>>Unless someone is into very wide angle photography, below
>20 mm focal length, or >mainly shoots under very low light
>conditions, what is the advantage over a D300?
>
>Hmmm...let's see...say you are shooting an event in the shade
>on a partly cloudy afternoon- the light is only slightly
>lowish. Thing is, you can't get too close to your subject and
>you are shooting with your 24-70 all the way zoomed-in. The
>shutter speed you need to stop the action is 1/250, and you
>need good depth of field, say f4.5-f/5.6. On the D300, you can
>do it, but you must sacrifice some DOF, accept a higher noise
>level, or use flash. With the D700, you get super-clean shots,
>high shutter speed and good DOF.
>
>On the other hand, if you shoot birds, you lose 1/3 of your
>focal length AND you lose sharpness outside the center of the
>frame due to the loss of the 1.6 crop. TC's don't work nearly
>as well for the same reason. You can crop, but then you are
>left with a 5 MP image where a D300 would have given you 12.
>Full frame cameras are a poor choice for long telephoto
>shooters.
>
>Different tools, different uses. One is not better than the
>other.
>
>Jason

I don't know if I would go with "poor choice", as we were happy with 6mp all of 4 years ago, but yes, it seams the only caveat with this camera compared to DX would be resolution in crop mode.


It's not an optical illusion. It just looks like one.