Garrett Smith , Mar 28, 2009; 03:01 p.m.
This is the so called million dollar question and I have read countless articles, reviews, opinions and the like on the subject. I figured in narrowing down my decision I would ask more specific questions and hopefully people could give me more specific answers. For a little background I graduated from undergrad about 5 years ago (minor in photography primary in printmaking) about the time digital was getting somewhat reasonably priced and becoming more mainstream. I learned everything using film and not much on the computer. I shoot mostly landscapes, travel shots and have done some weddings here and there but mostly for friends. Photography has become a hobby for me but I would love to seriously get back into it like I was in school pursuing the more artistic and experimental side. The cameras that I currently shoot with include a Mamiya RB67 and C330 with various lenses, a Leica M6 and a Nikon F2 with a few primes. The major hang up that has prevented me from going digital is the fact that I know so much about film but absolutely nothing about processing photos digitally and the fact that I never thought digital cameras would ever compete with a print from a MF camera, though it seems we might have reached that stage. I feel with film that the camera is only as good as the photographer but with digital it seems as though the camera is only as good as the person doing to post processing. I look at my current array of cameras and they are all about 20 years old or older something that will probably not be true of any digital camera that I purchase?
My real reason for going digital though is merely the convenience of it all and the fact that I am moving abroad and will be diong a lot of traveling. To not have to lug around large amounts of equipment while traveling or to have to process film will be amazing to me. I will still continue to shoot film if the opportunity presents itself and think I can find situations where I can utilize both. So for the million dollar question. For someone who really has no past history with digital but is what I would consider almost a pro with film (composition and processing) and looking to break into digital what is the best choice for me? I print up to 30" with my MF stuff but again if need be could always just use film in situations that I know I would need something that large. Is a D300 really $700 better than a D200 ($649 Best Buy) or will the D200 still be relevant for a few more years for what I am looking for? Also is the D700 $1500 better than the D300? Ohh the reason I mention these cameras is the fact that I have held them all and they do not feel so cheap and plastic as the other cheaper Nikons do, I am used to bulk and weight so it is no bother to me. I will have to get some new glass but have some primes from the F2 that I believe will work, I really shot primes more than zooms all the time and will move myself to get the shot instead of the lens, probably from dealing with the Mamiyas. But anyhow will I as a compete newby to digital really see a difference between any of the cameras or should I opt for the cheaper D200 and just take it from there and see how I like digital? I will be starting over almost as I will have to learn how to use Lightroom or Aperture to process the files. I mean even if I did invest in some DX lenses and wanted to upgrade to a D700 down the line I could still use them I supppose. Digital is far harder than film to pick out a camera because it seems like everyday something new and better comes out but I am used to using old equipment and getting great results so numbers really do not play into it.
Sorry for the long post but I really want to learn digital as it seems to have almost blown film away and it is getting harder and harder to find good film processors or even film for that matter. Thanks in advance for any comments to help guide me.
garrett
Richard Armstrong 
, Mar 28, 2009; 03:18 p.m.
Garrett, I'm sure that you will get a lot of good input from everyone here. With your background and knowledge I would recommend that you go directly to the D700. You already own some prime lenses that will work on that body. The AF system is excellent and really outshines the D200. You are used to a full frame format and might find the 1.5 crop factor of the DX format somewhat limiting for your landscape use. The LCD screen on the D700(and D300) will be more pleasing for you than the D200.
You should like the build and the quality of all three, but for your purposes the D700 just makes sense. The high iso capabilities of the D700 are the best of the three. If you can afford to do it, it will be your best choice as you enter the digital world.
And, it is still the photographer that controls the quality and artistry of the image. No amount of post-processing wizardry can make up for what you seem to already know how to do well. You will just be bowled over by the creative possibilities that exist as you learn about the digital darkroom.
Good luck with this endeavour!
Dick
Dave Lee 
, Mar 28, 2009; 03:23 p.m.
Get the D700, you won't regret it. I had the D300, and it is absolutely (in my opinion) worth $700 more than the D200. But then I bought the D700 after mulling it over for a few months after it was introduced and never missed my D300 (well maybe when shooting telephoto). Good luck with your purchase!
Justin Higgins , Mar 28, 2009; 03:41 p.m.
To try and sum up the answers:
$700 or $1500 is a matter of opinion and budget and those amounts mean something different to different people.
The biggest difference between the D200, D300 and D700 is going to be low light performance, where the D200 can get usable shots between ISO 400 and ISO 800 depending on personal preference, the D300 can go to ISO 1600 and the D700 can go ISO 3200 and beyond. Since you are so familiar with film you should know if this is worth $ to you.
The D700 is going to surpass the D300 in image quality and is going to do even better in low light, again you will know if that is worth $1500 to you.
Look at test shots at places like dpreview.net.
Personally I would avoid the D300 (its almost 2years old and due for a replacement this summer) and get a D90(same sensor as D300) if you want IQ for less $, a D200 if you want build quality for less $, or a D700 if you want the best of both.
Bruce Margolis , Mar 28, 2009; 03:52 p.m.
Actually, the D300 has been out only 16 months, not two years, and I wouldn't count on a replacement this summer. Regardless, the D700 will feel like a digital F2. The cropped sensor takes some getting used to but if you can swing the price difference, get the D700 and don't look back.
With any of these bodies, there is a learning curve as well as a learning curve to processing digital images. You will feel for a while like you are back in school. :-)
Best of luck with your decision.
Dave Greenidge , Mar 28, 2009; 04:23 p.m.
D700. One thing you should check out for yourself is the view finder, it is not 100% like your F2.
Glen Journeay , Mar 28, 2009; 04:50 p.m.
I would suggest a slightly different approach. Any one of these cameras are excellent to excellent plus. Get the D200 if you are happy with DX and weakest high ISO, get the D300 if you want better high ISO, and get the D700 if you need FX and the best high ISO. IMHO the D700 is your best long term investment.
But you need to concentrate on your perceived weakness - unfamiliarity with the digital photo workflow rather than be all concerned with the camera. Unfortunately it's difficult to "demo" all the software/hardware to find a workflow that suits YOU. My question would be, how much manipulation are you doing in a darkroom for your current work? If it's nothing other than dropping off the film, and later picking out shots to blow up, you may very well find that the in-camera controls for the pictures and jpegs direct from the camera are the way to go for you. You could start by taking your current work, digitizing it to a TIFF, and starting to work with them. Admitedly manipulating RAWs is the way to go, but it would be nice to find a way to get your feet wet without having to take the plunge and buy a laptop and software. You may find that the laptop and software cost MORE than a D700 and are much more baffling to use than the camera.
My suggestion would be to write out your current workflow and work with knowledgebe people to get the digital equivalent of it. I have taken a simplistic approach, I do minimal manipulation on the computer. Oh, don't get me wrong, I have calibrated my monitor, and do color correction, and do HDRs, panos and pano HDRs, but there is MUCH more than that available if you want to really get into Photoshop. Luckily, there are some incredibly knowledgeble people posting on the site that can provide VERY GOOD advice.
Stephen Worth , Mar 28, 2009; 05:12 p.m.
Digital cameras still don't come close to good 35mm transparencies or your 2 1/4 x 2 3/4. A digital camera isn't going to replace film for you if you are comfortable and used to shooting film. Digital is its own animal.
It's important to remember that the money you put into a camera body today is going to depreciate significantly in as little as a year. If you aren't sure that you are 100% into digital, go for the lower end of your range and get your feet wet. The D200 is a tremendous bargain and a great camera. Folks in discussion boards probably won't recommend doing it that way much, but it isn't their money being spent.
I have an F2 and I had an RB67 (until it was stolen). I have a D200 now, and I am getting great images with it. I have no desire to upgrade yet... and probably won't for a few years. The D200 is a whole lot of camera for the money.
Tony Estcourt , Mar 28, 2009; 05:25 p.m.
The digital cameras you mention are basically very good cameras first and foremost, never mind the digital aspects, they have great meters, well made etc.
I could have written this post a year ago, having used Hasselblad for 10 years for landscape. I needed to ditch my darkroom for family reasons and the need for lighter gear for mountaineering led me to the D700. I'm not dissapointed but dont expect the prints to look the same, they have a different quality. My advice would be to go for the D700 and seriously consider Nikon NX2 software for image editing. Not everyone uses Adobe (or needs all of its functions).
John Crowe , Mar 28, 2009; 05:45 p.m.
You pay a lot for the high ISO performance of the D700. It's sensor resolution is not earth shattering for a $3000 body.
I would start out with the D200 until you learn about post processing and digital photography in general. Give yourself some time to become comfortable with the medium and by then you could consider the replacement of the D700 as your full frame body.
