I'm Sorry! But I Need Help lol

[TylerF]

So some of you may have seen a recent thread by me that has to do with what makes a camera pro. in that thread, i developed a question and i am having a really hard time deciding what to do.

I am not sure whether to get the nikon d300s for $1,149 or the nikon d700 for $1,999.

i want to put a grip on whatever one i want and a nice lens. the d300s would probably get a better lens due to the extra money saved. but the d700 would still get a nice lens. i really like features of both of them and am torn on what to do lol

any help is appreciated

 

[Cedar]

d300 all the way. Simply because of all the features it has and the price you can get it for.

I would suggest a d300s due to video. (You never know when you may need it!)

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I can't to see how you handle *important* life decisions.
:lmao:

 

[TylerF]

haha bitter, depending on what the life decision is, i will find a forum dedicated to it and post a thread for advice. haha jkjk

i am buying a dslr for photos. i will probably never use video. ever lol

 

[supraman215]

I want FX so I would buck up for the D700

 

[Derrel]

Full-frame sensor size does more to make a camera "pro" than most things; the vast majority of d-slrs are fitted with small sensors in the APS-C or 4/3 sizes. Only a handful of d-slrs use 24x36mm size sensors. I'm not sure why you're worried about three little letters, unless you want the camera itself to help give credentials to you. Regardless, the images that come out of full-frame cameras often look different from those that come from smaller-sensored cameras.

 

[TylerF]

no no no lol I am not looking at the d700 to be considered a "pro" lol That was the whole point of the last thread. I have been looking at the two camera for a while now and just cant decide if i want to go with the d700 or not. Some people say that the fx is worth it for the low light performance and the better viewfinders. But i like the extra zoom dx gives me as well as the dual card slots.

how do the photos look different from dx to fx?

 

[eric-holmes]

It doesn't really give you extra zoom, right? It's just a cropped shot of what a fx shot would give you. So in a way I guess it is a zoom, not an optical zoom but a digital zoom.

 

[sleist]

How rich are you? How much have you budgeted for new FX glass if you go FX? How long will getting that glass take you?

You have a DX now (I think) so I imagine you have a lot of DX glass?

Do you plan on keeping your current body and glass if you go FX or will you be selling it?

Having the D700, crappy lenses, and no coin left would make me want to slit my throat.

If you can afford good glass soon enough to make the D700 worthwhile, then get the D700. Otherwise stay with DX.

Or take up golf - another black hole of time and money.

 

[ghpham]

And why do you need another thread?? Buy what you can afford.

 

[TylerF]

well yeah, but its not as bad as digital zoom im assuming. even though it really doesnt give you a TON.

 

[TylerF]

How rich are you? How much have you budgeted for new FX glass if you go FX? How long will getting that glass take you?

I was going to get the 50mm 1.4 and the 85mm 1.8 for either. from what i can tell, they will work on both.

You have a DX now (I think) so I imagine you have a lot of DX glass?
no, i havent gotten anything but a 55-200 that i hate. i havent invested incase i found myself in this situation

Do you plan on keeping your current body and glass if you go FX or will you be selling it?

keeping as back up. fx lenses will still work on it

Having the D700, crappy lenses, and no coin left would make me want to slit my throat.

i have 3000 to spend, possibly more. that leaves me like 1000 for a lens.

If you can afford good glass soon enough to make the D700 worthwhile, then get the D700. Otherwise stay with DX.

Or take up golf - another black hole of time and money.

I love golf

And why do you need another thread?? Buy what you can afford.

i can afford both and the other thread was a different question

 

[Derrel]

no no no lol I am not looking at the d700 to be considered a "pro" lol That was the whole point of the last thread. I have been looking at the two camera for a while now and just cant decide if i want to go with the d700 or not. Some people say that the fx is worth it for the low light performance and the better viewfinders. But i like the extra zoom dx gives me as well as the dual card slots.

how do the photos look different from dx to fx?

The photos look different because FX is an entirely different format of camera, which uses different lens focal lengths, from different camera-to-subject distances, which affects both depth of field, and true perspective. The FX sensor is 864 square mm in area, the D300s has a 370 square mm sensor area, and since both are basically of the same sensor generation, the low-light and high-ISO performance of the larger sensor is significantly better. Same with the viewfinder image: it's significantly bigger,and better in the FX camera than in the DX camera.

The "real" difference between DX and FX is how the lenses work. On FX, a 50 and an 85 are hugely useful lenses indoors; on DX, in normal-sized rooms, a 50mm is very tight, and an 85mm is almost useless for anything except extreme closeups. Indoors, a 70-200 on a D300s is a very long, narrow-angle lens, useless at many events. On FX, it's a useful lens, because a 70-200 was originally designed for an FX sized sensor.

 

[sleist]

Put your money back in the bank until you know what you want. Jeez, rent the friggin' cameras and figure it out for your self.

I got the impression somewhere you sold cameras. That can't be the case..

 

[TylerF]

ok, thank you. so i am pretty much on the same page as far as the benefits for each go, but im not too sure what benefits i want haha. i guess im looking for user recommendations from people who have used both. i think i might just go for the d700 and if i dont like it, i can sell it and get the d300s i guess.