Unlike some of you "spoiled" folks (hehehe) with D200/D300 cameras already, is this the optimum turning point for the likes of a D70 owner for upgrading to a D700? Even with the D700 DX crop, looks like I might still get a better pixel density than my D70. From where I'm sitting now, looks like a win/win. Even with the "small" crop, I'd be happy, likely better than the viewfinder on my D70. Of course a D300 and D700 combo would be great, but my new condo purchase has NAS at bay for a while.

Does this make sense?

I currently have 28-70mm, 70-200mm, SIGMA 150mm macro, and 1.4x.

Ottawa Photog
Website: http://www.flickr.com/photos/photo_art/

I think it makes sense to buy more Nikon equipment and you've got great lenses to boot.

I was also going to recommend keeping the D70 for macro and for when you need extra reach with the 70-200 with or without the 1.4x. But the DX crop of the D700 will basically be the same megapixels as the D70.

SteveK
My Nikonians gallery
'A camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.' -- Dorothea Lange

I think the D700 would be a nice upgrade for anyone wanting an upgrade. I have a D80 and would really enjoy a D700 because of the low light capabilities and the ability to go really wide. I think that there will be a lot of people jumping from the consumer bodies to the D700, whereas D3 buyers on average probably had more pro gear to begin with. Anyway, that's my thoughts on the matter.

~Chad

I'm right there with you. I'm using a D70s now, and was looking to the D300 as an upgrade. Now I may spend the extra for the D700. I will wait until some solid reviews are available to compare image quality between the two.

I can't think of a negative reason to choose the D700 over the D300 other than cost and loss of the crop factor over the whole sensor, meaning my longest lens wouldn't be quite as long.

I think the virtue of low noise at high ISO's would outweigh the negatives.

Edit: I thought of another negative: I'd also be out an additional $1600 because I'd end up getting the 14-24mm to go with the D700.

J a m e s
My Gallery

Using his camera as a pen, it is the photographer's job to tell a story: Each page authored in frozen moments of time.

All of my work is dedicated to my father, Terry Lee Geib (1943-2009)

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

That's the upgrade path I'm following. I currently have a D70, and decided to hold off buying the D300 because I hoped against hope Nikon would come out with a full-frame camera in a D300-size body.

I'm VERY happy the DX crop function is being carried down from the D3. And you're right - 5.1MP (D700 crop mode) versus 6MP is almost a wash.

Now if they'll just upgrade some of their mid-tier glass, I'll be a happy camper!

I think the biggest problem in going from a DX to FX is lens related. I would have to basically replace my 12-24mm and 18-70 with around $3,800 worth of lenses, (14-24mm and 24-70mm), so in fact, I'd be spending more like $6,800 for a D700 vs. around $1,700 for a D300.

I hate to say it, but FX is not viable for me, right now. I especially say that, as in tests that have been performed on FF sensors, they are very lens demanding cameras, which means cheap, FF lenses are a non-starter.

""

That's the path I am taking. The D700 will "only" be my second DSLR. I put "only" in quotes, because I would love to have had more, but I really do think it is a bit crazy to upgrade camera bodies with every new generation of advancements. When it comes to making pictures, people can create far better images than I with a D100, D1, or manual film camera. I think that I have successfully fended off NAS and tried to stay prudent about upgrading my camera body. I knew full frame would be here eventually.

I bought my D70 when Nikon introduced a digital camera that could do everything that my N80 film camera could do at around $1,000. Since then, there have been many opportunities for upgrades. I held steady when the D200, D80 and even D300 came out (although I almost bought a D300 a short while ago).

In light of recent advancements, my 1.8" LCD and 2.5 frames per second are getting old. My tiny little view finder is a pain. I have limited image adjustments and settings in my menus. Not being able to go over ISO 800 without horrible results is quite limiting (although still better than film days).

Now, the D700 offers all of the great advancements in the D300 that I coveted, with better ISO performance and no cropping. I plan to add some nice Nikon primes and I will be all set.

Flub

Please vivit my photo-centric blog: www.shutterblogger.blogspot.com

Hi,

If you like to shoot at 200mm with the 1.4x converter, then you'll probably want a longer lens as well (although the 1.7x converter might suffice). You might want to read the review of the Nikon 70-200 on dpreview. It appears this lens is not a good performer on the FX sized sensor.

Enjoy!

Randy

>That's the path I am taking. The D700 will "only"
>be my second DSLR. I put "only" in quotes, because
>I would love to have had more, but I really do think it is a
>bit crazy to upgrade camera bodies with every new generation
>of advancements.

I couldn't agree more. My D70 has served me well, and I'll probably continue to use it in situations where weight might be a concern (or perhaps danger to my camera! hehe). But having used the D70 for four years now, I feel like I have a pretty good idea of the places where it falls a bit short in terms of my own photography.

I realize NAS can hit when you least expect it; but really - I can see myself happily using the D700 for as long as it functions. Those 12 megapixels will be more than enough for the way I shoot, and the low light capability will probably exceed what I'll ever need. It's hard to see how I could ever feel constrained by the camera, given the way I like to shoot.

Besides, I can still steer any latent NAS towards lusting after new glass...

Robbie,
You must decide if you need the main features that an FX sensor brings to the table. These include spectacular high ISO performance and a field of view matching a 35mm negative which allows you to use FX lenses the way they designed to be used. I'm not quite sure why you are talking about using the D700 in DX crop mode, since none of the lenses you list are DX lenses.

Danny
A Nikonian in North Carolina

I'm sold on the FX features, but do shoot long often with my 70-200mm. I do not have DX lenses, but can I not use the "DX" crop for 1.5x with my non DX lenses... i.e., set 1.5x crop manually? If I misunderstood this, then yes, I may need to reconsider.

Ottawa Photog

The D3 certainly allows you to select the DX Crop Mode manually, whether a DX or non-DX lens is mounted. I assume the D700 is the same, but I have not seen anything to confirm this yet.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

I'm also wondering why you'd do this. You can crop in software afterwards, which gives you a little more freedom to expand or shrink the crop area for the best result. The only benefits I can see in having the camera do it for you are (i) you don't have to bother when post-processing, and (ii) it presumably allows you to squeeze more images onto a card. The crop factor certainly isn't making your 70-200 any longer, you'd need a teleconverter for that.

Gary
"Yea, Sussex by the sea!" - Rudyard Kipling

I had a very restless night of sleep last night, dreaming excitedly about my D700 on the way. I think I want to pick up a 50mm 1.4 with it so I can get shots in some crazy low light situations. That should be fun. I can't wait to shoot portraits with my 80-200 again. I'm so excited!

Flub

Please vivit my photo-centric blog: www.shutterblogger.blogspot.com

>I'm VERY happy the DX crop function is being carried down from
>the D3. And you're right - 5.1MP (D700 crop mode) versus 6MP
>is almost a wash. Now if they'll just upgrade some of their
>mid-tier glass, I'll be a happy camper!

I don't know why you would spend several thousand dollars on a camera body and use mid-tier glass. Isn't the main difference between D300 and D700 the fact that the D700 can take full advantage of professional FX glass, which unsurprisingly is a lot more expensive (look at the price of the new range of FX lenses). However if you are not lusting for (or already own) these kinds of lenses then why not get a D300 instead?

>I would have to basically replace my 12-24mm and
>18-70 with around $3,800 worth of lenses, (14-24mm and
>24-70mm)

If you are happy with 12-24 and 18-70, which were not f/2.8 lenses, actually you have a choice of 18-35 f/3.5-4.5 and 28-105 f/3.5-4.5. They will cost you a lot less than 14-24 and 24-70.

Heru.

Heru
Indonesian Nikonian in Switzerland
www.herfina.com