Morning to all

I am using a D90 and thinking about upgrading - - however, I just don't understand the full advantages of moving from DX to FX.

Can you folks help me better understand what the strong points are for moving to the FX sensor --

So far, I only have one lens that will work on it and that is my 24-70 f2.8.

Also -- how are you liking your D700's -- happy with it- - wish you would have gone another way ??

Looking for answers and suggestions please
Thanks in Advance

Art
"Feels so good feeling good again"

Art: for me the single greatest advantage of the FX sensor is the ability to shoot in low light with virtually noiseless high ISO's. Opportunities that in the past would have required a flash, tripod or would have to have been passed up are now doable. That in itself is a whole new world. I'm totally happy with the D700 and only wish it had the 5:4 option the D3 offers. Definitely keep the D90 for its "reach" extension with FX lenses if you can. Richard

Richard
Thanks for the information
I for sure will keep the D90 what ever I do
Good info -- and I appreciate your comments
Art

Art
"Feels so good feeling good again"

is it possible for them to add in more aspect ratios with a firmware update?


𝄐𝄑𝄐𝄑𝄐
Lohani
𝄑𝄐𝄑𝄐𝄑

"Our integrity sells for so little, but it's all that we really have. It is the very last inch of us, but within that inch, we are free." - V4V

Your other lens the 70-300VR should also work nicely with the D700!

>Your other lens the 70-300VR should also work nicely with the
>D700!

Thanks -- that is good to know
Art

Art
"Feels so good feeling good again"

I just sold my D2Hs and still have a D200. I will purchase a D700 soon. I'm not interested in the FX sensor for it's size perse but I'm interested in the D700 as a 'package' for it's color, dynamic range and low noise at high ISO.

Hedley
Originally from Merthyr Tydfil, Wales -- now in Arkansas

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I bought the D700 because of the AF and high ISO performance, but the BIG view finder makes me feel like in them good old days with film.

And auto white balance is much better than what the D2x delivers.

The 24-70 is a marvel on any body. The color rendition and bokeh is fabolous, and resistance to ghosting and flare is very good.

What I miss with the D700, unlike the D2x, is the feeling of putting on a glove when grabbing the body. But I'm getting used to it, after 1 week

Best regards,
Knud

http://kiekan.mono.net

Quick question please
When you guys are talking about the BIG viewfinder -- are you talking about the LCD on the back -- or the actual viewfinder that you look thru when taking the picture ?

I haven't gone to actually look and hold one yet -- so don't really know which you mean
Thanks

Art
"Feels so good feeling good again"

The viewfinder on the D700 appears bigger and brighter than my D200 and F3HP. IMHO

I have both the D300 (dx) and the D700 (fx). I enjoy both for different reasons. Indoors, in low light, and even in respectable light, the ability to shoot at higher ISO's without noise is great with the d700. That allows me the opportunity to shoot at faster shutter speeds and without a tripod on many occasions. I like the fx lens for portraiture.

For wildlife, in good lighting, the D300 with a DX works very well. The 1.5 crop factor works well.

There of course other advantages to the d700, but the high iso's are the most important to me.

Bruce

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

It is the viewfinder, it's the simple fact that FX is bigger than DX. It's noticeable bigger than the D2x viewfinder.

Best regards,
Knud

http://kiekan.mono.net

Knud

That's true just compare the size of the mirror of the D700 with a DX one.

Hedley
Originally from Merthyr Tydfil, Wales -- now in Arkansas

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

The high-ISO performance changed the way I shoot. I now never hesitate to dial up to 1600, and I feel safe even at 3200. That means I no longer spend as much time being aware of low shutter speeds or whether my aperture is too wide for what I want. I now walk around shooting in the comfortable zone of f/5.6 and 1/125 knowing my images are going to blow up nice and big without objectionable grain. That's a major change moving up from my D300.

I only regret that my cameras have gotten heavier and heavier over the years. We have a family D80 and when I pick that thing up, it's like a baby camera.

I also don't like the smaller arrangement of focus points -- I like setting focus on the edges, and now I have to do more focus-and-reframe than before. But I'm used to that now, so it doesn't bother me.

I just came back from a visit to my ONLY good local camera store (Precision Camera here in Austin) and got my hands on the D700

It feels really good in my hands -- and now I see what you guys are saying about the viewfinder being so much bigger -- WOW

It is getting harder and harder to say NO to this thing !

Please keep those comments comming -- I need just a little more pushing

Art
"Feels so good feeling good again"

I just bought a D700 last Monday, I upgraded from my D2H. I bought the battery grip because it feels better (and more similar to my D2H/F5) in my hands.

I told myself as the new cameras came out over the last five years that I wouldn't upgrade until Nikon had a full frame sensor. So, one came out in the D700 and I upgraded.

Just say yes...

Diane

450 mm Nikkor-M rocks!

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

NAS is a killer isn't it. There is no cure once you have it. However it can go into remission with an aquisition now and then BUT, it always seems to return.

Sorry, you are in the wrong forum to look for a cure to NAS as we all have the affliction. We're just here to lend support to those that are in denial and help them understand how futile their resistance to NAS is...

Definitely the high ISO performance was a big factor (and I already had the D300 and D200), because apparently I spend much time shooting in dimly lit places where I can't or don't want to use flash, so that'd been quite helpful.

Another benefit is that several of my lenses have become much more useful (again) without the "crop factor" of the DX sensor. The field of view of several of my lenses was just too tight on DX (the 105/2DC and 135/2DC are prime examples, 28-75/2.8 is another), but on the D700 they're so much more usable indoors. I'm thinking you'll find your 24-70 so as well. (and the improved ISO performance would make the 70-300 more flexible as well)

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Art,

I started out with a D200 and used it to shoot many volleyball and basketball games, but only in well-lit gyms, of which there are very few. With my new D700 I can now take on those poorly-lit gyms by cranking up the ISO to 6400 and reveling in the great minimal-noise results. With the D700 it's goodbye to those low-light blues!

You won't regret your D700 purchase.

Bob

I got my D700 yesterday. Did one test shot of my dog in the house at 1000 ISO using available light, VERY impressive. Will test it against my D200 on the weekend.

Hedley
Originally from Merthyr Tydfil, Wales -- now in Arkansas

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Great comments folks -- plesae keep them comming -- I am sure getting tempted by this way cool camera !
Thanks

Art
"Feels so good feeling good again"

Hedley,

I'll continue to use my D200 for shooting events like football and rugby games where the crop factor is important, but it'll be the D700 for sure where the lighting is dim enough to require high ISO settings.

Bob

Bob

I'm keeping the D200 as a backup. It's a great body.

Hedley
Originally from Merthyr Tydfil, Wales -- now in Arkansas

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

There's a very good article on the FX vs. DX issue "Should you switch?" in April's Popular Photography. You might find it both interesting and enlightening. IF nothing else, it'll give you some specifics to think about.

Thanks -- if I can find it -- I'll be eager to take a look

Can you recall basically what they say about moving from DX to FX ?

Thanks in advance

Art
"Feels so good feeling good again"

For me the full frame and usable high ISO was enough......
Full frame because most of my lenses are made for full frame so that means my 50MM is truly 50 and not 75MM.
High ISO because I hate to use flash and I often shoot indoors in tight quarters.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

FX vs. DX and Popular Photography...........Size matters. One of the things the article points out for example is that a D700 has a pixel density of approx 14,000 per sq. mm which produces a pixel size of 8.5 microns. By contrast, the D300 has 28,300 pixels per sq. mm for a smaller pixel size of about 5.5 microns......... bottom line is that bigger pixels catch more light for less noise and greater dynamic range............but............there's more to it than that of course.

This was a really informative article for me and pretty easy to understand..................D90 anyone?