DO IT!!!!

I've always said if the D700 was a Canon I'd have bought it ages ago as it would give me the two things I like about the Canon 7D and 5DII

It handles noise so well having less MP on a full frame snesor compared to the high MP on the cropped 7D and (gripped) can also give you 8fps compared to the higher full frame MP 5DII's 3.9fps.

Ok, interesting this one as it really does beg the question why? People will have their own reasons.

For me, an upgrade from D70s to D300 was based on sensor, physical size, convenience, and ruggedness. The 300 represented an improved sensor with more MP's, more important control switches at hand, physically bigger so more comfortable for a big guy, and for my walking better sealing. You would have your own reasons, but a D90 to a D300s will produce very similar pictures.

Moving to a D700 wasn't as clear. Few people could outgrow the performance of the D300. Based on 400 shots today, performance is very similar between both cameras. Some people upgrade camera and lens at the same time and maybe see more difference, but using some of the same lenses, performnce and colours are similar. However, initial reaction is that I feel back where I was a few years ago. Bigger viewfinder, more control over DoF. Looking forward to some noise free low light stuff though which is where it will excel. I wouldn't say from today though I have anything that I couldn't have done on the D300. I loved the D300, but I do think the 700 will be my number 1 shortly.

DC, yes, happy to join the club After being concerned about my Sigma 24-70 f2.8 it appears I have a good copy! It will do for now. I will have to wait for the right moment to get the Nikon once I know I will stay with the 700. It is a benchmark lens, but a bit big and heavy, and quite obtrusive but sure I will get one at some point. Can't let the Mrs see too many new Nikon boxes appearing!

I was speaking today to a wedding tog of 25 years experience (weddings, portraits, boudior, kids, landscapes etc.), his main camera was a D300 which he said did everything. He is waiting for the D700 upgade purely as he hopes it will have video. So, what is the main advantages of the D700, what makes it so special.

Jeff

Just a couple of shots from today... I could have done these on the D300, but I can control DoF more easily on the D700 and composing on a bigger viewfinder is a little easier.

D700, 85mm f1.8


[IMG][/IMG]

D700 Nikon 80-200 f2.8 ED

Well there's a definite difference imo, sharper and smoother.

Also, don't forget you'll need a good screen to see the difference in colour depth (an 8 bit TN panel is an 8 bit TN panel) - so I think for most, he difference will become apparent when you get some prints done

Jeff.B (and for anyone else maybe wiondering) it is only special (i.e. better) if you use the advantages it has over a D300 or even a D90. Both cameras have been class leading and there are plenty of people with other brands wishing they had a Nikon the last year or two. The D90 has the same sensor from the D300 so image quality is almost the same. Some would say the D90 is better, it is newer and has a slightly more advance jpg algorithm - so the way it creates jpgs in camera is apparently better. It is also smaller and lighter, advantageous to some. The D300/S adds features such as more convenient control switches, more rugged body and I think better autofocus. In the same way a DSLR offers advanatges over a compact in image quality, the 700 does the same over the 300/90. In some instances, maybe a general scene on a bright sunny day, you may not see much advantage of a picture from a DSLR over the compact. In dull conditions, the DSLR can go on shooting and give you clear images with much less image noise. Of course you also get more control over depth of field (DoF) because you have a bigger sensor. The 700 takes these advantages a level further and really excels in low light and as the sensor size is the same as 35mm film, allows DoF exactly the same. The light sensors, the pixels are bigger and not crammed in so tightly.

The downside is cost and a requirement for bigger and more expensive lenses. The Aps-c sensors on most DSLR's only use the central portion of the glass and get the best from the lens. Lenses that perform right to the edges cost a lot more. The other downside is reach. There is no crop factor any more, so a 200mm lens works as a 200 and not a 300mm as on a Nikon (1.5x) or 320mm (1.6x) on a Canon.

To be honest the advantages of full frame are debatable for most people. Not everyone wants or can invest £1k per lens to get the best image quality, or carry bigger, heavier stuff. I was also trying to predict the future as i was at a point where I was acquiring full frame lenses and Aps-c (dx) and really needed to go one way or the other.

If you take your wedding photyographer friend then it depends on what shots he likes to take and how he works. Weddings have been photographed for years now on Aps-c and results are perfectly acceptable. If he does low light stuff like some posts we have had on here by Radiohead and recently DaisyChains, the full frame sensor with it's noise free high ISO performance is a Godsend. I doubt really your mate needs more megapixels. There are the megapixel brigade who will be boasting that they have a D10million in a few months saying it has 16 megapixels but to be honest 12MP from a D700 and the D3 have been good enough to produce fantastic stuff.

Re the video, well I really couldn't be bothered to sit there for hours and hours editing a load of footage. Maybe great for the wedding tog who will need to decide if he is shooting one or the other, but I hate amateur video that looks like the Blair Witch Project.

Azz, yes, you may be right, it's certainly not going to be a lesser quality than the D300 and looking at some pics from yesterday, in certain circumstances the 700 definately has the edge and a sort of less harsh look than the 300 can produce. 'Creaminess' is actually a good way to describe it. Full frame i think (as a new convert yet to appreciate it) is something for a few people but not the masses. Many wouldn't see any advantage most of the time, but if you did low light, weddings, portraits for a living, it wouldbe the way to go. It does also offer more creative control around DoF, but at a significant cost.

BC, many thanks for putting together your thoughts re, FX v DX, it is a great help when making potentially expensive decisions to have candid/unbiased reports from knowledgable users.

Although I started in photography over 45 years ago, after a break of some 25years the current technology is in many ways like starting all over again.

I am more than happy with the D90 but feel I would like to move up a grade and the reports on the D300s (like Ken Rockwell reports it is the best DX camera Nikon has ever produced etc.), is very encouraging. Ultimately I feel I will move to FX but even then a D300s as a second camera seems an ideal combination.

I am quite impressed with the reports on Sigma lenses and that would at least keep the glass cost more affordable.

I may just hang fire for the time being and see how things develop with new upgrades/models as prices of existing models will at the very least remain constant and could even come down.

Once again thanks for the post, will watch with interest how your relationship with the D700 develops. Also thanks to DaisyChain for her input.

Jeff

I was in the Apple store today looking at the new iPhone and wanted to see how well it loaded forum images. And came to this thread as it was the last thread in my mind - I was surprised at how good the iPhone displays images - excellent sharpness and colour depth (it's an IPS display).

Sorry it's a bit off-topic but thought I'd let you know your images look good on an iphone too

Thanks Azz, I have a Blackberry (Bold 9000) that has been perfect and businesslike but the screen is just not good enough for forums, it's just too small. I was reluctant to go iphone but it appears to be the best there is for non-business personal use.