Nikon D700 - should I get it?

Thinking about upgrading to a D700 and keeping my D300. Some members have already done this so I am seeking some advice as to getting a D700 is worth it.
For those that have your experience of doing so would be most welcome

Bazza

Hi Bazza, I have both. The D700 is better but the change for me is rather subtle. There are better tones and just something about the image quality with the D700, but it's not a massive leap. The D300 is still an impressive camera. If though you did a lot of low light photography at higher ISO's then the D700 will of course prove itself immediatly.

I think you should consider what photography you do most. The D700 requires full frame lenses and also there is no crop factor. Generally you need better lenses and you may find some you have are either unsuitable or not good enough. You may need to buy longer (and more expensive) full frame lenses...a 200mm becomes a 300mm on a D300, and at a fast aperture (maybe f4) whereas to buy a true 300mm f4 for a D700 is expensive. This also means that you end up carrying bigger and heavier. You may also be carrying two sets of lenses if you go out with D300 and D700.

I don't regret buying the D700, it's brilliant...and 12 megapixels has just allowed me to put in an incrediably razor sharp A3 size print into a club competition. Not many people need bigger than that. However having just revisited many of my D300 images I realise that it was brilliant and I didn't outgrow it, I was getting better with it when I moved on.

I would say go D700 if you can analyse your photography and see a benefit from full frame. If not, then the D300 is unlikely to be lacking in ability to deliver anything you want if you are staying below about 600, maybe 800 ISO.

Thanks BC

I was wondering obviously if the D700 had much more to offer. As for lenses in the DX range the only one I have the 12-24mmG lens. The others are 24-120VR/ 50mm f1.4/70-300 VR which arn't marked up as DX lenses. That is apart from my Sigma lenses which don't really count.

So I already have a fair range that should suit the FX format.

Bazza

/Moved to Photography Equipment/

Hi Bazza

If I was buying a full frame camera tomorrow - the Nikon D700 would be my choice.

Although I've only used one a few times - I've always liked what Nikon did with the D700.

Whilst Canon decided to build two very different 'dedicated' beasts (5DII slower but super high res full frame for landscapes & 7D cropped fast action shooter) Nikon made the all rounder full frame D700 without a squillion pixels so it managed to cope with noise well yet still retain a respectable frames per second.

The D800 is now not due out till Summer 2011 so you could argue that D700 might be a better price then but hey ho that's life I guess.

http://nikonrumors.com/2010/10/05/ni...d4-rumors.aspx

The 24MP D800 (if that's still the latest spec news) seems to be more along the 5DII thinking from what I've read although the 5DIII will soon follow so who knows what they're all playing at.

Anyway - If I was after a Nikon then the D700 ticks all my boxes - just a case of deciding whether or not to wait for the replacement to push the price down I guess.

I'm more than happy with my D700, and comparing prints at 18x12 to the D300 and D300s it comes out top by a good margin.

It handles tricky light better, and the exposure is generally spot on. Only issues I've had are in low light, where it has underexposed a little but nothing major.

A few additions over the D300 series, with the full frame finder and the wider view make it a worthy investment and definitely a good 10% if not more improvement on all aspects of my D300/s.