D700 thoughts.

... and I love that big mirror bounce sound... shclack!... a real macho mirror...

Jose, Did I understand you right? D700 has a big mirror and makes that big sound? Sounds like the recoil of a gun!! Is that true? :-)

How does the D700 in DX crop mode compare the the D300?

All this talk about the D700... maybe THIS could be the camera that would turn me to the dark side...

I couldn't agree more with Jose Angel and his thoughts about lenses, viewfinders, that rounded eyepiece.. I've never been a fan of the DX format, mostly a subjective kind of thing I guess, don't misunderstand me I acknowledge its strengths, and advantages... but maybe I'm just old school and like to feel the camera is actually doing something as I press the shutter release... cause and effect...

Arun, I hope not to have too much mirror "recoil" on the D700... I can feel it in my hands. It`s noisy. Definitely way more noticeable than on the D300.

In DX mode the D700 shows a thin frame into the whole frame, almost the same width of the AF sensor area. Looks like a rangefinder frame, like a 50mm frame on a M6 camera. If you use the grid feature on the FX mode, the DX area appears as part of the grid. The crop is 5.1 Mpixels. The only advantage (thought) is to have the sensor`s high ISO advantage, but at the cost of a half the image size.

Jose, are you saying that the crop is to 5.1 MP or 5.1 MP less than the 14MP of the D700? I was wondering about quality of results compared to the D300 as I have several DX lenses now and IF I somehow found myself in a position to afford the D700 I would have utilize them.

Jose,

Congrats and enjoy your great D700 ! I have 50mm 1.8 but can not produce that sharp picture with my D80!

"How does the D700 in DX crop mode compare the the D300?"

It's just a compromise with a strong loss of IQ. DX compatibility is nice to have but no real advantage.

If you like/have to use DX lenses, the D300 gives you the best 12.3Mp images up to date.

The 12.1Mp D700 use only 5.1Mp in DX mode. It is an available but almost useless feature (to me). Unless you want FF for whatever the reason, IMO it isn`t worth for DX lens owners/users to have a D700.

Justin, with a D80 surely you can, althought not at 6400 ISO.

I haven't used a D700 yet, but it sounds like it only uses a Leica rangefinder type frame to indicate the DX crop area (similar to the high-speed crop mode on a D2X). That is different from the D3 (and D2Xs) which grays out the "outside" area that won't be captured under the crop mode.

Perhaps the DX crop mode is not that important anyway, but this is a step backward from the D3 and D2Xs.

You`re right. It could be difficult to concentrate on what`s inside that thin frame, because there isn`t a big "inside- outside" difference.

On the other hand, D700/DX users could claim they now have the much-vaunted Leica advantage of being able to see 'outside the frame' and anticipate the action!

I dunno, shooting a D700 in crop mode seems kind of blasphemous.

All good points in favor of the FF D700, Jose.

I only wish I had known of the D700's introduction when I bought the D300 last fall; I definitely would have waited for the D700. I seriously considered the D3 at that time, but could not justify the price.

I was never too thriled by the DX format since first buying a D70 and some DX lenses years ago. I had several good, older Nikon lenses rendered useless by the smaller DX format and the D70's lens compatibility issues. I held on to the D70, waiting for the introduction of a reasonably-priced Nikon FF body that would accept my older lenses. I waited and waited. Now I wish I had waited a few more months.

The D300 is a great camera, of course, but the FF D700 would have been better for me. Now I'm thinking of selling the D70, D300 and the DX lenses so I can get a D700.

"...but the FF D700 would have been better for me."

These sentiments confuse me. Could you elaborate please, Sergio? I'm sitting on the fence re the D700 and with a similar bag of gear as you. Cheers.

Sergio, I think Nikon knows it, they probably expected a market segment that could switch from the D200 and D300 to the D700, even with their D300 still under guarantee. It means two cameras sold in one year. They know how to sell cameras.

About non-digital lenses, it must be taken into account that some old Nikkors performs very poorly on digital cameras, even FX. It could be not worth the full-frame expense to use this Nikkors.

Well I'm excited for all the new D700 owners. I may buy one in a few years if I have the money. The D300 purchase was just affordable for me with the sale of my D80 to fund it, but the D700 is way out of my budget. I'm sure Nikon will release more FX format cameras in the future and hopefully they will bring the price down a bit. I'm sure keeping all my MF Nikkors in anticipation though!

In the last 2, 3 years, Nikon is certainly doing an excellent job selling cameras. They have pretty much closed the market-share gap with Canon. The problem is that for some of us consumers/photographers, we may be buying too many camera bodies in quick succession. There is clearly a lot of overlap among the D3, D300 and now D700 all within 7, 8 months (The D300 and D3 were not available until late November, 2007). And there are rumors that more FX bodies are coming before Photokina.

For me personally, I am going to take full advantage of both FX and DX formats so that I'll need multiple bodies anyway, but I am going to hold off until September and see exactly what is going to be available. My D300 is great in the mean time.

Nikon has also introduced a lot of new lenses in the last year, and apparently more are coming soon.

Garrison, I'll try to elaborate:

Obviously, these are merely my own opinions and I don't want to create the impression that I am not pleased with the D300...I am. However, had I the opportunity to choose between the D700 and the D300 today...not last fall, before the D700 was introduced and available... there is no doubt I would choose the FF D700. The difference in price (about a $1000.) would have been a consideration, of course, but a lot less of a consideration than the price of a D3 (about $5K compared to less than $2K for the D300). I had been considering the D3, but, as I previously mentioned, the D3's cost was more than I could justify for a camera I would not be using professionally.

I have a lot of older Nikon equipment and I've been shooting film forever. I don't shoot much 35mm film these days (I still do in large format and medium format) and like just about everyone else who's made the switch from film, I find digital infinitely more convenient and incredibly more cost effective than film. But let's not make this a discussion of film vs. digital.

While I've parted with a bunch of older Nikon bodies and lenses over the years, I still have a number of older Nikon MF and AF lenses I kept hoping that I might be able to use them with a digital body in the not-too-distant future. I never did like the smaller DX format when it first was introduced by Nikon (and other manufacturers), for all the many reasons discussed on sites like these for years. I realize there will always be discussions about the ultimate image quality between film vs. digital, DX vs. FF, DX lenses vs. classic lenses, zooms vs. fixed focal lengths, and so on. I find these types of discussions illuminating and interesting, and I've learned a lot over the years reading the thousands of threads arguing these issues. But, for me, it was more about being able to use the same lenses I'd been using for years on a similar format digital body that was equal in size/feel/capability to the film bodies I'd been using,

The D70 was/is OK when it first came out. But the last time I used it, after having used the D300 for the last seven or eight months, it felt like a cheap toy...a real piece of junk (no disrespect intended to all the D70 users out there, but I cringe when I recall paying about $1300 for the D70 kit way back when.) The D300 is so clearly superior that I seldom use the D70 any longer, and I don't even consider it a "back up body" under normal circumstances. I had skipped the D200 when it came out, hoping for a reasonably- priced Nikon FF digital body to replace the D70. I finally got tired of waiting, so I got the D300. As previously stated, the D300 is a very impressive camera. It meets all my expectaions, but it's just not FF.

Call me crazy, but I like using wide angle, fixed focal length lenses for landscape and architecture. I have just about every fixed focal length Nikon lens made over the years...from 18mm to 35mm...either in MF or AF. The Nikkor 12-24 DX I got when I first bought the D70 did not impress me all that much, and the Tokina 12-24 I replaced it with is a lot cheaper but not any better. I like using fast normal Nikon lenses on film bodies...I like the 35mm f2 on the D300, but it's not the same as a 1.2 or 1.4. I like using fast 85mm focal length lenses for portrait work. And I've always loved the quality and look of the classic 105 2.5 Nikkor lens in the film format...I didn't like it that much in the DX format and it didn't work so well on the D70. Same with the MF 180mm 2.8 Ai.

From the beginning all I ever wanted from Nikon was a full frame (same as 35mm film) digital body, of decent quality that would accept and function with all the older Nikon lenses I'd grown to love over the years...and not cost five thousand dollars. I always cursed Nikon for sticking to the DX format far longer than they should have. So, after waiting patiently for several years, finally breaking down and buying the D300, Nikon comes out with the D700. Now I wish I would have waited a few more months.

Well, there is definitely a D700 in my future, and since I didn't buy a D300, the upgrade frequency/cost haven't hit me as hard as other. I haven't pulled the trigger yet, as I'm waiting a few weeks in reguards to possible Photokina annoncements. Plus, my summer fun is over, so work dominates my time more than photography right now. In the mean time, I'm looking around to acquire an FX standard zoom. Hopefully the D700 price will drop a few hundred$$ since demand hasn't outsripped supply.

We'll see where this all goes...

Am sorry for the digression, momentarily, but can anyone comment on the shutter noise compared to the D3, is it similar or greater in the D700? I guess I am looking for just one more reason to upgrade from my D200 to a D3, but would like to know if the shutter noise is that much different. TIA. Don

Seems that a D300 for normal and telephotos combined with a D700 for wide angles, short teles and normal lenses would make a nice combination.

If one's interest, activity and wallet were up to it.

Two days shooting with a D700 and no complaints except for software compatibility issues (missing LR option for now and using NX2 trial for singular image conversions. CS3 works fine with new ACR 4.5). The shutter sound is fine, tight and confident sounding to me. Shadow detail and lack of noise is excellent. Just what I wanted.

As for a 5.1mp DX crop... I will use my 17-55 f2.8 DX lens as I always have, for PR and event work where final reproduction of the image will never exceed 5x7 inches, if that. (Many of my PR clients actually complained that the D200 files were too big.) For all else, it will be primes, the 35-70 2.8, or I'll have to rent a 24-70 until more checks pile up and I can buy my own... t

I would like to see more photo from the D700 PLEASE, anyone willing to post them I thank you.

DX mode on a D700 may not imply a loss of quality compared to using a DX lens on a D300. At least, the difference cannot be explained on the basis of megapixels alone. The D700 in DX mode will give you not only lower noise, but also greater dynamic range compared to a D300. I hope soon to see a comparison of a cropped D700 (DX) vs. D300. Some might be surprised?

always at the lowest ISO settings, the D300 image quality is every bit as good (if not better) than the D3 or D70

Could you give an example of the "if not better".

Sounds cool that the DX mode has some wireframe around it, one could see stuff around the frame. OTOH, the area for DX is probably small. Like Tom says, there is a use for the DX mode.

BTW, I shot with my Hasselblad today, now that has a mirror...and a properly sized viewfinder too ;-)

I can`t. Sadly, I don`t have my D300 anymore. I did some fast home testing 8 (?) months ago. I remember not to have conclusive resolution differences between both cameras at 200 ISO. I wanted to mean that after using both cameras I cannot say which one resolves better at 200 ISO. I checked it with USAF targets, flash, several lenses.

I have tons of shots anywhere but it could be really boring and time consuming to try to demonstrate anything.

I have been inclined to think that D3 images must be sharper than the D300 ones. Pixel density theory makes me to be even more skeptical about it. I didn`t go deeper about this issue. What do you think?

The FX sensor has more area, absorbs more light energy, and has less unused area (as a percentage) amongst the phot- sites. I's going to be better (resolution, and otherwise) than a DX sensor with the same pixel count.

Jose, unless a lens has really bad corners, the MTF is going to be higher at spatial frequencies corresponding to the photosite size in the FX sensor (assuming both have 12 MP). There might not be a perceptible resolution difference but to make the MTF match, you'd need to apply more sharpening to the DX image to get it to the level of the FX image. Thereby introducing artifacts and increasing noise.

But obviously there are situations where DX is superior, e.g. when you don't have enough focal length.

Just picked up my D700 this afternoon.

I would have to say that the shutter/mirror noise is slightly more audible then the D3 - reminiscent to the sound of my F4s.

Jose, D700/D3 maintain a solid two stop advantage over D300 even at base ISO 200, this is clearly visible in shadows and uniformly colored areas where noise is most distracting. see this thread I posted on depreview. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=28636924 for many, this alone is a deal breaker.

One of the cameras I hated giving up in going digital was the F100. I used it about 4 times more than my F5 at the time. Now I have my Nikon dream system. D3, D700, F100 and FM3A.

Cropped cameras were the worst part of going digital and now that crap is DONE!!

The D700 is awesome!

Here are some comparison shots between my D70 and the D700. Both are cropped to 100%. The results are about what everyone would expect. At 200 iso there isn't much of a difference. At 1600 iso the difference is quite substantial. One thing I did notice is that my D70 consistently did a better job white balancing in my store. My store has the worst possible lighting. It's a mix of florescent, halogen, and tungsten lights. Most cameras won't balance properly in my store but my D70 does a fair job.

Second photo

I see noise is lower on big sensor cameras, especially on darker areas, but I still cannot see a conclusive resolution difference between them at 200 ISO. On the page provided by Arash, I`ve found this two interesting links:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D3/D3RAWINDEX.HTM

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D300/D300RAWINDEX.HTM

Well, I have downloaded to my computer and checked RAW images from the D3 and D300 (NX). This images looks good enough for comparison. Checking the multitarget ones at the native ISO, I still cannot say which camera resolves better. Sometimes I try to see the D3, sometimes the D300. There isn`t a difference!

Of course, resolution is only a (small?) part of the image quality. In my experience, the D300 ask for a little more care and work to have top quality images; for most users it is worth this work given the much lower price of the D300 (1:3), thought. It was for me.

I need to read&learn more about this "space frecuencies..." ;) I´m an ignoramus in "rocket science"... >>====>

I`ve found another interesting link, this one related to D3-rest of the cameras&ISO setting:

(link)

I posted some impressions (http://photo.net/digital-camera-shopping-forum/00QKdK) + photos (http://photo.net/photos/Sven%20Keil) two days ago, all taken without NR...

Cheers,

Matthias

PS: Coming from the D70s, for me the mirror sounds really louder!

Just to update the DX frame issue, I have already read on the user manual that the only way to have that darkened area outside the DX area is to disable the AF point illuminator (!). I haven`t checked it yet.

Question: Where was your camera manufactured? Made in Japan?

Yes, made in Japan.

thanks very much for your detailed responce, Jose. I think I'll stick with DX for the time being as going FF is a lot of bother for me. I'd want a 24-70 for the D700 and then have nearly identical zoom length as my D300 & 17-55. My 70-200, from what I understand, wouldn't perform as well on FF either. So I struggled with selling DX stuff and re-tooling for FF. In the end, I had to ask how I'd benefit with files from D700 over D300. Think I'll hold tight in DX land. Thanks again, Jose.

if you don't need to enlarge over 16x20, and are happy with your wide angle optics choices, the D300 might be fine for you. Personally I am so glad to have a 24mm lens again (on the D700) and avoid buying the beautiful but delicate 14mm lens for $1800 (and throw away half of it's angle of view) to get almost the same AOV on my "old" D200 camera. I may even pick up a 20mm 2.8 (new for "only" $500), after I get the new 24-70 FX 2.8 zoom.

Oh and if you turn off "auto DX crop" on the D700 in "Shooting Menu> Image Area>Auto DX Crop", the in camera view gives a very nice translucent masking of the area you don't get, like a 1 stop ND filter mask. You can also opt to record the entire FX frame when using a DX lens and show the resulting vignette. It's a good camera... t

There are lots of comparisons out there but none that compare exactly what I need. I want to know how many stops faster iso you can use on a d700 to be equal to the noise on a d200 at iso 800 without noise reduction of any kind. If the d700 is not at least 3 stops better in the noise department I'm going to wait for the next generation of Nikons.

This is all very interesting. I purchased my D300 in January of this year. I was hot to buy a Canon 5D but my wife recommended that I do more research and after several weeks of reading I decided that the D300 was a much better choice technically for a host of reasons. I really wanted a full frame sensor for the reasons others have mentioned above, but I didn't want to spend the money for the D3. Well...I love my D300 and I'm very satisfied with it's performance and how it feels in my hands. But, I'm dissappointed in Nikon as I would probably have purchased the D700 if I knew it was on the horizon. I know that this is just a gripe and it is true for all current technology. I just had to add my two cents worth.

You`re lucky then, John. If you have a look at the latest link I provide, supposing the D700 share performance with the D3, you can see the D200 at 800 ISO could be compared to the D700 (D3) at 6400 ISO. That is, three stops better. Here it is the link, again:

(link)

Funny to see that the worst performer (ouch!) is the D2X. Another surprise is that looks like there isn`t almost a little difference between shooting 12 or 14 bits on the latest models.

I really don`t know how this test has been performed, but the articles of this guy looks pretty serious.

John, I have the D200 and the D3. I think ISO 3200 on the D3 is in some ways superior to ISO 400 on the D200, you can say that they're roughly comparable. However, if you have fast primes, the D3 gives an even greater advantage in terms of sharpness. For me, as a user of f/2-f/1.4 lenses, the practical advantage of using the D3 is 3-5 stops when photographing hand-held indoors in available light. I am not making it up. ISO 3200 images taken with a 50/1.4 ZF wide open are sharper than images taken with the D200 at ISO 200 at f/2 using a 35/2 ZF. You can probably guess how excited I have been about FX ;-) In six months of use, the camera hasn't let me down. The D700 should be similar.

If you do not use fast primes then the 3 stop figure should be a decent guideline. If you're a user of the 70-200 then you may want to wait for a new version before going to the D700.

I would like to replace my D200 with the D700 as a backup but the D200 has advantages in macro work (greater working distance) and the D3 has been reliable enough so I haven't done anything to upgrade. For me the greatest advantages of the D700 are size, weight, and the fact that all my lenses would behave identically on all my Nikon bodies, which simplifies things.

Ilkka Nissila: "Jose, unless a lens has really bad corners, the MTF is going to be higher at spatial frequencies corresponding to the photosite size in the FX sensor (assuming both have 12 MP)"

In the visible spectrum, the MTF of the DX sensor is actually higher than that of the FX sensor due to the tighter pixel pitch. Only at the longer wavelengths, in the near infrared, does the MTF of the DX sensor degrades faster than that of the FX sensor.

Ilkka, I am thinking like you. The D300 therefore makes the best sense as a backup/compliment to the D700/D3, offering the same file size with a virtual tele-extender of of all your optics. I like my 50mm 1.8 as a fast portrait lens. And working distance with the 60mm Macro Nikkor is much better when it's a 90mm (not to mention the 105 as a 150+mm micro). Plus improved focusing over the D200 makes the D300 a good choice for practical reasons.

But for economic reasons, I may just rebuild or replace the D200 with another, and just use it for PR and studio portrait work when large files and extended tonal range are not an issue... t

"I dunno, shooting a D700 in crop mode seems kind of blasphemous."

Yeh, that's what photographers said about the Yashica 635 and Rollie TLRs with 35mm film adapters. "Crop mode in my 6x6 camera? Never! Blasphemy! Fool frame forever!"

John Lavere wrote:

"There are lots of comparisons out there but none that compare exactly what I need. I want to know how many stops faster iso you can use on a d700 to be equal to the noise on a d200 at iso 800 without noise reduction of any kind. If the d700 is not at least 3 stops better in the noise department I'm going to wait for the next generation of Nikons."

Three stops? Man, it is at least that. Here is ISO 6,400 from last night w noise reduction on low.

jeeze...

would it be too much to ask for exposure data/post processing? I am curious as to shutter speed and converter. A 100% crop from the edge of the far shore would be extra sweet... t

... I believe the "D300 as the perfect complement for the D3-D700" issue has been the given argument at the Nikon briefing for salesclerks... now, with so many cameras in the market we will have "backup cameras", "complementary cameras" and "shelve cameras" (inusable because too old for current standards) soon.

I`ll not be surprised if there are new camera releases before the end of the year (other than the D3X, I mean). Looks like Photokina is not the reference today.

Wow Daniel!! What a gorgeous photo.

I just received a email from Amazon and they shipped my D700 today. Sounds like the rest of the world has them and they are finally being shipped in US? Great night shot by the way!! Please tell us the camera settings.

I got the call Monday morning (Aug 28) from KEH that the kits were in, and the bodies would be there in the afternoon. Picked one up at 4pm... t

I really like KEH, just got a EX condition Nikon 20-35 2.8 D zoom for the D700, plus I sent them all my old Pentax 6x7 stuff. I may get $400 if I'm lucky?!

Berg, I'm not talking about the MTF of the sensor, but of the lenses at the frequencies corresponding to the photosite size of the sensor.

nice shot, Daniel!

To come back to earth seeing all this D700 hype...

The D700 is not sooo much more advantageous than the D300 unless you permanently take all your pics at ISO 1600 or above. When I compared the D700 in practice with my own D300 and the "old" EOS 5D from 2005 I was astonished how good the D300 is at ISO 200-1600 in comparison to the D700. Sure there is less noise in pictures taken with the D700 especially at ISO 1600 til 6400, but IQ of the D300 shots is really great - much better than any ISO 1600 film pics. Thinking about how many ISO 3200 shots I have taken with my about three years old EOS 5D I arrive at the conclusion: zero. I love to do low light photography, but ISO 800 or ISO 1600 do for me. I feel no need for ISO 6400 or 25.000. BTW, even my trusty EOS 5D could keep up surprisingly well with the D700 (IQ, not speed or automatic white balance!) when used at ISO 1600 or 3200. Slight advantage for D700 but not that much. To get comparable results, the Canon pics need a bit more postprocessing. At lower ISO I saw a tad more details in my Canon pics. Don't get me wrong: The D700 is a very, very nice camera but it is not a quantum leap compard with it's little sister D300 or grandpa EOS 5D. :-)

Coming from a Leica M6, the D200 was the first digital camera that felt both manageable in size and well built. And it proved to be a great camera, in fact had my gear not been stolen, I'd be happily using it right now without concern for the continuing advancement of the models.

But...if I had the option of changing a few things about it then better low-light performance and a bigger, brighter viewfinder would have been at the top of the list. And the D700 delivers all that plus a bunch of smaller things as well.

So while I agree it that it's not a quantum leap, it certainly fits my "perfect DLSR" description to a tee.

Frank, you're certainly right, the D300 still shines. I printed the below out image yesterday on our Epson 7600 from a RAW file shot at ISO 200 and it looks really gorgeous at 28" wide at 150ppi, no resizing was necessary.

Mt.Rainier, Washington State, D300, 16-85mm at 22mm, 1/1000 at f8 (Active D-Lighting set to 'Normal') converted from an NEF

"The D700 is not sooo much more advantageous than the D300 unless you permanently take all your pics at ISO 1600 or above."

Frank, that statement is incomplete. I shoot interiors and the D700 and 14-24 will allow me to capture images that are impossible with my D300. I really don't care about high ISO performance but the width is very exciting to me - not to mention the crazy DOF I'll get when i break out the 85 1.4 on FX.

I intend on using both cameras for their strengths, so the best of both worlds.

"...unless you permanently take all your pics at ISO 1600 or above..." Right. It's also like saying a moped is fine unless you permanently drive on the the Autobahn. And it also sounds like someone who hasn't spent much time with the camera (who has?).

If your photographic interests are satisfied by the type of images that the D300 makes extremely well, then you should use the D300 and be happy.

About 1/2 of what I do with a camera would work fine with the D300. Does that mean I should give up the type of photography that the D700 does better than the D300? That's not a conversation that's even worth having. I sure am enjoying my 24mm lens these days (it would be a 35mm on a D300)... t

Frank wrote:

"The D700 is not sooo much more advantageous than the D300 unless you permanently take all your pics at ISO 1600 or above."

I shot all day today with my 50 1.2 wide open on stock subjects. That lens on the D3 / D700 is simply incredible, sharp right to the corner with a gorgeous "Leica-Glow". You can't get that with the D300, it crops the snot out of the lens and sterilizes it. The look of full frame is an enormous advantage for me. In addition to super sharp and powerful images based in technical clarity, I love the style of some lenses wide open. The peripheral bokeh that happens with great fast primes is often stunning as is the case with the 50 1.2 AIS.

And the viewfinder...I just could not deal with the paper towel effect. When I got the D3, I almost got two of them and skipped the D300. But I thought it would be a great time to try out FX and DX together. I just never got into the DX thing, even with long glass. I just don't like what it does to lenses. I don't like the sterile look being the only option.

For what I do and how I do it, the D700 flattens the D300 like a penny on a railroad track....

Ric, Tom and Daniel are all correct.

The full frame sensor provides many other awesome photographic opportunities besides high ISO performance that are not available with the D300 (or any other crop sensor).

We do not the D700 but I have captured thousands of images on our D3 and the D300 so I feel the same way as Ric, Tom , and Daniel.

It really all comes down to money. If the two cameras were the same price, there isn't a D300 defender here that wouldn't trade his camera in a second for the FX D700, me included.

Me too, especially if 450/2.8 lenses were also the same price as 300/2.8 and the same weight and bulk.

Sanford, since I use super-teles a lot, I by far prefer the D300 for those applications. There are pros and cons for both formats and in fact other formats. I sure would like to take full advantage of both.

And it is not limited to long lenses. The convenience of the 18-200 is only available with DX.

If a larger format were always better, the norm wouldn't have gradually gotten smaller and smaller from 8x10 to 4x5 to medium format to 24x36mm .... over the last century.

You got a point there Shun, that 18-200mm zoom has become, in a very short time, the one lens I can't live without.

Would someone be kind enough to explain to me why the D700 with full frame sensor is better than the D300 using DX 12-24 TOKINA and 18-200 DX Nikkor lenses? Is it the ISO factor and better build? am i to understand that now i own actual 12-24 and 18-200 lenses not with a 1.5 factor if i buy the D700? im gaining wide angle but losing 100mm at the long side arent I? I shoot pro photos but i do not have a pro enough knowledge of this new camera. What is full frame going to do for me that the D300 i own does not? and why should i buy the D700? appreciate this very much

"...DX 12-24 TOKINA and 18-200 DX Nikkor lenses?..."

Those lenses will not work without severe vignetting on the wide end of each lens.

They are both designated as DX lenses and are not designed for FX or "full-frame" camera like the D700, D3 and any 35mm film bodies.

Those two lenses, the same two I own, are designed to only cover the smaller sensor of the D300, D80, etc, which they barely do. On a full frame camera they would leave very dark corners, at least at the widest settings. My 12-24 and 18-200 sometimes leave slightly dark corners even on the D300.

Glenn, first of all you must understand what means sensor sizes, image circle and why there is a crop factor. Full format lenses works on small sensors but DX lenses doesn`t work on full frame sesors.

Your lenses are projecting an image circle that cover the DX sensor area, but not the bigger FX sensors. The D700 have the feature of working with DX lenses, using only the same area of a D300 sensor.

The issue is that this area only have 5Mp, vs the 12Mp of the same area on the D300. It means a much smaller image, less detail on big prints. Then I`d prefer to use a D300 with this DX lenses.

With the DX system, we must apply a crop factor of 1.5 for comparison purposes with full format cameras. A 12-24 DX lens on a DX camera (x1.5) equals a 18-36 FF lens on a FF camera. Ìt is then not as wide as it could seem. Anyway, as a DX lens it cannot be used on a FF camera but on a cropped area as we have seen above.

The benefit of full format sensor can be resumed on three points: better performance at high ISO (cleaner images), more lens options, specially wides (e.g. 14-24/2.8 and primes) and narrow DoF.

Why should you buy a D700? Only because you know your needs will be satisfied with the D700`s features. If not, overkill choice. "If you don`t know if you need it, then you don`t need it... "

THANKS ALOT just saved 3 thousand

www.glennlosackmd.com

What lenses with the same latitude like a 12-24 or 18-200 ( fantastic lenses ) would work on this FX D700 camera? i am guessing that the D700 must work with single focal length lenses? or quite expensive glass?

could you give me an example of what lenses would be compatible that compare in prices with the above mentioned glass?

its sounds like id be spending thousands more just to get appropriate non DX glass for the D700 right?

thanks

I can't think of anything in full frame to compare to those two lenses. Maybe there are some advantages available only to small sensor digital cameras. If there is something comparable to the 12-24, 18-200 combo in full frame they would cost a fortune!

There is no equivalent to the DX 18-200 for full frame format on Nikon. It must be something like a 28-300mm; there is a 28-200, don`t know how it performs on digital.

The AFS 14-24/2.8 could be one of the best reasons to buy a D700. It isn`t cheap, too. Otherwise there are some lenses in the 12-24 range for FF, like the AFS 17-35 (also expensive), 18-35, and not as wide, a 20-35. There are also 18, 20, 24, 28 and 35 primes in different versions, athough all manual or with the "old" style "screw type" AF coupling.

"its sounds like id be spending thousands more just to get appropriate non DX glass for the D700 right?"

It depends on the performance. Pro-level (f2.8) lenses are expensive, expecially that designed for this FX sensors. Consumer film lenses are not that expensive, some are really good and cheap (think on the AFD 50/1.8).

The image that opens this thread has been taken with this combination, wide open. At f4-5.6 sharpness is breathtaking. It is the cheapest available Nikkor, thought.

I Thank you all. I really do. You all sound like earnest people with good hearts. But most of you will have to agree with what i am about to say!

It is not the camera nor the lenses that makes a photograph or a great photographer! I have absolute proof of that. My photography is proof of that.

All this commercial conspicuous consumption you all seem to be ( and i dont exlude myself from ) is mindboggling. Next year you will all be raving about a NIKON 800 and the year after that the D900. It is utter nonsense in my professional opinion.

There has to be a time when you say its the person pressing the shutter that really counts. A great photographer must not be afraid to shoot close up front and find interesting subjects. He or she must have great imagination. A steady hand decent equipment , NOT the best the latest, the FX the DX the whatever X.

People have won huge awards and produced fabulous famous and unforgettable images with a pentax K1000 and a slow vivitar lens.

We all need to take a breather and realize its not the CAMERA its not the Lens. Its the person clicking the shutter that counts and all that counts. I am lucky to have reallized this at an earlier age. I do hope you all realize this and wish everyone a great day.

Glenn Losack

"...Next year you will all be raving about a NIKON 800 and the year after that the D900. It is utter nonsense in my professional opinion..."

IMHO - many other "professional" photographers may question your "professional" opinion after you posted your earlier remark concerning the 18-200 VR lens. You stated it was a "fantastic lens" along with the tokina 12-24 lens.

It may very well be a very good plastic, consumer lens and a good lens for travel purposes - but I do not know any real professional photographers that actually use it in their professional work. It is too slow with too much distortion on both ends of the zoom for most serious photographic applications.

Russ, don't tell that to the guy that won Magnum Photographer of the Year with an Olympus 5060 point and shoot.

I know for a fact that the Olympus 5060 point and shoot doesn't use the Nikon 18-200 VR lens!

;)

you get the idea of what im saying

what is a pro photographer ?

someone who earns his money making photos????

many do it with a polaroid, in INDIA ASIA S AMERICA they work with old RUSSIAN cameras

I have no clue what a professional photographer is according to your definition.

i stand firmly on what i said above!

NO harm done peace

glenn losack MD

"...glenn losack MD..."

Are you a professional photographer who works in Maryland or a medical doctor?

Just curious since you don't have your website listed in your profile. I would love to see examples of your work if you really are a professional photographer. I really enjoy looking at the work of other professional photographers so I can learn and improve my own work.

Please post a link to your website and/or a link to your work so we can all see the great results that you get with the Nikon 18-200 VR lens.

Glenn, while you are right that it is the photographer that makes the image, not the camera, a lot of us have been waiting for the D700 for a long, long time.

I like my D3 very much, the handling, the shutter lag and build are great, but for some things, it is just too big or heavy for my line of work. The D300, while it puts out a nice file, it breaks a cardinal rule for me personally and my style of shooting: It crops all my lenses to a point of which I have no use for or don't particularly care for.

You can argue all you want about the merits of DX, I hated it from day one and I have been using digital since 1994. It was not fun going to Canon for a couple years while I waited for the right gear from Nikon.

So if the D800 goes to ISO 50,000 and is 18 MP, cool, I might get it, I might not. But full frame is paramount for my line of work and the style in which I shoot.

So lets not lose sight of why the D700 might be one of the most exciting camera to come from Nikon in a very long time....

Russ, with all due respect, I am a Medical Doctor for the last 28 years. I am licensed in Maryland ( btw ) and other states. I am published in National Geographic, American Photography, Popular Photography, numerous magazines too many to mention. So enough said. The proof ofcourse is in the pudding. so without further adieu. please go to http://www.glennlosackmd.com

enjoy " The Absolutely Marvelous Photography Of Glenn Losack" A Psychiatrists' View of the world

my pleasure to invite you in.

http://www.glennlosackmd.com

Thanks for your interest in my work. Anything i can do to help please feel free to ask.

one of my most recent favorite photos of which there are literally hundreds

http://www.betterphoto.com/forms/discussionDetail.asp?threadID=951734

http://www.betterphoto.com/forms/discussionDetail.asp?threadID=949442

all the best

google me.....................

Not to be too off topic, but whenever I hear that someone has been published in National Geographic, I am curious to see what was published and where.

So I simply googled your name and then the magazine and found that not only are you not in the June issue which I am in, you are in what is called the "Daily Dozen" that editor Susan Welchman compiles from hundreds of amateur photographer entries, an online semi-finals of the printed monthly installment of "Your Shot" which does appear in the magazine.

What I am getting at is in the interest of full disclosure, make it clear to those who would read your site that you were in an online piece of amateur photo work and not in a published feature as one might go as far as thinking.

I have 11 images published in the June 2008 issue. But since I was shooting for National Geographic's advertising department for the Aspen Environment Forum, I will not be putting National Geographic in my resume since that would be a false statement in terms of being published in a journalistic sense. Once I do get a story published, then I will happily add it to my resume.

Just something to consider as you tell people what you do and who for...:-)

Hey Mr. Daniel Bayer ! First, glad you went checking on me. Im flattered. i must tell you that i find that you are insulting and publishing false material here. I hope you recogize that.

Let that be known to all.

whoever said i was in the JUNE ISSUE?????? I didnt !

why not go and check out the April issue........ and ill accept your apology, with much reservation....... if this is a contest who is truthful and who is not....... then i win!

and what is the difference what kind of photograph is in NG. The mere fact is that i am in it and the photo has won me international awards.

I will go on doing excellent photography and dust off my framed picture of the month in APRIL for NG of which i am extremely proud of.

How dare you? you should be ashamed of yourself!

Easy there killer, I found it here, you make no reference of where or when so how was I to know or anyone for that matter?

http://photographerno1.wordpress.com/2008/06/10/national-geographic-june-2008/

So while I will apologize for not having all the information I should have had, I must say that your ego gave me second thoughts in doing this which is too bad. You might want to check that, eh?

The image of the blind man in the 4/08 issue is nice, but let the viewer decide if your work is "Excellent" or "Marvelous", it does not speak well of you to gloat in such a manner...especially with having an image of the Petronas Towers with flying space craft photoshopped in on your site, LOL!

Shun :

>> If a larger format were always better, the norm wouldn't have gradually gotten smaller and smaller from 8x10 to 4x5 to medium format to 24x36mm .... over the last century. <<

I beg to respectfully disagree Shun...

What remained more or less unchanged (for a given period) was the threshold of image quality. Progress made smaller fromat cameras able to deliver this "required" quality and as they were more practical for use and allowed for a more dynamic style of photography, they became prevalent.

But any attempt to use a smaller film format than the 24x36 standard became invariably a failure in film era, the last one to date being the APS format.

Ilkka explained more than once, using MTF reference, you will need a better lens to obtain the same results with a smaller sensor even if the resistance to noise at high ISO and dynamic range issues of smaller pixels were solved, than with a larger one, both sensors having the same pixel count.

This means, the argument of shorter, so cheaper, focal lengths to obtain the same apparent magnification will be void as far as price is concerned as the sensor quality will progress. Because, for example a 200mm lens in DX format will need to be a far better (so a more costly) lens optically speaking than a 300mm for an FX format to get the same results.

My personal experience also tells me a smaller, lighter, camera body (as far as the DX format will indeed alllow a truly smaller camera, of which I doubt when I compare the size of a D700 to the one of a D300) may be not the best deal when you go to using long tele-lenses (a domain where the size of the lens makes it far more obtrusive ans heavy than the body it is attached to), weight balance being better with a heavier body.

How good the D300 might be (and it is a good camera), unless you absolutely want (or need) the latest Nikon zooms and don't even look to second hand primes, the difference of price between a D300 and a D700 is not so important and even may be totally negated when you consider the cost of the lens to go with the D700 and the relative expected time before total obsolescence of both cameras.

I have the feeling the choice between the D300 and the D700 equates to chosing between the last of the line of Nikon semi-pro DX format DSLR and the first of the line of FX format Nikon semi-pro DSLR...

Unless you have a bunch of DX lenses in your bag or specialize into long-tele lens use, or - like you do - have the possibility to afford the D300 as a second body in company with a D3, I see no positive reason to get a D300 instead of a D700.

FPW

Thank you FP Weill, Your comments are very informative. Let's get away from personal arguments here.

Photography with nikon d300 is great !

http://www.holisticdesign.info

"It really all comes down to money. If the two cameras were the same price, there isn't a D300 defender here that wouldn't trade his camera in a second for the FX D700, me included."

Depends on what you plan to use your camera for. As Shun correctly says, DX suits long lens shooters better and I would rather use my D300 for macro work, where the format gives me better working distances, lighter glass and more convenient, reliable focusing.

Mind you, I find many of the arguments in favour of using a FX format camera (of modest pixel count) for general photography compelling, and I have just bought a D700 with a 24-70 as a replacement for my D2xs and 17-55. While it goes without saying that the high ISO performance is as amazing and as liberating as everyone says it is, I'm finding the results at low ISOs to be favourable too. My rather unscientific side by side tests against the D300 seem to suggest that the D700 delivers noticeably better tonality and the images seem to have an almost 3D quality. I confess the improvement surprised me, as I'm a big fan of the D300, but as I was using a 20mm F2.8 AIS lens on the FX body, and the Nikon 12-24 on the DX, the result should be treated with caution.

I also agree with Ilkka's point that, all things being equal, the D700's FX sensor makes less demands on the lens (apart from issues relating to coverage, obviously) than does the D300 with its higher pixel density. I feel this is a particularly strong point in the D700's favour and wonder whether the resolution of the D700's sensor is actually nicely in sync with a resolving power of much of the Nikon lens back catalogue. I certainly fear that the high megapixel sensor on any forthcoming D3x, that many are speculating about, may reveal the limitations of all but the most recent Nikon lenses. I certainly remember being less than impressed with a set of landscapes shots I was shown by the proud owner of a new Canon 1DS Mk3. The camera was terrific, but the wide angle L series lens he used it with was not.

In many ways, it could be said that having both DX and FX represents the best of both worlds and I for one hope that Nikon continue to develop both.

and that's a psychiatrists view of his world... t

"and that's a psychiatrists view of his world... t"

Now Tom - how do you REALLY feel about that? Let is all out - talking about it will make you feel better.

And while you are at it - tell us all how you feel about someone photoshopping a flying saucer into an image and posting it on their website.

I am just going to kindly bow out, LOL!

I love the D700, it is simply the digital camera I have been waiting for over 10 years. The star shot above was at about 2 AM with my Carl Zeiss 35/2 at F/2, 20 seconds, ISO 6400.

Later in the morning, I got this shot with the same lens. I used a WB setting of cloudy and knocked the pop-up flash to - 2 stops.

Enjoy the D700, it is a stellar camera!

Malcolm, I am in total harmony with your thoughts.

I was excited and ready for a D3X this year but now, the D700 changes everything. It probably is much better this way. What you say about the D3X and resolution is exactly right. I have the proper glass and it will be interesting to see the results when the time comes. But this will be one camera that i don't pre-order.

My D700 arrived yesterday and tomorrow is my first interior shoot with it. I'm going to test the 14-24 with the 17-35. Eventually, the 14-24 on the D700 and the 17-35 on the D300 (with a perspective of 26-52mm) will cover over 90% of my shoots and be a dream team. 35mm on DX is great for capturing details in one part of a room.

I've seen countless threads all over the net asking D300 or D700? Such a silly question because the answer is such a personal one. For me, the answer was obvious.

Reading the glowing comments of some D700 users I wonder what theses people did before the D700 came into the market...

;-)

Suffered is the answer.

Frank, I used Canon or shot film as DX was totally unacceptable to me...;-)

Daniel

I thought as much ;-)

Because I am a more impatient Nikon fan I just bought a EOS 5D with a 70-200/4 and a 17-40/4 three years ago and use the Canon system parallel to my Nikon stuff.

B&H just reviewed it and did identify some differences between it and also some gotchas with DX lenses. A good ready. I did not know it would kick you down to 5.1mp if you use a DX lens. If someone already posted this, please accept my apologies as I quickly looked but did not see it before I posted. Peter

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/newsLetter/Nikon-D700.jsp

i'm not as accomplished as many of the photographers participating in this discussion, but i'll still share a couple of my own photographs that convinced me that the D700 and FX format really ARE all that. (actually, a lot of you D3 users have been telling us that all along; i wanted you to know, some of us have been listening!)

FYI, both photos were taken at 1/1000, F/5.6, same place, same time of morning, but a couple of weeks apart. on the D300, i used my 80-200mm f/2.8, while on the D700 i worked with a 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 -- so we're talking equivalent focal lengths, if not equivalent quality glass.

both are cropped at 100 percent, but are otherwise presented exactly as they came out of the camera. i only chose them because they are coincidentally very close in how the subject is presented.

i believe the results speak for themselves. but you're welcome to draw your own conclusions.

here's the second photo...

William, I would not draw any conclusion from those two samples. I think a large part of the problem with the D300 image is that it is a bit out of focus. A lot of those are merely random AF errors or photographer errors. I am not suggesting that the D700 isn't superior, but a far better comparison would be on static subjects shot from a sturdy tripod. Additionally, it is also very unfair to compare a top-of-the-line 80-200mm/f2.8 against the 70-300, which is not of the same optical quality. But if your focus is off, even the best optics is meaningless.

Shun is correct in his points, too much subjective comparison can blur (pardon the pun) the picture.

However, from an operational point of view taking my bread and butter plant sales photos with the D700 today for the first time - I can report that aside from getting used to a 'new' focal length post D300 shooting, shooting with the D700 was like second nature.

I really just took up from where I'd left off with the D300 - most controls are located right where I was used to finding them blind on the D300 and the results from my two dozen shots were similar in appearance to those produced two weeks agao by the D300. The white balance pre-set produced slightly cooler images than the D300 but the ambient light in my green houses is variable and will alter daily dep. upon the angle of the sun when I shoot. I can assure those who might have reservations about the D700's handling compared to the D300 that I 'feel' (yes I know it's subjective) right at home straight away on the D700. It's an instant hit with me.

"I can assure those who might have reservations about the D700's handling compared to the D300 that I 'feel' (yes I know it's subjective) right at home straight away on the D700."

Huh? What else do you expect? The D700 is a D300 with a large sensor. That's all.

Daniel,

Your point about the matching of the FX sensor with top notch, fast primes such as your 50mm 1.2 and is exciting. Bjorn has, I think, made the same point. I'm looking forward to see how the D700, (which I don't have---yet) will perform with the Nikon 35mm 1.4 (which I do)

BTW, kudos on night/day clicks of Maroon Bells. You were camping there, yes?

"I'm looking forward to see how the D700, (which I don't have---yet) will perform with the Nikon 35mm 1.4 (which I do)"

Don't expect too much. 12 MP of a modern DSLR are extremly demanding for every lens. Production of the Nikkor 35/1.4 started in 1970 (til today the optical formula is unchanged). Even with film this oldtimer lens was quite soft and needs stopping down. It can't compete with modern designs like the ZF-Distagon 35/2 at comparable f-stopps. Looking at the phantastic image quality of the D700 sensor at high ISO the former advantage of wide angle lenses with f 1.4 no longer exists.

I wasn't aware the Distagon was a "modern" design, I thought most of these lens formulas were fairly old but with new coatings in the ZF line. I thought the original Distagon was designed in Jena before WWII? The Nikkor 35mm f1.4 was designed in 1970 making it a "newer" lens than the Distagon if we're just going by dates.

Well, Zeiss says that the lenses are not identical to old ones but the designs have been recalculated with modern sensors in mind.

Frank:

"Best Nikkors of them All

wide angle category

35mm f 1.4 (shines on FX) " Bjorn Rorslett

no, it won't do well at 1.4 It will do extremely well (and has for me on film) at 2.8, 4 and 5.6

The new nano coated 35 1.4 will be as good if not better than the Zeiss as will the updated 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 G lenses. And Dave, the advantage of 1.4 will always be strong.

Remember, every stop gained over 1600 is a tremendous amount of photography world opening up.

One night last week, I was walking home with my girlfriend. I had my D700 and 50 1.2 on me. She looked up and spotted the big dipper. As we walked on, I set the camera at ISO 6400 and 1/4 of a second and told her to wait a moment.

One click of the shutter netted me a simple but clear shot of the big dipper, even gained a magnitude. She was floored.

I told her it's only going to get better...:-)

Daniel, Are these lenses actually scheduled for production? I just got the current 50/1.4 and while it seems like a reasonable lens in terms of definition, they certainly could refine the focus.

I have heard bits and pieces, but logic would seem that if they can make a lens like the 14-24, they can come out with primes as good if not better than Canon's L series. The wide could be a 24, 28 or 35 @1.4.

They know this is currently the area that is weakest and despite all the hoopla over making DX primes for those who thought DX was the future, well, we all knew why they were not going to make those....:-)

Bottom line: Nikon putting out two FX cameras in a year's time is only a blip on the radar screen, while homing in on the right sensor, they have been doing homework like you would not believe.

Primes are very close to being announced.

Daniel,

Post the photo. The 50mm f1.2 is notoriously soft at f1.2. Hope you used f2 :-)

Joe:

"no, it won't do well at 1.4 It will do extremely well (and has for me on film) at 2.8, 4 and 5.6"

And the Distagon ZF 35/2 does very well already at 2, 2.8, 4 and 5.6. That's what I said.

:-)

BTW not all the lenses that work well with film cameras do so with digital SLR. Here things are a bit more complicated as you know.

David:

"I wasn't aware the Distagon was a "modern" design, I thought most of these lens formulas were fairly old but with new coatings in the ZF line. I thought the original Distagon was designed in Jena before WWII? The Nikkor 35mm f1.4 was designed in 1970 making it a "newer" lens than the Distagon if we're just going by dates."

Only the designs from the ZF 50/1.4 and ZF 85/1.4 are adapted "old" designs from Contax slr times. Nevertheless these two lenses are excellent, especially the Planar ZF 85/1.4. At full aperture this lens is better than my wonderful AF-Nikkor 85/1.4 (checked on a D300). All the other Zeiss ZF lenses are new calculations and that shows. (I have experience with the ZF 18/3,5, 35/2, 50/1.4, 50/2 Macro and 85/1.4 used on D300, D700 and EOS 5D.)

Daniel:

"The new nano coated 35 1.4 will be as good if not better than the Zeiss as will the updated 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 G lenses. "

Maybe a future new 35/1.4 from Nikon is as good or better than Zeiss of today but as long as noone has seen and used this lens, the Distagon 35/2 is the better solution for photographers :-) I am convinced Nikon can design a new 35/1.4 that is excellent - with the aditional advantage of autofocus. Remains the question of its price (compard with the slower non-AF Distagon 35/2)

Frank: "...as you know."

Me: yup

Bjorn: "Shines on FX"

Still, my advice for you: do not buy the Nikon 35mm 1.4. ;-) Actually, I wouldn't either...like many others, I expect/hope Nikon is going to come up with some new AF-S primes soon.

"Still, my advice for you: do not buy the Nikon 35mm 1.4."

Joe, thanks for the advice. Hope I can resist :-)

"Post the photo. The 50mm f1.2 is notoriously soft at f1.2. Hope you used f2 :-)" The 50/1.2 is soft on the corners at 1.2, but is extremely sharp and detailed at the center.

"Primes are very close to being announced."

This is very exciting news, thanks.

Is the loud mirror-slap macho enough to scare away all the wildlife? ;)

"Is the loud mirror-slap macho enough to scare away all the wildlife? ;)"

I'm afraid, not really. In this regard the EOS 5D is more effective ;-)

HAve any of you noticed that Nikon has pulled the wool over your eyes again and made NX2 the proprietary software for your D700 NEF files? NX1.3 will not work with your D700s. that is rather aggravating and another 200 hundred dollars out of my pocket for a software system that was purchased less than a year ago. Why didn't they ship it like they did with the D300? Cheers all share a serial just to piss Nikon off

Nikon Capture NX can accept Nikon’s range of nik Multimedia filter plug-ins and is compatible with NEF format images that are created by all Nikon cameras. Quoted Directly from Nikon CAnada's Website