Hey All!

I unfortunately recently had to return my D300 to B&H do to a faulty autofocus system. Now, I am without a camera! Gasp! However, I now find myself in an interesting predicament and I'm hoping some of you great people can help me out. I currently only have a 50mm f/1.8 lens in my bag (along with a spot missing a camera that needs to be filled). I have two options and only enough money for one. I'm debating whether to buy another D300 and buy a 17-55 f/2.8 DX or spring for the D700. If I purchased a D700, I would only have enough money to keep the 50mm f/1.8 and possibly buy another inexpensive prime. I know the rule typically is buy a good body and splurge on glass, but I'm wondering if I should go for the AMAZING FULL FRAME body and worry about the better glass later. The 50mm and possibly an 85mm should serve for quite some time? Any response is greatly appreciated.

Thanks so much,

Brennan

What kind of shooting do you plan to do, and in what conditions?

Thom Hogan has a good article on the subject:
http://www.bythom.com/d700announce.htm

If you are doing wildlife shooting in bright light and nesd to get in as close as possible (without a budget for an exotic lens), the D300 wins. If you need wide angles or low light, the D700 wins.

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.

Hello everyone.

Thank you for your responses so far. The two largest areas of my interests take place in landscape photography and sports. My main subjects for landscapes being flowers, waterfalls, field scenes, and lakes / mountains. I could easily obtain a wide angle lens for under $$$ so that isn't my worry. As far as sports go, I photograph waterskiing off the back of my and other peoples' boats. When I had the 50mm on the D300 it was the perfect lens for the job. I'm thinking that if I purchased a 85mm for the D700 it would be roughly the same telephoto, maybe even a little more which would be fantastic. I also shoot downhill ski racing, usually at close range...say from the side of the race course at a particular gate. None of my shooting requires an extreme lens at this point (70-200 f/2.8 VR). I can purchase something of that nature at a later date. I've just heard rave reviews from Canon owners about their full frame 5D and I know that the D700 will be heads and tails better than the 5D (much better built in my opinion). Nikon is known for making great non-pro primes (like the 85mm f/1.8 and the 28mm f/2.8) so therefore I do not have to throw down a great deal more money for more FX lenses that will meet my specific needs. Still, I appreciate all the advice. Looking forward to hearing from you all.

Brennan

Even with shooting sports using a long lens, you are going to get better performance at incredibly high ISO settings with superior noise reduction, better dynamic range using the D700. Often the lighting can be tricky or low, and action may be fast and you need high ISO. That's still an excellent match for the D700 and sport photography.

If you choose the D700, why not go for the 24-70mm f/2.8, much faster & practical to operate in the sport situations you are talking about instead of playing around with a 28, 50 & 85 and switching back & forth.

Brennan,

I've been through the DX -> FX transition with my D2X's -> D3 and now have added a D700 for travel. I wouldn't go back to DX now (although I still have a D2X that I'll probably convert to IR use) since AF/MF lenses now work & look as intended from my film days. Hence if you've got the opportunity to step up from the fine D300 to a D700 I'd do it now while you aren't heavily invested in DX lenses. This is one of those occasions where it's probably worth investing more in the body to get to FX and then invest further in the glass for that format instead of DX.

I would be tempted to get the D700 and further primes as your budget permits. I use a D700 for travel and carry a 35/2, 50/1.4 and 70-300VR which makes for a really light outfit that benefits from the wonderful sensor of the D700. If I were shooting portraits and didn't need the reach of the zoom then I would carry the 85/1.4 instead.

The 50/1.8 is a fine lens, as is the 85/1.8 if the budget doesn't stretch to the 85/1.4. The 70-300VR is a bit of a sleeper when used with the D700 or D3 for travel - the lack of speed and variable aperture are easily compensated for by the high ISO capabilities of the D700/D3.

------
Graham

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I have owned both cameras and both lenses-- and I'd rather have a D700 w/ 50 1.8 than a D300 w/ 17-55. Eventually, with either choice, you will no doubt want another lens.

Nobody can tell you what's right for you. I LOVE my D700. Mostly. (Mini HDMI is a pain, since most every HDTV is full-sized HDMI -- and no more PTP file transfer means NEFS won't transfer in Windows.)

If you have the extra dollars, you will truly enjoy the D700. Short term, until you have money for expensive lenses, you can perhaps get a used 28-105 Nikon. It is an excellent lens on the D700. It doesn't impress discerning photographers who don't respect anything that costs less than 4 figures, but this is a very underrated lens, and it has a good macro feature. Mine was $289 new, so a good used one should be very affordable.

You have to be fair in your comparison, you talk about a used Nikon AF 28-105 F/3.5~4.5 vs. a new top of the line 17-55 f/2.8 for the D300.

From what I've read, the D700 & D3 have a 1.5-2 stops usable ISO advantage over the D300 which you can negate with a fast lens on D300 vs. a slow lens on D700 & loose the shallower DOF isolation effect.

The dynamic range advantage varies from about .5 EV @ ISO 200 to about 1.5 EV @ ISO 6,400 according to this graph.

The question is if you are on a limited budget, what is the impact on your type of photography of the ISO difference of a D700 + one lens compared to a wider FOV range with faster zoom lens on DX with a given budget?

If money is no object & you don't mind the extra weight, it's obvious that a FX body with a fast lens kit will produce better results @ high ISO.

With the $1,300 body cost difference you could get for the D300 for example (with $130 change, B&H prices):

- Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 > .96 lb (434g) > $420

- Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 II EX DC HSM, 1.7 lb (780 g), $750 (equivalent FOV range of an almost twice heavier 70-200mm f/2.8 on a FX).

And if you do decide eventually that you would like more reach for birds & stuff, the impact of weight & costs for equivalent FOV @ the same fast aperture will be even more significant. But again, if you have the cash & don't mind the extra weight...

Thank you for all of your help. The thing that makes me lean toward the D700 is the fact that I will be keeping this body for a very, VERY long time. I want the flexibility to be able to grow with the Nikon lens system (I know DX is NOT dead) and I also like the idea that a 28mm is indeed a 28mm. I also prefer to stick with Nikon branded lenses, just one of my things. I could probably get the D700 and an 85mm f/1.8 and that way my kit would be D700 along with super sharp 50mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8. I do love my landscape photography along with sports, and I see the D700 fulfilling all of my purposes. $3000 does sting a little for a college kid, but between grad money and selling off my iMac recently should lessen the blow. I'm open to anymore feedback. Thanks,

Brennan

Who cares if a 28mm is a 28mm on FX unless you already have one. A 18mm on DX will give the same FOV.

If you stick to Nikon lenses, a 17-55mm on DX is the FX equivalent of a 25.5-82.5mm.

- 17-55mm f/2.8G, $1,200, 1.6 lb (754 g)

- 24-70mm f/2.8, $1,700, 2 lbs (0.9 kg)

The advantage of your 50mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8 kit is that it's fast & forces you to think about composition & zooming with your feet instead of getting lazy & zoom but you would need to add a wide angle.

- 85mm f/1.8, $400, 0.91 lb (408 g)

- Nikkor 50mm f/1.8, $110, 0.34 lb (152 g)

- Nikkor 24mm f/2.8, $310, 0.58 lb (260 g)

For a total of 1.8 lb (806 g) & $820 but the 24-70 offers all the other in-between focal lengths, offers arguably better IQ, & for sports will offer the significant advantage of being able to quickly change the frame & FOV, it's more compact, & 15mm at the long end is not that significant.

Shooting mountains & zooming with your feet could mean a long walk & it's not always possible because of the terrain. Same for portrait in a house, with walls & furniture for example.

If you are riding in fast boats like you say, it could be a problem with lens changing with spray or dust in other shooting conditions.

What if you eventually add a UWA & telephoto, you will end up with a ton of lenses to carry around.

If you are thinking in term of the best equipment that you will keep for a long time, why not bite the bullet & buy the best mid-range zoom available for a D700 @ the present?

The reason that I could not get the absolute best setup as of right now is definitely because of cost. If you take the D700 and then add the absolutely amazing 24-70 f/2.8 I'm spending $4700 as a college student with other education expenses. Photography is not my intended major, but only a serious hobby that I enjoy greatly. I know glass is very important, but the way I look at it I could get a starter kit (all of those primes mentioned) to work with until next summer when I will have more dough for something like the 24-70. If I purchase the D700 I won't likely upgrade bodies again for 5 years. I'd be investing in glass during that time. I have time to learn, and therefore am willing to take time building my glass arsenal. As much as I'd love to go pickup the 24-70, I'd likely be flat broke afterward. Thank you for the suggestion, but the more inexpensive I can keep it for the moment the better.

Brennan

"the more inexpensive I can keep it for the moment the better"- so why limit yourself to Nikon branded lenses or why not explore the possibility of buying used lens that you can re-sell almost at the same price when you will have enough to get what you really want?

Anyway, your 50mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8 kit choice is valid too as a stepping stone but also get a 28 or better, a 24mm.

Best of luck with college & photography exploration. I would gladly trade my 51 years & all my cash & equipment to be in your shoes.

Hey you know something, buying used had never occurred to me! Duh! Thank you so much for the suggestion. Other than ebay, can you recommend any good places (online) to buy used glass? Also, which off-brand lens company would you suggest, Tamron or Sigma. Again, thank you for all of the help and the good wishes for college

Brennan

Can't help you much with the where besides two reputable sites suggestions with reliable Used Conditions lens ratings: www.keh.com & B&H Used under cameras/photo gear > 35mm lens and digital cameras.

I never used it so can't say if it's good or not but Nikonians has it's own I want to sell forum.

Did you see the Used lenses and what to check pinned thread in the Nikkor Lenses forum?

About third-party lenses, Tamron, Sigma & Tokina each have some pearls & some dogs, depends also on FX or DX usage. Check the 3rd Party Lenses forum. After searching naturally, it's a good place to ask questions.

1/ There is no difference in sharpness or resolution between a D300 and a D700.
2/There is no noise advantage and negligible dynamic range advantage to 400 ISO and at 800 the noise advantage is slight.
3/ I prefer mixing DX and FX - no way can FX match the extra reach, working distance and depth of field (for the same viewfinder crop) of DX - which for the subjects YOU take implies as you can only afford 1 format now DX is your best choice.
As an owner of the D300 and D3 my first choice for landscape, macro and sport is the D300.
4/ You are a bit restricted for sports work with just a 50mm
If you trade your D300 you will loose money on the deal.
To me by spending the "extra" on say a 70-200 and 60 G macro you have a lot more shooting capability and only sometimes loose out when shooting conditions give the D700 a noise and DR advantage.

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

Len,

I think it's important to consider that the OP isn't trading the D300, it's been returned and so there's no concern over losing value in a trade. He also has no DX lenses. I think this changes things significantly.

Under those circumstances I think that if Brennan has the funds then it may well be worth starting with an FX outfit rather than start a DX outfit with the subsequent possibility of wanting to migrate in the future with a collection of DX lenses.

Obviously comparable systems can be put together using either DX or FX, with the DX outfit offering the chance for greater lens reach for the same money. However, if you expect to change to an FX system in the future, I'd say start now.

------
Graham

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Thank you for all input. Graham you make a very good point in that I'm sure I'd want to migrate in the future, and if I bought a D700 my intent would be to keep it for a VERY long time, at lease until the shutter breaks around 150,000 clicks . I'd also like to force myself to think about composition with a starter lens set of primes rather than going all zooms. Thanks again,

Brennan

>Len,
>I think it's important to consider that the OP isn't trading the D300, it's been returned and so there's no concern over
>losing value in a trade. He also has no DX lenses. I think this changes things significantly.
Not for sports or macro taken by the OP - where DX is the better format around 90% of the time.
Combined with selling lenses to fund the D700 does not make any sense to me.

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

Hey guys,

I just thought I'd let you know that I went to my local photo store today and handled the D700. All I have to say is wow, I'm going for the D700. The D700 is heads and tails better than the D300. The handling, speed, accuracy of the autofocus, EVERYTHING is better than the D300. I am totally amazed with the quality of the images as well. Thank you all for your input and opinions. Happy shooting!

Brennan