I see a couple of points maybe worth mentioning. Your profile shows that you specialize in landscape photography. I'm guessing that you use the sigma quite a bit for the landscape coverage. You will need a lens to cover that aspect of your photography if you go exclusively with the D700. Since you are used to a 300mm, the loss of the 1.5x crop factor will leave the 70-300 falling a bit short of your experience/expectations on the D700.
If you depend on telephoto photography to fill your portfolio, you may want to keep the D300 as an already paid for long reach accessory and the 10-20mm lens as your landscape backup on DX until you fill those gaps in your D700 lens selection.
Roger It is still ISO, aperture and shutter speed, right? "Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment."
Selling a band new D300 with only 325 shutter releases seems like the wrong thing to do. For shooting landscapes you won't have a wide angle lens. Something to think about. Good Luck and Enjoy your Nikons!
hi tony i agree you should keep the d300. ive got one and have just ordered a d700 and plan to use both, long lens on one short on the other ect, plus you have a spare with you if one dies when you need to get "that" shot lol
I agree with the other guys here; if your wallet can stand it, I would recommend you keep the D300. It will, as has already been stated, give you the extra reach, but more importantly, can be used as a backup body, should something go wrong with the D700.
There's nothing worse than having to send it off for repair for 8 weeks and having nothing else to shoot on!
Not to be offensive, but frankly, why the FX itch? At 325 frames, you are almost certainly not hitting the relatively few circumstances that FX will benefit you, and as you're noticing, the glass realignment associated with FX is going to be even more expensive.
The relatively inexpensive version of the realignment looks like:
Sigma 10-20 => Sigma 12-24, about $900 ($350) but you gain from 15mm to 12mm effective on the wide end (this is quite a lot actually). Nikkor 18-70 => Sigma 24-70/f2.8, about $950 ($200) and you lose 35mm of effective focal length. Nikkor 70-300 AFS VR => Nikkor 80-400 VR, about $1500 and you lose AFS ($450) as well as 50mm effective length.
The numbers in parenthesis are about what you'll be able to sell those lenses for, so this version will cost you around $3350 - $1000 = $2350, plus the cost of the D300 => D700 upgrade. I'd guess that the latter will run you at least $1300, total around $3600+.
The premium way to do the realignment is:
Sigma 10-20 => Nikkor 14-24/f2.8, about $2000 Nikkor 18-70 => Nikkor 24-70/f2.8, about $2000 Nikkor 70-300 AFS VR => Nikkor 200-400/f4, about $6500.
Total around $10,500, plus you'll have better and faster glass.
Out of this, what do you expect to gain in the FX upgrade?
_____ Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!
The Nikon 50mm will work great for you and the 70-300 as well.
I have a bunch of fast glass and actually chose to get the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR lens even though it is slower. I also purchased a D300 to get more reach out of that lens (and still saved about $2k over getting a 200-400mm f/4 lens ! )
It is working great for now. I totally want to get the 200-400mm eventually but this will suffice for now. So don't worry about the slower lenses. The D700 has amazing high iso images so just crank up the ISO if you need more light.