My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300
After seven years of digital sensor crop factors, my D3 and now the D700 have finally got me back on track. 35mm is once again 35mm. I said a wistful goodbye to my DX lenses today (including a fantastic 17-55mm f/2.8) and goodbye to multiplying by 1.5 every time I had to choose a lens to use.
I've got a 24-70 f/2.8 on the D3 and a 70-300VR on the D700. It's a fine combination. Now I'm going to forget about spending money for a while (gasp) and spend a lot more time shooting than ever before. These two cameras can make you forget all your troubles (whatever they are).
The Markins P300U plate does not fit the D700. Markins doesn't have a D700 plate yet and Really Right Stuff is just taking orders for a D700 plate. Specs aside, the D700 looks and feels (and actually is) slightly bulkier than the D300. Took delivery today at Henry's (Pickering) store just outside of Toronto. Early bird (online) orders made as soon as the new model was officially posted on the camera store web sites are getting fast delivery from Nikon apparently. Of course early birds also have to deal with most of the unsquashed bugs in firmware too! No problems so far.
I've been shooting the D700 since 12 noon today. It's now 10:15 PM and it's pitch black outside so I had to stop. D700 questions gladly answered here until a sysop move this thread to a D700 topic/forum.
I'm going to continue posting my experiences with the D700 over the next few days (or until someone screams "ENOUGH ALREADY!").
#1. "RE: My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300" | In response to Reply # 0Sun 27-Jul-08 02:00 AM
Noise (or lack thereof) appears to be essentially identical to the D3 at ISO3200. Amazing really. I'm also hard pressed to tell the difference between the D3 & D700 at ISO6400.
Chimping in playback mode requires up/down presses on the five-way selector rather than left/right presses. Left/right activates image data displays (exposure, histogram, etc.). There must be a menu setting to switch things around and I'm still digging for it.
My old 28-105mm Nikkor zoom seems to work amazingly well on the D700. The lens is sharp, autofocus is quite speedy and the switchable Macro mode is very handy although you still have to switch the focus mode selector to manual, slide the Macro switch on the lens (it won't move unless you're in Manual focus mode), then switch back to C or S focus mode. Silly, but the lens works well. Surprisingly, so does the chromatically aberrated (just made that up) 28-200 AF-S (which on the D700 and the D3 no longer shows any CA). Love that EXPEED processor.
The 70-300 VR/D700/POD bean bag combo provides tack sharp shots down to 1/30s. My 60mm f/2.8 macro was producing wonderfully dreamy results on the D300, but it's even better on the D700 although I can't quite tell exactly what's different.
#2. "RE: My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300" | In response to Reply # 0Sun 27-Jul-08 02:04 AM
>After seven years of digital sensor crop factors, my D3 and
>now the D700 have finally got me back on track. 35mm is once
>goodbye to multiplying by 1.5 every time I had to choose a lens to use.
This is perhaps THE most compelling reason to move to a D700 (if you didn't "start" with DX). Congratulations on your purchase. Good to know you're happy
This is my Nikon. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
#3. "RE: My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300" | In response to Reply # 2Sun 27-Jul-08 02:27 AM
I feel as though there's been a constant, vaguely imprecise compensating factor that has suddenly disappeared now that the crop factor is gone. I thought my D70 was a truly great camera. The D300 was actually a bit of a revelation in and of itself — and what a great camera it is. But Nikon has scored big-time, again, with the D700.
Has anybody experienced an occasional slight lag in response to control button presses with the D300? I did from time to time. Nothing of the kind using the D700, and it responds just as fast and naturally as the D3.
Appropos of nothing at all, the virtual horizon LCD display function on the D3 and D700 is of only marginal use. The D700 has the same gridline viewfinder display as the D300, something which is sorely lacking in the D3. On the tripod, a cheap, plastic bubble level beats the virtual horizon function every time I think.
#4. "RE: My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300" | In response to Reply # 3Sun 27-Jul-08 02:40 AM
The only button "lag" I experience on the D300 is the shutter. Too mushy for me.
Oh wait, maybe I did notice a tiny bit of lag when I would press the "multi" button to zoom in after a shot. It did seem to take a split second. Is that what you mean?
This is my Nikon. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
#5. "RE: My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300" | In response to Reply # 4Sun 27-Jul-08 03:39 AM
The multi button to zoom during playback - or at least the function activation - was a very minor annoyance. Mind you, I only ever thought of this sort of lag (and occasionally a couple of others) as characteristics of camera - part of its personality/quirks - and nothing that prevented me from getting tremendous satisfaction using the D300. The D700, with the EXPEED CPU, seems to have significantly more horsepower.
Picture Control adjustments appear to be somewhat more extensive than PC in the D300, something which is also directly attributable to the extra CPU horsepower.
#8. "RE: My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300" | In response to Reply # 5Sun 27-Jul-08 03:26 PM
As far as I'm aware, the D300 has the EXPEED processor as well. Of course, the D700 is a newer camera, so perhaps the processor has gotten a bit of a speed boost. I would be very surprised if Nikon had just used the exact same chip from the D3.
This is my Nikon. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
#9. "RE: My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300" | In response to Reply # 8Sun 27-Jul-08 03:46 PM
>As far as I'm aware, the D300 has the EXPEED processor as
>well. Of course, the D700 is a newer camera, so perhaps the
>processor has gotten a bit of a speed boost. I would be very
>surprised if Nikon had just used the exact same chip from the
The chip is the chip I think. The differences between camera models using the same chip usually lie in the programming load the designers and engineers embed in each camera. I think that programming for a new processor as well as an FX sensor in a camera presents the same sorts of challenges as programming for a new type of processor in a game console in that it takes at least a couple of years for the developers to learn how to efficiently take advantage of all that raw processing power. An example in the D700 is the ADR. While the ADR processing in the D300 is very, very good (and useful, more importantly), the D700 ADR has an extended control range which basically allows about 10% more latitude in combination with the FX sensor. That means (when I'm not paying enough attention to high contrast lighting) I may be able to salvage a couple of otherwise good shots here and there. Couple that somewhat more adventurous EXPEED programming with the load of data coming from FX sensor and you've got a camera with a wider dynamic range than the D300. I don't necessarily think that the improvement in dynamic range is enough of an incentive to trade in a D300 for the D700, rather it's just a difference worth noting for now.
#6. "RE: My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300" | In response to Reply # 0
It appears as though all of the new controls programmable for the FUNC button provided by the latest D300 and D3 firmware updates are also available in the D700. That's great because I'm still determined to find out if the Virtual Horizon feature is useful to any extent when using the D700 (and the D3 for that matter) handheld. I think that in compositions with no reliably vertical or horizontal objects (leaving little or nothing to line up with the D700's viewfinder gridlines) the Virtual Horizon might be genuinely useful handheld. I set it up to actuate via the FUNC button on the front of the D700, but because the VH actually displays on the LCD (not in the viewfinder), it's kind of dopey. Different story on a tripod obviously.
The D700 is definitely heavier during practical use than the D300. The extra quarter pound is definitely noticeable, but D3 users will think they're suddenly carrying around a feather when they switch to the D700 for a walkabout. On the other hand, the extra quarter pound all but eliminates/absorbs mirror slap effects during slow shutter handheld shooting. If, like me, you also use a POD bean bag, even under ridiculous magnification while chimping you'll be hard pressed to find any blurring caused by mirror slap. I always think that if I have to examine my shots that closely in the first place, I'm really probably not seeing the whole picture <BG>.
CF card writing is faster than the D200 & D300. The CF card port and the USB 2.0 hi-speed output port are both faster on the D700. Write speeds (RAW+JPG Fine Large Optimal Quality) are more than a second faster than the D200 and about a second faster than the D300. Considering that D200 and D300 write speeds are already very fast, I'm delighted. CF write speeds on my D200 and D300 never caused a single missed shot, so the speed improvement in the D700 is more of a technical optimization than a practical tweak.
Despite the extra quarter pound of weight over the D300, I'm still using the medium size UpStrap on the D700. The medium size UpStrap is more than sufficient and felt very comfortable during a two hour wander through a local conservation area (Lynde Marsh) this morning (D700 + Nikkor 80-400mm VR). The wide Lowepro, Kata, Tamrac and Nikonians branded elasticized neck straps all work well if you prefer that style. Personally, I don't like neck straps for big SLRs.
#7. "RE: My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300" | In response to Reply # 0
The test shot was made handheld at 1/40s using the D700 + 24-70mm f/2.8, Picture Control set to Vivid 0. The extra weight of the body & lens combination makes a steady enough platform. Lighting was late day, overcast, several hours after a rainstorm. A flower petal had fallen to rest on the leaf of another plant below during the rainstorm. The shot is resized and compressed for the forum, but otherwise unaltered. Even at such high JPG compression to accommodate the forum image upload limits, the color and lighting is rendered exactly as I saw it. More and better to come.
Use the polycarbonate LCD protector. The superb monitors on the D60, D300, D700 and D3 deserve the best protection, and the optically excellent polycarbonate protectors now mount so securely that there's just no reason for not using one. The D3 has a synthetic sapphire outer later on its LCD monitor, but I use the Hoodman protector for the D3 (which fits perfectly - Hoodman products keep getting better). Anyone who thinks, on the other hand, that a synthetic sapphire layer is truly tough enough has never stared glumly at the scratched or chipped synthetic sapphire crystal on an expensive wristwatch after smacking into something. It's very difficult to see any differences in color, brightness and contrast looking at the D300 and D700 monitors with and without the protector. My D300 came out of the box without the protector attached. It only took me half a day to make a small mark on the lower edge of the monitor. The protector went on immediately thereafter. The D700 came out of the box with the protector attached. Smart. Me say use it.
The D700 viewfinder provides, as the specs state, very slightly less view than the D300 finder. Practically, there's no difference between the two viewfinders. Keep and continue using your D300 because it's a great camera, not because you think that the D700 viewfinder is somehow inferior.
Like many of you, I'm a camera bag 'collector' - or a camera bag addict, depending on your point of view. Carrying both the D700 and the D3, each with a lens attached and in one shoulder bag, is proving to be a task which exceeds the capability of any bag I currently own. It worked with the D300 and the D3 because the smaller D300 viewfinder & pop-up flash outer form factor and overall smaller body thickness allowed the two to co-exist in the same medium size shoulder bag (Lowepro Elite AW, Magnum and Pro Mag 2; Domke F2; Crumpler 7 Million Dollar Home; M-Rock Arches w/ the D300 + 17-55mm stashed in the upper compartment; etc.). So now it's time to have a good look at a Lowepro or Tamrac Reporter bag. Personally, I like to attach a lens and leave it there for a long time because I tend to spend a lot of time (weeks on end) at a particular focal length or zoom range. So I need a bag that can accommodate both rigs with lenses attached. I like the reporter models because they're big, relatively lightweight and water resistant. Never had a use for one until now. Going shopping on Monday.
Attachment#1 (jpg file)
#10. "RE: My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300" | In response to Reply # 0
Ah-HAH! My bad . . .
The Virtual Horizon function on the D700 actually displays at the bottom of the viewfinder when VH is set to Handheld mode. The problem is that it's a horizontal bar indicator with somewhat coarse increments. I'll be out shooting this evening and I'm going to try out the VH extensively.
In tripod mode, VH displays on the LCD monitor.
I'm not completely happy with the CF card slot door. It's one of those slide out/hinge up things similar to what you'll find on a D40. It's secure while you're shooting, but grabbing the D700 by the back edge of the handgrip when lifting it out of the camera bag has already caused me to yank the card door open by accident several times. Grip the D700 properly when yanking it out of your camera bag or pack. The rear control button and dials take up all available space on the D700 so there's no room for the D300's lever release much less the double-door push button release used on the D3.
#11. "RE: My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300" | In response to Reply # 10Mon 28-Jul-08 12:48 AM
An evening in The Beach area of Toronto during the waning hours of the Beaches Jazz Festival and about an hour in the Queen Street West/Parkdale area after sundown gave the D700 a good workout. The 24-70mm f/2.8 Nikkor and the 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor work beautifully with the D700.
An interesting psychological thing happened this evening. I suddenly started 'seeing' things in 35mm terms again (just as I did during all my years of amateur 35mm film photography from 1969 through 1990). For the past few months I've been using a D3 but falling 'back' quite frequently to my D300, so my eye never really adjusted fully to the 35mm view in relationship to camera and lens combinations. Shooting the D3 and D700 without having to mentally translate focal lengths this evening suddenly pulled me forward into the camera and lens combination in a very satisfying way. I wonder how many other photographers who convert fully from DX/APS-C to FX/full frame bodies will experience the same sort of "it all feels natural again" sensation.
After using Virtual Horizon repeatedly throughout the evening, I can confirm that it's of limited value when shooting handheld. However, it also occured to me that anyone with a physical disability or injury who has real trouble leveling compositions by eye as a result, may in fact find lots of use for VH.
More photos later.
#12. "RE: My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300" | In response to Reply # 11Joves Registered since 28th Jan 2006Mon 28-Jul-08 01:18 AM
While it is nice you have gone to Fool Frame fully now. Some of us still like the copped DX sensor as well. Such as myself. I plan on going to the D700 as well but, also keeping my D300. As I see it each one has its own place, at least in my shooting style. I have always shot the D300 seeing in 35mm and, every other cropped sensor. I see the VH as a gimick, much as I see live View which I never use either. It is too P&S for my tastes, if I wanted to shoot through the LCD then Id use a P&S camera. I do have more film lenses over DX myself so the D700 will be a nice compliment to my D300 that is all. I like the idea of having the best of both worlds. Or should I say soon to have.
I shoot therefore, Iam.
#14. "RE: My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300" | In response to Reply # 12Mon 28-Jul-08 02:35 PM | edited Mon 28-Jul-08 03:34 PM by agitater
"Fool Frame" . . . I love it <LOL>! Typo or not, for sure some us may actually feel somewhat like fools for spending $3200 on a camera body.
Your shooting style, it seems, does allow you to get the best out of both, but it sure helps that you have more film lenses than DX lenses.
I actually found a couple of great uses for Live View during a recent photo shoot in London. My shooting partner and I were in Brompton Cemetery getting early morning shots of some of the historic monuments and markers. There was one mausoleum/crypt in particular that we wanted to shoot, decorated/adorned/carved with what can only be described as carvings right out of H.P. Lovecraft - amazing really. Problem was, when we got to the site, that particular crypt was surrounded by high wire fencing due to ongoing repair work after a recent attack by vandals. Without a ladder or anything else to gain elevation, it was simple to use Live View while holding a D300 as high as I could reach to get several really interesting images. I also used Live View to grab some wildly busy crowd shots of the crush of humanity and traffic on Oxford Street.
#44. "RE: My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300" | In response to Reply # 12Tue 05-Aug-08 12:10 AM
>While it is nice you have gone to Fool Frame fully now. Some
>of us still like the copped DX sensor as well. Such as myself.
>I plan on going to the D700 as well but, also keeping my D300.
>As I see it each one has its own place, at least in my
>shooting style. I have always shot the D300 seeing in 35mm
>and, every other cropped sensor. I see the VH as a gimick,
>much as I see live View which I never use either. It is too
>P&S for my tastes, if I wanted to shoot through the LCD
>then Id use a P&S camera. I do have more film lenses over
>DX myself so the D700 will be a nice compliment to my D300
>that is all. I like the idea of having the best of both
>worlds. Or should I say soon to have.
I surely agree that VH is a bit P&S/gimmicky even though I've used it a couple of times. But the adjustment is coarse and doesn't lock on unless you're using it in tripod mode.
If your focus is mainly on film/non-DX lenses then there's no reason to ditch the D300. It will become a backup body that remains better than all of the pro bodies available before 2005. The mere idea of thinking about a D300 as a backup body is almost ridiculous though. I can see photographers in your situation using a D300 and a D700 simultaneously, with a 17-35 f/2.8 on the D700, a 35-70 f/2.8 on the D300, and a 50mm f/1.4 in teh bag for low light use on either body. That's a hell of a one-two punch for most photographers.
#43. "RE: My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300" | In response to Reply # 11razputin Registered since 11th Jun 2008Mon 04-Aug-08 11:04 PM
This is my driving factor for even wanting FX, not some myth based on hype. I use my AIS 50mm/1.4 a lot on my D300 and always forget to backup enough when I start composing. It just feels a little strange and is hard to get used to. So for my future, an FX body and no DX lenses.
#13. "RE: My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300" | In response to Reply # 0
I have the same combination you had, namely the D300 with the D3. I thought this combination gave me the best of both worlds, lenghtening my telephotos and giving me the wide end as well. I had ordered a D700 and it has arrived. I am now having to make a decision whether to pick it up or not. As I have no DX lenses that is not a factor. I am curious, what if any factors (other than 1.5 crop factor) do you find beneficial in changing from D300 to D700?
Dennis in Vancouver
#15. "RE: My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300" | In response to Reply # 13Mon 28-Jul-08 03:32 PM | edited Mon 28-Jul-08 03:38 PM by agitater
>I had ordered a D700 and it has arrived. I am now
>having to make a decision whether to pick it up or not. As I
>have no DX lenses that is not a factor. I am curious, what if
>any factors (other than 1.5 crop factor) do you find
>beneficial in changing from D300 to D700?
I found the D300 shutter button to be slightly mushy or indistinct with respect to the activation point. I'm told that my D300 shutter button was not typical and it certainly never even for a split second prevented me from thoroughly enjoying the D300. Nonetheless, the D700 shutter feels much more crisp to me.
Despite 7 years of APS-C sensor use, I never really got used to the crop factor. I believe that's a very personal issue which certainly doesn't affect everyone.
I always chafed at the seemingly unavoidable APS-C noise factor inherent in sensor designs with photosites physically situated so close together. While film at higher ISO was always grainy (including the newer, better film), I always felt that manufacturers should have done a better job with this fundmentally unique digital sensor issue and that a lot more engineering and design resources should have been put into reducing high ISO digital noise a long time ago. Now that the cost of full frame sensors has re-entered atmosphere from outer space, suddenly what was formerly an ongoing technical complaint of mine just disappeared. The D700 FX sensor performance out to ISO6400 is about identical to the D3 - that is to say absolutely wonderful.
On my recent photo shoot in London, I was packing the D3 as my main body and the D300 as a backup (with a D60 in tow as well for a review for kickstartnews.com). D60 aside, having to pack an additional set of DX lenses for the D300 in order to duplicate the focal lengths of my pro and semi-pro glass used with the D3 was/is a hassle I'm not willing to undertake again. I could have almost completely alleviated the problem by NOT trading in some film glass in recent years, but my time machine is broken<BG>.
So far, it's obvious that the D700 offers somewhat more extensive Picture Controls than the D300. Once again, the D300 PCs are very good, but the D700 increments those PCs. For me, it's just one more way to get close to capturing exactly what I want in-camera, thereby guaranteeing less time spent post-processing.
The D700 is heavier and slightly bulkier than the D300, which means a steadier shooting platform for me.
I like the images generated by the D300. I like the images generated by the D700 even better. All digital images contain measurable noise. Digital noise affects every aspect of a digital photo. The effects are barely discernable by the most accurate and experienced eyes when looking at top quality photos shot with the D300. But the D700's larger sensor and better overall noise characteristics lower the general noise floor still more. What I feel we now have with the Nikon D3 and Nikon D700 (and the competing full frame sensor models from Nikon's main competition) are cameras which truly define the technical quality ground rules for fully digital photography, because for most sane photographics pursuits, digital noise has been relegated to the status of a minor factor. Once again, the D300 is very good in this regard relative to its competition, while the D700 fully exceeds all of its four-thirds and APS-C competition. For amateur, hobbyist and semi-pro and some pro photographers, the D700 offers a new conventional standard in the full-size SLR form factor.
BIG CAVEAT: Fundamentally, I agree with the idea that photographers, not gear, make good photos. What I'm pointing out here are comparative and a few technically qualitative differences between the D300 and the D700. I feel that anybody who is delighted with their D300 should stick with it until they feel they've gotten their money's worth out of it or until they find themselves repeatedly having to ask it to do something it can't. Except for that last bit, hanging onto the D300 will only result the creation of more good photos with it, which sure isn't any reason to switch/upgrade for $3200 less trade-in for a D700!
ADR and color rendering are both somewhat more advanced in the D700 than the D300. By that I mean mainly that the lower general noise floor provided by the FX sensor coupled to a more robustly programmed EXPEED processor provide a greater dynamic range in the D700 than what you can squeeze out the D300. In addition, color accuracy and depth is not sacrificed in way in order to achieve the extended dynamic range of the D700.
The extended range of lighting (or absence of it) in which the D700 can function well while producing technically fine and visually noise free images, provides me with many more situations at many more times of day & night during which I can dive into creative photography. The D300 improved on the D200 in that regard, but the D700 is a big step ahead of the D300. This more than anything else - shooting under street lights off a POD bean bag rest at 1/80s and still having a ton of EV range to play with and no noise of any kind to worry about - is another very important factor which for me sets the D700 above the D300.
#16. "RE: My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300" | In response to Reply # 0
I’m sorry, but I do not understand why you got rid of the D300 having a D3. Cropping factor or not, the DX cameras have an advantage going long. Your 70-300VR behaves like a 105-450 in a DX camera and is f/4.5 – f/5.6. In comparison the 200-400 VR is f/4, 50mm shorter, and a price tag of ~ $6,000. The main disadvantage of the D300, compared to the D3 or D700, is the noise at high ISOs, but for that you have the D3.
#18. "RE: My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300" | In response to Reply # 16Mon 28-Jul-08 06:03 PM
>I’m sorry, but I do not understand why you got rid of the D300
>having a D3. Cropping factor or not, the DX cameras have an
>advantage going long. Your 70-300VR behaves like a 105-450 in
>a DX camera and is f/4.5 – f/5.6. In comparison the 200-400
>VR is f/4, 50mm shorter, and a price tag of ~ $6,000. The
>main disadvantage of the D300, compared to the D3 or D700, is
>the noise at high ISOs, but for that you have the D3.
Your logic is flawless. However, I have absolutely no use of any kind for the magnification factor offered by the DX sensor at a given focal length. So your reasoning, while excellent, doesn't apply to my usage.
Just as important too I think is the fact that the D3, while absolutely superb, is more suited to certain photographic applications because of (or due to) its serious weight. Although the D700 is 1.1 pounds/.5 kilo heavier than the D300, it's still much more enjoyable on long shoulder-slung or neck-slung walkabouts than the D3.
I doubt I'll ever shoot the D700 on a tripod because it's so good handheld. The D3 makes complete sense to me on a tripod for shots which demand critical sharpness.
My 'investment' in DX lenses in recent years saddled me with glass suited primarily to DX sensors. With the D700, I now only have to carry one set of glass. The acquisition of DX glass was entirely my 'fault' of course, but all the buying and selling and trading of glass and bodies has put me where I am now and I don't have any complaints at all.
I hope this makes sense to you.
#35. "RE: My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300" | In response to Reply # 18Jur Registered since 12th Nov 2003Mon 04-Aug-08 06:32 AM
>Just as important too I think is the fact that the D3, while
>absolutely superb, is more suited to certain photographic
>applications because of (or due to) its serious weight.
>Although the D700 is 1.1 pounds/.5 kilo heavier than the D300,
>it's still much more enjoyable on long shoulder-slung or
>neck-slung walkabouts than the D3.
I'm afraid that your arithmetic is slightly off. According to the official specs the D700 is only 0.37 pounds/0.17 kilo (= 170 grams) heavier than the D300.
#17. "RE: My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300" | In response to Reply # 0
Nikonians polls confirm the vast majority of Nikonians PREFER DX to 24x36
My view for those who can afford it is having a body for each format gets the best having regard to each sensors unique advantages.
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.
#19. "RE: My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300" | In response to Reply # 17Mon 28-Jul-08 06:22 PM
>Nikonians polls confirm the vast majority of Nikonians PREFER
>DX to 24x36
>My view for those who can afford it is having a body for each
>format gets the best having regard to each sensors unique
Can't argue with the polls, especially when the people answering the poll questions are primarily those who've never used anything but DX/APS-C sensors. Pollsters will also tell you that people tend to defend the decisions they've already made.<BG>
Mind you, the DX implementation in the D300 is faultless for almost all intents and purposes. So I say that anybody who has a D300 and defends the decision to purchase it is probably doing exactly as they should mainly because the D300 remains a wonderful camera. If a person who is satisified with the D300 isn't in need of the differences (and small improvements) provided by the D700, then it's fundamentally foolish to spend $3200 on a D700. It may be that for the vast majority of D300 owners right now, there's absolutely no sane reason to move to a D700. All of the great things inherent in the D300 haven't suddenly disappeared just because the D700 showed up.
I traded in my D300 for a number of reasons listed in other posts in this thread. It makes very good sense for me to have a D700 and a D3, but that's based on a lot of very specific wants, needs and general interests. I started this thread in order to have a single, public place to offer as many bits of information as I could dig out of my experiences with the D700 during my first week of ownership. That said, I'd be interested in the results of a Nikonian poll which asked the questions, a) "How much external pressure do you feel to make a purchase each time Nikon releases a new camera body or lens?" and b) "How much self-imposed pressure do you feel each time Nikon releases a new camera body or lens?"
I think extensively developed and planned marketing campaigns executed by Nikon (and every other decent product maker) continue to have the same money-draining effects on consumers - myself included. The degree to which we resist should vary in direct proportion to our real needs. Unfortunately, some of us have more diffculty resisting (and calculating "real needs") than others. <SIGH!>
#30. "RE: My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300" | In response to Reply # 17Beemer2 Nikonian since 07th Dec 2006Thu 31-Jul-08 02:49 PM
Forgive me in using your reply as a vehicle to state my disappointment at many posters interpretation of DX x1.5 factor.
I seek your confirmation of my understanding that ANY focal length lens remains at the same image magnification regardless of sensor size?
Thus a 100mm lens either DX or FX produces an image of the same "magnification". The only change is the angle of view (and hence "field of view") but this is never mentioned by the posters who extol the virtues of "1.5 DX factor".
e.g. my 70-200mm would produce the same resulting image magnification whether it is used with my D200 or with an F6, a D3 or a D700.
My thoughts are that most photographers for an shot initially choose to fit a lens for its "reach" rather than its angle of view and so "crop factor" is not an issue.
Your comment would be most appreciated.
If only Mozart had had a camera
#20. "RE: My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300" | In response to Reply # 0
STOP THE PRESSES!
There will be an unfortunate delay in the D700 vs D300 story from my point of view because my D700 earlier this evening stopped auto focusing. I tried several different lenses, checked all settings, switch positions, lens switch positions, cleaned the lens contacts on the camera body, etc., all to no avail.
Back to the store in the morning.
Grrr . . .
#24. "RE: My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300" | In response to Reply # 23Tue 29-Jul-08 03:28 PM
275 shutter actuations before the autofocus began to slowly become more and more unresponsive to the AF-ON button and/or the shutter button.
The replacement D700 I picked up at noon today is perfect so far and actually feels scary fast and more responsive than the first one. I was told by a Nikon rep (through kickstartnews.com) that the D700 should respond almost as though its an extension of your hands and fingers, and that's exactly how the replacement feels. This is a different and improved feel for me compared to my excellent D300.
#38. "RE: My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300" | In response to Reply # 24jsnapp Nikonian since 28th Oct 2005Mon 04-Aug-08 01:52 PM
agitater, it seem likes you are practicing yellow journalism!
Surely you must be imagining that one D700 is "scarily faster" than another D700.
Also, what do you mean by saying the D700 is an "extension of your hands an fingers". This is surely meaningless hype that has no actual definition.
I welcome your fervor and frenzy you have whipped yourself up into, as I am always for people enjoying their recent purchases (esp. their expensive camera ones.)
#29. "RE: My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300" | In response to Reply # 20
>STOP THE PRESSES!
>There will be an unfortunate delay in the D700 vs D300 story
>from my point of view because my D700 earlier this evening
>stopped auto focusing. I tried several different lenses,
>checked all settings, switch positions, lens switch positions,
>cleaned the lens contacts on the camera body, etc., all to no
Exchanged the D700 on Tuesday July 29 and everything is working perfectly. The first D700 never quite gave me the extension-of-my-hand feeling I always got with my D300. This replacement D700 has a completely responsive and natural feel.
#21. "RE: My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300" | In response to Reply # 0
While I can see the obvious improvements and the fact that the camera is full frame. There is one thing that bothers me about the D700. Its FPS. While some complain about lag with the D300, Wait till you try to shoot fast action with 3 FPS in the D700 compared to 2x that speed with the D300.
Slow will bring on new meaning. I am not ready to give up the speed of my D300 just yet. And for me the Crop factor helps when using super telephoto. I guess its all the same because you can probably digital zoom much further with a full frame image without losing as much.
D3 is a great camera and for some better suited for faster action. I think if I were more of a portrait or landscape photographer then the D700 would be a no-brainer. But I take alot of action photos and I think i would be left wanting with the D700 in that regard.
D300, 12-24mm f4, 24-70mm f2.8, 70-200mm F2.8 VR, 60mm F2.8 Micro, AF-s, 300mm F4 AF-S
Manfrotto 3021PRO/322RC2 Grip Ball Head
Sold: D200, 18-200mm 80-400mm VR, 24mm F2.8D
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#25. "RE: My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300" | In response to Reply # 21Tue 29-Jul-08 03:33 PM
. . . well said I think and everything you mentioned adds to a long list of good reasons to stay with the excellent D300 if it suits your needs. No argument here. Like I said earlier, just because the D700 showed up doesn't mean the D300 suddenly turned into a pumpkin.
#22. "RE: My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300" | In response to Reply # 0
Congrats on your D700 and I hope you get your AF problems resolved.
On the subject of this thread, I don't understand why it's posted to the D300 forum. In the D700 forum, it may be an interesting or informative thread. In the D300 forum I think it's a bonafide troll. When I moved from D50 to D300, I didn't start (and feed) a thread in the D50 forum telling those users how much happier I was with D300.
Larry - a Bay Area Nikonian
My Nikonians gallery
#26. "RE: My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300" | In response to Reply # 22Tue 29-Jul-08 03:40 PM
Larry you are correct, but for the fact that I started this thread in the only forum appropriate at the time. The D700 forum hadn't been launched when I made my first post, but appeared later the same day or early the following morning.
I've been posting and responding in the D700 forum since Monday morning and I wish a sysop would move this thread over. I've included the link to this thread in a couple of D700 forum posts.
On the other hand, I think I've mentioned the D300's continuing virtues as often as I've mentioned why I feel some of the D700's features suit my particular needs a bit better now than my D300.
Henry's Cameras exchanged the defective D700 body this morning. Everything seems perfect. The replacement has a different feel than the first one. The D300 always felt like an extension of my hand and fingers. This D700 feels the same way and moreso in some ways.
#27. "RE: My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300" | In response to Reply # 0
It seems like some people are glad to get rid of all DX bodies and lenses,okay i have also sold my 17-55 but i wouldent have if it was a cheaper DX lens,i guess it depends on how much you will get as used.
Even if i got the d700 i would still have my d200,not as a main body but i might find it useful anyway. I cant get anything for it because all people are selling off there d200s here so its useless to try and sell it.
Mayby the d200 is gonna be used as a very expensive p&s in bright light.
#28. "RE: My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300" | In response to Reply # 27Tue 29-Jul-08 04:02 PM | edited Tue 29-Jul-08 06:15 PM by agitater
At $3200 CAN, I don't think there's going to be a stampeded toward the D700 the same way there was a stampede toward the much less expensive (but superb) D200 and D300 bodies. I think that everyone who is getting what they want out of their D200 or D300 bodies and lenses should stay with those cameras and lenses until such time as they actually need (or just really, really want) the differences provided by the D700.
I think we can't emphasize too much or too often that all the incredibly wonderful photos taken with the D200 and D300 haven't all suddenly and mysteriously turned to dust just because the D700 has shown up. I hope I've emphasized in all of my posts (above) that the D700 seems to suit my particular needs really well and that if my photography needs had remained stable, I'd still be using my D300 and all my DX glass
As for selling a D200 or D300, there's no reason to ask or accept any less than they're really worth - that is to say a lot of money. I think prices for good used D200 bodies are dropping because of the number of D300 bodies available, not because the FX-based D700 has shown up. Nikon put three generations of knowledge, technical expertise, and design skills into the D200 and D300 - they're great cameras, and anybody who thinks different or who feels that the D700 fully supercedes the D300 is in my opinion making a mistake.
The most difficult thing I've done in a long time, photographically speaking, was trading in my 17-55mm f/2.8 DX lens. I loved that lens and I made money with it and I got a tremendous amount of enjoyment out of it. My 24-70mm f/2.8 is rapidly making me forget the 17-55 though, not specifically because it's technically somewhat better than the 17-55 but because it's better suited to the FX sensor size. They're both ridiculously sharp lenses.
#31. "RE: My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300" | In response to Reply # 0
When I hear stuff like this:
"...and goodbye to multiplying by 1.5 every time I had to choose a lens to use." I wonder if photographers are becoming math challenged. It seems not too difficult to multiply by 1.5 (add one-half the focal length.)
Like many pros I still shoot multiple formats, 4x5, 6x7, 645, FX and DX. I have to remember that the "normal" lens is 150mm for 4x5, 105mm for 6x7, 75mm for 645, 50mm for FX and 35mm for DX. Need the equivalent of a 24mm lens on FX (that's about half of a normal 50mm)? A 75mm would have the same field of view in 4x5, a 45mm for 6x7, etc.
At least this should be a starting point. But, isn't it more important the way the image looks than any number printed on the lens?
This is not rocket science.
#32. "RE: My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300" | In response to Reply # 31Mon 04-Aug-08 01:11 AM
>When I hear stuff like this:
>"...and goodbye to multiplying by 1.5 every time I had to
>choose a lens to use." I wonder if photographers are
>becoming math challenged. It seems not too difficult to
>multiply by 1.5 (add one-half the focal length.)
>Like many pros I still shoot multiple formats, 4x5, 6x7, 645,
>FX and DX. I have to remember that the "normal" lens
>is 150mm for 4x5, 105mm for 6x7, 75mm for 645, 50mm for FX and
>35mm for DX. Need the equivalent of a 24mm lens on FX (that's
>about half of a normal 50mm)? A 75mm would have the same field
>of view in 4x5, a 45mm for 6x7, etc.
>At least this should be a starting point. But, isn't it more
>important the way the image looks than any number printed on
>This is not rocket science.
Of course multiplying by 1.5 is absurdly easy. You missed the point - by a mile. I was only talking about the satisfying feeling that I and a number of others have experienced because of finally getting back into a more natural-feeling full frame space. It's that particular feeling which does in fact help some of us concentrate just a little bit more on making good photos and a little bit less on our gear. That's basically the whole point of the thread.
#33. "RE: My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300" | In response to Reply # 32rbeal Registered since 16th Aug 2006Mon 04-Aug-08 05:51 AM
But why is it satisfying? You can get exactly the same image but with a lens with a different number on it. It doesn't seem logical and I too have missed the point.
It sounds like someone who hated going metric and was very pleased to find a shop where they can buy goods in pounds instead of kilos!
I used 35mm for decades, just like I used pounds and feet and inches, but now I'm happy with kilos and millimetres and DX.
#34. "RE: My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300" | In response to Reply # 33PRW Nikonian since 27th Apr 2002Mon 04-Aug-08 05:58 AM | edited Mon 04-Aug-08 06:05 AM by PRW
I for one won't buy a D700. Several reasons:
It has a cropped viewfinder image. It can't have a 100% view because the sensor cleaner taken from the D300 gets in the way.
I love DX, my 300mm is a 450mm, but I understand if you shoot lots of ultra wide angle shots, because then you need full-frame.
Two D300's or a D700?
...and the D700X will be out soon!
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#36. "RE: My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300" | In response to Reply # 34Spectric Registered since 04th Nov 2004Mon 04-Aug-08 09:54 AM
Well I cannot really understand the Dx Fx debate. I understand the implications and the fact that the Dx sensor gives longer range whilst the Fx gives you the wide end but then depending upon what you shoot then there are lenses to suit.
What if there had never been a 35 mm format, lets say it was 50 mm.
Now people would assume that 50 mm was the norm, so would want this.
How many people want the Fx format because it is a format they are used to and have been for years ?
How many are happy with the Dx format because they have never used 35mm ?
Then the D300 is the top camera for Dx format, the D700 is second best in Fx format to it's larger brother the D3 !
If your needs require Fx and the D300 is not producing the goods then is the D700 not just a make do because you cannot afford the D3 ?
Also you have less photosites, albeit a little larger spread over more than double the area, you must lose something ! From my calculations you need a third more photosites all slightly larger to give the resolution, but then I may have missed the point somewhere.
Its like only having 2 spoons of jam & 4 slices of toast, it will cover the 4 slices but much thiner !
Can someone give a definative answer to this
all the best
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#37. "RE: My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300" | In response to Reply # 36rbeal Registered since 16th Aug 2006Mon 04-Aug-08 01:19 PM
>Also you have less photosites, albeit a little larger spread
>over more than double the area, you must lose something !
>From my calculations you need a third more photosites all
>slightly larger to give the resolution, but then I may have
>missed the point somewhere.
>Its like only having 2 spoons of jam & 4 slices of toast,
>it will cover the 4 slices but much thiner !
>Can someone give a definative answer to this
They are both 12 MP cameras, so they have the same number of pixels and have the same number of photosites. As you say, the jam is spread more thinly in the D700, but it is better jam (higher ISO). The photosites are larger and are lower in density.
The D300 has them packed in more tightly, and they are smaller, giving better resolution, and 12MP from the centre area only of FX lenses. So the D300 has rather less area spread with jam, but it is good high density jam.
If you put a DX lens on an FX camera you get thin jam only spread on the middle of the piece of toast, giving only 5.1MP.
I think I've got myself in a jam with your analogy!
#39. "RE: My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300" | In response to Reply # 34jsnapp Nikonian since 28th Oct 2005Mon 04-Aug-08 02:04 PM
Yes DX vs FX is a transient debate, and I remain right now happily in the DX camp with my D300 b/c I (1) shoot a lot of telephoto shots and (2) don't want to see my investment in camera bodies turn worthless in a few months. (Step up from a D70 to D300 was mostly about getting all of the convenient physical camera controls, and of course doubling the number of megapixels and chimping screen were notable perks.)
The long term solution is of course to carry two bodies, or one with interchangeable sensors so that you have two different pixel DENSITIES. Pixel density is what will set the satifactory ISO levels for each sensor. Who doesn't want to fill the maximum available image circle with pixels? My dream would be able to carry the following FOUR sensors with me:
(1) Full frame super high resolution camera for landscapes, and for telephoto applications it would have a "high speed crop" that would return me to a 12MP DX sensor like a D300.
(2) Full frame lower resolution but LOW NOISE at HIGH ISO for when available light shooting conditions prevailed, when FPS is key, or for when someone just happens to wheel up a 600mm f/4 telephoto and tell me to get shooting.
(3) A pan chromatic sensor for black and white photography that would be either (a) even higher resolution than (1) or (b) insanely good at light gathering. (So I guess we would all have to decide whether we want to carry 3a or 3b with us.)
(4) A sensor with the anti-aliasing filter removed for cases where unbelievable sharpness is desired.
So really I am waiting for a time when I can pick up a D3x and a D700 combo.
#40. "RE: My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300" | In response to Reply # 33Mon 04-Aug-08 03:35 PM
>But why is it satisfying? You can get exactly the same image
>but with a lens with a different number on it. It doesn't seem
>logical and I too have missed the point.
>It sounds like someone who hated going metric and was very
>pleased to find a shop where they can buy goods in pounds
>instead of kilos!
>I used 35mm for decades, just like I used pounds and feet and
>inches, but now I'm happy with kilos and millimetres and DX.
If none of this particular sort of experience affects you, no problem. Everybody is affected by or considers the use of their photography gear and the act of photography in different ways. I started this topic to express a range of impressions and differences between two cameras, not to tout one over the other. It's inappropriate for anyone to feel as though I've derided their D300 or the DX form factor when in fact I have repeatedly praised the D300 and DX, in this thread and others, for their tremendous ongoing value, quality and broad usefulness to a huge variety of photographers (amateur and professional alike). A couple of people have posted very defensively about their D300s in this thread. There's no need.
For the record, Canada (and I) went metric decades ago. I happily think in either system, as needed, in whatever part of the world I happen to find myself. I don't think your analogy works too well in my case, but I certainly understand that you don't feel the same way as I do about the complete shift I've personally been able to make back to a photography space I find a lot more comfortable and creative. It applies to me and my photographic usage, but in no way does it minimize or devalue anyone else's usage.
I enjoy reading about other peoples' sense of change and the impressions they get about the pursuit of photography as technology evolves into newer and ever more interesting cameras.
#42. "RE: My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300" | In response to Reply # 40BJNicholls Charter MemberMon 04-Aug-08 07:14 PM
As someone who came to DSLRs with decades of 35mm SLR experience, I think the main perceptual difference using FX and DX cameras is the larger finder view. With a really good viewfinder image, you have more of a sensation of being inside the image. It's not a big advantage but I think it's much more what "old school" shooters experience with the feeling you describe than any difficulty translating focal lengths across the formats. It's too bad the D700 isn't a top notch viewfinder with 100% coverage and frame accuracy. I know when I wax nostalgic about the great SLR viewfinders I've used, they all were 100%.
As to long discussions about the few differences between the D300 and D700, I'd rather look for that information in the D700 forum.
#41. "RE: My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300" | In response to Reply # 0
Shooting last night at a couple of events in relatively lousy lighting, I actually missed my D300/70-300 combo. In a lot of event situations, it's not specifically and perfectly noise free images that are important. Rather it's the composition, lighting and action that you need to capture. At certain events where you can't get close enough to your subject/composition, the DX crop and consequent longer reach of the 70-300VR is very useful. So my first adjustment will be to start carrying longer heavier glass to these events. It's either that or arrive a lot earlier and fight (or beg) a lot harder for better shooting positions. In shots of this kind, some noise in the capture provides a tangible grit that actually help makes the photo. The fact that the D300 also focuses so well in mixed event lighting doesn't hurt either.
Some events are different mind you. At an ethnic event (lots of music, dancing, food stalls, craft work, etc.) outdoors at Dundas Square in Toronto on Saturday night, it was easy to use the D700 to get wide, well balanced night exposures with absolutely no noise of any kind shooting handheld at using a 24-70mm f/2.8 Nikkor at 1/60s, auto ISO, as well as off a POD bean bag. Focus and image acquisition was almost instantaneous. The camera handled the dynamic range beautifully. Here's a quick test shot I snapped, handheld, just to check exposure (no post-processing, no sharpening, no perspective correction, no cropping - just resizing and 30% JPG compression to squash the photo down to the 150K size allowed by Nikonians):
No noise. The final exposures/compositions have been sold. I've tried this shot with the D300 and my sadly missed 17-55 f/2.8 Nikkor. I could get close, but noise was always a factor. Once again, the D300 remains an incredible camera and clearly a home run for Nikon. The D3 and D700 extend the dynamic range of the Nikon line and that suits my purposes quite often.
Attachment#1 (jpg file)
#45. "RE: My D700 arrived today . . . bye-bye D300" | In response to Reply # 0
Moderator - can we get this thread moved to the D700 forum, where it belongs?
“If you like the way it looks, take the picture. You don’t have to be a portrait judge to know when something looks good. You simply have to develop good taste through learning the basic principles of good composition and lighting.”-- Monte Zucker