 18-200mm lens is a superzoom, and because of that lens quality will take a back seat. To be honest, it seems to me that it's a bit of a waste using that kind of a lens on a D700 (no offence). I'd get the D300 if you're using the 18-200mm mainly. However, if you think you will get some really nice, full-frame glass for your body and find yourself shooting mainly landscapes, then the 700 would be a great choice.


----------



## Golfer_Cody (Jul 3, 2008)

well again this goes back to me wanting the single lens solution for awhile cause Ill be taking picture os everything from sunsets to just random buildings and a lot of pictures at night on the beach. Whats a good single lens for all that with the d700 that I can get most out of the fx and dx formats? I dont want any 5MP stuff. is higher iso good at night? or bad?


----------



## TamiyaGuy (Jul 3, 2008)

I don't think there currently is an all-in-one lens for FX format sensors at the moment. Sigma and Tamron alternatives to the Nikon are, I'm nearly certain, all for crop bodies. I'd suggest getting 2-3 lenses for photographing everything rather than one superzoom. An 18-55 or the equivalent FX format (28-70, I think) lens is good for landscapes, cars and portraits where there is little room, a longer telephoto (think 55-200 for DX or 70-300 for FX) for wildlife and further distance portraits, and possibly a 12-24 (I know Sigma does an FX version of this, and it's been getting fantastic reviews) for extreme landscapes. However, if you to get the D700, make abolutely sure the lenses you're getting are FX format; try them at a camera store if you're not sure.

To answer your final question, a higher ISO at night is usually not that useful, so long as you have a tripod. Simply set the camera on the 'pod, choose a 2-second self timer, and shoot. Higher ISOs are only helpful for indoor shots where you need a faster shutter speed, like 6 year old kids running around like maniacs, but where you don't want to use the flash.

Basically, I'd recommend the D300 for the kind of photography you're talking about. It's a perfectly capable camera, and the high-ISO performance is already stunning. Or you could get a D80 and spend your cash on some REALLY nice glass.

Whatever choice you make, I hope it's the right one for you.


----------



## Golfer_Cody (Jul 3, 2008)

well i am between the d700 and the d300, if i gett he 300 i will get the 18-200 lends for now but i almost wanna get the d700 cause then i wont have to upgrade for a long time. so if i get the d700 i will make sure and get fx lenses only and ill be able to shoot in all 12MP right? So you think that the d300 has plenty of iso? i will be shooting some sports as well and motorsports so i think the higher iso will be ok the only thing i am still confused about is lenses for the most part. I know you gave some but would you be willing to PM me the lenses and what I would use each one for? for now just the beach sunsets and night shot of me and the girlfriend and stuff like that, random barns and building like that


----------



## Rogan (Jul 3, 2008)

D300 or D700 is a very big price to pay for what sounds like your first dSLR

i think you should maybe reconsider hw much your spending, remmeber lenses are more important than the body in many ways

theres not a photo a D300 can take that a D80 cant


----------



## Jeff Canes (Jul 3, 2008)

Golfer_Cody said:


> -- is higher iso good at night? or bad?


 
Its helpful for hand held shots at night, The Nikon 300D & 3D plus Canon D40, D1m3 & D1sm3 all have very low noise at higher iso setings, Im sure it will be the same with the D700

Sports wise the higher ISO mostly help with get a sharper image at night events with stadium lights or poor indoor lights, you may still need a monopod


----------



## kundalini (Jul 3, 2008)

There is another rumor floating out there that perhaps by the end of August, Nikon will introduce the D900 with 24MP.  Price in the $3-4K range.


----------



## Mav (Jul 3, 2008)

From what I've seen, the D700/FX isn't any sharper and won't deliver any better image quality than the D300/DX will.  The biggest difference is in the high ISO performance where the FX will just blow any Nikon DX away.  The FX Nikons aren't like the Canon 5D in that they're amazingly sharp above and beyond the crop body DSLRs.  I'm not too particular about needing insane high ISO performance but _am_ pretty particular about sharpness, which is why the FX Nikons are a bit of a disappointment to me, since they don't seem to offer better sharpness than the DX's.

For a good all-in-one lens for a D700, you'll be hard-pressed to find any because Nikon discontinued all of their good consumer grade FX mid-zoom type lenses in 2006 and before.  The 28-200G might be worth trying to find used, which is equivalent to the 18-135DX.  Tamron has a 28-300 VC (same as VR) lens which from what I've seen is a half decent lens.  That'd be 18-200mm equivalent and has stabilization.  I personally just picked up a Nikon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 lens for $140 USD used, which is equivalent to the 18-70DX lens.  I like the range on this too, but would like something a bit longer.  No problem - I've got a 70-300VR for that, but gotta switch lenses.  I'm using the 28-105 on my F100 film camera and am going to give it a try on my D80 too when I get a chance.


----------



## Mav (Jul 3, 2008)

For sports higher ISO will definitely come in handy.  But if you can't get very close, FX will actually work against you since it lacks a crop factor.  You need a 300mm lens on FX to get the same field of view that 200mm gives you on DX.


----------



## Golfer_Cody (Jul 3, 2008)

ok I have noticed that there are not many more huge features over the d300 that the d700 has other than iso. Do you think that the amount of iso that the d300 has is plenty for the handheld picturtes? and well enough for everything else? I dont mind the DX but it sounds like fx has its advantages but also wont look any better unless you have been doing this for awhile.


----------



## djacobox372 (Jul 3, 2008)

TamiyaGuy said:


> I don't think there currently is an all-in-one lens for FX format sensors at the moment. Sigma and Tamron alternatives to the Nikon are, I'm nearly certain, all for crop bodies. I'd suggest getting 2-3 lenses for photographing everything rather than one superzoom. An 18-55 or the equivalent FX format (28-70, I think) lens is good for landscapes, cars and portraits where there is little room, a longer telephoto (think 55-200 for DX or 70-300 for FX) for wildlife and further distance portraits, and possibly a 12-24 (I know Sigma does an FX version of this, and it's been getting fantastic reviews) for extreme landscapes. However, if you to get the D700, make abolutely sure the lenses you're getting are FX format; try them at a camera store if you're not sure.
> 
> To answer your final question, a higher ISO at night is usually not that useful, so long as you have a tripod. Simply set the camera on the 'pod, choose a 2-second self timer, and shoot. Higher ISOs are only helpful for indoor shots where you need a faster shutter speed, like 6 year old kids running around like maniacs, but where you don't want to use the flash.
> 
> ...



I have a tamron 28-300 zoom that works perfectly on a non-crop body--I use it on my film slrs all the time.


----------



## Mav (Jul 3, 2008)

As long as you're not shooting poorly lit indoor sports like basketball or gymnastics I think the D300 is going to be more than adequate.  For night shots on the beach of people, use a flash.  And for sunsets, base ISO and a tripod, or a stabilized lens will work perfectly fine.

I took this handheld with my D80 at iso100, 1/80s, f/8, and the 18-55VR and didn't even need VR for this shot








And this is a photo with the same D80 and the 70-300VR lens at 300mm.  That's 450mm equivalent in FX terms, so you're not getting anywhere close to this on FX unless you spend three times as much on the 80-400VR, and you still won't get as close.







Another night time beach shot.  This one on a tripod for 15 seconds at f/2.8 and 11mm with my Tokina 11-16mm ultra-wide lens.  ISO 100.






You could have done this handheld on a D3 at iso6400 if you could manage a steady 1/4s handheld shot, which isn't impossible at ultra-wide (or iso 12,600 at 1/8s), but this photo at iso 100 would still look better.  For the best night shots you'll always want to be on a tripod anyways with a very long exposure and base ISO.

If you're not sure, get the cheaper body and put the extra money into some nice lenses instead.  A great lens you buy today will still be a great lens 10 years from now and worth something, whereas the body you buy will be ancient history in 10 years and worthless.


----------



## peterbj7 (Jul 3, 2008)

The OP is going through the same thought process that I did when I chose my Canon 5D.  I wanted a camera that would be especially good in low available light, and from my research the 5D was easily the best around at an affordable price from any manufacturer (I would have loved the Canon 1Ds III).

This camera has a FF sensor ("fx") so the lenses I use are relatively heavy and bulky and yet don't give the reach of smaller lenses on a crop body.  I realised that the first decision I needed to make was sensor size, as that would determine choice of lenses.

Given that the OP is clearly uncertain between the D300 and D700, I think that if he gets the D300 he will regret not having bought the D700.  If he has the extra money I'd suggest he goes for it.

If I were choosing today between the 5D and D700 I'm not sure what I'd get.  Probably the 5D, as it still has the edge in low light performance (or so I've been told).  It really is a shame these manufacturers have incompatible lens mounts, as if they were the same I'd have components from each manufacturer.  I'm Canon now, but that needn't be for life.


----------



## kundalini (Jul 3, 2008)

One more consideration to make in regard to the D700.  Personally I would wait for the first run to get out there and have the bugs worked out.  Maybe six months, if you can.  I got my D300 about 5 months after it was introduced and none of the problems I read about the first run appeared with my copy.

BTW D3 and D300 users, there is a firmware update available.

Like I said earlier, the rumor mill is on about the D900 as well.


----------



## Ejazzle (Jul 4, 2008)

i hink if this is your first slr and you really want something nice, go with the D80 and get some really nice glass. 

but by all means if you have no budget get the D300. i have the D300 and love it so much, i barely have any noise @ iso 6400 its awesome i love it and wouldnt trade it for the world!!


----------



## Senor Hound (Jul 4, 2008)

Rogan said:


> theres not a photo a D300 can take that a D80 cant



Not true.  The D300 can take a photo of said D80, which cannot take a photo of itself (unless you use a mirror which is cheating).

  Sorry, I'm just in a silly mood.  I think you should buy the body which will work with your lens the best.  If you're set on the 18-200, by all means go with the D300.  But I'm just a newbie, I could be wrong.


----------



## kundalini (Jul 4, 2008)

Mav said:


> You could have done this handheld on a D3 at iso6400 if you could manage a steady 1/4s handheld shot, which isn't impossible at ultra-wide (or iso 12,600 at 1/8s), but this photo at iso 100 ...


 
Truely, nice photos Mav.  However, it seems you putting an apple in a bunch of oranges for comparison sake.  What does the D80 have to do with the topic of discussion between the Nikon D300 and the D700 from the OP?  Very little to nothing in my estimation.

Your theoretical analysis of what could be a possible comparison between the D3 handheld at ISO6400 at 1/4s and the fact that you were able to tripod mount your D80 at f/2.8 for 15seconds has nothing to do with the topic at hand and is a useless comparison.

Let's put apples with apples and oranges with oranges for a change.  Otherwise, pour in some Vodka in the mix and let's have a party.

No one here will disagree that you have a very steady hand, but FFS what's this all about?


----------



## Garbz (Jul 4, 2008)

Senor Hound said:


> Not true.  The D300 can take a photo of said D80, which cannot take a photo of itself (unless you use a mirror which is cheating).



:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao: 

You have made my day!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Tinstafl (Jul 4, 2008)

I would go with the D700. I have had a D100 and now a D 200 I bought a little while before they announced the D300. I went with all FX lenses though with it knowing I will get a FFX someday just not yet.  I remember reading an article on sensor size and mega pixel wars and they came to the conclusion that the bigger the sensor the bigger the spacing and deeper the pixel and it was a better deal than shoving more pixels on a smaller sensor. Now this was aimed at the Point and shoot vs the DSLRs and they had shot to show the difference.

I also saw an article on the D3 adn how the author took a small section out of the shot and blew it way up. It was amazing...

I would go with the D700 and build from there. You know there will be other FFX coming and that is the kit you want to start. I bought the 70-200  2.8 VR a little while ago and will be getting another 2.8 a bit shorter soon.  I have other lens and they all work on this D200 but will also work just fine on a D3/700 or the next iteration.


----------



## Mav (Jul 4, 2008)

kundalini said:


> Truely, nice photos Mav.  However, it seems you putting an apple in a bunch of oranges for comparison sake.  What does the D80 have to do with the topic of discussion between the Nikon D300 and the D700 from the OP?  Very little to nothing in my estimation.
> 
> Your theoretical analysis of what could be a possible comparison between the D3 handheld at ISO6400 at 1/4s and the fact that you were able to tripod mount your D80 at f/2.8 for 15seconds has nothing to do with the topic at hand and is a useless comparison.
> 
> ...


Of course it's relevant.  The whole idea was to point out that you don't need to spend $3000 on the camera body alone just for nice beach photos and for what seems like just general photography needs.  Unless the OP comes back saying they want to do indoor sports photography, I think even a D300 is going to be more than enough overkill.  I could have taken all of the above photos with my even more inferior D40 just as easily.  For people shots on the beach in not so great light, a little fill flash from a remote fired SB-600 would probably look way better than a D700 with no fill flash and even higher ISO.


----------



## Golfer_Cody (Jul 4, 2008)

Those pictures are amazing and yes that is what I will be talking pictures of and maybe even darker so I know I can do it with the d300. I also dont want something thats way over my head and if I got the d300 I could get my 18-200 lens and use the money i saved for another lens like a ultra wide or something. I know I will be happy with the d300, can you get down to 100 iso with it thugh?


----------



## kundalini (Jul 4, 2008)

Golfer_Cody said:


> I know I will be happy with the d300, can you get down to 100 iso with it thugh?


No doubt you *will* be happy with the D300.

With regard to you ISO question, I will quote from *Thom Hogan's "Complete Guide to the Nikon D300"* so I don't screw it up.



> The D300 allows user controllable ISO values from 200 to 3200, in as little as one-third stop steps (you can alter the settings to half or full stops using Custom Setting #B1 [see page <561>], but I'd suggest just leaving the camera at the default).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hope that answers your question.


----------



## Golfer_Cody (Jul 4, 2008)

yeah that helps so ill be able to do it. Its almost the same with the d700 I am having a hard time trying to even think about going away from the d300 it just seems logical to get the dx version till I get better. i am gonna check some prices this week and hopefully soon ill have the camera. only thing now is lenses I know I want the 18 200. Is there anymore like a ultra wide or anything? I want to be able to take pics of the sun like that one above, how much difference in the 300 vs the 200? like how much different would it look?


----------



## TamiyaGuy (Jul 4, 2008)

djacobox372 said:


> I have a tamron 28-300 zoom that works perfectly on a non-crop body--I use it on my film slrs all the time.


 Huh, in that case I stand corrected. I still think it would be a bit of a waste using any superzoom on such a high-end body as a D700. Any camera above a D80 only works at its best when coupled with some good lenses (well, ANY camera works at its best with good glass). It really isn't that much of a hassle changing lenses, to be honest. I do it all the time from my 18-55 to my 55-200 to my 50 f/1.8.

I'd still suggest getting a D300 or even a D80. Even the absolute bottom of the range DSLRs nowadays can take stunning photos with the right person behind the camera. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that unless you're already very content with photography techniques (rule of thirds, HDR, post-processing, various apertures and their consequenses, hand-holding "rules", etc), then by all means get a D300. However, if this will be your first DSLR, then I think you may find a D300 or a D700 too daunting at first. When I switched to a D40 I was amazed and only just managed to keep my cool when taking photos.

Right, enough seriousness. Here's some smileys to make up for it. :lmao::mrgreen::blushing:

There ya go. Enjoy!


----------



## kundalini (Jul 4, 2008)

For zoom lenses, I ran the (normal) full range. 12-24mm f/4, 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8. They are *all* keepers. I started with the 12-24mm first because I like wide angle landscapes. Next came the 70-200mm because my interest in "reach" grew. Finally I got the 24-70mm to fill the gap and surprisingly (or not), it is the most used of all the zooms.  Oh, and these were purchased prior to the D300, with my D80.

The best suggestion I can offer for the difference you get between 200mm and 300mm is to go to your local camera shop and slap on a zoom lens that reaches to 300mm. Set it to 200mm and focus on an object at some distance. How does it look? Now, twist the zoom to 300mm. How much difference do you see? Your eyes, your money.


----------



## Mav (Jul 4, 2008)

Golfer_Cody said:


> yeah that helps so ill be able to do it. Its almost the same with the d700 I am having a hard time trying to even think about going away from the d300 it just seems logical to get the dx version till I get better. i am gonna check some prices this week and hopefully soon ill have the camera. only thing now is lenses I know I want the 18 200. Is there anymore like a ultra wide or anything? I want to be able to take pics of the sun like that one above, how much difference in the 300 vs the 200? like how much different would it look?


You wouldn't want to set the D300 to iso100 because you're getting sub-optimal quality.  The base ISO on a DSLR is defined where the sensor has its native or peak (best) sensitivity and quality, which in this case happens to be equivalent to ISO 200.  If you wanted a slower exposure to capture wave motion and you already have the lens aperture closed down (stopped down) at f/11 or so (it'll get softer past that due to diffraction) what you'd want to use is a 1 or 2-stop neutral density filter.  That'll get you to the equivalent of ISO100 or ISO50 as far as expsure time with no need to stop the lens all the way down to f/16 or f/22 which will result in a soft image due to diffraction.  For this beach trip, I purposely brought my D80 which has a base ISO of 100 rather than my D40 which has a base ISO of 200 because I knew the higher base ISO on the D40 was gonna get in the way of slower exposures for wave motion shots.  Otherwise I'd probably have brought the D40 instead.

There's now a VERY nice selection of ultra-wide lenses for Nikon DX cameras.  The Nikon 12-24 f/4, the Tamron 11-18, Sigma 10-20, Tokina 12-24, and the newest Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, the only f/2.8.  I have that one and love it, and the best thing is that it also works at 15-16mm on a full frame FX or film camera and you still have f/2.8 speed!  I think the other Tokina 12-24 and the Nikon 12-24 work OK on FX/film from about 17mm onwards.  If you were thinking of upgrading to FX one day, I'd avoid the Sigma 10-20 since it vignettes on FX at every setting.

As far as a tele, here's the difference between 200 and 300mm.


195mm (close enough)







300mm






I actually want to get _even closer_ on these shots so a 400mm lens may be in my future.  If Nikon comes out with an updated 80-400mm VR lens, I may try to pickup a mint used version of the current one.  There's a Nikon site out there where _EVERYBODY_ always ditches their perfectly good lenses for the newest version whenever something new comes out which is great for finding deals on stuff!


----------



## kundalini (Jul 4, 2008)

Mav said:


> There's a Nikon site out there where _EVERYBODY_ always ditches their perfectly good lenses for the newest version whenever something new comes out which is great for finding deals on stuff!


 Please name that site.  I love a good deal, have no objection to 'used' and several lenses are still on my wish list.


----------



## Golfer_Cody (Jul 4, 2008)

Ok so iso 100 is going to be the best for the beach and the d300 doesnt have it  neither does the 700. so how much of a difference would it make on those waves if it were set at the lowest 200? But i also dont understand why you cant put the 300 on LO-1 which it says is just like iso 100 I understand you say it wont look as good but i dont know why.


----------



## Mav (Jul 4, 2008)

100 _isn't_ the best.  The "best" ISO for a given camera in terms of image quality is whatever the base ISO is.  On the 300 and 700 it just happens to be 200, along with my D40 due to properties of the sensor designs.  On my D80 it's 100.  The further you deviate from the base ISO in either direction, the more quality will drop off.

If you were trying to capture wave action with a D300 and needed to slow things down past ISO 200, you'd be better off just popping on a 1-stop ND filter than dropping the camera's ISO to Lo 1.0 (ISO 100) or whatever they call it.  Dropping ISO will drop quality, but not a 1-stop ND filter.  For that photo of the lifeguard stand above, a faster base ISO of 200 actually would have helped, because then I'd only have needed a 7-8 second exposure vs 15 for the _same_ quality, which lets me keep moving and taking more photos faster, and it also sucks up less battery per shot.  Higher or lower base ISO can either hurt you or help you all depending on what you're trying to do.  Generally I prefer the _faster_ base ISO, but for trickier situations like this it can actually get in the way.  But the easy workaround is an ND filter, so no big deal.


----------



## Golfer_Cody (Jul 4, 2008)

whats the ND filter? like what is it what do you mean put it on? and how bad would the waves look if i just used the base iso 200?


----------



## Mike_E (Jul 5, 2008)

Hi Cody, if you don't mind my butting in here, here is what you need:  
1. A D700  with the battery grip.
2.  A 24-70mm f/2.8. (the same as 16-47mm on a DX) 
3. A 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S VR.
4. Two SB800s and an SB600. 
5. A semester or two at your local college in a photography course were you will be the talk of the class and have a great time learning the finer points of photography.


----------



## kundalini (Jul 5, 2008)

Aww, c'mon Mike, let's not get snippy.    I agree with the gear though.

Cody, a ND (Neutral Density) filter will effectively reduce the amount of light that enters your lens and loads up your sensor.  They are produced in the amount of stops they reduce that light.  This will give you the creamy effect your are after for water movement.  They are neutral because they do not affect the color of the scence, only the amount of light *read: longer shutter speeds*.  The more stops of the filter, the longer the shutter speed.  Here's a note worthy to consider.  This is another case of you get what you pay for.  Don't go on the cheap for filters.

Here's an example.  Notice the water flow shows movement, but the color of the leaves on the rocks still hold their color.






Finally, don't think of the baseline ISO of the D300 of 200 is a detriment.  You could do far worse.


----------



## JerryPH (Jul 5, 2008)

Mav said:


> For sports higher ISO will definitely come in handy. But if you can't get very close, FX will actually work against you since it lacks a crop factor. You need a 300mm lens on FX to get the same field of view that 200mm gives you on DX.


 
I never get this issue people see about crop factors. On an FX, I will get a broad image. If I strategically crop it in software by 50%, I will have EXACTLY what a DX has. The DX cannot do this.

Zoom has nothing to do with this becuase at a 1:1 ratio, the cropped part of the FX pic and the DX pic will be the same... 100% (assuming you cropped the pic to match).

The issue with using a DX lens on the D700 will cause one thing that I don't really like... pics drop from 12 MP to 5 MP.

If you are considering using the 18-200, the D700 is NOT the camera for you on a couple of levels:
- You more than half the resolution with the DX lens
- you will not be able to take anywhere near the advantage of the D700s full potential
- Your experience level doesn't really justify getting a D700 (time will change that)

A camera like the D700 *demands* top level lenses to get the best out of it. Using a DX lens on it, lowers it's level to that of a mid range point and shoot camera. I am thinking that the D300 would be MORE than enough camer for you for at least 2-3 years, if not more.

If you look at some of the equipment lists of well known photographers, you will see that the money invested in lenses vs camera is about a 2 to 3 to one ratio.  Meaning for every $100 they spent on a camera, $200-$300 was spent in lenses.  There are very good reasons why this is so.  

In the case of the OP, reversing this method brings down the quality of the results, not raises them.


----------



## Mike_E (Jul 5, 2008)

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound "snippy" the OP said that he had more to learn and the easiest and fastest was is to get someone to teach you.

If he has the wherewithal to buy the equipment then paying for lesions is the next logical step.  

And I really believe that if he goes into a class with said equipment, he's going to be popular.


----------



## Mav (Jul 5, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> I never get this issue people see about crop factors. On an FX, I will get a broad image. If I strategically crop it in software by 50%, I will have EXACTLY what a DX has. The DX cannot do this.
> 
> Zoom has nothing to do with this becuase at a 1:1 ratio, the cropped part of the FX pic and the DX pic will be the same... 100% (assuming you cropped the pic to match).
> 
> The issue with using a DX lens on the D700 will cause one thing that I don't really like... *pics drop from 12 MP to 5 MP.*


Ah so they're not "EXACTLY" the same.   Right.  If you crop an FX to the DX view you only have 5MP left whereas the same view on DX you still have your original 10/12MP.  This is why a lot of bird shooters and people that shoot long are still going to be sticking with their DX cameras.  The DX cameras park more resolution where they need it.  If you do the same 50% crop on a DX now you have 5/6MP and an even longer "view", and the FX would be down to a whopping 2/3MP, even less image.



JerryPH said:


> If you are considering using the 18-200, the D700 is NOT the camera for you on a couple of levels:
> - You more than half the resolution with the DX lens
> - you will not be able to take anywhere near the advantage of the D700s full potential
> - Your experience level doesn't really justify getting a D700 (time will change that)
> ...


With the _lower_ linear resolution of FX, if anything you can get away with _cheaper_ lenses since the FX sensor in 12MP form isn't demanding as much resolution out of lenses as the 10/12MP DX sensors are.  There's absolutely no reason that you can't put a great and cheap lens like the Nikkor 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 lens on the D700 and get outstanding results.  I just picked one of these up for my F100 and it works great.  I've also tried it on my D80 which is more demanding of lenses and it works great there too. Very sharp, even at 105mm and wide-open at f/4.5.  Cost me a whopping $140!   I guess putting a lens like this on a D700 or D3 would be a "faux pas" but it'll still work great.

Saying the camera would be no better than a point-n-shoot with a DX lens is ridiculous.  I do agree that it's kinda silly to put DX lenses on an FX camera, but come on.  You're still getting the SAME great iso6400 performance, and you'll still be getting the same sharpness and overall image quality.  Just only across the DX portion of the sensor.  I guarantee you that a D700 with any DX lens including the cheap little 18-55 will still blow the crap out of any P&S out there.



JerryPH said:


> If you look at some of the equipment lists of well known photographers, you will see that the money invested in lenses vs camera is about a 2 to 3 to one ratio.  Meaning for every $100 they spent on a camera, $200-$300 was spent in lenses.  There are very good reasons why this is so.


Probably because they have 2 or 3 lenses for every body they have, and if they're really professionals they're probably buying mostly professional glass, which costs as much as a body does.  In general I don't disagree though.  Put money into glass first, and the body secondarily, if only for investment purposes.  I can still get great results with my cheap crappy lenses like the 18-55 and 28-105 and 18-135, etc.  In fact, stopped down at daylight apertures, there's ZERO difference between these lenses and my $1200 pro 17-55DX lens.  Speaking of which, the cheap $500 70-300VR lens has better corner performance for landscape photos on FX than the $1700 70-200VR lens does! :lmao:  I can't wait to pick one of these up cheap when a newer version comes out and everybody ditches theirs. :mrgreen:



JerryPH said:


> In the case of the OP, reversing this method brings down the quality of the results, not raises them.


There are many holes in blanket statements like this.


----------



## JerryPH (Jul 5, 2008)

Granted it may be swiss cheese, but the specs support it more than deny it.  A picture taken at 5MP on a D700 with the 18-200 is not going to be anywhere near the quality of the 70-200 at full resolution on the same camera.

Resolution is lower and glass quality is lower.

We have a user that wants to put out a lot of money, then effectively strangle off more than half the quality of what the camera can do based on choice of lens alone... or they could save $1500+, still have a camera that would challenge them for YEARS and offer results as good as or better.


----------



## peterbj7 (Jul 5, 2008)

kundalini said:


> There is another rumor floating out there that perhaps by the end of August, Nikon will introduce the D900 with 24MP.  Price in the $3-4K range.



I thought Nikon's stance was that there was no need to produce a camera with as many mp as Canon's 1Ds III as there was no benefit, and Canon were just doing it as a marketing ploy.  Were they wrong, or have they decided they want to take advantage of the same marketing ploy?

Can you clarify some Nikon terms for me - just what do "fx" and "dx" mean?  Are they simply "full size sensor, the same size as 33mm film" and "reduced size sensor"?  I'm not clear what "x" and "d" stand for in this context.  And presumably all Nikon reduced size sensors are reduced by their standard factor of 1.5?


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jul 5, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> Granted it may be swiss cheese....



Please leave the Swiss people and their dairy products out of your dispute of resolution.  The Swiss people make excellent cheese and as such, it should not be degraded or compared with inaccurate descriptions simply because it has holes.  Also, some of the finest people I've never met happen to be Swiss.


----------



## Mav (Jul 5, 2008)

peterbj7 said:


> I thought Nikon's stance was that there was no need to produce a camera with as many mp as Canon's 1Ds III as there was no benefit, and Canon were just doing it as a marketing ploy.  Were they wrong, or have they decided they want to take advantage of the same marketing ploy?


If any of that was for real then it was just marketing BS trying to deflate the better Canon products as not being needed to prevent floods of Nikon users from streaming out the doors.  Marketing is BS central, and I even had a director of marketing admit that to me once.


----------



## Chewbecca (Jul 5, 2008)

Oh, GOD.
Forget all this.
I'll be upgrading to a D300 sometime within the year.

I think my blood sugar just lowered reading all of this.


----------



## Mav (Jul 5, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> Granted it may be swiss cheese, but the specs support it more than deny it.  A picture taken at 5MP on a D700 with the 18-200 is not going to be anywhere near the quality of the 70-200 at full resolution on the same camera.
> 
> Resolution is lower and glass quality is lower.
> 
> We have a user that wants to put out a lot of money, then effectively strangle off more than half the quality of what the camera can do based on choice of lens alone... or they could save $1500+, still have a camera that would challenge them for YEARS and offer results as good as or better.


The only thing you're "strangling" is quantity, not quality.  Does the ISO performance get horrible if you're just using the center portion?  No.  You can still make FULL use of that even if you're only on the DX portion of the sensor.  And are you saying it's not possible to take "quality" pictures on a 5/6MP DX frame?  If so I have more than a few photos off of my D40 that I'd be more than happy to post.  6MP has still been enough to get nice 20x30" prints done off of my D40 too.  12MP is already overkill for general use IMHO.  For on-screen viewing and any normal print size up to maybe 8x12 I think you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between 5/6MP and 10/12MP.

I'm really just playing devil's advocate here because I agree that putting DX lenses on FX is silly.  You're paying a big premium for the bigger sensor, so you might as well be using all of it.  Kinda like buying a car with the optional bigger engine but then grannying the thing everywhere you go.  Why bother?    You'll still be able to get outstanding photos with an 18-200VR on a D700 in DX crop mode though, and take full advantage of its high ISO capabilities and shoot in all sorts of crazy low light and not bother with a tripod.

Personally I think it's a shame that Nikon has discontinued most of their good and reasonably priced film zooms, and that the ones that are left are sorta sub-par, like the 24-120VR, and the 24-85 f/2.8-4.  Canon has much better stuff in this area IMHO, but of course they've had full frame DSLRs for a very long time now too.  Actually it was probably all a strategic move by Nikon to discontinue their good cheap film mid-zooms knowing what would be coming out in 2-3 years.  That then forces people into buying more of the absurdly expensive PRO lenses which are way more than a lot of people need.

For a do-everything lens I'd look for a used 28-200G or look into this Tamron 28-300 VC lens which seems to be pretty good.  I'd try to find either of those before I'd ever consider putting an 18-200VR on an FX camera, mostly just on principle.


----------



## Garbz (Jul 5, 2008)

peterbj7 said:


> Were they wrong, or have they decided they want to take advantage of the same marketing ploy?
> Can you clarify some Nikon terms for me - just what do "fx" and "dx" mean?



It's marketing. I've heard countless claims, Nikon doesn't have the technology for blah blah blah, it's all a load of crap. Engineers release a super 12mpx sensor, give it to the marketing department and say "you tell the people of the world why this is better than Canon's 1DsMkIII." The company only sounds like it is doing a backflip on what they said previously, but the reality is it's just two different departments doing their thing.

FX = Full format, DX = APS-D format (1.5x crop)



Mav said:


> Marketing is BS central, and I even had a director of marketing admit that to me once.


I took marketing at uni. First lecture was that marketing is selling a product to people who don't need it. It is BS, the trick is to not make it sound like it.



Mav said:


> I'm really just playing devil's advocate here because I agree that putting DX lenses on FX is silly.  You're paying a big premium for the bigger sensor, so you might as well be using all of it.



What about weight? I'd rather walk around with a Sigma 10-20mm for DX sensors on my lens all day than carry something equivalent for FX. Ok I probably wouldn't but the forum is full of people who pick convenience over quality. Just look at the success of the 18-200. A small light superzoom. Yes you take the quality hit using a DX lens, but it has a convenience factor that I would tip makes this the new debate to add to the "JPGvsRAW" "Superzoom vs multilens" debates that are raging.


----------



## kundalini (Jul 5, 2008)

peterbj7 said:


> I thought Nikon's stance was that there was no need to produce a camera with as many mp as Canon's 1Ds III as there was no benefit, and Canon were just doing it as a marketing ploy. Were they wrong, or have they decided they want to take advantage of the same marketing ploy?


 


Mav said:


> If any of that was for real then it was just marketing BS trying to deflate the better Canon products as not being needed to prevent floods of Nikon users from streaming out the doors.


 


Garbz said:


> It's marketing. I've heard countless claims, Nikon doesn't have the technology for blah blah blah, it's all a load of crap.


 

 It could all very well be just speculation, rumor, high hopes or whatever, but *this* is not the only place I've read of the possibility of the D900.  If it comes to fruition, I think it is a very clever marketing ploy by Nikon.  Time will answer the questions I guess.


----------



## Joves (Jul 5, 2008)

Well Nikon still hasnt produced a 24MP yet. Instead they chose to maximize a 12MP sensor first. Personally I only have like 2 DX lenses the rest are old AF film lenses so, the D700 will be my next toy. I will keep my D300 as well to take advantage of my zooms. What will be nice is that my primes and, other lenses will actually be their stated values. If I was invested in DX lenses then I would stick with the D300 solely but, now I can have the best of both worlds. I will never put a DX lens on a D700 either, to me that is just plain stupid.


----------



## Garbz (Jul 6, 2008)

kundalini said:


> It could all very well be just speculation, rumor, high hopes or whatever, but *this* is not the only place I've read of the possibility of the D900.  If it comes to fruition, I think it is a very clever marketing ploy by Nikon.  Time will answer the questions I guess.



Yeah I wasn't saying it wasn't. Rather I was saying I wouldn't be surprised if they do. Their earlier stance on not chasing the high res market is just marketing justifying the current product. Just look at the D300. 12mpx in an APS-C sensor. Increase the sensor size by 1.5 squared to get an FX sensor keeping the density the same, and volah 27mpx with no extra technology required 

Although that said the fake rumours about a 50mm f/1.2 VR AF-S were also born on the DPR forums :roll:, at least the concept of a D900 makes sense even if the product numbers don't.


----------



## TamiyaGuy (Jul 6, 2008)

Wow, this thread has come on in leaps and bounds. At the start, I understood everything. Now I think I'll leave it to Mav and Garbz :lmao:.

Just one quick thing, and no offence to you when I say this, but if you're wondering what an ND filter is and how it works, and if your primary lens will be a slow super-zoom, then the D300 or D700 is NOT for you. It is very much a semi-professional or even professional grade camera, and you need to know a lot about photography in order for it to work well.

Get a D40 or a Canon XSi. It can still take stunning photographs, but it has a gentler learning curve. It has "Auto" modes that can help you out in the beginning, and when you're ready for the step to "Priority" modes or Manual, a camera like those will give you handy hints on getting great photos in those modes. And remember: The camera does not take the photo for you. YOU take it, I cannot stress that enough.


----------



## kundalini (Jul 6, 2008)

TamiyaGuy said:


> Just one quick thing, and no offence to you when I say this, but if you're wondering what an ND filter is and how it works, and if your primary lens will be a slow super-zoom, then the D300 or D700 is NOT for you. It is very much a semi-professional or even professional grade camera, and you need to know a lot about photography in order for it to work well.
> 
> Get a D40 or a Canon XSi. It can still take stunning photographs, but it has a gentler learning curve. It has "Auto" modes that can help you out in the beginning, and when you're ready for the step to "Priority" modes or Manual, a camera like those will give you handy hints on getting great photos in those modes. And remember: The camera does not take the photo for you. YOU take it, I cannot stress that enough.


 This mindset just cracks me up every time I see it, which is more often than not (no offence TamiyaGuy).  The assumption with these types of comments are belittling the OP and his/her pursuit of photography IMO.  Look, the guy started out asking questions about top end camera bodies, so I'm not going to presume that he can't afford the price of admission.  That would be a first consideration when starting the research process.  Stay with your means (financially).  The fact that he might be ignorant (not a slam, just means uninformed) about lenses does not dictate that his comprehension is slow either.

Why does it seem that jelousy with the depth of one's (read newbie) bank account automatically turns them into the beginner/uber consumer market?  If he's got the dosh, get the man something good.  There is a learning curve to all dSLR's, why go thru the paces if you want to get something that may never (you know what I mean) need to be replaced.  I love spending other peoples money.  

I have the D300 and love it.  At this point, I can't make sense to jump ship for full frame.  Too much invested in DX lenses.  Maybe one day.

BTW, both the D300 and the D700 have Auto Program shooting modes just to make the break-in period a little easier for you OP.


----------



## TamiyaGuy (Jul 7, 2008)

I do see what you mean, but when I made the jump from a compact camera to a mere D40, I was almost totally gobsmacked, and my parents say I have a knack for learning things really quickly (not meaning to blow my own trumpet too much).

I guess I was being a bit judgemental there, and to be honest, I agree with everything you've said in that post, Kundalini. But I also agree with my first posts that I believe that a camera like the D300 or D700 (certainly the full-frame D700) is not designed to be used with a lens like the 18-200.

But yeah, if you feel that you can cope with a D300 or 700, by all means get one. I'm sure you'll be glad you made the jump to DSLR.


And to contrast the seriousness of that paragraph, boingo, boingo, whoopsie knickers. (I love Yahtzee Croshaw )


----------



## Mav (Jul 7, 2008)

Hey there ain't nothin' wrong with a little D40 even if you do have tons of budget.  I love spending other people's money too!   There's a guy on another forum that has (no joke) a D40x and then a 17-55DX f/2.8, 70-200VR f/2.8, and the 200-400 f/4!  (For the newbs, those lenses are in USD $1200, $1700, and $5000!)  Yes the D300 and D700 are both "good" cameras, but does that mean the D40/40x/60 are "not good"?  Nah!   The zillions of extra features and some of the extra fringe capabilities of the D300 and 700 are only worth the extra green if you're actually going to _USE_ them, or if you're a gadget freak.  Otherwise you might as well get a cheaper body and put the extra money into nice glass instead.  Tons of extra features and capabilities don't necessarily make a better photograph.


----------



## Mike_E (Jul 7, 2008)

After everybody tried to tackle him, it looks like the OP got away.  LOLOLOLOL

I still say that there is nothing wrong in buying the best you can afford.  Neither is there anything wrong in getting someone to show you how to put it to best use.


----------



## Chewbecca (Jul 7, 2008)

Hey, hey, hey!
My D60 is just FINE.
er...well, honestly, I'd like an in-body auto focus motor, and a camera that can give me a better image at higher ISOs, but my D60 is FAR from junk or bad.:mrgreen:


----------



## Golfer_Cody (Jul 8, 2008)

I think I am just gonna go with the D300. It will be easier for me to use and all that stuff.


----------



## Rogan (Jul 8, 2008)

there you go, hopefully no one will argue with you now so you can just go and buy it!

GREAT CHOICE


----------

