DSLRUsers.com

I am very impressed by the high ISO capabilities of the D700, and some of the other features such as the fantastic LCD and Live view and so on. However, I don't really need/want FX - I have a couple of DX lenses I am very happy with and
I don't want to be buying replacement lenses.

So, can anyone tell me whether the D300 is comparable with the D700 on high ISO?

And if not, what is the thinking about the next dx format D*00 (D400 or D500 or whatever)?

Any thoughts welcome.

G'day Greg, I don't have a D700 and so can't do a side by side comparison but from what I have read the D300 is good, but still some ways behind the D700 (and D3). The main reason for this is physics.

Both the D300 and the D700 have roughly the same number of photosites but as the D700 sensor is larger, each photosite is larger. This means that each photosite on the D700 can collect more photons than on the D300 for the equivalent exposure. More photons means more accuracy and also when the light is low, higher above the noise level.

For DX sensors to improve, there needs to be an improvement in technology so there is a better signal to noise ratio - this will also mean FX sensors get even better.

So, can anyone tell me whether the D300 is comparable with the D700 on high ISO?

This is exact dilemma I'm having, watching this thread to find an accurate answer.

Yi-P wrote:watching this thread to find an accurate answer.

Isn't that like watching Question Time to get an understanding of our political system?

By the way I have (what I think is) a good analogy to explain the benefits of larger photosites and will present it if people are interested.

Andrew, I would be interested

How important is the high ISO performance to you? Or I guess more acurately, do you have a benchmark that you are looking to achieve? Yes the D700 will be better, but the D300 is very good.

This was shot as ISO3200 with a D300. You can click when you get there for larger version and I can post a bigger one if required. I don't think I need better, but if you do then the D700 or D3 is the way!

using a D300 and D700, shooting RAW, NX2 to open and save images as 16 bit tiff files, also D700 files are handled in the same way, I have found that the D700 is about 1 1/2 to 2 stops better than the D300. This allows you to shoot at a higher ISO and for better cropping..... but the D300 is also very good and I still use this body as it gives me more reach with my long lens which is quite handy. Careful processing using NX2 and Photoshop for very good results from both bodies.

As you can see the D300 is just as good as the D700 in good light......

...... here are some D700 images showing the cropped area.......
D700 ISO 1250 Bigma@500mm 200th@6.3 cleaned up some of the background


D700 ISO 1000 Sigma 300mm 2.8+2XTC 1600th@7.1


D300 ISO 1000 Sigma 300mm 2.8+2XTC 250th@6.3 almost full frame

You have 2 cups. Both cups are round with vertical sides (they are cylinders). One cup is double the size (in diameter) than the other cup. This means the opening of the larger cup is 4 times that of the smaller cup.

Now, it starts to rain and you put both cups out in the rain for exactly the same amount of time. Assuming that the rain was consistent, the height of the water in each cup would be exactly the same. If you were then to pour the water off into a measuring cylinder, you'd find that there was 4 times as much water in the larger cup than the smaller cup. (Obviously, you measured the water from each cup separately). The extra volume from the larger cup will mean that you have a more accurate measure of the amount of rain than you did with the smaller cup.

If there had been a deluge (don't try to catch it in a paper cup), the accuracy would be of lesser importance because the number is large. However, if the rain was only light, you'd only get a small amount of water and inaccuracies in measuring will result in larger relative errors.

If there was some issue with pouring the water out of the cup into the measuring cylinder such that a certain amount of water was left behind. The surface area of the larger cup is only twice that of the smaller cup so you would expect the larger cup may leave twice as much water behind than the smaller cup. This would introduce some errors in the measurement, but overall the larger cup would only be half as bad as the smaller cup because it has 4 times the volume but twice the amount of left over water. The larger cup is still going to be more accurate. Also, the less rain there was, the more noticeable the errors would be.

OK, back to the sensors and photosites. The photosites work in similar ways to the cups. The larger the photosites (with the same given technology) the more accurate they will be when measuring the amount of light. Under low light conditions, the accuracy will become more important. The photosites aren't perfect and so there will be errors in the measurements (noise basically). The larger photosites will be measuring a greater amount of light and so there will be a better signal to noise ratio.

This is a fairly simplistic analogy but I think it helps in understanding what happens.

Now, it should be noted that sensor technology plays a role. a D70 at 6 MP has larger photosites than a D300 at 12 MP. The D300 is better at high ISO because of technology improvements over time. The D300 (and D90) and the D700 (and the D3) are using similar technology and so the size of the photosites plays a larger role.

Now, the D3x is going to be more like the D300/D90 because it will have similar sized photosites. However, there has been some time for some technology improvements so it is possible the D3x outperforms the D300/D90.

no, its not comparable. just cos peopel are happy with the d300's iso, doesnt mean its comparable. i've run this test upteen times now with a friends d700. iso is 1-2 stops better depending on the subject matter and exposures. this is not just a difference viewed at 100% crop, this is a diffence seen in normal viewing appearance.

a 6400 shot on a d700 in the right conditions looks like a 1600iso shot on a d300. that is not an exaggeration. its also got around 1-2 stops better dynamic range and raw headroom, especially in the shadows where i found i can recover an incredible amount of detail. the more shadows and contasting objects, the more the d700 pulls away.

i also found the d700 to be smoother and the colour transitions are nicer to look at. the iso noise when it does appear is also ofa much less degrading quality to the photo. if it wasnt for this damn economy i'd have one of these by now.

just to add another point here, hi iso isnt just about low light, its also about the possibility of shooting at a smaller aperture or higher shutter speed. eg: indoor photos that were shot at f2.8, iso1600 can be shot at f5.6 iso1600 with a d700. that flexibility to me is of far greater importance than shooting in near dark at iso12800.

Andrew thanks for the info makes good sense.

Rooz makes a good point.

Rooz wrote:hi iso isnt just about low light, its also about the possibility of shooting at a smaller aperture or higher shutter speed. eg: indoor photos that were shot at f2.8, iso1600 can be shot at f5.6 iso1600 with a d700. that flexibility to me is of far greater importance than shooting in near dark at iso12800.

I miss my D300 and the versatile 18-200 and if had my time again, I would have kept it and grabbed a 17-55 to go with it.

As for the future of DX sensors they will only get better.


Good luck MATT

Rooz wrote:a 6400 shot on a d700 in the right conditions looks like a 1600iso shot on a d300. that is not an exaggeration. its also got around 1-2 stops better dynamic range and raw headroom, especially in the shadows where i found i can recover an incredible amount of detail. the more shadows and contasting objects, the more the d700 pulls away.

i also found the d700 to be smoother and the colour transitions are nicer to look at. the iso noise when it does appear is also ofa much less degrading quality to the photo. if it wasnt for this damn economy i'd have one of these by now.

Larger photosites are consistent with these, too. Larger sites, more accurate readings so smoother transitions and more detail in shadows.

I have both. And I much prefer the D700. ISO performance eats the 300. There, a nice easy answer

Thank you all for those great responses.

Andrew, your rain catching cup analogy is very helpful, thank you.

Dawsey, I don't have a specific benchmark. I just want as high a usable ISO as I can have. The shot you linked to at
ISO 3200 is very good and a helpful example of the D300's capability.

Rooz, I agree completely, high ISO = more options with shutter speeds and apertures. Very desirable.

big pix, thanks for those examples and your comments.

MATT, thanks for the input

team piggy, your D700 love is duly noted.

I understand that the D700 will exhibit better high ISO performance than the D300, I guess it is a matter of degree.
Like most things, it comes down to a cost/benefit analysis (and of course the dx/fx issue. The D700 in dx mode
is a relatively modest 5.1 mp, although the photosites will be larger - presumably there will be 5.1 million pixels in
the same area as the D300's 12.3 million). Dawsey's low light shot ISO 3200 is pretty impressive.

For me, the question is about whether the existing top dx format Nikon is the go, or whether the next one is worth
waiting for. I know that is an impossible question, but it is fun to speculate.

Thank you all.

There are a couple of other points to consider too, Greg.

Firstly, lenses - you've already discussed that the DX mode on the D700 produces only 5.1 MP. To get the most out of the FX then, you'll need FX lenses. Do you have some already? If you don't, you'll need to factor that in.

Secondly, the D700 exposes much more to the right than does the D300, and it takes some getting used to. It seems that some people never get used to it, judging by the never-ending whinges I've seen on DP Review. That said, the extra dynamic range allows for a bit more in PP, but you will notice a difference in the metering between the two cameras.

The AF is different between the two also. In the D700, the AF points are clustered closer together in the centre of the viewfinder than the D300. I suspect that is to cope with DX mode. But I do miss having focus points a little further away from the centre.

I'm certainly not trying to discourage you though, because the D700 is a truly remarkable camera. As has already been mentioned by Rooz, the IQ is superior and more pleasing to the eye.

Good luck with your deliberations.

Trevor,

the foto fanatic wrote:The AF is different between the two also. In the D700, the AF points are clustered closer together in the centre of the viewfinder than the D300. I suspect that is to cope with DX mode. But I do miss having focus points a little further away from the centre.

Actually, the AF is exactly the same, which is why it seems different.

And yes, it's basically as you say: the AF system is shared between the D300, D700, and D3 (I believe there have been minor changes for the D3X, but it too is essentially the same) and therefore it covers only a specified area of the image sensor. With a smaller sensor on the DX cameras, the proportion of the area covered is greater, and it comes way closer to the edges. In the FX bodies, it covers the exact same area, but that area, relative to the sensor size, is smaller and also further from the edges, leading to the focus points covering just the central portion of the viewfinder area.

I too found that a more challenging way to work.

Greg, I think answer is really quite simple; just buy one of each.

....... for me I do not need to make a choice as having both bodies, D300 D700, and tend to shoot with both side by side when shooting birds.

If I had to make the choice, hiring, beg or borrow the bodies in question and shoot some test images under the same lighting conditions with the same lens, then you can make a decision for your needs.

....... main reason for keeping the D300 would be a few DX lens that I enjoy using, and as a second or backup body, just fantastic

I would agree with the D700 being better at high ISO's but I recently shot this at Hi1 on my D300 so I thought I would show you what a D300 can do! (PS the lens was a 50mm f/1.8 shot at f/1.

Shot at HI-1, Gallery 2 tells me it is 71936 ISO - yes I think the focus is off a little.


I do like the D700 though.

aim54x wrote:I would agree with the D700 being better at high ISO's but I recently shot this at Hi1 on my D300 so I thought I would show you what a D300 can do! (PS the lens was a 50mm f/1.8 shot at f/1.8 )

Did you really need the 1/2500s? You could have gone with 1/250s and f/5.6 or even f/8.

ATJ wrote:

aim54x wrote:I would agree with the D700 being better at high ISO's but I recently shot this at Hi1 on my D300 so I thought I would show you what a D300 can do! (PS the lens was a 50mm f/1.8 shot at f/1.8 )

Did you really need the 1/2500s? You could have gone with 1/250s and f/5.6 or even f/8.

I had the camera on Aperture Priority (wide open) and was shooting one handed with the camera thrust up above the crowd on the street. I still got a lot of blurry photos that night due the huge variation in shutter speeds that this caused.

Greg B wrote:Dawsey, I don't have a specific benchmark. I just want as high a usable ISO as I can have. The shot you linked to at ISO 3200 is very good and a helpful example of the D300's capability.

I would agree with others and say if you want the best high ISO, get a D700. I'd love one, but in reality for me I'll almost never need it, so it's not worth the extra coin. That is ultimately the decision to be made, if the difference is worth the extra and only you know that.

FWIW I printed that shot at A2 for class and it looks pretty good to me. If you in Sydney I'd offer to show you the print but could be a hassle to get in to Melboune and back

Slightly off topic, has anyone compared the ISO performance of a D2X and D300? Between 800 to 3200?

I would love to do some direct comparisons if I have a chance...

Thanks for all those additional comments.

I suppose the issue for me is that I don't want FX, I am happy with DX and
a couple of my lenses are DX. If I was going to buy more lenses, I would prefer
not to be replacing what I already have because I had gone full frame.

What I want is a DX camera with the performance of the D700, or as close to
it as I can get. So the choice is really between the D300 and the DX successor
to it.

It is all good fun to contemplate.

as per ATJ's post, i dont think its possible for DX to perform like an FX camera. due to the size of the photo-whats-its. i think we can safely assume that the next d300 will have higher MP's, so lets say 16mp. if that happens and the iso performance is as good as a d300 or a little better that would have more to do with in camera processing and NR than the physics of the sensor. bottom line, there will always be a gap between iso peformance. depends on how important that is to you i guess.

Greg,

Note that while at the moment it about FX v DX, it won't always be. In fact, I suspect ISO performance of the D3x to be about the same for the D300. Again, it's back to the size of the photosites. There is a difference now between the D300 and the D700 because they are around the same number of megapixels but the sensor in the D700 is larger. As they cram more pixels into later models, they'll have to improve the technology of the sensors to maintain or improve the high ISO handling.

Edit: My comments above are about ISO performance and general IQ, not about your decision between FX and DX. I, too, prefer DX for various reasons.

I have both the D700 and the D300.

I like both of the cameras actually, but the field of view of the full frame camera really is the reason I bought it, the high iso performance is the icing on the cake. The iso advantage through real world usage would be about 1 and a half stop to me.

I also hate the slowing down in shutter lag with the D300 in 14bit, another reason I tend to shoot with the D700.

hi everyone,
Sadly my D300 stopped autofocusing a fortnight ago. It is 13 months old and the warranty isn't covered. A firm in Brisbane is looking at it for $75. Let's hope it is simple to fix.
I love wildlife photography and like to bonus I get from the D300 in lens length. I did like the shot of the Eastern Spinebill taken with the D700. Such gorgeous detail in a never very still bird.
Trevor Quested
Bundaberg, Qld

have you thought about the D90...... not quite a D300 but very close and cheaper...... might be worth a having a look at

Greg B wrote:I suppose the issue for me is that I don't want FX, I am happy with DX and
a couple of my lenses are DX. If I was going to buy more lenses, I would prefer
not to be replacing what I already have because I had gone full frame.

Greg... Just checking, but you do realise that the D700 merrily takes DX photos as well as FX ones??? If you attach a DX lens, then it simply crops the image to DX format.... no need to buy / sell lenses - just accept that when you use the DX lenses you get a slightly smaller image... !

leek wrote:

Greg B wrote:I suppose the issue for me is that I don't want FX, I am happy with DX and
a couple of my lenses are DX. If I was going to buy more lenses, I would prefer
not to be replacing what I already have because I had gone full frame.

Greg... Just checking, but you do realise that the D700 merrily takes DX photos as well as FX ones??? If you attach a DX lens, then it simply crops the image to DX format.... no need to buy / sell lenses - just accept that when you use the DX lenses you get a slightly smaller image... !

But at an end resolution that is a tad lower than that of a D70.

While the photosites are nicer, and you get the benefit of the faster response, better AF and superior high ISO performance, you are still losing quite a chunk of the benefit of getting the D700 over the D300.

If one has a number of DX lenses, not too much FX glass, and doesn't want to re-equip, then the D300 would be the better body to purchase.

Reequip~!

I recently bought a D700 ~ its so awesome !

I don't have a D300 to compare it to but i previous had a Canon 400D with a few difference crop lenses and flash, I mainly shoot people in low light, and when i saw the AWESOME high ISO capabilities, beautiful colours and awesome autofocus of the D700, I bought one and have now sold of all my canon gear! Im finding 90% of the time now i don't nee a flash anymore.

Don't think just buy one ~! Although now im broke

I have both the D300 and D700, and if I had known any better, I would have just gone straight for the D700. The difference is huge when it comes to low light performance. If you have the money, the D700 is an incredible piece of equipment. I highly recommend it.

from what i have seen (im going to side a bit with ken rockwell here) the d300 is good, its not smashing great though. it has good high iso performance, especially when there is light available, but i have found that considerable clarity is lost above iso1000 due to Noise Reduction.

i have seen shots from a d700 that were iso2500 and cleaner than my d300 at iso 800.

admittedly most of the shots i shoot are in jpeg 14bit because i dont have time to process 70+ shots of motorsport per night. on the d300, in camera NR is a good balance of low noise and clarity but the d700 toasts the d300 in iso performance IMHO.

eg: indoor photos that were shot at f2.8, iso1600 can be shot at f5.6 iso1600 with a d700. that flexibility to me is of far greater importance than shooting in near dark at iso12800.

Rooz i dont understand - the photo would be underexposed or have a slower shutter speed? or is that a typo? i understand if you had higher ISO you could pick some clarity or better DOF from the lens but...

wider wrote: but i have found that considerable clarity is lost above iso1000 due to Noise Reduction.

Yep. This image illustrates that perfectly ... The loss of clarity is ....




Absent, I think would be the appropriate word.

D300, ISO 1600, IIRC.

gstark wrote:D300, ISO 1600, IIRC.

ISO 1000 - according to the Exif data.

wider wrote:from what i have seen (im going to side a bit with ken rockwell here) the d300 is good, its not smashing great though.

put it in perspective/ no, its not great compared to FX. but compared to any other apsc camera, its not only great, its the best there is.

it has good high iso performance, especially when there is light available, but i have found that considerable clarity is lost above iso1000 due to Noise Reduction

i prefer to stay at iso800 but can comfortabley shoot at iso1600 as long as i expose it right. but personally, id much prefer to use strobes if at all possible. quality is miles better, FX or no FX.

i have seen shots from a d700 that were iso2500 and cleaner than my d300 at iso 800.

yeah thats not too far from the truth. like i said above, i think the d700 is 1-2 stops better, depending on the light.

Rooz i dont understand - the photo would be underexposed or have a slower shutter speed? or is that a typo? i understand if you had higher ISO you could pick some clarity or better DOF from the lens but...

yes, the first part is a typo. what i meant to say was i can shoot the d700 up to 6400 for the same sort of quality i can get from the d300 at iso1600 which gives me the flexibility to stop down or bump up the shutter.

I haven't read the whole thread so it may have been said already...

I shoot with a D3 but got a D300 recently for the DX factor when I need it for wildlife. I would say ISO 3200 is about the same ('maybe' slightly cleaner) than ISO 800 on the D300 if you get the exposure right. Also, the D300 images appear slightly 'muddy' at times so I think it may apply some NR even if you have it swiched off (which I always do).

Personally, the D300 is set to never go over 800 using auto ISO.

Richard Peters wrote:I haven't read the whole thread so it may have been said already...

I shoot with a D3 but got a D300 recently for the DX factor when I need it for wildlife. I would say ISO 3200 is about the same ('maybe' slightly cleaner) than ISO 800 on the D300 if you get the exposure right. Also, the D300 images appear slightly 'muddy' at times so I think it may apply some NR even if you have it swiched off (which I always do).

Personally, the D300 is set to never go over 800 using auto ISO.

Since I'm another one of these people with both of these cameras...

I find the D300 to be useable even at 1600 iso. Tried doing gig stuff with the D300 at 3200 iso, with extreme exposure variation, the shadow areas are quite noisy.

The D700 of course is pretty good even at 6400, I would say the D700 be one to two stops better than the D300, like the general opinion.

I know i am late coming to this thread but will add my ''two bobs'' worth

In this Nikon household we have D3 D300 and D700

In our personal opinions

D300 is a great camera when you need reach (DX crop on telephoto lenses) and is very good up to iso 1600 and are limited in spending on gear

FX is fantastic in low light up to 6400 but that is not where we immeadiatly noticed big differences in everyday shooting we found FX much better in all lighting conditions in shooting landscapes or cityscapes the improvement in the clarity in the depth of field is truely amazing and we find we use them for all landscape work

I recently worked at the Avalon airshow for six days and light conditions varied dramaticly and put the gear i used to the test
I had a new Nikon 200-400 lens with me and the results i got shooting with it on the D300 compared to D3 with 1.4 converter were chalk and cheese the D3 just blew the D300 away in all light conditions (and these were really tough)
my D300 shots did exhibit more noise at all levels

We love our photography and have invested heavily in gear and were happy with our D300's until we purchased an FX camera the difference is just not low light but all light

It is like going back to film and shooting a landscape at dusk with Fuji Velvia and seeing the results of rich majestic color and clarity yes it has opened up a whole new world for us

I realise not everyone can afford this new gear indeed we had to go without a lot and scrimped and saved to get there (being obsessed helped) and i also realise that many will say the D300 can deliver rich colour etc but you really have to use the FX format to really appreciate it and what it can do for your photographic enjoyment Greg go to Vanbar in Melbourne and hire one for a weekend and take it to the beach and to a museum etc and see how you go
Lots of luck mate

aim54x wrote:...I thought I would show you what a D300 can do! (PS the lens was a 50mm f/1.8 shot at f/1.
Shot at HI-1, Gallery 2 tells me it is 71936 ISO - yes I think the focus is off a little.

Cameron, Your D300 is remarkable. 72,000 ISO. That's three times higher than a D3 or D700.

Regards,
Murray

Murray Foote wrote:

aim54x wrote:...I thought I would show you what a D300 can do! (PS the lens was a 50mm f/1.8 shot at f/1.
Shot at HI-1, Gallery 2 tells me it is 71936 ISO - yes I think the focus is off a little.

Cameron, Your D300 is remarkable. 72,000 ISO. That's three times higher than a D3 or D700.

Regards,
Murray

It is, isnt it, mine is specially made for me by Nikon Japan, I requested it have insane HIGH ISO shooting ability, so they just modified my Hi-1 setting!!

I just checked the exif using exiftool and is says HI-1 6400....maybe they lied and I paid extra for nothing....

Don't go expecting the D400 to have better ISO, with current trends I can just picture Nikon squeezing in 15mp ala 50D canon!

My D700 is on it's way - I can't wait!

gstark wrote:

wider wrote: but i have found that considerable clarity is lost above iso1000 due to Noise Reduction.

Yep. This image illustrates that perfectly ... The loss of clarity is ....




Absent, I think would be the appropriate word.

D300, ISO 1600, IIRC.

i would be interested to see a 1:1 crop of a subject's hair at iso 200, 800 and 1600. that will separate the boys from the men

nevertheless, that is a sharp image and nice capture of emotion

wider wrote:I would be interested to see a 1:1 crop of a subject's hair at iso 200, 800 and 1600. that will separate the boys from the men

No, I very much doubt that it would.

First of all, the subject has very little hair evident in this image. Secondly, we do not have alternate images at alternate ISO settings: the venue - its lighting and its setup - was simply not conducive to shooting at those settings. And I'm unconvinced that pixel peeping is a realistic part of the process of evaluating an image.

Getting back to your (quoted) suggestion, implicit within your suggestion seems to be the statement (or belief) that this is all about the camera, and the photographer and their ability is irrelevant.

I would respectfully suggest that nothing could be further from the truth. We could, I would suggest, take the one subject, the one camera, the one lens, and hand that to any number of photographers, with the instructions to shoot at the ISOs you are suggesting. In so doing, I would reset the camera to a known settings base before handing it to each photographer, thus putting them all on an equal footing. And my expectation is that the outcomes obtained by each of those photographers would be vastly different from one another, due mainly to the skill levels of each of those photographers.

nevertheless, that is a sharp image and nice capture of emotion

Thank you.

Paul Burton (who was playing with Glen Terry, above, at the time).



Has hair.

Not 100%.

6400ISO.

Sharp enough.

Regards,
Murray

Just finished reading this and I see three things from the original post worth considering

Firstly, the fact that you have a couple of DX lenses and don't want to upgrade your glass, well if the D700 crops images with DX glass, you are paying for a D700 when you won't always be using all your pixels. So in this regard, it seems the D300 would be more suitable.

Secondly, you mention you are interested in high ISO. But how high?
There is a big difference between ISO 1000 and ISO6400, yet both can be considered high, particularly when comparing it to the current D200. {edit - fixed typo, should say ISO 1000}

Lastly and most importantly, you currently shoot with a D200.
So have I been but I am now looking for a D300 / D300s (because of the better battery usage) / maybe D700 if I can afford.
So what is the difference in ISO performance between your current D200 and the D300? From all accounts, it is huge, yet this point hasn't been mentioned in this topic yet.
So the difference between the D200 and the D300 versus the D200 and the D700 might not be THAT great in comparison, I am not sure.
It all comes back to my second point - how high you want to push the ISO while still getting great results.
Having read all this, it seems to me the D300 would me more suitable for your needs depending on whether you are looking for REALLY high ISO...

In my situation, my only DX glass is the Nikon 12-24

So, does anyone know, Is it possible to force a D700 to full frame with the 12-24 DX lens and only use it from say 18-24?
And on that point, perhaps you can use your DX glass on the D700 and accept not being able to use the full zoom range? I don't know about this and perhaps someone can advise.

Hope my insight is useful.
And for all you people with a D700, &^%(^& !!

tasadam wrote:So, does anyone know, Is it possible to force a D700 to full frame with the 12-24 DX lens and only use it from say 18-24?
And on that point, perhaps you can use your DX glass on the D700 and accept not being able to use the full zoom range? I don't know about this and perhaps someone can advise.

You can switch the D700/D3 into a mode whereby it uses the full FX frame with your DX lenses. So effectively, you can shoot either DX crop or FX with DX or FX glass.

Using the 12-24, any restriction on the zoom range in use would need to be a manually imposed discipline, and any vignetting that might be evident would also be affected by the currently applied aperture setting as well.

Thanks Gary. So re the OP, if you can live with what impositions using DX glass on a FF body presents you (as Gary says), and you can run to the cost, the D700 is also a viable option.
Goes without saying that you will notice less "zoom" on a FF sensor camera, eg 12-24 lens shows up on the D200 / D300 as 18-36 I'm sure we're all aware of that here.

I suppose you have done THIS comparison?