Upgrading from D90 to D300 or D700. Help!

...
Supposedly it works without the usual drop in MP from DX lenses, otherwise I wouldn't have brought up that point as it can be said about any DX lens.

As I have said before, I am unsure how accurate this is. I have however heard it from multiple unrelated sources, so perhaps there is some truth to it.
Please link your sources. I'm always interested in gaining knowledge.

I also like to poke fun at bull$hit statements. "Supposedly" doesn't cut the mustard, dear.
 
Go for the 700.....or spend the money on the 300......and then upgrade to a 700....and then upgrade to a D3_........

On a side note, I found a 700 with grip on Craiglist for $2100ish (used) and fell in love with it until I found a D3x for $3000....and fell in love with it.

Good luck!
 
...
Supposedly it works without the usual drop in MP from DX lenses, otherwise I wouldn't have brought up that point as it can be said about any DX lens.

As I have said before, I am unsure how accurate this is. I have however heard it from multiple unrelated sources, so perhaps there is some truth to it.
Please link your sources. I'm always interested in gaining knowledge.

I also like to poke fun at bull$hit statements. "Supposedly" doesn't cut the mustard, dear.

It would take me the same amount of time to search for them as it would for you to do it yourself. In other words, I don't do the work others are not willing to do themselves.

I could care less, I was just passing on what I have heard from the experiences of others. When the D700 gets replaced I will let you know how it works from first hand experience on a FX sensor.
 
I went for a D5000 to a D700.

The FX viewfinder is worth paying the extra just for that feature!
 
buy a D3 or dont upgrade.
you will want to upgrade the d700 after a while enyway.
 
It would take me the same amount of time to search for them as it would for you to do it yourself. In other words, I don't do the work others are not willing to do themselves.
I believe you brought the subject up and I only questioned its validity. I also believe that you don't want to link your sources and "do the work for others" because your statement was based on conjecture and anecdotal information rather than fact. Please prove me wrong.

When the D700 gets replaced I will let you know how it works from first hand experience on a FX sensor.
I don't need to wait for its replacement because I have first hand experience now. A DX lens on the D700 is a cut down image. If you don't believe me, let's see what Thom Hogan says in his review of the 35mm f/1.8 lens....
FX body users should note that the lens is basically usable if you set 5:4 crop on your camera. Here there is much more vignetting, but still at acceptable levels. The lens does not cover the full FX frame, though.




The FX viewfinder is worth paying the extra just for that feature!
Unlike the D300's 100% viewfinder, the D700 has only a 95% viewfinder. In order to cram the guts of the D3 into the D300 chasis, something had to give. It was here.
 
Last edited:
It would take me the same amount of time to search for them as it would for you to do it yourself. In other words, I don't do the work others are not willing to do themselves.
I believe you brought the subject up and I only questioned its validity. I also believe that you don't want to link your sources and "do the work for others" because your statement was based on conjecture and anecdotal information rather than fact. Please prove me wrong.

When the D700 gets replaced I will let you know how it works from first hand experience on a FX sensor.
I don't need to wait for its replacement because I have first hand experience now. A DX lens on the D700 is a cut down image. If you don't believe me, let's see what Thom Hogan says in his review of the 35mm f/1.8 lens....
FX body users should note that the lens is basically usable if you set 5:4 crop on your camera. Here there is much more vignetting, but still at acceptable levels. The lens does not cover the full FX frame, though.

Like I said, I am just passing on information. If you would like to check its validity, then please do so yourself.

If all you have found thus far is that you get vignetting, then you better not use the 70-200 VR1 on a FX since it was designed to be a DX lens and has the same issues you are describing. Whether it works with vignetting or not, it seems that the 35 still performs better than other DX lenses on a FX sensor.
 
Like I said, I am just passing on information. If you would like to check its validity, then please do so yourself.
Passing on erroneous information is not benefiting anyone and does a disservice to those that do not take the time to check the validity of someone's statements. I happened to do my own research previously and I went back to verify before I commented in this thread as I have. I also provided one source (and Thom Hogan is a damn good source on things Nikon) and additionally provided the link. What have you done? Oh wait... look below.


If all you have found thus far is that you get vignetting, then you better not use the 70-200 VR1 on a FX since it was designed to be a DX lens and has the same issues you are describing.
Oh really? Perhaps you'd like to have a gander at the chart. You might want to pay particular attention to the yellow marked text.
Nikon Zoom Lenses by Thom Hogan


Light drop off in the corners on the 70-200 is known and so is the fact of ghosts if the light source is in frame. Everything else is the dog's bo11ucks.
 
Where does the chart talk about whether the 70-200 was initially designed as a DX or FX lens?
 
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Green = DX consumer zoom
Red = DX pro zoom
Blue = FX consumer zoom
Yellow = FX pro zoom
[/FONT]


Again, I'm all ears if you can link your source. I am quite interested.
 
This thread over 5 years old!
The original respondents are in all likelihood long gone and the cameras they were talking about are very much out-date and obsolete.
If you are after some advice on getting a new camera why don't you start a fresh thread and give details of your photographic needs and budget constraints.
 
This thread over 5 years old!
The original respondents are in all likelihood long gone and the cameras they were talking about are very much out-date and obsolete.
If you are after some advice on getting a new camera why don't you start a fresh thread and give details of your photographic needs and budget constraints.

Yea, I know. I meant to post this reply on my thread not here. lol
The D90 and D300 might be out of date but all I could hope to try and afford.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top