I love my D700/D300s combo. I share a newly acquired MB-D10 and batteries and CF cards between them and the cameras are so similar they are easy to setup and use. Do others shoot both formats? If the D400 ever shows up would you also shoot with a D600/800? I like both formats for different reasons so I'll always own/use both. Nothing like the crop factor for wildlife and a ultra wide zoom or prime being ultra wide on fx.
Like you, I love to have both DX and FX equipment and I use both frequently. I also have both the D300 and the D700 as well as the D2x and D2h and D3s. When out landscape shooting I always carry two bodies with two different lenses. I particularly enjoy that the D700 and D300 are practically identical although I have MB-D10s for each of them.
Interestingly I also have all of the same FX lenses that you do except one. I am eagerly awaiting the release of the D400.
Two main reasons spring to mind. First, the smaller view in the viewfinder when shooting DX. Second, I have no interest in processing the huge files in FX.
Also, the large number of purchasers who reported problems with the focusing coupled with the fact that the D800 body is a diffferent (smaller) size and has a different arrangement of controls and totally different batteries and chargers. I currently use grips on my D300 and D700 that use the Nikon EnEL4A batteries as do my D2h, D2x and D3s. I find that interchangability to be of immense importance.
I am sure that Nikon's intent was as you describe which is why we have yet to see a D400.
Naturally other's usage of cameras will differ from mine and I do think that Nikon's accomplishment with the D800 is astounding.
I have never gotten the oppotunity to try a D800. Pretty sure that batteries would match the ones in my D7000. Not too fond of the 36mp size, but the 15mp for DX would be fine. For sports, I would like a little better frame rate.
Had no clue about the smaller view in the viewfinder. I wonder if the DX view in the D800 viewfinder is smaller than the normal view in the D7000.
This may truely be the time when a rental would be appropriate.
>Had no clue about the smaller view in the viewfinder. I >wonder if the DX view in the D800 viewfinder is smaller than >the normal view in the D7000.
Yes it is. The eyepiece magnification of the D800 is 0.7x, whereas the D7000 is 0.94x. The same scene through a D7000 viewfinder will appear about 1/3 larger than it does through a D800 viewfinder (with the D800 in DX crop mode).
A friend of mine who lives a long way off--so I can't check it out for myself--said that she shoots her D600 with a DX lens, but doesn't let it automatically shift to DX crop mode. Obviously she will have to crop off the unusable area. I almost always crop everything anyway.
If that is also possible with the D800, would the scene still appear about 1/3 smaller? Yes, I know I would be going against the way the camera was designed. This appears to me to be a reason why I might want to rent a D800 to explore my questions. Right now, it's looking like I am going to have to stick with my D7000 or its replacement/upgrade. Wasn't going to get rid of it anyway. I would just like to travel with as few pieces of equipment as possible.
I'm afraid that the D800 won't be suitable for shooting track & certain other sports, requiring a faster frame rate.
I'm only using DX. So often people cite the advantage at the telephoto end of DX, but I also see an advantage at the wide end, because DX wide angles are smaller and lighter. I've seen a lot of posts here on Nikonians where people say they've given up on the 14-24, for example, because of its size and want a smaller FX wide angle. Meanwhile, I'm using a Sigma 10-20, which is smaller than any FX wide angle with a similar field of view. I don't think that Sigma is the best DX wide angle (it's pretty good, though), but you also have the Nikon 10-24 (with a large zoom range), the Tokina 11-16 (f2.8) and Sigma 8-16 (ultra wide!) for DX. I'm not claiming that DX image quality matches something like the 14-24 at the wide end, but rather, that there is value in the portability of a DX kit, matched with very good image quality.
I like it at the long end, as others have said, but also at the wide end. Most of my lenses are DX-specific lenses, and my sticking with DX isn't about the size of the sensor, but rather that I like the lens collection I have for my DX cameras.
i still use both & the reason given in one of the earlier posts fits my thinking. it is nice to sometimes not have to lug a heavy bag full of FX lenses around. sometimes i take both FX & DX out together. last week i took D3 & 24-70 plus D2XS with 10.5fisheye. these 2 cameras gave me a very workable range without the need to swap lenses while i was out & about
Mon 21-Jan-13 01:54 AM | edited Mon 21-Jan-13 01:54 AM by mklass
Yes, I shoot both. I tried going strictly FX with a D3s and D700, but missed the advantages of DX in certain situations, and also wanted something lighter to travel with. THe D7000 suit that bill now, although I would prefer a D400 type body that had controls and features more in common with the pro bodies (ie 10-pin connector, more that 3 bracket exposures, same top-side controls, etc).
I've added a D800e to the mix, but that is for detailed shooting when I have the time and want to cart around the big glass. The big files are a downside, and not always necessary. The D3s is better in low light.
I shoot both DX and FX as well (D300 and D800). I sold all of my DX lenses when I got the D800 and use the D300 only with telephoto lenses for wildlife photography. For everything else I use the D800. It's a division of labour that works well for me.
I do both, mainly F100 and D300. However, I would not hesitate to use my backup D200 or any of my F series from F to F-5. I just like the F100 whenever the urge makes me pull a roll out of the frig for a day of going analog!
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one. Einstein ------------------------------------------------------> Nikon F, F2, F3, F4, F5 & F100 Nikon D300 D7100
I currently only use DX, but that is for financial reasons only. Before the D600 came out, it was too expensive for a lot of us hobbiests to buy an FX camera. FX is objectively superior, offering better high ISO performance, easier wide angle work, and a bigger viewfinder. The only advantages to DX are size/weight, and crop factor,...and the D600 is as small as a D7000, so that leaves only crop factor.
I shoot a lot of sports, so DX is my only option on a budget (can't afford 400mm lenses for FX) for sports. I currently use a D7000. But, unless Nikon comes out with a new D400, my next camera will likely be a D600. For my use, the D7000 is only limited by it's AF system, which is better than the old D90, but not the equal of the 51 point system. If I can't get that in DX, I'll keep using my D7000 for field sports, and upgrade to the FX sensor for everything else.
>I do both, mainly F100 and D300. However, I would not >hesitate to use my backup D200 or any of my F series from F to >F-5. I just like the F100 whenever the urge makes me pull a >roll out of the frig for a day of going analog!
I have a D300 and am strictly DX at this time. I'm waiting for the D400 to come out to make up my mind whether I go that way or add FX with a D800. If the D400 takes too much more time to arrive, I may just go for the D800. I always knew and still feel that I would eventually wind up with an FX camera and never bought any DX lenses. It's just a matter of time.
Sun 27-Jan-13 10:01 PM | edited Sun 27-Jan-13 10:02 PM by F2AS
I'm very happy with my D300s right now shooting strictly DX, but will decide whether to get a D800 after the D300s successor comes out, if it ever does. I do hesitate going FX because of the cost of the camera, the large file sizes with the D800, and the cost of good 35mm format lenses. I haven't decided yet whether there is enough improvement to IQ (if any) to truly justify spending $5000 more for the larger format.
Sun 27-Jan-13 10:27 PM | edited Sun 27-Jan-13 10:27 PM by cwils02
>I'm very happy with my D300s right now shooting strictly DX, >but will decide whether to get a D800 after the D300s >successor comes out, if it ever does. I do hesitate going FX >because of the cost of the camera, the large file sizes with >the D800, and the cost of good 35mm format lenses. I haven't >decided yet whether there is enough improvement to IQ (if any) >to truly justify spending $5000 more for the larger format. >
Yes, for both, but $5,000 may be a little high. I was thinking by the time I spent $1,200 more for a D800 body, then another $$3,000 for the 16-35VR and 24-70 (or 24-120) lenses. Of course I would have the lenses for a lifetime of use.
Welcome to Nikonians. You only have a D300? You could have chosen much worse. But, be very careful on here. Many have caught a disease called NAS (Nikon Acquisition Syndrome). Stick around for a little while & you'll understand.
BTW, I had a delightful time in Antwerp & Brussels in 1958.