Art: for me the single greatest advantage of the FX sensor is the ability to shoot in low light with virtually noiseless high ISO's. Opportunities that in the past would have required a flash, tripod or would have to have been passed up are now doable. That in itself is a whole new world. I'm totally happy with the D700 and only wish it had the 5:4 option the D3 offers. Definitely keep the D90 for its "reach" extension with FX lenses if you can. Richard
I just sold my D2Hs and still have a D200. I will purchase a D700 soon. I'm not interested in the FX sensor for it's size perse but I'm interested in the D700 as a 'package' for it's color, dynamic range and low noise at high ISO.
Hedley Originally from Merthyr Tydfil, Wales -- now in Arkansas
I have both the D300 (dx) and the D700 (fx). I enjoy both for different reasons. Indoors, in low light, and even in respectable light, the ability to shoot at higher ISO's without noise is great with the d700. That allows me the opportunity to shoot at faster shutter speeds and without a tripod on many occasions. I like the fx lens for portraiture.
For wildlife, in good lighting, the D300 with a DX works very well. The 1.5 crop factor works well.
There of course other advantages to the d700, but the high iso's are the most important to me.
The high-ISO performance changed the way I shoot. I now never hesitate to dial up to 1600, and I feel safe even at 3200. That means I no longer spend as much time being aware of low shutter speeds or whether my aperture is too wide for what I want. I now walk around shooting in the comfortable zone of f/5.6 and 1/125 knowing my images are going to blow up nice and big without objectionable grain. That's a major change moving up from my D300.
I only regret that my cameras have gotten heavier and heavier over the years. We have a family D80 and when I pick that thing up, it's like a baby camera.
I also don't like the smaller arrangement of focus points -- I like setting focus on the edges, and now I have to do more focus-and-reframe than before. But I'm used to that now, so it doesn't bother me.
NAS is a killer isn't it. There is no cure once you have it. However it can go into remission with an aquisition now and then BUT, it always seems to return.
Sorry, you are in the wrong forum to look for a cure to NAS as we all have the affliction. We're just here to lend support to those that are in denial and help them understand how futile their resistance to NAS is...
Definitely the high ISO performance was a big factor (and I already had the D300 and D200), because apparently I spend much time shooting in dimly lit places where I can't or don't want to use flash, so that'd been quite helpful.
Another benefit is that several of my lenses have become much more useful (again) without the "crop factor" of the DX sensor. The field of view of several of my lenses was just too tight on DX (the 105/2DC and 135/2DC are prime examples, 28-75/2.8 is another), but on the D700 they're so much more usable indoors. I'm thinking you'll find your 24-70 so as well. (and the improved ISO performance would make the 70-300 more flexible as well)
I started out with a D200 and used it to shoot many volleyball and basketball games, but only in well-lit gyms, of which there are very few. With my new D700 I can now take on those poorly-lit gyms by cranking up the ISO to 6400 and reveling in the great minimal-noise results. With the D700 it's goodbye to those low-light blues!
I'll continue to use my D200 for shooting events like football and rugby games where the crop factor is important, but it'll be the D700 for sure where the lighting is dim enough to require high ISO settings.
There's a very good article on the FX vs. DX issue "Should you switch?" in April's Popular Photography. You might find it both interesting and enlightening. IF nothing else, it'll give you some specifics to think about.
For me the full frame and usable high ISO was enough...... Full frame because most of my lenses are made for full frame so that means my 50MM is truly 50 and not 75MM. High ISO because I hate to use flash and I often shoot indoors in tight quarters.
Fri 20-Mar-09 10:48 AM | edited Fri 20-Mar-09 10:51 AM by tom33455
FX vs. DX and Popular Photography...........Size matters. One of the things the article points out for example is that a D700 has a pixel density of approx 14,000 per sq. mm which produces a pixel size of 8.5 microns. By contrast, the D300 has 28,300 pixels per sq. mm for a smaller pixel size of about 5.5 microns......... bottom line is that bigger pixels catch more light for less noise and greater dynamic range............but............there's more to it than that of course.
This was a really informative article for me and pretty easy to understand..................D90 anyone?