D700 as well as D300

merv

merv

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,118
Name
Mervyn
Edit My Images
Yes
Ihave the D300 and use it a lot for motorsport.
could I justify having the 700 as well for the rest and would it be worth it? merv:thinking::thinking:
 
For a cheaper portrait and landscape camera you could consider the Fuji S5 pro
 
buy the S5 & D700 and you can give me the D700.
 
Do you do this for a living, or purely a hobby?

If for a living, do you really need that extra great performance at higher ISO? That's where the D700 shines. If you need that, and see that you can get better shots, earning you better income then sure! That's a good enough excuse.

On the flip side; if this is just purely a hobby, then do you really need to justify anything ;)
 
I have the D3s and the D300.But I tend to opt for the D3s 99% of the time now. It was the same when I had the D3.
I feel guilty towards the D300, but I just love FF.

Kev.
 
Kev - what is it that makes you so in love with full frame? Is it your camera of choice even for longer stuff like planes and motorsport? merv:thinking::thinking:
 
FF gives you a bigger and brighter 100% viewfinder which can be nice when composing, and really clean images at higher ISO's - for someone with a D300 going to a 700 i'd say only do it if you are struggling with noise at the moment....

Dont forget though if you go full frame you are losing 1.4x magnification in your lenses which for planes especially and motorsport is a fair bit. kevshore has a D3s so if he can afford a £4k ish camera im assuming he has fast long glass so can afford to use a Teleconverter when needed to replace the reach lost with full frame (Edit: just seen he has a 300 2.8 and 200-400 f4 which is some super serious $$ glass hence why the loss of reach wont be a problem there).

Also, the 700 has the same AF system as the 300, and the AF points are in the same place, meaning on a full frame sensor they wont fill the frame, so if you use the 3d tracking it will work better towards the edge of the frame on a D700.

(having said all that I recently bought a D3 and my main interest in photography is motorsport and love FF!!..... not tried it at circuits yet, only rally, so i dont know how the loss of reach will effect me)
 
merv said:
Kev - what is it that makes you so in love with full frame? Is it your camera of choice even for longer stuff like planes and motorsport? merv:thinking::thinking:
Click to expand...


It is. Just about everytime. I thought the difference in reach would bother me initially. But it doesn't. I find that I think about my photography more, the viewfinder is without a doubt a benefit.Much brighter. The shots are just so much cleaner.That could be due to the iso capabilities.(Or maybe I'm getting better at it. :D)
I tend to have my 300mm 2.8 on the D3s and my 70-200mm with a converter on the D300 next to me when shooting aircraft.
Then if I need the reach I just quickly swop over. But that doesn't happen very often. I compose better nowadays and position myself for the shot better.
I also find that I can crop better with FF and retain more detail than with the D300.
I can't remember the last time I took a portrait shot with the D300. I use the D3s everytime without thinking about it.
I can't see me ever parting with the D300 though, because its still a great camera. Its just now a great backup for me.
If you're going to Focus next weekend, you are welcome to run a few shots off with the D3s and see what you think. :)

Kev.
 
The FX bodies are very lovely, but Merv, you do need some decent glass before its worth it or you aren't seeing the true beauty of the thing.

The main advantage, apart from high ISO, which is of limited use in daytime outdoor motorsport is that the FX sensor provides better subject isolation, however to see that you need to be emphasising it in the first place, so wide apertures at long focal lengths - and you know what that means, yes, £££££.

I've ummed and ahhhed about it many a time, because I really want the pro-body of the D3, but without a big huge pile of glass I don't own, it wouldn't be worth it for me.

At a minimum I'd want the 17-35, 24-70, 70-200 (which I have) and the 300 2.8, but probably a 500 f4 or 200-400 f4. With that pile I could do what I do better than I do now.

However thats a huge pile of dough, so for now I am being sensible and just inching my way towards the glass - the body will come when I get there.
 
desantnik said:
The FX bodies are very lovely, but Merv, you do need some decent glass before its worth it or you aren't seeing the true beauty of the thing.

The main advantage, apart from high ISO, which is of limited use in daytime outdoor motorsport is that the FX sensor provides better subject isolation, however to see that you need to be emphasising it in the first place, so wide apertures at long focal lengths - and you know what that means, yes, £££££.

I've ummed and ahhhed about it many a time, because I really want the pro-body of the D3, but without a big huge pile of glass I don't own, it wouldn't be worth it for me.

At a minimum I'd want the 17-35, 24-70, 70-200 (which I have) and the 300 2.8, but probably a 500 f4 or 200-400 f4. With that pile I could do what I do better than I do now.

However thats a huge pile of dough, so for now I am being sensible and just inching my way towards the glass - the body will come when I get there.
Click to expand...


I don't always agree with what you say:cool: But on this occasion you are totally right..I hanker for FF but without all that mega expensive glass it would not perform to it's best..So I'll stick with my beloved D300:thumbs:
 
I think this has been covered pretty well by others here.
And I would go with both Wail & Desantnik on this.
If you are struggling with high iso noise most of the time or you have lots of £££s or $$$s
to upgrade your glass it might just be worth considering.
I guess I'm fortunate that I already had a lot of glass from my film days, so the move to FF was not so big a issue or expense when I took the plunge.
Saying that I recently sold what some folk would say was all my best gear !
Nikon D3,Nikon14-24mm 2.8,24-70mm 2.8,70-200mm f2.8, and my Tamron 28-300mm G.P. lens.
Do I miss any of it ?
Just one piece of it and that is the Tamron 28-300mm.
Not fast, not heavy, not big but a great all-round lens.
And I certainly DON'T MISS the WEIGHT!!!
Think carefully before making the move if you decide to go with F.F.
Will it improve your photography???
 
Paddysnapper said:
I don't always agree with what you say:cool:
Click to expand...

Hehehe, thats fine, I usually talk about things to do with my own particular photography niche and not any others because thats pretty much all I do... and this time Merv is talking about the same thing :D

BTW, my comments are based on what my colleague who shoots with me 90% of the time has experienced - he has a D300 and then got a D700... and slid down the slippery slope of expensive glass.

He has more cash than I do! :'(

Shots are far nicer though, I will admit that!
 
Hobby only Wail and I'm not struggling with noise. The combiination you have Kev sounds good. Is the D3 still only 12.1M Pixcels like the 300 and 700?Appreciate all the comments from the rest of you guys and I take your points. At the moment I have 300f2.8, 70-200f2.8, 17-55 f2.8, 24-70f2.8, all nikon plus 1.4, 1.7 and 2 TC's (Nikon) Also have Siggy 150-500. From what you say I may already be equipped glass-wise for FF or is there anything missing.? Who said its photography, you dont have to justify the change!! merv:thinking::thinking:
 
Yes, roughly the same 12mp from all of the top end Nikon's except the D3X.

Your glass sounds like its up to the job, so give it a go.
 
Nice set of glass you've got; and with the exception of the 17-55 f/2.8, they're all perfect for FX.

I'd second the idea to go for it, get yourself a D700. You'll not regret it.
 
Thanks Desantnik and Wail for the encouragement - not that I need any. merv:clap:
 
Yeah tell your Mrs that we said it was OK for you buy it :D
 
merv said:
Hobby only Wail and I'm not struggling with noise. The combiination you have Kev sounds good. Is the D3 still only 12.1M Pixcels like the 300 and 700?Appreciate all the comments from the rest of you guys and I take your points. At the moment I have 300f2.8, 70-200f2.8, 17-55 f2.8, 24-70f2.8, all nikon plus 1.4, 1.7 and 2 TC's (Nikon) Also have Siggy 150-500. From what you say I may already be equipped glass-wise for FF or is there anything missing.? Who said its photography, you dont have to justify the change!! merv:thinking::thinking:
Click to expand...



You're sorted Merv. Get one bought! Just blame me. ;)
The offer still stands for next weekend at Focus though. If you want to have a play with my D3s. Just to see how you get on with FF. :thumbs:


Kev.
 
Thanks Kev. Where is focus held - might be a bit expensive to get there from here!! merv:thinking::thinking:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top