Need Advice - Considering Switching fro Sony to Nikon

[KmH]

......what's the differences between D300 and D700. They are about the same price. Are there major differences?

What is DX and EX?

How do the Sigmas lenses do on Nikon? When I switch my budget will dictate getting Sigmas to start. Then saving up for Nikon lenses. I shoot mostly with 3 lenses now - 70-200 f2.8, 24-70, and 11-17mm.

Do the Sigmas work with both the D300 and D700?

Thanks for your advice and suggestions!

From your questions it seems you've done only minimal research.

Looking at the prices at B&H Photo Video today, the D700 new is $2400 body only, the D300s new is $1500, making the D700 62.5% more expensive than the D300s. Nikon no longer makes the D300, though there is still new stock available in various places as well as the used gear market.

The D700 has a full frame sensor, the D300s has an smaller APS-C size sensor and the focal length of any lense mounted on a D300s is subject to a 1.5x crop factor.

In addition, the D700 has a more usable ISO range than the D300s, one of your primary concerns. If you visit www.nikonusa.com you can compare the specifications and features of the D700 and D300s in more detail. you may also find it informative to visit www.dxomark,com and compare their testing results for the 2 cameras.

Nikon uses the DX designation to identify it's APS-C size sensor and other gear optimised for that sensor. Nikon uses the FX designation for it's full frame sensors and gear optimized for that sensor.

EX is a Sigma designation they use to denote what they consider to be professional quality glass. All Nikon digital SLRs use the same lens mount. Any lens having an F-mount, regardless of who the lens was made by, will fit on a Nikon camera.

You investigate all of Sigma's current lenses here: Sigma - Lenses

Look here:
Amazon.com: Nikon D300 DX 12.3MP Digital SLR Camera (Body Only): Camera & Photo

This is why I was confused. D300 - $2200.

Wall Street Photo is a known ripoff outlet and only looking at one price is very short sighted.

 

[pgowder]

From your questions it seems you've done only minimal research.

Looking at the prices at B&H Photo Video today, the D700 new is $2400 body only, the D300s new is $1500, making the D700 62.5% more expensive than the D300s. Nikon no longer makes the D300, though there is still new stock available in various places as well as the used gear market.

The D700 has a full frame sensor, the D300s has an smaller APS-C size sensor and the focal length of any lense mounted on a D300s is subject to a 1.5x crop factor.

In addition, the D700 has a more usable ISO range than the D300s, one of your primary concerns. If you visit www.nikonusa.com you can compare the specifications and features of the D700 and D300s in more detail. you may also find it informative to visit www.dxomark,com and compare their testing results for the 2 cameras.

Nikon uses the DX designation to identify it's APS-C size sensor and other gear optimised for that sensor. Nikon uses the FX designation for it's full frame sensors and gear optimized for that sensor.

EX is a Sigma designation they use to denote what they consider to be professional quality glass. All Nikon digital SLRs use the same lens mount. Any lens having an F-mount, regardless of who the lens was made by, will fit on a Nikon camera.

You investigate all of Sigma's current lenses here: Sigma - Lenses

Look here:
Amazon.com: Nikon D300 DX 12.3MP Digital SLR Camera (Body Only): Camera & Photo

This is why I was confused. D300 - $2200.

Wall Street Photo is a known ripoff outlet and only looking at one price is very short sighted.

Wasn't looking to get insulted!

Just showing how I got confused by the price.

 

[Derrel]

I'll be simple and direct: indoors, I find a 1.6x or 1.5x body very limiting with a 70-200/2.8 lens on it--the "crop factor" narrows the angle of view of every lens, making a 50mm lens too long, too narrow in angle of view in many situations used on a 1.5x Nikon. On a FF body, a 50mm lens has new life,as it were--it has its full angle of view again! On a FF body, a high-speed 85mm f/1.8 prime lens is actually usable in many indoor situations, able to capture a full-length person from around 20 feet--this is not the case with a crop-body camera, where you need to be about 34 feet away to get a field of view that is only 8.5 feet high.

Bottom line: for indoor shooting with a 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 combo and a Sigma 10-20mm ultra-wide zoom, your absolute best Nikon will be the D3s, followed by the D3 or D700. Some people expect that Nikon will iterate the D700 to a D700s model within the year, bringing the D700 video and/or two stops' better High-ISO performance, like they did when they iterated the D3 to D3s.

 

[pgowder]

I'll be simple and direct: indoors, I find a 1.6x or 1.5x body very limiting with a 70-200/2.8 lens on it--the "crop factor" narrows the angle of view of every lens, making a 50mm lens too long, too narrow in angle of view in many situations used on a 1.5x Nikon. On a FF body, a 50mm lens has new life,as it were--it has its full angle of view again! On a FF body, a high-speed 85mm f/1.8 prime lens is actually usable in many indoor situations, able to capture a full-length person from around 20 feet--this is not the case with a crop-body camera, where you need to be about 34 feet away to get a field of view that is only 8.5 feet high.

Bottom line: for indoor shooting with a 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 combo and a Sigma 10-20mm ultra-wide zoom, your absolute best Nikon will be the D3s, followed by the D3 or D700. Some people expect that Nikon will iterate the D700 to a D700s model within the year, bringing the D700 video and/or two stops' better High-ISO performance, like they did when they iterated the D3 to D3s.

Thanks, that's helpful.

I am concerned about ordering a D700 now and the D700s come out in a couple of months. But it will probably sell higher than the D700 is now, right?

I talked to a friend, general manager of a local Best Buy, about it. She said it the D700 is marked as discontinued on her system. That doesn't mean it is from Nikon. But...

 

[Derrel]

Oh...hey...THANKS for the Best Buy information! Best Buy is actually one of Americas' larger Nikon retailers,and I am very glad to hear it is marked as either discontinued or end of life in their system because, well, I suspect the 700s will be announced within six months, and I expect the price to be the same as the D700. Like with the D3s and D3, Nikon dealers have been "eating" the several hundred dollars higher D3s price; due to this lousy economy and the Dollar-Yen exchange rate, Nikon has been forcing dealers to take lower and lower margins, so the D3s, although the MSRP is over $5k, is sold for $4995 because that price point is more-palatable than $5300.

Thom Hogan's front page today,Dec 29, has some startling new information on camera sales from Japan; only one FX camera is in the top 20 sellers, the Canon 5D Mark II,and video-equipped d-slrs are NOT selling all that well for any of the makers. Since FX is such a poor seller in Japan ($2799 in Japan or the USA, is a lot of coin for a camera to 'most people'), possibly Best Buy discontinuing the D700 is just a way to conserve cash,and devote it to much lower-cost inventory, like SB600 flashes and D60 bodies and D3000 kits and so on.

Hogan's D700 review is here Nikon D700 Review by Thom Hogan
and keep in mind that his emphasis is nature/landscape/outdoors and NOT people work. I feel that nature/landscape shooters emphasize that DX cameras are still fine, because they need all the "reach" they can get,and smaller sensors give that. I feel that for events and people images, FX is the superior format, based on the lenses that actually exist, now,today. With Nikon, the best course is to buy their new model when it comes out,and use it until the next one is announced.

 

[pgowder]

Oh...hey...THANKS for the Best Buy information! Best Buy is actually one of Americas' larger Nikon retailers,and I am very glad to hear it is marked as either discontinued or end of life in their system because, well, I suspect the 700s will be announced within six months, and I expect the price to be the same as the D700. Like with the D3s and D3, Nikon dealers have been "eating" the several hundred dollars higher D3s price; due to this lousy economy and the Dollar-Yen exchange rate, Nikon has been forcing dealers to take lower and lower margins, so the D3s, although the MSRP is over $5k, is sold for $4995 because that price point is more-palatable than $5300.

Thom Hogan's front page today,Dec 29, has some startling new information on camera sales from Japan; only one FX camera is in the top 20 sellers, the Canon 5D Mark II,and video-equipped d-slrs are NOT selling all that well for any of the makers. Since FX is such a poor seller in Japan ($2799 in Japan or the USA, is a lot of coin for a camera to 'most people'), possibly Best Buy discontinuing the D700 is just a way to conserve cash,and devote it to much lower-cost inventory, like SB600 flashes and D60 bodies and D3000 kits and so on.

Hogan's D700 review is here Nikon D700 Review by Thom Hogan
and keep in mind that his emphasis is nature/landscape/outdoors and NOT people work. I feel that nature/landscape shooters emphasize that DX cameras are still fine, because they need all the "reach" they can get,and smaller sensors give that. I feel that for events and people images, FX is the superior format, based on the lenses that actually exist, now,today. With Nikon, the best course is to buy their new model when it comes out,and use it until the next one is announced.

So you think the D700s will be about the same price? And with more features?

 

[epp_b]

making a 50mm lens too long, too narrow in angle of view in many situations used on a 1.5x Nikon. On a FF body, a 50mm lens has new life,as it were--it has its full angle of view again! On a FF body, a high-speed 85mm f/1.8 prime lens is actually usable in many indoor situations,

lolwut?

85mm on full-frame gives the same FOV as 57mm on crop frame. How is 50 on a crop frame too long and 85 on a full frame "just right"?

 

[kundalini]

The D700 will do everything you could wish for. However, I keep seeing your main interest is on the body. That's all well and good, but without proper glass in front of it, the D700 will be no better than a consumer camera.... okay, a bit more than. Get your priorities in order. You should be thinking in the realm of pro glass and nothing less..... lots more money than the body alone.

Just my 2¢.

 

[Derrel]

making a 50mm lens too long, too narrow in angle of view in many situations used on a 1.5x Nikon. On a FF body, a 50mm lens has new life,as it were--it has its full angle of view again! On a FF body, a high-speed 85mm f/1.8 prime lens is actually usable in many indoor situations,

lolwut?

85mm on full-frame gives the same FOV as 57mm on crop frame. How is 50 on a crop frame too long and 85 on a full frame "just right"?

lol-actual experience-lol-this:50mm on FX body allows the full angle of view of the lens, not cropped down. A lens does not give the "same" anything on FF and DX, because the capture size of FX is a bit over 2.25 times larger an area than DX. Depth of field, angle of view, working distance, and perspective, ALL are different between FX and DX shooting. I know--I have both formats and understand that in the simplest terms, one can calculate an "equivalent" angle of view.

Unfortunately, the equivalent angle of view does not create an "equal" photograph, due to fundamentally different capture sizes, different depth of field, longer working distances with DX, and differrent depth of field characteristics between FX and DX sized captures. FX is better for working in close quarters,indoors. Again: read this and think about it. With an 85mm lens on APS-C, you need to be 34 feet AWAY FROM a man to get a 8.47 foot tall area in which to frame a 6-foot tall person, with room for head and feet. On FX with the same 85mm lens, you can be 20 feet away for the same 8.47 foot tall field of view. The photos will also "look" quite different. The DX capture will have substantially more in focus in the background, the FX decidedly less in focus.

Because the camera is 20 feet way on FX and 34 feet away on DX, the DX camera will be rapidly approaching deep depth of field, due to 1-greater distance from camera to subject and 2) a capture format that is 2.5 times smaller, which gives roughly 1.6 to 2.7 times more in-focus DOF, depending on how close the camera is to the subject.

There is a reason FX format Canon and Nikon d-slr bodies are popular with professional wedding and portrait/event photographers. "equivalent angle of view" is only a mere part of the equation. Again, 50mm on DX indoors is a pretty limited lens. On a FX body,indoors, a 50mm has new life!

 

[Shockey]

I use the d300 d700 and d3 on a regular basis.
iso 1600 on the d300 is about like, maybe not quite as good as 3200 on the d700 and d3.
If you take a well exposed bright photo at 3200 with the d700 or d3 you can barely see any noise. In a dark area a well exposed photo will still look pretty darn good.
If however you take photos at 3200 that are to dark and then need to have an exposure brightness increase then the noise really will come out.

Yes the d700 and d3 really are that good with noise. Once you get above 3200 then the photos can get noisy in a hurry, but still an unblurry photo with some noise is better than a blurry photo with no noise.

To get the best of the ISO capabilities you will want to get a good low light lens.
If you like Sigma look at the 50mm f1.4.
If you go cheap on the lens, other than a Nikon 50mm f1.8, then you will not be able to make best use of the ISO capabilities of the d700 or d3.
Take into account also how much room you have in the setting where you will be taking photos, you may need a wider angle.
Most third party lenses are not tack sharp at their largest ISO settings.

If you do decide to try some kind of noise reduction software you need to be very careful, the software canl quickly turn everything to pasty plasticy looking smooth finish if you go to far as it will affect the details of you photo.

 

[pgowder]

Oh...hey...THANKS for the Best Buy information!

Forgot to post this earlier, discontinued at Best Buy doesn't mean it is going away. About a year ago Best Buy "discontinued the Sony A700. I was able to get a brand new one at $700.

Then just a few months back I got a "discountinued" Sony lens - 11-18mm. Regular price $699, got it for $400!

Just wish they would mark down the D700 like this!

 

[pgowder]

I use the d300 d700 and d3 on a regular basis.
iso 1600 on the d300 is about like, maybe not quite as good as 3200 on the d700 and d3.
If you take a well exposed bright photo at 3200 with the d700 or d3 you can barely see any noise. In a dark area a well exposed photo will still look pretty darn good.
If however you take photos at 3200 that are to dark and then need to have an exposure brightness increase then the noise really will come out.

Yes the d700 and d3 really are that good with noise. Once you get above 3200 then the photos can get noisy in a hurry, but still an unblurry photo with some noise is better than a blurry photo with no noise.

To get the best of the ISO capabilities you will want to get a good low light lens.
If you like Sigma look at the 50mm f1.4.
If you go cheap on the lens, other than a Nikon 50mm f1.8, then you will not be able to make best use of the ISO capabilities of the d700 or d3.
Take into account also how much room you have in the setting where you will be taking photos, you may need a wider angle.
Most third party lenses are not tack sharp at their largest ISO settings.

If you do decide to try some kind of noise reduction software you need to be very careful, the software canl quickly turn everything to pasty plasticy looking smooth finish if you go to far as it will affect the details of you photo.

Great info, thanks!

I've decided now that if I do switch I'm going to start off with the D700 and the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8. Instead of buying the 3 lenses I need at first in Sigma, I'll start with just that one lens in the pro Nikon level. I don't need the 70-200mm until April, so I can wait on that one.

 

[kundalini]

<snip>...I've decided now that if I do switch I'm going to start off with the D700 and the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8...<snip>

:thumbup: Sweet combination.

The 24-70mm is a honker of a lens. If you're talking casuals of the family, particularly indoors, and you don't want to lug it around, you might want to consider the 35mm f/2. It weighs nothing, barely extends is a nice lens. I use mine quite often.

 

[pgowder]

<snip>...I've decided now that if I do switch I'm going to start off with the D700 and the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8...<snip>

:thumbup: Sweet combination.

The 24-70mm is a honker of a lens. If you're talking casuals of the family, particularly indoors, and you don't want to lug it around, you might want to consider the 35mm f/2. It weighs nothing, barely extends is a nice lens. I use mine quite often.

I'll look into the 35mm. Right now I shoot most of my stuff with the 24-70mm. But I know the Nikon one is much larger than the Minolta one I'm shooting with now. I carried the Minolta one with me all over Walt Disney World. I'm not sure I can do that with the Nikon one.

Do you have a recommendation for a good walk around lens?

 

[pgowder]

Of course another option is for me to get the 24-70 Sigma and the Nikon 70-200mm. The 70-200mm is the lens I use mostly for my Pow Wow work. The other one is mainly for general use.