I posted this in the D100/D200/D300 section until I realised a new section had been created for the D700. It is a genuine question and not an attempt to stir things up.

Am I the only one who is wondering what all the fuss is about concerning the D700? 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?

As I see it, here in the UK I can pay £980 for a D300 with a 12 Mp DX sensor and a 100% screen, which will give me results equal to the new D700 at any print size to at least 18'' x 12'' and probably beyond, or I can pay double that for the D700 with effectively the same body quality, a cropped viewfinder and a 12 Mp FX sensor.

Perhaps there is some major advantage in a 12 Mp FX sensor over a 12 Mp DX one for general photography which I have not picked up on or missed, if so I would like to know.

At the moment neither camera is of interest as I am waiting and hoping for a new Fuji SLR based on the D300 body with the rumoured 'next generation' Fuji sensor to go with my S5. However if this does not appear, or Fuji pulls out of the SLR market as has also been rumoured, then it will have to be either a D300 or a D700, hence my question as to what I gain by spending an extra £1,000

Chris P

>As I see it, here in the UK I can pay £980 for a D300

Not seen one that cheap - where did you find it at that price?

Regards,
Tony

My Nikonians Gallery

D300 available for £948.66 today at http://www.ajpurdy.co.uk with no P&P to pay. I've found them quick & reliable.

But...........I'm going to save up for a D700!

Bridget

>>As I see it, here in the UK I can pay £980 for a D300
>
>Not seen one that cheap - where did you find it at that
>price?
>
>Regards,
>Tony
>
>My
>Nikonians Gallery>

I got mine that price in January at Gatwick. Dixons tax-free.
You can call them up and reserve one. They also do special orders there too.

And now priced at £834.06

http://www.dixonstaxfree.co.uk/index.cfm?fuseaction=products.view&pro_id=7000691&group=13

>And now priced at £834.06
>
>http://www.dixonstaxfree.co.uk/index.cfm?fuseaction=products.view&pro_id=7000691&group=13

Thanks but no thanks,i neeeed a D700 !!
Nikolaj Freiesleben

>As I see it, here in the UK I can pay £980 for a D300
>
>Not seen one that cheap - where did you find it at that
>price?

Amazon.co.uk lists the D300 for £955. And no, this isn't a "marketplace" offer -- this is the Real Amazon Shabang, with return policy et al in place. Wow, how the mighty (prices) have fallen!!!

-- LaDonna

_________________________________
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing

>Amazon.co.uk lists the D300 for £955. And no, this isn't a
>"marketplace" offer -- this is the Real Amazon
>Shabang, with return policy et al in place. Wow, how the
>mighty (prices) have fallen!!!
>
>-- LaDonna

Now just hold your nerve for a couple more weeks till the D90 comes out & it will fall even further

Regards,
Tony

My Nikonians Gallery

>Now just hold your nerve for a couple more weeks till the D90
>comes out & it will fall even further

I'm beginning to think I'm going to die before the D90 comes out ...

-- LaDonna

_________________________________
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing

>>Now just hold your nerve for a couple
>more weeks till the D90
>>comes out & it will fall even further
>
>I'm beginning to think I'm going to die before the D90 comes
>out ...

Nah...won't be long now. The D70 came out in (June?) 2004, the D70s was about a year later, and the D80 (which replaced the D70 in the lineup) was announced August 2006. So the D80 replacement is already overdue - I can't see it being much further down the line. Just don't go walking under any buses

Regards,
Tony

My Nikonians Gallery

>Am I the only one who is wondering what all the fuss is about
>concerning the D700? 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?

Hi,

if you own a collection of old (non-DX) glass, you have 2 options:

1) replace old glass with equivalent DX
2) buy FX body

Option 1 will cost you more then the equivalent of a D3 in new glass
Option 2 in form of a D3 is not a low cost option either. Plus the D3 might be overkill for many people.

In my specific situation, a D700 for 2,599€ is exactly what I missed from Nikon the past years. Somebody else might come to another valid conclusion.

Bye
Romain

There's no compelling reason to replace non-DX glass with DX glass. In fact some would argue that is not a smart choice since it locks you into the DX format.

Danny
A Nikonian in North Carolina

Hi,
the fuss is about finally getting the digital equivalent of F100. I "upgraded" my F100 to a D100 when the F100 still had sex appeal and high resale value. Subsequently I traded that for a D200.

I skipped the D300 completely because it did not offer enough benefits over my D200. I lusted over the D3 but as a happy snapper the $5k could not be justified. I'm glad I waited the 6 months, because now Nikon has really something special in the economy class too. The D700 is warmly welcomed. I will keep my D200 too, though I expect the poor fellow to be sitting on the shelf most of the time.

I only have 2 DX lenses and 11 FX ones. Most likely the DX ones will be for sale before year's end. Do I need to say more?

I'll look seriously at a D700 when reviews are available showing image quality. Higher image quality, especially at higher ISOs, has got to be a good reason for getting this body.

With a noisy D200, there are many times that I would like to use a higher ISO, but don't. The situations for this don't have to be really low light - I might just want a faster shutter speed and/or smaller aperture. I'll keep the D200 for when I want better reach.

I expect that the D700 will fall quite a bit from its launch price. I think that the D300 was launched at about £1300 & it is now retailing for about £100 more than the D200 was a year ago. So, I'll wait a little to get the new body.

Meanwhile, the reason for delaying lens choices (DX vs FX) seems to have gone. My next purchase could be the 24-70mm, which will work fine on my DX body for now, albeit that the zoom range is better suited to FX.

Bridget

It's my belief that Nikon finally catered to the wishes of the wedding crowd. How fast can a bride move that in order to justify the D3's framerate?

This body is a swing at Canon's 5d and it fits the bill nicely.
Wedding pros finally get an FX body, bringing a return to the narrower depth of field to Nikon's vaunted primes that the wedding pros are so fond of.

Bringing the SB-900 has also sealed in my mind Nikon's dedication to the wedding pros, those unsung heroes who earn money every weekend with their kit.
Nikon already has an amazing lighting system, bringing many canonites over to the fold, with this flash this will be more prominent.
I'm loving the full manual interface with selectors to go straight to remote or master. It will be the new weapon of choice.

The add-on MB-d10 also makes this the backup of choice for newsies who have chosen the D3 as a primary body.

If the D700's high ISO noise levels are as low as those from the D3, it will sell very, very well. (Might even end up in my camera bag )

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.

Intersting Discussion. I suppose somewhat it depends on what you shoot, whether you will pick a D700 or the D300. If someone offered me a straight swap for my D300 to a D700 today, I would say thanks but no!

I got the best of both worlds with sports shots, using the D300 cropped sensor and the D3 FX. Owning just three pro-lenses, I have a focal range from 24 to 450. I know I could use crop mode on the D3 (Don't know if the D700 will have this) but for a price of £990 + the grip, its a bargain as second body.

I think the D700 would make a great primary body for someone on a budget looking for pro-quality equiptment, but that can also be said for the D300 too.

--------------------------------------------------------

Mark (Prowicz)

South Wales, United Kingdom based NIKONIAN

I'm quite disappointed that Nikon didn't revamp some of those "vaunted primes". Where are the AFS versions of the 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.4?

Danny
A Nikonian in North Carolina

Chris, I think your question is an excellent one. The D700 is nearly twice the cost of the D300 with the same body and nothing really new combined to the D3/D300 options already available. Even so, there are a few things that make me want the D700 over the D300 (and even a D3) when I get a new body later this year.

1. D700 pop-up flash. The lack of an on-board commander for the CLS flash system in the D3 is an issue for me. I find the pop-up flash of my D200 so handy at times. My D2H lacks this quite useful feature. More importantly, when it is used as a commander for my SB-800s the D200 flash is marvelous. This built-in capability is noticeably lacking with my D2H "Pro" body. The D200 flash is always available, easy to enable, and works without adding weight to the top of the camera. With all previous Pro bodies you had to have a SB-800 or SU-800 attached to use the CLS multiple speedlight system. Like the D200/D300, with a pop-up flash on the D700, that issue is resolved. Minor issue to some people, but an important one to me.

* OK, so the D300 has the same flash, why not stay with the cheaper body? Because from what I have read, the image files from D3 sensor are generally better at all levels. The difference in very minimal to significant at low ISO depending on what you read, but it is not contested that as ISO goes higher, the D3 sensor really shines. Which brings me to #2.

2. IQ If not THE best, the D3 has one of the best DSLR sensors and supporting chipset units made to date by any camera company. There are individuals who have written about going from D3 to D300 and back to D3. Why? Because the D300 while a superbly built and lighter camera, plus a fantastic bargain for the price, just doesn't match the D3 image quality. It gives the D3 a good run for the money and is much lighter and easier to tote, but it isn't a D3. The D700 has the same image sensor as the industry leading D3.

3. $2000 - Cash or credit. For roughly $2000 less than a D3, you get all of the advantages of the D3 sensor and all of the advantages of the smaller, lighter, D300 body. Including the optional MB-D10 battery pack when needed. Go light or go heavy as your needs or desires dictate. It is the Olympus OM-1 of our time.

4. The viewfinder of the D700, while displaying only 95% compared to 100% for the D300, is still bigger and potentially brighter. The eyepoint location and pro body setup of the D700 viewfinder appeal to me more than that of the D300. The D300 viewfinder is pretty darn good to begin with, but one gets spoiled by a pro body viewfinder and the D700 has one.

5. FX and DX capability. Wide-angle lenses are as wide on the D700 as on the D3 and you have the option to use DX lenses in crop mode as well. Not available on the D300.

For me the D3 was almost perfect, but not quite there. It is really big, pretty heavy, and rather expensive. In addition, the lack of built-in capability to control CLS speedlights was a functionality that I felt was sorely needed in the Pro body line. Not a pop-up flash necessarily, but something to take advantage of the SB-800/SB-600 CLS capabilities in the same way a D200/D300 can. The D700 has that. And the D3 sensor. And FX. And DX. And the lighter packaging and size of the D300 body frame.

For $5000, you can have the major IQ advantage of a real D3 sensor and an optional 24-70 f2.8 for the price of a D3 alone. Nice.

"... you see, but you do not observe."
- Sherlock Holmes

>2. IQ If not THE best, the D3 has one of the best DSLR sensors
>and supporting chipset units made to date by any camera
>company. There are individuals who have written about going
>from D3 to D300 and back to D3. Why? Because the D300 while
>a superbly built and lighter camera, plus a fantastic bargain
>for the price, just doesn't match the D3 image quality. It
>gives the D3 a good run for the money and is much lighter and
>easier to tote, but it isn't a D3. The D700 has the same
>image sensor as the industry leading D3.

You said it. I have both, and switch back and forth between the two in order to avoid changing lenses. When processing a wedding, I notice a significant difference between the files. While the D300 has an excellent sensor, a huge improvement over the D200 for sure, they just don't compare to what comes out of the D3.

This is really the only reason to get the D700. The sensor of a D3 for $2000 less.

--
Adam
A Nikonian in Texas
www.whatsyourimage.com

D3, D300, 14-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8 VR, 105mm f/2.8 VR macro, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.4

It fits my needs like a glove.

I currently shoot with the D2X (3.5 yrs) and I really need more pixel density so I held off on the D3 while lusting for its high ISO performance and 1 stop more dynamic range. The D300 would not have been an upgrade for me.

Knowing I will get the next 24 megapixel monster I also don't feel like lugging two big bricks around (D3 and D?). Now I can get what I wanted from the D3 in a compact, much lighter body. I have a feeling the D? will not have near the HI- ISO noise performance. I have also been wanting to carry a camera that isn't as conspicuous as the D3 or D2X at times. And last I like having the built in flash commander.

I type this as I put B&H's number in my speed dial and wait for 9:00 a.m. - with my NPS info on the desktop beside me

Can you tell I'm a little excited?

EDIT - B&H was not very responsive (D700 not in the system as yet) so Berger Brothers now has my order. Larry is so good to deal with.

Regards,

Don Kesler

http://www.donaldkesler.com

Through the judicious use of adjustment layers, no pixels were actually harmed in the processing of my shots..

I just received an email from Roberts telling me they are taking pre-orders on the D700. That being said.....

I upgraded from a D200 to a D300 about 6 months ago. Kept the D200 as a spare since the selling value dropped like a comet out of the sky.

Naturally, I won't go to the D700. Maybe when the D700 is released the price might drop a little on the D3. Then why not spend another $2000.00, or less, go right to the D3? Now you have taken a giant leap and you won't have to worry about the D900....

Just my 2 cents

Bob
I keep learning and learning!!

Besides all the obvious reasons like ISO and going wide I will switch to Full Frame because we all know that FX is here to stay. DX is here for at least a while but it's very unsure if it will still exist in about 5 or 10 years. And if I buy (expensive) glass, I want to buy it for what it is and will stay. If you have a DX camera, you may need a 35 mm and for FX you need 50mm for the same purpose. If you eventually switch to FX when DX stops you are left with a whole different set of glass than it was when you bought it. And if you want to go DX again, you can always buy a converter.

Makes me think it would be pretty smart if Nikon could make a converter the other way around, like a 0.7 converter to use DX glass on FX bodies.
But that's a whole different story.

I always felt that DX was just a placeholder between 35mm film and the eventuality of FX sensors, and the time of FX sensors has come. I've been waiting for this camera because my brain never wrapped itself around the field of view/focal length connection with DX. I was always doing a 1.5 crop factor calculation in my head every time I shoot. Am I the only one who does this? I would shoot at 18mm and in my head I'd be thinking: "OK this is equivelent to 27mm focal length." Finally the time for doing such mental calculations is over. My 80-200 will cover 80-200 telephoto focal lengths again. It started at an awkward 120 field of view for many years and was fairly unusable for people shots. My new 24-70 will be a nice wide to short telephoto zoom. A 50mm lens will be a normal focal length again. My 85 1.8 won't require me to stand on the other side of the room to get a nice head and shoulders shot. No more crop conversions running through my head. I feel liberated.

Second reason - the D3 ISO perfromance in a smaller, lighter cheaper body. I don't need to lug a huge D3 to childrens birthday parties. I already get strange looks with my DSLR set-up among all the soccer mom's with their Canon digital elphs (but I get much better pictures But I can't wait to shoot available light and concerts at clean 1600 and 3200 ISO!

Now if they would just come out with some nice consumer FX zooms. Alas, I sold my 24-85 AF-S that I loved and they discontinued it, and the 24-120 gets widely panned. I new 24-120 AF-S VR would be nice sometime soon.

Flub

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

Hi All, Thanks for all the replies, which were really helpful and gave me a lot to think about, with points in favour of both the D300 and D700. Mulling over the replies gave me a few more things to think about given that my main photographic interest is people and my main hobby is merchant shipping.

At present my 24-85 f3.5/4.5 (36-127 on DX) + my 58 mm f1.4 Nokton gives me a nice portrait lens set and my 70-300 coverage up to 450 mm which is as much as I need for ships. I was going to invest in a 24-70mm f2.8 (36-105 on DX) for portraits and the 70-200 + 1.4 converter (105-420) for the ships over the next 12 months. If funds permit I could buy a D700, but this would depend on two lenses becoming available. 1 - a 28 or 35-105 f2.8 or f4 and 2 - an updated 80-400 with AF-S and VRII. My reasons for this are that 70mm is too short for portraits on FX and the current 80-400 VR system is not good enough for the conditions under which I use the 70-300.

As I said in my original post, if Fuji do produce a S6 based on a D300 body with a next generation Fuji sensor then my problem is solved.

Chris P

>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

>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
What about one who uses long telephoto AND events??
I am an old film day Nikkormat user, whose lenses I replaced after purchasing the D80 in April- finally went digital! So now I have only a few lenses, the 70-300VR which I enjoy for flowers, birds, wildlife. I have the infamous cheap 50 1.8 and the one my dh purchased with the camera, the only DX I own 18-135. I would love to do events, and am still learning, recently purchased the SB800 as well, and was considering the 17-55 DX. Not now, since the D700 is out. It would be an extreme purhase on my part, as a wife and mom,(husband is the bread winner here) on a budget, in a tough economy for us, as a hobby, learning, thinking of eventually going pro years from now. I have been rethinking of how much money this is for us, if I can swing it, and of course how great this would be. I never used flash much with my old film days, so the D700 would be wonderful without the need for flash, however I love the reach of my 70-300; the best of both worlds would be to keep my D80 and get the D700 and continue then to spend $ on FX format lenses only. With the D90 coming soon, that would put the value of the D80 down for re-sale, I would think too. Oh well. Time to rethink this again. Money is the only (big) problem for me, I would LOVE to have this lens, with the D3 results that I see! In time, I will see if I can swing it- but is it necessary, no; sounds so wonderful though! In the meantime, lens $ goes into camera savings....

>>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.

>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.

The reason I call it a poor choice is exactly why many *were not* happy with six MP. When shooting birds, it is often necessary to crop by 50% or so, *after* the shot is taken. You just can't get close enough sometimes. If you are starting out with 5 or 6 MP, you are left with a file that won't print big without losing quality. Two or three MP just won't cut it.

And don't forget, even if you *can* get close enough with the D700, the larger-than-DX-crop area of your frame will not be as sharp with FX Nikkor teles (the best ones are all FX). When shooting DX with an FX lens, only the sweet spot in the middle of the lens is used, providing edge to edge quality you just can't get any other way.

Still, I'm gonna jump on that 24 MP full frame D900 the second it comes out. Okay...who am I kidding. I'll buy a D700 when the NAS takes me over...but I should at least pretend to fight it for a while =)

But my D300 ain't goin nowhere.

Jason

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

>Why buy a D700

Because its a perfect companion to my D200
Nikolaj Freiesleben

> Why buy a D700

Because, if I'm lucky, my wife won't notice the extra zero and she'll simply think I'm still using my D70!

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.

This reminds me of when the D300 was recently released.

I agree that Nikon had to introduce an affordable FX camera but i see the D700 and a D300 with a new FX sensor and system rather than a camera offering any real advancements.

I'll wait and sedd what the D700 can do but its no reason to upgrade.

If anything, its a camera launched to help shift FX lenses!!

I have been looking at the different posts in this thread and seems to me as if not enough convincing reasons have been given to you as to make up your mind. I used a D700 yesterday and I will give you some of my personal observations hoping they will help you to make a decision.
In the first place, do you need a full frame sensor? This is a valid question because if indeed you do not need the FX format you will be saving a lot of money.
The D700 is a superb tool. If you hold one in your hands you will be immediately at home since the ergonomics are very similar to those of the D200 and D300. The prism is slightly bulkier than those of the previous two cameras. I have not used a D3 but I have heard rumors that the sensor is similar to the one in the D3. The AF was fast and I did not do any testing to compare it with other AF in the Nikon line. The shutter is made of Kevlar fibers and good for 300K actuations and in addition adjusts itself periodically to maintain accuracy.
Live view is there if you need it and an adjustment like those in airplanes for leveling the horizon is also available. Several methods of doing repeated exposures are available if you need that. The rear LCD is the best I have seen so far of all the cameras I have used but be warned that even when the images are super sharp you should not expect to see similar results upon downloading the files. Those screens are not color corrected. There are more technological goodies but you will need to do your own search.
Now the sensor. It is exactly the same sensor used by the D3. I used my 24-85 f3.5-4.5 AF-S with the camera and I could not believe the results when pictures were downloaded to the computer. The RAW files, the only ones I shot, were so full of details and colors that not even the use of sharpness was necessary. Indeed, the best performance I have seen from my lens of all the cameras I have used with it.
Noise, like in the D3, is actually very well controlled. I could not believe the images shot at ISO 3200. In my opinion far better than images shot at ISO 400 with my D2H.
I saw many samples of wedding photography with the D700 in low light and I could not believe my eyes. Enlargements were unbelievable also. I tell you I have not seen such a performance before. When combined with the 24-70 f2.8 lens the combo is a killer although heavy. You just have to see the pictures to believe it.
I have never used a D300 so I cannot make any comments about it. I am not so concerned about DX and wide angle photography because the tools are there and similar to equivalent wide angles for the FX format but the DX will continue to have an advantage for the tele photographer, especially sports and wildlife photography. Yes, you can do that too with the FX format but you have to buy super expensive lenses to achieve similar results to those of the DX format.
It is obvious that there is a place for each format but if I were in the market for a new camera, surely the D700 is a great choice for those like me into macro, portraits and landscape photography.


William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.

I agree with William. For me, its all about the sensor.

I upgraded from the D300, which is a great camera. In my indoor group shots I was having challanges in low light, using two flashes (SB-800 and Metz 58) and sweating bullets at times. I never went beyond ISO 1250 fearing poor image quality for 8x10 to 11x17 images.

Low light is not a problem for the D700. Yesterday I was shooting at ISO 5000 indoors, and getting some great shots with great IQ at 8x10 sizes (i have no need for this venue beyond that size).

I am now looking forward to this fall's indoor group shots, and 11x17 prints.

MarkF

D800
I still own an F100; do you think film will make a comeback?

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I was in B&H Photo in New York yesterday selling my D2x body and DX lenses to their Used Equipment department. Just as an FYI, the person there told me they were seeing a steady stream of people selling their DX bodies and DX lenses since the introduction of the D3 and D700. If you do decide to go the FX route and have DX gear that you plan on selling, I would recommend doing it sooner rather than later. The value on this gear on the secondary market, in my opinion, will probably continue to drift lower in the coming months....

BTW, I got the D700 and love it. It is particularly good for indoor available-light photography where you can crank the ISO up to 1600 or 3200 and shoot with a fast prime and get great results. The sensor is every bit as good as you hear, and that alone is reason enough to "upgrade" from the DX line...

One thing that I haven't heard in this thread is with full frame sensors you really need the best quality lenses to make it worthwhile. An FX sensor will bring out the worst in your 'cheaper' lens. IMO there is no point getting this body unless you have or upgrade to the best glass. Kinda like putting a set of cheap tyres on a Ferrari

>Am I the only one who is wondering what all the fuss is about
>concerning the D700? 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?

>or I can pay double that for the
>D700 with effectively the same body quality

Not being snide, but obviously you haven't shot extensively with any of these cameras.

For me, the ability to shoot WA and in low light (1.5-2 stops) is a HUGE advantage for the D3.

And BTW, the D700's build is the same as the D3's not the D300's.

I've said before here that the D300 is a great camera at a terrific price point, but the D3 is an amazing camera; and the the D700 has most of the D3's great points at a far lower price point -- so yeah that is a big B I G deal!

The FX wide angle advantage myth again? See this thread.

But I agree with you on this point: in the situation you describe, an extra 1.5-2 usable stops can make a big difference.

one of the myths can be found here?

http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=226&topic_id=1929&mesg_id=1929&page=

What is your point? A Nikon 10.5mm DX fisheye gives the same full-image results on DX digital cameras as the 16mm fisheye lenses give on FX digital and film cameras.