I'm pretty much ready to pull the trigger and buy a D700. I'm a "semi-pro" (whatever that means) shooter and have mostly pro glass. I made the concious choice 2 years ago only to purchase full frame lenses so outside of my 12-24 DX, I'm pretty set.
I shoot mostly landscape and corporate work. I have fast glass for the corporate work and will be keeping my D300 because I can't upgrade to the 17-35 yet.
Here's where I need your help. My reasons for getting the D700 are:
1. Low light capabilities for corporate shooting 2. Full frame to try out/take advantage of the PC lenses (next purchase)for landscape shooting. I think the 24mm on the D300 would not be wide enough.
Are these valid enough reasons to buy this camera or should I just keep the D300? Not that my NAS won't prevail, but any thoughts you have would be great.
I'm also wondering if anyone has compared how far you can push a D300 image when printing compared to a D700? I know they're the same size (roughly) but do the higher quality pixels allow you to get better large size images?
when I think dx the 1st thing is longer reach due to smaller sensor/more concentrated pixels. FX equates to smother graduations and higher iso. if you have never gotten a shot due to low shutterspeed and high iso or are dissatisfied with your dx landscapes, I dont see a need for fx.
I love fx due to the higher iso capablity and smoother tonal graduations...I can postprocess the fx images better and capture more keepers due to higher shutters...I shoot 95% handheld
I love dx because the crops and the 1.5x reach allow me to get up to 1275mm handheld (500vr w/1.7tc)
corporate work wouldn´t involve studio lightning or something like that? If so, then I see no need for the added ISO capabilities, that to say the least are very good in the d700. sorry about this, but I am not sure about the implications of corporate shooting as you mention it..
about the landscape shooting, I believe that lies in the terrain of your personal choices and likings of what you get from your glasses and crop factor if there is one.
about the image, no can´t tell, only have d700 and d70s and d80
Actually, a lot of my corporate work involves doing some job shadowing and getting employees in "their element." In many cases, this is in the evening or late at night. So the ISO is something I'm wondering about...
>Actually, a lot of my corporate work involves doing some job >shadowing and getting employees in "their element." >In many cases, this is in the evening or late at night. So the >ISO is something I'm wondering about... > >Part of me just needs some to say - BUY IT! > >Thanks for your thoughts.
You pretty much justified where a D700 would excel compared to the D300.
I think your NAS will prevail and you will love the D700 when you get one.
If you make money being paid to shoot but need to have other employment/income to make ends meet then I'd say you're a semi-pro in my book. If you make your entire living shooting then you're definitely a pro. I have no doubt you've paid (and continue to pay) your dues with a lot of time & hard work to be good enough to do so.
I've downgraded myself to an advanced amateur/serious hobbyist from a semi-pro since I haven't been shooting (occasional) portraits or weddings lately. But in reality it (darn NAS!) seems that it's just a very expensive addiction!
The main advantage to DX is the crop factor which makes it an ideal format for those who use long tele's for their images. That 1.5x factor is a boon to those shooters. I think I'll always keep a DX body on hand for those situations where I need it. I sold my D300 to help fund the D700, keeping the D200 for my DX body. If you can afford to keep your D300 then I would for those times that you may need that extra reach it can give you.
For landscapes, the FX format allows us landscape shooters to get back to the 1:1 factor where a 24mm is a 24mm, a 28mm is a 28mm, etc... If you've been around awhile shooting film like I have, then it brings back some "normalcy" to shooting again where I feel more comfortable rather than running crop factors through my head since I have ingrained in my mind what a 28mm is going to give me looking at a particular scene.
I felt the D300's low-light capability was remarkable compared to my D200. Then I was blown away when I got the D700 at it's performance. I typically don't hesitate shooting up to & into the 5000 ISO range for available light images, they look incredible to me. The larger sensor has increased it's low light capability remarkably.
I've never used Nikons PC lenses, but getting the full focal lengths potential on a FX body rather than a fraction of it's possible potential on a DX body would be a big plus for the D700.
As far as prints go, I've been pretty pleased with everything from my D200/D300/D700 for up to 12"x18" printing here at home (HP B9180). The 12MP of the D300/D700 gives you a little more wiggle room for cropping (if needed) than on smaller res cameras like my D200.
Looking at your profile you already have a great line up of lenses for the FX format.
Great shots, Gary. Did you use a tripod in the Farmer's Market or did you hand-hold for HDR shots. I've recently visited the Market in Grand Central Station in NYC and I thank that would be a great place to take HDRs - just not sure how I'd manage with my tripod. Any perspective is appreciated.
Mike - the 700 is amazing. I'm doing a job for a real estate firm and had to go into low light buildings such as Union Station (train) and our Farmer's Market (interior). I shot HDR and the 700 allowed me to bracket 5 stops ( regular, 2 over, 2 under). I could if I wish bracket 7. On my D80 I was restricted to 3 stops. Gary