1. 12-24
2. 17-55
3. 18-200

3 reasons you should...

1. 14-24 f2.8
2. 24-70 f2.8
3. 6400 ISO

I would def buy one if I could afford on

>3 reasons you should...
>
>1. 14-24 f2.8
>2. 24-70 f2.8
>3. 6400 ISO
>


i only need 1 reason
AF-S 17-35 mm f/2,8 !!!

Nikolaj Freiesleben
Denmark

LOL, I was thinking EXACTLY the same thing!

Not to mention:
85 f/1.4
35 f/2.0
24 PC E

(Sure, they'll work fine on DX, but they work much nicer on FX)

Jason P. Odell
Colorado Nikonian
Author, The Photographer's Guide to Capture NX2
The authoritative guide to Capture NX 2.0!

www.luminescentphoto.com

Listen to The Image Doctors

My reasons:

10-20mm Sigma
18-200vr Nikon.

Of course down the road in a couple of years.

The main reasons are:
Price and opportunity cost.
My current D70 does great work, largest so far 20x30" and planned 30x45".
I don't use high ISO.
Where available I prefer a more portable camera.

Actually I find film ie., the $30 or $50 F/N75 great - it does AFS VR and same pro film and pro lab as a F6! Its FF too.

My only camera is the D70 and had it since 2004 and clocked up 4,000 images. In the near future I would like more travel so photog is a back step for that. But I would like a D50 or a D2h classic used in a year or two. In the nearer time, maybe a set of used 3x studio lights and a background or two for family portraits and experience that....

A used FF digital of course, I would like one but I don't need one and doubt what I see in the print of what I do is significant. Ie., for me its not worth it.

Esp that in digital they just get better and better and cheaper and cheaper. Esp those 2nd hand deals.

I can see someone who has invested in DX lenses not buying an FX body. I am the opposite in that I never got into Nikon DSLRs and have older ai lenses. That is why I will get a D700. At least now there is a choice.

Bob

Nikon Bob

>I can see someone who has invested in DX lenses not buying an
>FX body. I am the opposite in that I never got into Nikon
>DSLRs and have older ai lenses. That is why I will get a D700.
>At least now there is a choice.
>
>Bob


Same here! I just have too many great sharp old fixed-focus wide-angle lens, and D700 is just too good a news for me!

>I can see someone who has invested in DX lenses not buying an
>FX body. I am the opposite in that I never got into Nikon
>DSLRs and have older ai lenses. That is why I will get a D700.
>At least now there is a choice.
>
>Bob

Exactly my situation as well. I have shot Nikon Film SLR's up until I purchased a D300. However, I could never get used to the fact that all my lenses from my film rig never got the look I expected. Fortunately for me, I only had the D300 for a short while before the D700 was announced, so I took it back to Ritz and exchanged it (no money lost) for the D700. Now... I should feel like "home" but with instant gratification and all the other benefits of digital.

My four reasons for getting one:

1. AF-S 17-35/2.8
2. AF-S 28-70/2.8
3. AF 28/1.4
4. AIS 50/1.2

I have both DX and film lenses so a D700 in in my future. I love the price too because, I was already saving my pennies for a D3. Now I wont have to save as long. Also with boost ISO 12,800 and 25,600. Can we say hand held night shots?

I shoot therefore, Iam.
http://joves.smugmug.com

Hi NASSattack,
Just wanted to get some further feedback on the D700/Lens issues.
My brief look at the D700 specs led me to believe that it had provision for shooting DX lenses.
What I am really excited about is it's probable high ISO performance,(weddings especially without flash}
I am hoping that it will be on par with what I have seen of the D3.
I'lI see whether the DX lenses are compromised because the the full frame is not utilized.
I too have the 17-55mm f/2.8 and Tokina 12-24 f/4.
My other lenses are the 50mm f/1.8 and 80-200mm f/2.8D AF 2 ringed version.

Shooter

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

DX lenses will not use the full area of the FX sensor.

The reasons FX is for me are:

1. 17-35 AFS
2. 28-70 AFS
3. 80-200 AFS

All in the same way as with my F5!

Shoot nature with respect and don't trample it or startle its inhabitants.

The D700 will automatically recognize a DX lens and switch to DX crop mode. You can have your cake and eat it too!!

LUST!!!

Enjoy.

Randy

Could we see DX lenses coming down in price now that Nikon is pushing FX?
hummmmmmmmm!

Bob

I don't see the cost of DX lenses coming down simply due to the new FX sensor introduction. The question should be: How long will Nikon continue its commitment to producing DX format cameras? New technology tends to displace older technology, e.g. incandescent light bulbs replacing candles/kerosene lanterns, LED's replacing High Intensity Discharge lamps in street and area lighting (yes, that is already happening or at least starting).

Hi...

Regarding Nikon backing away from DX in favor of FX to me is a question that is out of the question.

The two are totally different animals with different reasons for being...kinda' like apples and oranges.

If I want superb wide angle capability, I'll choose FX...and if I want to work with my long telephotos, I'll almost always go with DX for improved pixel density, the crop factor and with the D300, anyway, excellent high ISO performance up to 1600, easily, and beyond.

There's more than ample room for BOTH technologies and depending on specific need, each has its own place where its capabilities excel. For example, if I want to mount my 200-400mm AF-S VR and a TC-14E, it'll always be the D300 or my D2Xs that I'll reach for... On the other hand, if I want to use my 28-70 f/2.8, the D3 will always get the nod. It's just that simple...

Viva la Difference' or something like that...

Dick
The Long Ranger
A Telephoto Lovin' Nikonian

"There are none so blind as those who would not see..."

Interesting reasons but no one seems to nail IQ as a reason for getting the D700 except at ISO 6400. Maybe it will become obvious as time goes by which format will be the standard. As for full time pros, it looks split between sport and nature shooters and well everyone else, though I expect wedding shooters to be still carrying both depending on the venue.

Mike

1. Shooting at ISO 6400 is not worth $3,000 to me.
2. Shooting at ISO 1600 is not worth $3,000 to me.
3. Shooting at ISO 400 to 800 I can do with my D200.

And I have the glass for both formats.

Edo

Three reasons why I'm getting a D700:

1. 14-24
2. 14-24
3. 14-24

This lens alone made me change from a D200 to a D700!

Luis

Luis Balbinot
http://luisbalbinot.com/

The one thing I have spotted that may be disadvantageous about an otherwise great sounding camera is that the viewfinder only covers 95% compared to the D300 where 100% of the image is seen. I have always considered this a 'mark' of a pro camera.

Edit:
apologies - I see this has been covered in several other posts!

Three reasons I will not be getting a D700:

1. Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 ($570)
2. 1.5x=more distance
3. 6 fps or 8 fps with mb-d10

If you really need noise control then go for the D700. For those of you who are switching because you want wider lenses the new Tokina 11-16mm should be to your liking. It's almost half the price of Nikon's 12-24, is two stops faster, and is also made for DX formats. Ken Rockwell will tell you more reasons why it's better.

There is a somewhat important range missing if one goes with the 11-16mm. If you were to go for the 17-35mm on a DX you'd be missing a true 17-35mm range. However if you had the Tokina, 17-35mm, 35-70mm, and 70-200mm, you'd be set. If you must have the DX range of 17-35mm you could go with the 18-200mm, but I don't see it being that important. You can always shoot a little wide and crop. New glass is more expensive and not that much better.

As a D300 user I'll be going with the Tokina, 17-35mm, my 35-70mm, and 70-200. I have a 50mm f/1.4, 105mm macro, and that seems to fit all ranges necessary for any event photography I want to do. I'll probably get the 35mm f/2 for a true 50mm as well. As a college student I don't have enough for the D700 anyways. $3000 for the body would get me the lenses I don't have that I just listed. We all know pro glass is more important than a pro body in terms of priorities. Just my two cents.

My Printroom Gallery:
www.printroom.com/pro/jwprophoto

Don't you think this DX vs FX has gone on long enough? Each system has it's good and not so good points.At the end of the day it's the person behind the camera that counts.The problem is that there are too many people out there that are "must haves" and because they have spent money on DX lens moan their lot on this group about the D3 and the new D700.
Nikon has done a fine job with the D300 and D3 and I expect the D700 to be no different.

>The one thing I have spotted that may be disadvantageous
>about an otherwise great sounding camera is that the
>viewfinder only covers 95% compared to the D300 where 100% of
>the image is seen. I have always considered this a 'mark' of a
>pro camera.
>

The viewfinder may show 95% but the LCD will show 100%.

Three reasons why I never got the 17-55DX or 12-24DX:

1. D700
2. D700
3. D700

I'm still not sure I understand the functioning of the D700 completely. As I understand it, the FX sensor will function on a one-to-one correspondence with Nikkor lenses, even non-digital ones. In others words, if you use a 50mm lense, the image size would be the same on an F2, F4, or the D700.

Will the D700 meter with MF lenses? Thanks. I've been reading about this camera in bits and pieces but haven't had much time to study it.

LL49Wat

Based on the D300, D200 as well as the D2.. and D3 all the cameras take manual lenses in some form or other. Hope this helps.

>1. 12-24
>2. 17-55
>3. 18-200

Strange post.

I'm getting a D700 and relegating my D200 to backup duty because I want the superb high-ISO performance. And although I have the 17-55mm f2.8 DX and will have to keep it for the D200, I'll be getting the 24-70mm f2.8 as well, specially for the D700. Why? Because I believe in moving forwards, getting better and delivering better results.

John
www.blokewithacamera.co.uk

Hi John,
I agree with you totally.
I too came to the conclusion that in order to move forward, getting better and affordable gear is the answer.
Owning the D200 and 17-55 as well,I decided that for wedding/event shooting starting late afternoon and going into the night that I want my shots full quality and clean for the entire event.
Confidence is important in any scenario.

Shuter

Shooter

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

If i am understanding things right using a DX lens on the D700 gives you a 6mp sensor.

So whilst it is a cross platform DX FX format this camera and the D3 really are designed for use with FX it looks as though not to alienate those with DX lens investment they have added a "reverse" compatability.

Given that the sensor is best that Nikon have I would still doubt that the a 6mp on the FX sensor at any iso be better than a 12.1mp off the D300. I just can't see it.

I was seriously considering the D700 it is pushing my budgets and if I coud be confident of no loss of quality with my DX lens i would go for it. To buy this body and then find to get the best from it to have to invest in new expensive glass would end in me only seeing the kids at the weekend or the occaisonal overnight no way my other half would let me away with this type of spend.

Unlike film bodies which are really almost timeless digital bodies have jumped every two years with significant improvement so again to get a body that in two years may be old technology is difficult to justify.

FX is obviously the future but i think there will be a place for both though think that there will be less releases of DX lens.

So to embark on new glass and new body not right now for me.

Having been excited and sure i was going to get the D700 the now cheap D300 is a bargain!

If you want high ISO have or are prepared to invest in new FX glass the D700 is for you.

I will be really interested to hear about the 6mp image quality on the D700 as i say it again how can it be better than the 12.1 on the D300.

Cheers

Johnny

>If i am understanding things right using a DX lens on the
>D700 gives you a 6mp sensor.
>
>Given that the sensor is best that Nikon have I would still
>doubt that the a 6mp on the FX sensor at any iso be better
>than a 12.1mp off the D300. I just can't see it.
>
>I will be really interested to hear about the 6mp image
>quality on the D700 as i say it again how can it be better
>than the 12.1 on the D300.
>
>Cheers
>
>Johnny

You're assuming incorrectly that a sensor with a larger number of pixels is necessarily "better" than that with a smaller number of pixels. This from a D700 review by Alan Weitz:

"A cool feature of the D700 is that it can be used with both FX and DX-format lenses. It should be noted when you shoot in DX-mode the resolution of your image goes from an effective 12.1Mp to about 5.1Mp because you're using a smaller portion of the imaging sensor. In the real world this means you will get a larger image from a D300 (12.1MB image file) and a DX-format lens when compared to a masked D700 (5.1MB image file) coupled to the same DX-format lens.

On the other hand, it's worth noting DX-format images captured with the D700, while lower in resolving power, deliver a broader dynamic range compared to the 'same' image captured by a D300 due to the D700's larger pixel size (5.49 X 5.49 microns versus 8.49 X 8.49 microns). This difference in tonal range is most apparent when shooting under low-light conditions."

And this from an article from Nikons Webpage:

"Nikon offers an increasingly versatile digital camera lineup to meet a diverse range of needs and applications, and the image sensor can be an important factor in camera selection. DX format, for example, is more suitable for photographers requiring a mix of mobility, operability and image quality. FX format, on the other hand, is ideal for those seeking the same picture angle and picture blur as 35mm (135) format cameras, with higher sensitivity and wider dynamic range"

Megapixels do not equal image quality.

You want lots of megapixels when you plan to use an output medium that requires high resolution. Printing very large prints is the most common example. But if your print needs won't normally exceed 8x10 or 8x12, five or six megapixels is more than enough. The quality of an 8x10 print from a 5-MP source image can be outstanding.

I haven't seen a direct comparison of a print that size from a D700 or D3 in DX crop with an equivalent print from a D300. It would be interesting to see. I suspect the FX sensor would still provide a better result even though having lower resolution, especially at high ISO.

"Having been excited and sure i was going to get the D700 the now cheap D300 is a bargain!"

I think the D300 is a bargain even if there were no FX bodies! If I didn't already have a D2X, I'd get a D300 for the DX end of my kit.

-- Jon
Wethersfield, CT, USA
Connecticut High School Sports Photos

>>1. 12-24
>>2. 17-55
>>3. 18-200
>
>Strange post.
>
>I'm getting a D700 and relegating my D200 to backup duty
>because I want the superb high-ISO performance. And although I
>have the 17-55mm f2.8 DX and will have to keep it for the
>D200, I'll be getting the 24-70mm f2.8 as well, specially for
>the D700. Why? Because I believe in moving forwards, getting
>better and delivering better results.

Very well put. I would suggest though that if FX is your future, you might want to just sell the D200, suck it up for a second D700 and sell the 17-55 lens too as the more the D700 and D3 get published and gain more acclaim, the less all the DX stuff is going to be in demand.

I just got off of a very physically and mentally challenging back country expedition to a highly rugged and remote area. The D700 and the single 28mm 2.0 AIS lens I brought did so well I might just sell my D3 and get another D700.

Now I know why Nikon waited so long on FX. They wanted to make darn good and sure it kicks ever loving a$$ with AIS glass!

"Digital is like shaved legs on a man - very smooth and clean but there is something acutely disconcerting about it."

Love the sour grapes in this thread.

3 reasons I bought a D700:

1. A viewfinder that isn't like framing using a dim tunnel
2. Full frame
3. High iso performance

If any Nikonian wants to buy me either a D300 or D700, I will receive the gift graciously!

I have to save up about $1500 to get the lens I want to get before I start saving for a new body....
LL49Wat

My reasons for saving to buy a D700 or any FX over the olde DX is so: full framelike old 35mm, use of my classic lens sets such as Nikkor 8mm f2.8 "fish eye" true 19mm @ 2.8, true 24mm PC f2.8 and just real wide angles with a 35mm fime perspective. I never had the pleasure of the 17-35 f2.8 but it I hear nothing but good and it is just a wonder on even DX. I never really invested in DX lenses anyways so no big adjustment for me. Not to mention the D700 is just cheaper then a D3 wich by now is my only other option for FX. Even if I did, since for me coming from F4, it would be a handicap for me and be forced to leave it on the DX body or crop in F4. Besides, even for those who invested so much can rest knowing they can still use them on FX in "crop" or start selling them and go back to the lenses we've been using for over 20yrs.

My 4 reasons: 8mm, 17-35, 35-70, & 70-200 @ f2.8.

I guess I knew it in my mind I was never gonna' stay DX for too long and was long awaiting FX. As for the DX crop at less size, it's only a matter of time before we see more use of the FX sensor size to where the DX crop is now up to 12mp or so on. I like wide more then long. But for the small cases where I need more zoom out of a standard lens, we just crop as if was DX, just like we always did even on film, or get a 1.5x - 2x converter for a cheap but effective fix.

It is finally nice to have or make great carry around traval use of a Nikkor 24-85 f2.8 again.

N said it best... 17-35 (superior to 17-55, sorry). 85 1.4 for portraits.70-200 2.8 VR for close sports. 300 2.8 VR for lacrosse, soccer, etc. The big 600 f4 for racing and wildlife. Don't forget the 50 1.2 for panos. I will still carry both the D300 AND the D700. Apples and oranges. I like having the choice.


Bodies come, bodies go, it's the lenses!

Hi Beach Bum...

>N said it best... 17-35 (superior to 17-55, sorry).

I think you put it all pretty well...except for the opinion of the 17-55DX vs. the 17-35...

Let's say I mounted a 17-55DX on a D300 and metering had me at f/5.6 @ 1/250th and I took a perfectly well lit and composed image of you. Then, I mounted a 17-35 on a D700 and set it at 25mm and took the very same image...same shutter speed, aperture, lighting and composition...with both bodies using the same CF card.

Then let's say I printed them both on a top quality printer and paper as 8x10's and compared, i.e., scrutinized them both very, very closely and carefully.

I'd say anyone would probably be very hard pressed to tell which was which although I have a hunch the color rendition might be slightly superior with the 17-55.

My point is simply this... I can read ad nauseum about how a certain lens doesn't have this or that, but when I print images taken with such a "mediocre" lens, I'm often very pleased at how those imagages actually wind up looking on paper.

So, with regard to the 17-55DX versus the 17-35, I'd say they're both very comparable in terms of producing truly fine IQ...on paper. But, as they say, your mileage may vary...

I'd very much welcome any and all thoughts...

Dick
The Long Ranger
A Telephoto Lovin' Nikonian

"There are none so blind as those who would not see..."

BTW, just for kicks I mounted the DX 12-24 on my D3 to see how it worked in the full-frame/non-crop mode. Big black vignette circle around the perimeter at 12mm, as expected. As you zoom out, however, the vignetting disappears at about 15-16 mm. Given that this lens performs as a defacto 18-36mm on a DX sensor, I've actually gained a bit of wide-angle on an FX camera. Sure, I've lost a bit at the other end, but then I didn't buy the 12-24 to use at the long end. The upshot? In an FX environment the DX 12-24 is everything it (usefully) was in a DX environment, plus a bit more at the wide end where you want it, and without the distortion problems the lens displays at the 12mm setting.

As for the 17-55, an excellent lens I use extensively on the D200 and D2X, the new f2.8 24-70 is a superb replacement for FX use.

Bruce Jones
Writer, rider, shooter