Another D300 vs. D700 thread

[manaheim]

^^ *chuckle*

 

[KmH]

Big second on the D300 now D700 later use D300 as backup because you'll need backup for portraits and weddings.

If you seriously do portraits and weddings you'll have little time for wildlife/landscape.

 

[kundalini]

D700, from everything you read from some people that have them there is no other way to take a quality photo these days unless you have one.

Naahhh....... I can still squeeze off a good shot with my D80. :mrgreen:

 

[PhotoXopher]

D700, from everything you read from some people that have them there is no other way to take a quality photo these days unless you have one.

Naahhh....... I can still squeeze off a good shot with my D80. :mrgreen:

Notice I was careful to say 'some people' :mrgreen:

 

[manaheim]

Big second on the D300 now D700 later use D300 as backup because you'll need backup for portraits and weddings.

If you seriously do portraits and weddings you'll have little time for wildlife/landscape.

REAL men use the D300 as the primary and the D700 as backup.

 

[Josh220]

Thanks guys, it looks like the D300 will be my choice. The 18-200 is my only DX lens though, but I will definitely only purchase FX lenses from now on. As you can see by my signature, that was my plan.

I know the general rule is to upgrade glass before bodies, but I feel that these larger/heavier lenses will make my D60 feel like even more of a toy than it already does. The 18-200 lens feels bigger than it. So I think the D300 and the 70-200 will be a good starting point for me.

If you really want to use your 18-200mm, buy a D300. I know you can use DX lenses on the D700, but that turns it into a 5MP camera. A D700 used as a 5MP camera with an optically not so good lens looks like a huge waste of money to me.

I have been thinking about getting the D300 now, then wait until I get a FX body to get the 14-24 lens. I could get something like the 12-24 f/4 lens instead.

Anyone see any issues with this?

Well, if you want to buy a FX camera in the future, why don't you buy the 14-24mm instead of the 12-24mm?

I may just not buy a wide angle lens until I get the FX then. I have read countless reviews on how the 14-24 is a complete waste of $$ on a DX sensor because you don't get what it's fully capable of. You are paying $1800 for only the center area of it's full visual capabilities.

 

[Defy]

I agree. I really want to buy the 14-24mm but I am not buying a FX camera (I want to skip the D700 and go to the D3) until i learn how to fully use my D300. So i think in the mean time i am going to get a cheap sigma 10-20mm so i can at least have a wide lens, this 35mm BS is not wide enough!

I gave my D60 to my wife with a 18-55/55-200 VR and now we have a hobby to enjoy together.

 

[blash]

The 14-24 will still *work* though until you get a FX camera. What happens is that it turns into something like a 22-38mm effective focal range, which is the end of the ultra wide range through the end of the wide range. Essentially what happens is, with DX the lens turns into a wide-angle zoom instead of an ultrawide zoom, and since ultrawide is what's making the lens so expensive it's what you're really paying for. It's still a very good wide-angle lens though and should serve you well until you go FX.

In the meantime, if you really want to shoot ultrawide but can't afford a D700, there's always cheap ($50 range) film bodies that will take the full 14-24 range.

 

[Josh220]

The 14-24 will still *work* though until you get a FX camera. What happens is that it turns into something like a 22-38mm effective focal range, which is the end of the ultra wide range through the end of the wide range. Essentially what happens is, with DX the lens turns into a wide-angle zoom instead of an ultrawide zoom, and since ultrawide is what's making the lens so expensive it's what you're really paying for. It's still a very good wide-angle lens though and should serve you well until you go FX.

In the meantime, if you really want to shoot ultrawide but can't afford a D700, there's always cheap ($50 range) film bodies that will take the full 14-24 range.

Yeah, that's what I was saying. There's no point in paying $1800 for a lens if you aren't able to use it for what it's built for. I can afford the D700, but I don't see a need for it yet. Not to mention, if/when I upgrade to a D3/D4 a D300 is a better body to have as a spare so I have the DX sensor with zooms. There is no point in having a lesser FX body (D700) as the spare to a better FX body (D3/D4). It would be like keeping my D60 when I get a D300. I would never use it, and it would just degrade in value the longer I kept it rather than reselling it.

After I get the 70-200 and 24-70 (if it's ever taken off backorder) I may just get the 12-24 DX lens to use on the D300 if I decide I need a wide angle lens until I eventually get a D3/D4. It's only $800 so it's a decent temporary fix.

 

[Joves]

Good call Josh. Now you can buy some FX/Film lenses if you plan on upgrading to an FX later. I love my D300 but plan on going to FX if this economy gets better and, keeping my D300 for the crop factor on some lenses.

 

[Josh220]

Good call Josh. Now you can buy some FX/Film lenses if you plan on upgrading to an FX later. I love my D300 but plan on going to FX if this economy gets better and, keeping my D300 for the crop factor on some lenses.

I think I'll shoot with my D60 a little longer, just because it's still less than 2 months old. But I am already outgrowing it, so the time for a new body will be soon. I just feel like it's a bit compulsive to buy a new one after that time period no matter how fast I learned how to use it. It seems that the D300 will be the choice when the time does come.

Thanks for the input everyone. Feel free to keep this thread going though, since I wont be purchasing it right this moment, I am still open to hear both arguments.

 

[Josh220]

I will probably be ordering my D300 tomorrow night when B&H resumes their ordering. If not, then it will definitely be within the next couple weeks. I know they take different memory cards than the DXX line, so I'll need to pick one of those up. Is there anything else I am missing? I just have this feeling that I am forgetting something...

 

[SpeedTrap]

A spare battery

 

[JerryPH]

Another vote for the D300 for the OP... and that is from someone that owns a D200 *and* a D700. Like Chris, I built up my lens collection and have bought only ONE lens since I bought the D700 (a 15mm Sigma F/2.8 fisheye) and I have some of the best lenses out there for my cameras. As a general rule, I do not think it is out of line to to say that it is wise to invest 3 dollars in lenses for every 1 dollar spent for the camera. To buy a good camera and crap lenses... is a complete waste of money no matter what the camera is.

 

[JerryPH]

I know they take different memory cards than the DXX line, so I'll need to pick one of those up. Is there anything else I am missing? I just have this feeling that I am forgetting something...

Yes. The D200, D300, D700, D3 and D3x all use the same format card... CF. What you should note is that ALL of them (except for the D200) are UDMA compatible. That means that you should get nothing less than a SanDisk Extreme IV for them if you want best performance writing and reading from these cards. I suggest the 8gb size as a nice compromise between # of shots vs # of cards.