Hi everyone, I'm new to Nikonians and would appreciate some informed advice:
I'm thinking of going semi-pro and working in the landscape/heritage field in the UK. I also intend to cover public events like festivals, carnivals and classic car shows.
I need to upgrade from my D70 so which way do I go; DX with the D300 or FX with a D700? The lenses for the DX seem more versitile and lighter/cheaper, but the quality of the pro lenses are offset by cost and weight.
I don't mind investing in the new pro lenses and the FX format if it is realy worth it, what do you recomend?
#1. "RE: Advantages of FX?" In response to Reply # 0
I've been shooting DX since the D100. I have a D200 as a backup as I just purchased a D700. I now have the option of using my 3 DX lenses on my D200 or in 'DX mode' on my D700. I can use my FX (really non DX) lenses on the D200 for extra reach or on the D700 as then were meant to be. One thing you'll notice with the FX is that you get an image that's roughly the size and proportions of a 35mm negative.
Hedley Originally from Merthyr Tydfil, Wales -- now in Arkansas
#2. "RE: Advantages of FX?" In response to Reply # 0
I've got to think anything with the word "event" in it screams D700
I have both cameras, the D300 is now relegated to a wildlife role, and the D700 does everything else. I have shot my D700 up to ISO 12,800 when needed and it delivered usable photos. ISO 6400 shot outdoors is highly detailed with little resolution loss. Or at lower ISOs, as many others will indicate, ISO3200 is very usable and some say D700 ISO800 is like D300 ISO200. That is a significant advantage anywhere that you will shoot!
Lenses: absolutely a size, weight, and cost penalty for the 14-24 and 24-70 but quality like no others can match (not even Canon). For the moment I am going Sigma 12-24 and Tamron 28-75 as coping mechanisms.
My 2 cents...
Best regards, SteveK My Nikonians gallery 'A camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.' -- Dorothea Lange
#3. "RE: Advantages of FX?" In response to Reply # 0
I first think one must say that the D300 is a terrific camera that produces terrific shots. If most of your shooting is outdoors in daylight I do not think you will see a significant difference in shots taken with the D700, other than the obvious crop factor.
However, if you are going to be shooting indoors, in a church, for example, the difference is huge. In this gallery you will find comparison shots taken with the D300 and D700. The first few shots are of a wedding in a "no flash" church taken with the D700, hand held at 6400 ISO. These shots would be awful with the D300. In fact, a professional photographer was shooting with a Canon 5D and the couple told me that all the shots he took in the church were not usable. This is the big deal about the D700, not shooting classic car outdoors.
#5. "RE: Advantages of FX ? perhaps none." In response to Reply # 0
It is far better to look at the concept in terms of differences. As already mentioned the D300/700 produce identical sharpness and resolution. When you are shooting around f11 for your landscape work there is rarely an optical advantage in using a top pro lens. If you are into extreme wide angle work or minimal depth of field (unlikely from your listed subjects) FX has an advantage. For your "events" for either faster shutter speeds or more depth of field DX has the advantage. FX is bigger, heavier, costs more and limits your DX lenses to 5MP results but if you regularly need to shoot at faster than 800 ISO FX has a noise advantage. There is a lot to be said for having each format body and using whichever best suites the subject with the lenses you have with you.
Photography is a bit like archery. A technically better camera, lens or arrow may not hit the target as often as it could if the photographer or archer does not practice enough.