I have been looking into buying a D700 - but a photo dealer has told me that I would have to buy new lenses due to the full frame (FX) format.

Checking the camera specs, it would seems that all DX lenses (including the AF-S 18-200 VR)are compatable. Would there be any limitations??

Thanks

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

You're DX lenses will work fine on the D700. The D700 has a DX crop mode. The only 'draw back' is that DX crop mode is limited to 5.1 mp.

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

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

While it's not appropriate to dismiss using DX lenses on the FX D700, if you use exclusively or even mostly DX lenses, you'll be wasting 60% of that expensive sensor.

It's best to switch to FX lenses for the things you'll use the most, and leave less important lenses in DX until you eventually get around to replacing them.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

Although I no longer have examples because I deleted them the D700 in crop mode produced better pictures than my D1x which is a 5.47mp camera. The pictures from the D700 were just sharper and crisper and required much less pp. The 18-200VR is the only DX lens I own and I'm keeping it for a D300 because I want/need the extra reach DX has to offer. I agree with others that if you own a D700 you need FX lenses to take full advantage of the camera.
Mark Stephan
USN, retired

While DX lenses are useable in the crop mode on the D700, this is not why you buy the camera. I would get the 50mm f/1.8 - a very inexpensive but quite good and quite fast "normal" lens and use it for a while so that you can see how well this camera can perform (I love mine!). Then work from there. There are many here who can suggest lens "packages" to fit your budget.

Walter

f/8 and be there?...but I'm moving as fast as I can...I'm up to f/4 already!

Loss of resolution is the more obvious consequence of shooting in DX mode. It should not be too difficult to judge how relevant it is for the specific use.

Another side is noise. Under the same lighting conditions and same framing, the DX image has noticably more noise than the FX one (eg. compare 50mm DX with 75mm FX, same subject, same lighting). So think carefully whether you are prepared to taken away from the biggest selling point of the D700.

What is your source for the claim that a D700 in DX mode has more noise? For the life of me I can't figure out why that would be so. All you are doing is cropping an FX frame. the sensors in the DX frame are the same sensors that would be in the center of the FX frame, so the physics of the photo site remain the same.

Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery

"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"

Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!

>What is your source for the claim that a D700 in DX mode has
>more noise?

I compared it myself. Looking at the results at the same resolution (eg. both DX and FX converted to a 4MP result image), the FX image had noticably less noise.

>(eg. both DX and FX converted to a 4MP result image), the FX image had noticably less noise.

Ah - squishing a 12Mp image to 4Mp WILL give you a different result to squishing a 5Mp image down to 4Mp, you will get more noise smoothing with the bigger resolution drop.... I think the difference you are seeing is from the conversion step, not the image from the camera. As above cropping the FX image gives you exactly the DX result, same sensor sites, same physics, same amplification assuming shot at the same ISO...

Cheers

Simon

A UK Nikonian

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>>(eg. both DX and FX converted to a 4MP result image), the
>FX image had noticably less noise.
>
>Ah - squishing a 12Mp image to 4Mp WILL give you a different
>result to squishing a 5Mp image down to 4Mp, you will get more
>noise smoothing with the bigger resolution drop....

Exactly. But isn't that what's relevant? Per-pixel noise is a rather theoretical measure as is megapixel count; it's not very meaningful by itself since it doesn't translate directly into image quality.

What do we mean by difference in noise between DX and FX? For me, it means this: You take a photo. The end result is a print of a certain size (or screen image of certain dimensions). What's the difference in noise between the two end results?

I conclude your choice of a 4Mp end result simply favours the FX image by your logic, other xMp end results would favour the DX image...so it is telling you something about the conversion, not the relevant noise characteristics in each native image.

Cheers

Simon

A UK Nikonian

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Bob,

What is your source for the claim that a D700 in DX mode has more noise? For the life of me I can't figure out why that would be so. All you are doing is cropping an FX frame. the sensors in the DX frame are the same sensors that would be in the center of the FX frame, so the physics of the photo site remain the same.

This isn't even an FX/DX issue, the more you crop any image, the more noise will be apparent in the resulting image.
This simply has to do with the visual acuity of the human eye.
The same is true of viewing distance; if you view an image from further away, it look less noisy.

This is why my Photographic Dynamic Range values are normalized to the Circle Of Confusion (COC) for the camera body.
(You can find the chart at my site.)

Bill

Visit me at My site

Buy the 700. You will love it regardless of your current set of lenses. If you don't need to cover the side of Madison Square Garden with a picture of your favorite....; then your current DX lens will work just fine. When you have the money for new equipment, you will add the FX lenses that suit your needs. "All or nothing" is not a reasonable option.

I'm sort of surprised that nobody has asked the original poster what body or lenses he currently has. So, I'll ask now. What body and lenses do you already have?

In my opinion, if you have an entry level DSLR and more than one or two DX lenses, you might be better off considering a D90 or a D300 before the D700. The primary benefit of the D700 over these two cameras is better high ISO performance and the full frame field of view with FX lenses. Yes, your DX lens(es) will work with the D700, but you negate one of the major benefits. You will get far more pixels on the subject with a D90 or D300.

If you are already shooting with something like a D90 or D300, you might be better off buying some top notch lenses first. Depending on the type of shooting you prefer, you might want to consider something like a 24-70 or 70-200, or maybe even a fast prime like a 50 or 85 f/1.4.

If you only have the 18-200 that you mentioned, and still want the D700, I would definitely plan to buy an FX lens with it or very soon afterward.

What features of the D700 are attractive to you? It's your money, but I suggest you think about "need" versus "want" a little more. It's quite possible that a different purchase could be much more beneficial for you.

Danny
A Nikonian in North Carolina

Danny,
All good points. However, the issue is not what is logical or the best "business" decision; it is NAS and the desire to have what is currently the best, within reach.Personally I made the decision to move up to the D700 from the D200. Of course, the D300 would have made more sense with my group of lenses. Needless to say, the D700 has proven to be the best decsision for me. And I will add FX lenses in the future. Purchasing another DX body would only mean that the purchase of FX lenses might not be the most prudent. More DX lenses before I move up to an FX body--more reason not to purchase an FX body. Sometimes want and need cannot be logically reconciled.

I certainly understand your point of view, but telling somebody to just go for a FX camera without fully explaining the trade-offs is a bit short sighted.

Danny
A Nikonian in North Carolina

"Purchasing another DX body would only mean that the purchase of FX lenses might not be the most prudent. "

Actually there is nothing wrong with using FX lenses on a DX camera. Some may cost a little more, or be a little heavier, but optically no reason not to go in that direction now if you know that FX is in your future. I stopped buying DX lenses sometime ago, and typically use FX lenses on my D300. I bought some of the newer ones just before the price increased and will continue to use them when I go to FX.

>Actually there is nothing wrong with using FX lenses on a DX camera.

Not only nothing wrong but (see posts below), using a DX camera on an FX lens can mean you don't suffer from (for instance), the vignetting/light drop off that can be experienced on an FX body with some lenses...

Cheers

Simon

A UK Nikonian

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

In this case, FX body with DX lens--short Pixels. NAS cannot be rationally explained.

i have had a "little" problem with my D700/70-200mm f2.8. At longer focal lengths, the vignetting is a problem , or can be, depending on the background. With the sky or light background, it gets dark, pretty fast. it was my second most used lens and really is bad. Nikon said to adjust in-camera setting, but really didn't help. Totally sucks. I do need a lens between my 24-70mm 2.8, my 85mm 1.4 and my 300mm 2.8 The 200mm f2 looks great (expensive), the 135mm f2 and the 180mm are my other choices. Any suggestions? Hate to order a lens and then have to take it back. What are you guys doing? 200mm f2 looks great, prob. won't vignette, but costs almost as much as the 300mm.

>What are you guys doing?

I'm still using the 70-200mm VR. Maybe my subjects are different from yours, but I find any vignetting can be processed out quite easily, so I don't see it as objectionable. For me, the considerable other benefits of the lens greatly outweigh this slight deficiency.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

Have you tried vignette control? I haven't tried it (as I don't have this lens), but I wonder how well it works.
Jack

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>Have you tried vignette control?

Not yet - I haven't need to so far

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

Answering the original question I see little point in getting an FX sensor body without a plan to get at least some 24x36 format lenses.
Now for 70-200 "misinformation"
>>Have you tried vignette control?
>Not yet - I haven't need to so far
Brian is right
No-one with a D3 was concerned about optical/digital vignetting with the 70-200 until dpreview published a largely misleading "horror" story.
Since then many who seem to have little hands on fast aperture zoom lens experience on FX have repeated the misinformation.
***
Nobody says anything bad about the 14-24 and 24-70
Why?
I own the 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 and D3
***
The 70-200 wide open optically vignettes about 1.5 stops on film - the 14-24 and 24-70 optically vignette slightly more.
Many lenses also "digitally vignette" on digital because of the digital "well" effect - and more so on 24x36 than cropped sensor bodies.
True if I look for it wide open I can detect about 3 stops optical/digital vignetting in something like a bald sky using the 70-200 wide open.
At 14mm on the 14-24 and 24mm on the 24-70 wide open I find the combined vignetting slightly worse at about 3.5 stops.
***
Few mention the greater vignetting on the 2 wide zooms - presumably because sources like dpreview did not start a rumour.
Vignette control is available if I need it - but so far, like Brian, I have not needed to use it.
***
Digressing I do not think there is any doubt the Canon 5D and 1Ds III "digitally vignette" - including with the Canon 70-200, 24-70 and 16-35 - more than Nikon, based on reviews I trust and field testing the original 16-35.
***
There is little new in photography!
If I use a 3 stop grad ND at 17mm because in the frame corners the light passes at an angle through the dark part of the grad the image shows about 2 extra stops corner shading.
Vignette control can also be used when this happens.
It would seem whoever did the dpreview review has not enough "nouce" to know that landscape photographers using grads on wide angles have been living with corner vignetting issues for decades.
If it bothered us on a specific image we dodged or burned (depending on E6 or C41 film) before wet processing.
With computer vignette control a solution is quicker and easier - but it is essentially the same type of solution for the same type of issue I first encountered using an Olympus 18mm in the late 1970's.
Repeating myself - there is little new in photography

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.

Len Shepherd

I haven't used nor needed vignette control either. I've never shot with the 70-200mm but I have seen great pics from it and was wondering what all the "panic" online was about. My 12-24 Sigma vignettes a bit when used indoors wide open but what the heck, the thing was at 12mm in some rather dim light (D700). It's not like the corners were black. I stopped it down a bit and the "problem" went away, or at least got better. I never notice it outside. I don't consider it a criticism because I think that lens is quite a feat in optical design, regardless of its warts. Especially given its size and weight and cost.
Jack

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Dear Mr. Shepard,
I have never read the article you have mentioned, too busy shooting for a magazine. If not a problem, why the "Oh yeah, I see..." from my dealer? Yes, is most noticeable against a bright sky or white wall, at wide settings and long focal length. I wanted a serious answer, not some scooter's diatribe. It does it with my D3 as well. A pleasant lady named Joy M. Newcomb from Nikon has asked that I return the lens for service/examination, at their expense. The majority of my images are sent to our layout people via our ftp. unaltered, so no, a software fix is not really an option. Some people read too many articles...

Perhaps we had better see what fix she comes up with, can't wait to see personally, either she will then have an aweful lot of lenses to alter or she'll have to have a good story.

Surely you have come across light fall-off in the corners of many other lenses of all manufacturers? It is a feature of many lens designs...