D700 - interesting read

[sirhc55]

http://www.stillephotographie.at/NikonD700ENG

[Glen]

He seems to think it is ok

[Geoff]

Hmm, looks good!
Maybe, just MAYBE if the tax man is good to us this year.... (ooops, I was dreaming).

[BBJ]

Yeh right, you and me dreaming mate. I thought the same only to be let down but i guess what eles could we expect, the more you earn the more they take and the less you get back.

Hmm, looks good!
Maybe, just MAYBE if the tax man is good to us this year.... (ooops, I was dreaming).

[chrisk]

i'm looking forward to getting one end of the year. hopefully the 6d and a900 will be out by then and we'll see a price war of epic proportions. lol

[Greg B]

I. Want. One.

[ATJ]

I didn't read all the article (I started to get a bit too sick of all the gushing), but I couldn't find anything to justify the "If you can, get it!" comment. It certainly is a good camera but I didn't really see anything that makes it better than a D3 or a D300. In fact, there seemed to be very little comparison to the D300 and much of the comparison to the D3 was line ball type stuff. Perhaps all the good stuff is in the second half of the article.

[gstark]

In fact, there seemed to be very little comparison to the D300 and much of the comparison to the D3 was line ball type stuff.

Which to me is suggesting that this camera is one that should make you think twice about getting the D3.

But the whole point of the D3 and D700, for me, is about getting the full frame experience back. That, for me, is a very big deal, and it's not one I can describe, nor is it one I can justify.

But as long time film shooter, let me assure you that there is something very nice about the prospect of getting FF digital at an affordable price. And if you want some validation of that, look at how many people went to the 5D because of that very reason.

[Killakoala]

I echo Gary's thoughts on that. I've been waiting for this camera. FF in a smaller form than a D3. Great for bushwalking to the best landscape spots.

[chrisk]

In fact, there seemed to be very little comparison to the D300 and much of the comparison to the D3 was line ball type stuff.

Which to me is suggesting that this camera is one that should make you think twice about getting the D3.

But the whole point of the D3 and D700, for me, is about getting the full frame experience back. That, for me, is a very big deal, and it's not one I can describe, nor is it one I can justify.

But as long time film shooter, let me assure you that there is something very nice about the prospect of getting FF digital at an affordable price. And if you want some validation of that, look at how many people went to the 5D because of that very reason.

x2. i only moved from film 2 years ago so i haven't forgotten that beautiful big, bright VF. the 95% coverage is annoying but not a deal breaker to me given you can crop so easily in PP. but i have to say its a little annoying that composition will be somewhat compromised in camera.

andrew, not sure what is too difficult to understand about this, to me its really quite a simple equation. its not comparable to a d300 at all. its a cheap d3 as far as i'm concerned rather than a tricked up d300. i think its the best prosumer option nikon have come up with to date.

[ATJ]

For what it's worth, I shot with film for 20 years before switching to digital so I do have some experience in that area.

I shoot mainly nature and for me (and I'm sure a lot of other nature photographers) FF doesn't provide that many benefits and has a number of disadvantages. I am very happy with the DX format.

The crop factor is a big plus for nature photography where you don't always have the luxury of getting closer to the subject. The crop factor basically gives you a 1.5x TC for no extra cost and for no loss of light. I could stand next to another photographer who's using a D3 (or D700) with me using my D300 and both of us using a 70-200mm lens. I'm going to be able to better fill my frame than the other photographer and will be able to get a higher resolution shot.

I shoot a lot of macro. If I use my 60mm f/2.8D and shoot a small caterpillar which is say 24mm long. Using my D300 and I can fill the frame with the caterpillar. Using a D700 or D3, I cannot. With the latter, the caterpillar would need to be 36mm long to fill the frame but I could also fill the frame using the D300 just by moving back a bit.

The larger viewfinder would be nice - in fact very nice underwater - but I don't think I want to sacrifice the other benefits of DX just to get a larger viewfinder. Additionally, with both my FE2 and F801s, the eyepoint (I think that is what it is called) was such that it was difficult to actually see the whole frame in the viewfinder in one go (which is a problem I have now underwater.

I can certainly see that people can get benefit from a FF camera - e.g. for landscape shots and maybe even portraits (which I rarely take) - but to assume that everybody should want FF is invalid in my opinion. And while a lot of people may have bought a 5D for the FF, a lot of people didn't which also says something.

[gstark]

The crop factor is a big plus for nature photography where you don't always have the luxury of getting closer to the subject. The crop factor basically gives you a 1.5x TC for no extra cost and for no loss of light.

That's about as true as is the statement that digital zoom is a good thing.

I could stand next to another photographer who's using a D3 (or D700) with me using my D300 and both of us using a 70-200mm lens. I'm going to be able to better fill my frame than the other photographer and will be able to get a higher resolution shot.

Quite correct. But that's product of the actual resolution and pixel densities of the various cameras in question, and has little to do with the crop factor, and the need to not have to provide a viewport beyond the actual field of view. In fact, you're actually seeing less in the DX viewfinder than the guy standing beside you, and he can probably better track a moving subject because of his increased FoV.

A 300mm lens remains a 300mm lens, regardless of the body upon which you place it. An image shot with a 300mm lens on a FF camera with a sensor density similar to that of a D300 will produce a very similar image when cropped to 1.5, and will produce the same illusion of having gotten closer to the subject.

So too will a similarly cropped film neg, btw.

I shoot a lot of macro. If I use my 60mm f/2.8D and shoot a small caterpillar which is say 24mm long. Using my D300 and I can fill the frame with the caterpillar. Using a D700 or D3, I cannot. With the latter, the caterpillar would need to be 36mm long to fill the frame but I could also fill the frame using the D300 just by moving back a bit.

But again, if the sensors had equal densities, what differences would there be in the images recorded? Apart from greater data being saved due to a larger frame size, the actual content - the caterpillar's detail - would not be any different, save for sensor characteristics. Basically, regardless of the crop factor, you can record the same image in either format.

The larger viewfinder would be nice - in fact very nice underwater - but I don't think I want to sacrifice the other benefits of DX just to get a larger viewfinder.

And what, truly, are the benefits of DX? The crop factor is a perceived and misunderstood, but not actually real, benefit. It's cheaper. It's lighter.

What else?

Additionally, with both my FE2 and F801s, the eyepoint (I think that is what it is called) was such that it was difficult to actually see the whole frame in the viewfinder in one go (which is a problem I have now underwater.

Again, that has nothing at all to do with the format. That's body design, pure and simple. Manufacturers today generally issue bodies with higher eyepoints than was the case in the 70s and 80s.

I can certainly see that people can get benefit from a FF camera - e.g. for landscape shots and maybe even portraits (which I rarely take) - but to assume that everybody should want FF is invalid in my opinion.

I don't see where anybody has has made that assumption. But the demand is clearly there, and has been for ... about 5 or so years AFAICT.

And while a lot of people may have bought a 5D for the FF, a lot of people didn't which also says something.

Yep. It says that those who wanted FF bought the camera that suited their needs. And I think the fact that, within just a few months of releasing the D3, Nikon has brought out the D700 says a lot more.

[ATJ]

The crop factor is a big plus for nature photography where you don't always have the luxury of getting closer to the subject. The crop factor basically gives you a 1.5x TC for no extra cost and for no loss of light.

That's about as true as is the statement that digital zoom is a good thing.

No, it is not. A digital zoom is limited by the resolution of the sensor. In fact, putting a DX lens on a D3 or D700 is the equivalent of a digital zoom, just as cropping a FF image (from the current crop of Nikon FF cameras) to achieve the same FOV as DX is.

I could stand next to another photographer who's using a D3 (or D700) with me using my D300 and both of us using a 70-200mm lens. I'm going to be able to better fill my frame than the other photographer and will be able to get a higher resolution shot.

Quite correct. But that's product of the actual resolution and pixel densities of the various cameras in question, and has little to do with the crop factor, and the need to not have to provide a viewport beyond the actual field of view. In fact, you're actually seeing less in the DX viewfinder than the guy standing beside you, and he can probably better track a moving subject because of his increased FoV.

The actual resolution and pixel densities over the size of the sensor in the camera IS the same as the crop factor. Exactly the same - but I'm sure you know that and just like arguing semantics.

You are also missing the point. If the guy beside me is at 200mm on the lens, I am effectively at 300m. Yes, I have a narrower FOV, but if I stuck a 300mm lens on a FF camera I would be, too. The point is I am able to get closer without having the resort to a 300mm lens.

A 300mm lens remains a 300mm lens, regardless of the body upon which you place it. An image shot with a 300mm lens on a FF camera with a sensor density similar to that of a D300 will produce a very similar image when cropped to 1.5, and will produce the same illusion of having gotten closer to the subject.

Of course a 300mm lens is a 300mm lens and I never suggested otherwise.

I specifically mentioned comparing a D300 to a D3 (or D700). The D300 and D3 (or D700) don't have a similar sensor density. That is the whole point of the comparison. A D300 with a 200mm lens will get a very similar shot to a D3 with a 300mm lens, and both images will be around 12MP. Certainly, you could use the D3 with a 200mm lens and crop the resulting image, but it won't be 12MP any longer. You probably don't care about MP, but I do when I want to get photographs published in glossy magazine and in books.

So too will a similarly cropped film neg, btw.

I disagree. In the case of a negative (or slide) the resolution of the film is somewhat fixed. This was (is) why MF cameras could produce better images (better resolution) than 35mm and LF better than MF. The sensor density of a D300 is higher than the D3 and so it is not the same comparison.

I shoot a lot of macro. If I use my 60mm f/2.8D and shoot a small caterpillar which is say 24mm long. Using my D300 and I can fill the frame with the caterpillar. Using a D700 or D3, I cannot. With the latter, the caterpillar would need to be 36mm long to fill the frame but I could also fill the frame using the D300 just by moving back a bit.

But again, if the sensors had equal densities, what differences would there be in the images recorded? Apart from greater data being saved due to a larger frame size, the actual content - the caterpillar's detail - would not be any different, save for sensor characteristics. Basically, regardless of the crop factor, you can record the same image in either format.

The sensors don't have the same density so your point is moot. Again, this thread is about the D700 not some mythical camera that may come out in the future.

The larger viewfinder would be nice - in fact very nice underwater - but I don't think I want to sacrifice the other benefits of DX just to get a larger viewfinder.

And what, truly, are the benefits of DX? The crop factor is a perceived and misunderstood, but not actually real, benefit. It's cheaper. It's lighter.

What else?

All the things I already mentioned.

Additionally, with both my FE2 and F801s, the eyepoint (I think that is what it is called) was such that it was difficult to actually see the whole frame in the viewfinder in one go (which is a problem I have now underwater.

Again, that has nothing at all to do with the format. That's body design, pure and simple. Manufacturers today generally issue bodies with higher eyepoints than was the case in the 70s and 80s.

Agreed, but as we have seen from the D700 you only get 95% of the frame in the viewfinder.

I can certainly see that people can get benefit from a FF camera - e.g. for landscape shots and maybe even portraits (which I rarely take) - but to assume that everybody should want FF is invalid in my opinion.

I don't see where anybody has has made that assumption. But the demand is clearly there, and has been for ... about 5 or so years AFAICT.

Different people have different requirements.

And while a lot of people may have bought a 5D for the FF, a lot of people didn't which also says something.

Yep. It says that those who wanted FF bought the camera that suited their needs. And I think the fact that, within just a few months of releasing the D3, Nikon has brought out the D700 says a lot more.

Yes. And a lot of people bought D300s despite there being a FF camera available.

Of course, you are always going to be right and I will always be wrong, so I'll just continue in my ignorance and enjoy the benefits I don't really have.

[gstark]

The crop factor is a big plus for nature photography where you don't always have the luxury of getting closer to the subject. The crop factor basically gives you a 1.5x TC for no extra cost and for no loss of light.

That's about as true as is the statement that digital zoom is a good thing.

No, it is not. A digital zoom is limited by the resolution of the sensor. In fact, putting a DX lens on a D3 or D700 is the equivalent of a digital zoom, just as cropping a FF image (from the current crop of Nikon FF cameras) to achieve the same FOV as DX is.

Sorry, but no.

First of all, all cameras are limited by the resolution of the sensor. Digital zoom is simply applying a level of cropping and reformatting the new crop to fit the display area.

There is no difference between putting a DX lens on a D700/D3/D300 as there is in putting a FF lens on any of those cameras. 300mm is 300mm is 300mm is 300mm. 50mm is 50mm is 50mm. Put a DX lens onto a D3, and the camera's default behaviour is to display a cropped FoV, just as you would see on a D300. Turn off that behaviour, and you would see the exactly the same as if you were looking through a FF lens, albeit with some degree of vignetting.

Stop your DX lens down, and you can reduce the level of vignetting, perhaps to the point of getting a very usable FF image. The 10.5 FE works in exactly that way provided you remove the lenshood.

I could stand next to another photographer who's using a D3 (or D700) with me using my D300 and both of us using a 70-200mm lens. I'm going to be able to better fill my frame than the other photographer and will be able to get a higher resolution shot.

Quite correct. But that's product of the actual resolution and pixel densities of the various cameras in question, and has little to do with the crop factor, and the need to not have to provide a viewport beyond the actual field of view. In fact, you're actually seeing less in the DX viewfinder than the guy standing beside you, and he can probably better track a moving subject because of his increased FoV.

The actual resolution and pixel densities over the size of the sensor in the camera IS the same as the crop factor. Exactly the same - but I'm sure you know that and just like arguing semantics.

You are also missing the point. If the guy beside me is at 200mm on the lens, I am effectively at 300m. [/quote]

No, you are not. You are merely seeing a smaller, portion of the 200mm image. I know what you are trying to say, but the belief that the crop effect is actually magnifying something is not really true. It's more of a convenience to say that's what it's like, but a reduced FoV is not the same as a greater magnification. If it were, then we may as well just use a crop factor of 5 and be done with it.

Yes, I have a narrower FOV, but if I stuck a 300mm lens on a FF camera I would be, too. The point is I am able to get closer without having the resort to a 300mm lens.

That's the fallacy. You are not any closer, and nothing has been magnified to any greater extent. You are merely seeing that smaller FoV, and thus it looks as if you are closer. Put that 300mm lens onto a FF camera, and unless you crop it to 1.5, you have a greater FoV. Crop, and you will see the same FoV. Crop it to 2 if you like (D2x High Speed mode) and you will be ever closer, right?

Again: a 200mm lens is a 200mm lens on both bodies. A 200mm lens, cropped to 1.5 will show you the same FoV as the same 200mm lens on a 1.5 crop body. Any difference is an optical illusion.

A 300mm lens remains a 300mm lens, regardless of the body upon which you place it. An image shot with a 300mm lens on a FF camera with a sensor density similar to that of a D300 will produce a very similar image when cropped to 1.5, and will produce the same illusion of having gotten closer to the subject.

Of course a 300mm lens is a 300mm lens and I never suggested otherwise.

I specifically mentioned comparing a D300 to a D3 (or D700). The D300 and D3 (or D700) don't have a similar sensor density. That is the whole point of the comparison. A D300 with a 200mm lens will get a very similar shot to a D3 with a 300mm lens, and both images will be around 12MP. Certainly, you could use the D3 with a 200mm lens and crop the resulting image, but it won't be 12MP any longer. You probably don't care about MP, but I do when I want to get photographs published in glossy magazine and in books.

Then perhaps now would be a good time for you ask Chris (sirhc55) about megapixels. Until recently, he's been using a 4MP camera for very high quality commercial shoots.

I shoot a lot of macro. If I use my 60mm f/2.8D and shoot a small caterpillar which is say 24mm long. Using my D300 and I can fill the frame with the caterpillar. Using a D700 or D3, I cannot. With the latter, the caterpillar would need to be 36mm long to fill the frame but I could also fill the frame using the D300 just by moving back a bit.

But again, if the sensors had equal densities, what differences would there be in the images recorded? Apart from greater data being saved due to a larger frame size, the actual content - the caterpillar's detail - would not be any different, save for sensor characteristics. Basically, regardless of the crop factor, you can record the same image in either format.

The sensors don't have the same density so your point is moot. Again, this thread is about the D700 not some mythical camera that may come out in the future.

No, my point is not moot: do you believe that sensor densities will remain as they are today, forever more?

And yes, this thread is about the D700, which will present some serious advantages when compared with either the D300 or the D3.

The larger viewfinder would be nice - in fact very nice underwater - but I don't think I want to sacrifice the other benefits of DX just to get a larger viewfinder.

And what, truly, are the benefits of DX? The crop factor is a perceived and misunderstood, but not actually real, benefit. It's cheaper. It's lighter.

What else?

All the things I already mentioned.
[/quote]

Ok .. those were the ones that are misunderstood. What does that leave?

Additionally, with both my FE2 and F801s, the eyepoint (I think that is what it is called) was such that it was difficult to actually see the whole frame in the viewfinder in one go (which is a problem I have now underwater.

Again, that has nothing at all to do with the format. That's body design, pure and simple. Manufacturers today generally issue bodies with higher eyepoints than was the case in the 70s and 80s.

Agreed, but as we have seen from the D700 you only get 95% of the frame in the viewfinder.

Very few cameras give you 100%. I think the F3 gave about 102%. Live view in the D700 gives you 100%. Where's the problem with that?

Grab a D2x, switch to High Speed mode, use the 2x crop and get about 200% viewfinder coverage. Sounds pretty good to me.

[Big V]

Crop cameras do not give you the same resolution as the perceived increase in focal length. What you are seeing is a narrower field of view compared to full frame - end of story.

[chrisk]

excuse me while i dumb this down a little for me cos i cant follow all that technical stuff...

are you saying that if you had a 200mm lens on a d700 took the shot and just cropped it by 50% in PP, it would be the same quality as the d300 shooting with the same lens without the crop ??

[gstark]

excuse me while i dumb this down a little for me cos i cant follow all that technical stuff...

are you saying that if you had a 200mm lens on a d700 took the shot and just cropped it by 50% in PP, it would be the same quality as the d300 shooting with the same lens without the crop ??

It would be a similar FoV. Because the sensor density on the D300 is greater, the D3's image would be of a lower resolution. Perhaps f a lower quality, but that becomes subjective and dependent now upon many elements. Resolution would be closer to a D70, really, but with better high ISO performance. And the fatter photosites might make for a better image regardless.

But any thoughts that the 200mm becomes a 300mm on a crop sensor are convenient, but inaccurate. As Big V said ...

Code: Select all

What you are seeing is a narrower field of view compared to full frame - end of story.

[chrisk]

excuse me while i dumb this down a little for me cos i cant follow all that technical stuff...

are you saying that if you had a 200mm lens on a d700 took the shot and just cropped it by 50% in PP, it would be the same quality as the d300 shooting with the same lens without the crop ??

It would be a similar FoV. Because the sensor density on the D300 is greater, the D3's image would be of a lower resolution. Perhaps f a lower quality, but that becomes subjective and dependent now upon many elements. Resolution would be closer to a D70, really, but with better high ISO performance. And the fatter photosites might make for a better image regardless.

But any thoughts that the 200mm becomes a 300mm on a crop sensor are convenient, but inaccurate. As Big V said ...

Code: Select all

What you are seeing is a narrower field of view compared to full frame - end of story.

ok, so you do possibly get better quality if reach is your thing, but its not quite as much as one would immediately think. ie: to put it simplistically...200mm is not really 300mm, its more like 220 or 240 ?

very interesting. i'll try that out when i get the d700 for xmas. never thought of it in that way, makes sense.

[gstark]

ok, so you do possibly get better quality if reach is your thing, but its not quite as much as one would immediately think. ie: to put it simplistically...200mm is not really 300mm, its more like 220 or 240 ?

No.

It's just a narrower FoV, at a given sensor density.

Take an image. Any image. Now crop it down to about 50% in the centre, and then enlarge that crop back to the same frame size that you first started with.

It looks like you have a greater zoom factor, but you do not. You have simply used a smaller section of the available image circle.

And that's why Andrew's example with a DX lens doesn't work. A DX lens is simply a lens of a given focal length - which will be the same regardless of the body to which it's fitted - but it has a smaller image circle.

Note that we're talking about an image circle: our sensor is a rectangular section that does not fully occupy the image circle, and thus a DX lens will work on a full frame body. The amount of crop applied will determine the available field of view, but the lens will still be providing a total field of view appropriate to its focal length which will always be as stated on the lens.

[ATJ]

I'll have one more go at making my point and then I'll give up because some here (either deliberately or otherwise) are missing it completely. Also, I'm not talking about a general DX vs FF comparison and I agree, with sensor densities being equal, FF would win hands down (except perhaps on the camera size if you have a specific requirement in that area and also note the change in quality, see below).

This is a comparison between a D300 and a D3 (or D700 assuming it is using the same sensor).

The D300 has a sensor that is 23.6 x 15.8mm which renders an image that is 4288 x 2848 pixels.
The D3 has a sensor that is 36 x 23.9 mm which renders an image that is 4256 x 2832 pixels. In "DX" mode, which only uses the centre 23.6 x 15.8mm (approximately) of the sensor, the resulting image is 2784 x 1848 pixels (a bit less than a D70).

Set up a tripod and on it mount a D300 with a 200mm lens and take a photograph. The lens is still a 200mm lens but with the crop factor it will give you a field of view of a 300mm lens. An uncropped image from the camera will be 4288 x 2848 pixels with the field of view of a 300mm lens, even though a 200mm lens was used.

Now, without moving the tripod, mount a D3 with the same 200mm lens and shoot the same scene. The uncropped image will be 4256 x 2832 pixels with the FOV of a 200mm lens. If you were to crop the resulting image to get the same FOV as was achieved with the D300 with 200mm lens, the resulting image would only be around 2784 x 1848 pixels.

If you only need 2784 x 1848 pixels, there's no big deal and you probably have a better image because of the larger photosites. But... if you needed an image of at least 4000 x 3000 pixels, you'd have to interpolate it to a larger size and the resulting image is likely to be of lower quality to the D300 image. For example, Alamy requires uncompressed images at 48MB or larger. That's 16MP or 4899 x 3266 pixels or larger. So, I even have to interpolate uncropped D300 images. A lot more interpolation would be required for the "DX" cropped D3 images.

Now, stick a 300mm lens on the D3 and shoot the same scene. You will end up with an image with the same field of view as the D300 with the 200mm lens but the image will be around the same resolution as the D300 image. The D3 image may be of better quality (because of the larger photosites) and probably only if the 300mm lens was of equal or better quality to the 200mm lens, but then you have also paid for a more expensive camera and also bought a 300mm lens.

You could stick a (theoretical) 1.5x TC with the 200mm on the D3 and get the same FOV as the 200mm on the D300, but you'd lose light and probably quality. It is likely the resulting image on the D300 with 200mm lens would be better than the one on the D3 with 200mm lens and 1.5x TC.

There are rumours of a D3x which may be an FF camera with a sensor density similar to the D300. Comparing the D300 to the D3x is a very different proposition. Even a cropped image may have the same number of pixels as the uncropped D300 image. The image quality of the D3x may be a little less than the D3 because the photosites are smaller but we'll have to wait and see on that one.

Note that while in the above examples you can buy longer lenses for the D3, that doesn't solve the 1:1 reproduction ratio issue with macro. I'm not aware of any lenses that give you more than 1:1 without the need to add something (diopters, tubes, etc.). Diopters and tubes either result in less light or degrade the image quality to some extent. So, with my D300, I can get an image of a 24mm caterpillar, fill the frame and get an image that is 4288 x 2848 pixels. With the D3, to fill the frame I have to crop to 2784 x 1848 pixels. That, to me, is a disadvantage.

So, yes, if you have the money, buy the D3 or D700 and also spend a lot more money on new (longer) lenses, but I am more than happy with the image quality from my D300 (and I have not heard of one person complaining that the image quality from the D300 is not good enough).

[ATJ]

Gary,

But the whole point of the D3 and D700, for me, is about getting the full frame experience back. That, for me, is a very big deal, and it's not one I can describe, nor is it one I can justify.

One thing that confuses me is that if you are so desperate to get the full frame experience back, why did you settle for the obviously inferior D300 when you could have got the D3? Yes, the D3 is more expensive, but by the time you have bought a D300 and battery grip and a D700 and battery grip you have spent more than you would have if you'd just got the D3.

But as long time film shooter, let me assure you that there is something very nice about the prospect of getting FF digital at an affordable price. And if you want some validation of that, look at how many people went to the 5D because of that very reason.

And why didn't you go for the 5D? It is/was only a little more than the price os the D300 and you could have had the full frame experience back quite some time ago but instead you bought a 30D which has a sensor size even smaller than the D300 (i.e. even further away from full frame).

[chrisk]

Note that while in the above examples you can buy longer lenses for the D3, that doesn't solve the 1:1 reproduction ratio issue with macro. I'm not aware of any lenses that give you more than 1:1 without the need to add something (diopters, tubes, etc.).

not that it will help us but canon have one, you'd love it. LordV on flickr uses it alot.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/revie ... e-65.shtml

[carla_d]

i don't get why the viewfinder only shows 95% of the image (unlike the d300 and d3).
surely seeing through the viewfinder what ends up in the image is as important a having full frame itself??

[gstark]

Gary,

But the whole point of the D3 and D700, for me, is about getting the full frame experience back. That, for me, is a very big deal, and it's not one I can describe, nor is it one I can justify.

One thing that confuses me

What's there to be confused about? As you have observed, the D3 is quite pricey, and well beyond my budget; please remember that for me, this is a hobby too, and while I also cannot justify a D700, I may be able to afford one once the price drops.

And at what point have I ever said that I am "desperate" for the FF experience? I certainly miss it in terms of digital, but I have an ample sufficiency of film cameras around the place, ranging from 35mm (which are FF) through to 5x4 (makes 35mm look like toytown), that I may select from.

Yes, the D3 is more expensive, but by the time you have bought a D300 and battery grip and a D700 and battery grip you have spent more than you would have if you'd just got the D3.

Intersting math. I already have the D300 and MB-D10. so that's not expenditure that I'm going to be making again. And it's not a case of either/or for the D3/D300: I like to use both formats, so it's very likely that I will have both a full frame and DX set in my kit at some point in the future. It's really just a matter of when ....

But as long time film shooter, let me assure you that there is something very nice about the prospect of getting FF digital at an affordable price. And if you want some validation of that, look at how many people went to the 5D because of that very reason.

And why didn't you go for the 5D? It is/was only a little more than the price os the D300 and you could have had the full frame experience back quite some time ago but instead you bought a 30D which has a sensor size even smaller than the D300 (i.e. even further away from full frame).

I don't like it. I have a 30D, but I do not like the way the 5D feels in my hands. And I would need to re-equip myself with glass, which I don't have to do with the D700. With the 30D I can manage with a limited set of glass, because it's more of a plaything for me.

The D300 is the camera that travels with me, and when I move to (failing new announcements from Nikon) the D700, that body will probably take its place, with the D300 becoming my second body.

[gstark]

i don't get why the viewfinder only shows 95% of the image (unlike the d300 and d3).
surely seeing through the viewfinder what ends up in the image is as important a having full frame itself??

Pretty simple, really.

The D300 needs a lot less real estate to provide a high level of coverage; in a full frame that extra real estate would make the body a bit too big; perhaps too top heavy? In the film bodies, it was only the flagship models (F2, F3, F4, etc) that provided this facility; nothing's changed.

[Reschsmooth]

These arguments about DX vs FF are often a waste of time - each meet a need for a particular group.

I. Want. One.

I am saving for the Apple version - the "iWantone".

[carla_d]

i don't get why the viewfinder only shows 95% of the image (unlike the d300 and d3).
surely seeing through the viewfinder what ends up in the image is as important a having full frame itself??

Pretty simple, really.

The D300 needs a lot less real estate to provide a high level of coverage; in a full frame that extra real estate would make the body a bit too big; perhaps too top heavy? In the film bodies, it was only the flagship models (F2, F3, F4, etc) that provided this facility; nothing's changed.

gotcha.

[Greg B]

These arguments about DX vs FF are often a waste of time - each meet a need for a particular group.

And the D700 gives you both! It is a miracle. In a body only slightly larger than a comparable DX camera such as the D300.

Actually, arguments about DX v FF are always a waste of time. But like many other pasttimes which are a waste of time, it is fun

[ATJ]

Actually, arguments about DX v FF are always a waste of time. But like many other pasttimes which are a waste of time, it is fun

I realise that now.

[bwhinnen]

Actually while we are on this can someone with a D3 please take a photo of something in crop mode for me and allow me access to the original NEF? I am interested to see just how good they really are in crop mode.

I think the D700 is a brilliant idea and am contemplating this as a next camera body rather than the D300...

[ozboyerp]

Hi,

Friday at Michael's camera launch of the D700 and demo by Nikon's guys!

Then little presents for the one who buy one...