A few weeks back, I lost my beloved D200 (left it in the back of a taxicab on the way to the airport in Buenos Aires), and my insurance settlement was more generous than I expected -- about 90% of what I paid for the body, 18-200mm VR lens and accessories 2 years ago. Now, I'm trying to decide if I want to replace it with a D300, or upgrade to the D700. The lens that I lost was the only one that I had, so I'm basically starting from scratch. I mostly use my camera for travel and taking pictures of my daughter.
I don't tend to use the upper range of the zoom that much, so I was thinking that it wouldn't be that big of a deal going down to a 24-120mm Nikkor VR kit lens on the D700. And even though I have a portable studio lighting/background setup in my house, I actually prefer taking pictures with available light. I've heard that the low-light capabilities of the D700 are outstanding. So right now, I'm leaning towards the D700. It looks like at B&H, I can get the D700 kit for about $700 more than the D300.
Anyone here have any additional thoughts that could help me make my decision?
Thalassa
Jun 21, 09, 3:45 am
A few weeks back, I lost my beloved D200 (left it in the back of a taxicab on the way to the airport in Buenos Aires), and my insurance settlement was more generous than I expected -- about 90% of what I paid for the body, 18-200mm VR lens and accessories 2 years ago. Now, I'm trying to decide if I want to replace it with a D300, or upgrade to the D700. The lens that I lost was the only one that I had, so I'm basically starting from scratch. I mostly use my camera for travel and taking pictures of my daughter.
I don't tend to use the upper range of the zoom that much, so I was thinking that it wouldn't be that big of a deal going down to a 24-120mm Nikkor VR kit lens on the D700. And even though I have a portable studio lighting/background setup in my house, I actually prefer taking pictures with available light. I've heard that the low-light capabilities of the D700 are outstanding. So right now, I'm leaning towards the D700. It looks like at B&H, I can get the D700 kit for about $700 more than the D300.
Anyone here have any additional thoughts that could help me make my decision?
You really cannot go wrong with either one. One thing to consider, however, is the crop factor. Your D200 and the D300 both have a 1.5 crop factor while the D700 does not. This means that, in effect, your 18-200 lens on the D200 has been equivalent to a 27-300. With the 24-120 on the D700 you'd lose more than half of your long range.
I would personally lean towards the D300 (I am biased, though, I bought one about three months ago) and the best possible glass. For low light I prefer my 50 mm 1.4 lens over going with really high ISO. The D300 does a very good job up to ISO 1600 and with the 1.4 you can take shots in very low light at that ISO.
To throw a further spanner into the wheel, there are persistent (and credible) rumours about an updated D300 with pretty much the same spec but added movie mode. There are also bit more nebulous rumours about a go-betweener model D4000 (between the D300 and D700). It appears likely those cameras will be announced in late July and early August. The cameras won't be available until Q4 most likely but the announcement could affect pricing of older models.
Finally (and I know the Nikon faithful are going to crucify me for this), if you don't have any Nikon lenses or other specific reasons to stick with Nikon at this time, you could also consider the Canon 5D MkII. It offers nearly the low light performance of the D700, over 20 MP resolution, and excellent movie mode. And it is only little more expensive than the D700. Based on everything I've read, it appears to be the best semi-pro body on the market at the moment with a fantastic price/performance ratio. (If I had not had six Nikon lenses when I upgraded my body, I would have made the leap to Canonland).
Im a happy owner of a D300... but Ive marked the D700 as the choice for my second DSLR for Xmas.
nova474
Jun 21, 09, 1:38 pm
I have the D700. Depending on the situation, sometimes I wish I had the D300 instead. Here are the pros and cons as I see them.
For D700:
No crop allows for wider shots (not considering special DX lens)
Better for landscape shots (but you should really consider the 5D MK2 for landscape)
Beautiful film-like noise. You will find it hard to pick out the differences up to 3200. 6400 is great, 12800 is good, and 24000 is okay when you are in a pinch. This makes it an awesome natural light camera.
Fast continuous shooting
For D300:
Cheaper body + cheaper DX lenses
Crop allows for that extra free zoom for sports, macro, wildlife, etc. (don't underestimate this, I'm buying a second camera just for this)
Nikon 18-200 3.5-5.6 DX VR (the swiss army knife of lenses)
If excellent noise performance is your main criteria, I would suggest getting the D700. I can take great hand held shots inside dark cathedrals by dialing up the ISO and shooting in continuous mode. However, like Thalassa says, since you are not tied down to Nikon, consider the Canon 5D MK2. I am envious of the 20MP and its good (not great) noise handling, but the atrocious handling and build quality keeps me from going back (I came from Canon).
Finally, I would not recommend getting the 24-120 VR. It's widely considered a soft lens, and you can do much better for the price.
Anything under 9 on FM is a decent lens, but under 8 is just bad. You will get much better quality and flexibility buying a 70mm+ telephoto zoom and a wide angle lens. My combo is 70-200mm plus a 17-35mm.
SeAAttle
Jun 21, 09, 7:18 pm
You really cannot go wrong with either one. One thing to consider, however, is the crop factor. Your D200 and the D300 both have a 1.5 crop factor while the D700 does not. This means that, in effect, your 18-200 lens on the D200 has been equivalent to a 27-300. With the 24-120 on the D700 you'd lose more than half of your long range.
I have never understood this point. Cannot the same thing be accomplished by simply cropping the image in post processing? Or am I missing something?
SJUAMMF
Jun 21, 09, 7:31 pm
Sure, you'll just lose pixels around the edge. Then a DX sensor can do the same job at lower price.
icedancer
Jun 21, 09, 7:47 pm
Ugh...I think I'm more undecided now than I was when I asked the question :p
My thought at the moment is to get the D300 kit with the 18-200mm VR lens, AND the 50mm f/1.4 for low-light indoor stuff. Does this seem redundant? The 50mm would be my at-home lens for pics of the baby, and the 18-200mm would be my go-to for travel. The question in my mind is whether I take enough photos in big, dark places where the need for excellent low-light capability and >50mm zoom is needed to justify the extra expense of the D700.
On a side note, I have no interest whatsoever in video capabilities.
Loren Pechtel
Jun 21, 09, 10:58 pm
I have never understood this point. Cannot the same thing be accomplished by simply cropping the image in post processing? Or am I missing something?
When you crop in photoshop you give up resolution. The crop inherent in small-sensor bodies doesn't cost you any resolution.
I've got a Nikon D80 with the 18-200 VR lens, for practical purposes it's a 28-300 lens.
Thalassa
Jun 22, 09, 1:25 am
Ugh...I think I'm more undecided now than I was when I asked the question :p
My thought at the moment is to get the D300 kit with the 18-200mm VR lens, AND the 50mm f/1.4 for low-light indoor stuff. Does this seem redundant? The 50mm would be my at-home lens for pics of the baby, and the 18-200mm would be my go-to for travel. The question in my mind is whether I take enough photos in big, dark places where the need for excellent low-light capability and >50mm zoom is needed to justify the extra expense of the D700.
On a side note, I have no interest whatsoever in video capabilities.
I would tend to think the above setup would be quite good. You'd have an excellent all-around zoom lense and an utterly fantastic prime lense. Having a prime makes all kinds of sense as it is inherently sharper than the zooms and you can take some fantastic shots with it.
The one caveat about that setup is that the 18-200 is a DX lens, i.e. if you later graduate to a FX sensor camera, that lense will not work very well. However, Nikon lens resale prices are quite good.
In any case, the D300 has significantly better low-light performance than the D200. Based on what you are telling about your photography habits, I would think you get more bang for the buck with the D300 than with the D700.
One thing you might want to consider for the D300 is the optional vertical grip. It adds some weight, to be sure, but it makes the camera better to handle, vertical shooting a joy, and gives both more fps (up to 8) and battery life. I just spent 8 hours shooting over 1400 shots (quite a few with the internal flash) without ever having to worry about the batteries using the grip.
Cheers,
T.
bdjohns1
Jun 22, 09, 8:46 am
One thing you might want to consider for the D300 is the optional vertical grip. It adds some weight, to be sure, but it makes the camera better to handle, vertical shooting a joy, and gives both more fps (up to 8) and battery life. I just spent 8 hours shooting over 1400 shots (quite a few with the internal flash) without ever having to worry about the batteries using the grip.
Agreed. I very rarely take my D300 out without the grip attached. Vertical shooting is so much easier that it makes me not want to use my D70s anymore. :)
Nikon's grip is $$$, but there's a good quality equivalent on eBay (here's the one I bought (http://cgi.ebay.com/Grip-MB-D10-for-Nikon-D300-D700-SLR-EN-EL3E-Gift-B8K_W0QQitemZ260399072190QQcmdZViewItemQQptZBatter ies_Chargers?hash=item3ca0fe83be&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=65%3A1|66%3A2|39%3A1|240%3A1318|301%3A0| 293%3A1|294%3A50)).
icedancer
Jun 22, 09, 1:17 pm
I would tend to think the above setup would be quite good.
Great. Off to B&H I go!
Thanks, nova474 for the link to the Ken Rockwell site. The amount of information he has is mind-boggling.
Thalassa
Jun 22, 09, 2:14 pm
Great. Off to B&H I go!
Thanks, nova474 for the link to the Ken Rockwell site. The amount of information he has is mind-boggling.
Ken Rockwell is a good resource but you should take his opinions with a grain of salt -- sometimes his need to be edgy outweighs reason (like the claim that the D40 is the best DSLR for any amount of money)...
Have fun with the new camera; you will love it!
Cheers,
T.
SeAAttle
Jun 22, 09, 2:17 pm
When you crop in photoshop you give up resolution. The crop inherent in small-sensor bodies doesn't cost you any resolution.
I've got a Nikon D80 with the 18-200 VR lens, for practical purposes it's a 28-300 lens.
OK, I think I understand.
SeAAttle
Jun 22, 09, 2:20 pm
.....
The one caveat about that setup is that the 18-200 is a DX lens, i.e. if you later graduate to a FX sensor camera, that lense will not work very well. However, Nikon lens resale prices are quite good. .........
Cheers,
T.
I am thinking of selling my 18-200 and D200 since I now own a D700. Any idea what the D200 + 18-200 would go for? The camera store offered me $650 on a trade in - I said no thanks and just bought the D700.
Gaucho100K
Jun 22, 09, 3:02 pm
Where is the resident architect aka FT Nikon Sensei-Guru when a thread needs him...???? :D
tim iridium
Jun 22, 09, 3:44 pm
The two should bring in the neighborhood of $1000. The 18-200 lenses seem pretty stable at around $5-600 while the D200s have been dropping in price (hastened by Best Buy selling new D200 bodies for $599 recently).
I am thinking of selling my 18-200 and D200 since I now own a D700. Any idea what the D200 + 18-200 would go for? The camera store offered me $650 on a trade in - I said no thanks and just bought the D700.
SQ4000
Jun 22, 09, 4:48 pm
I was one of those people rushed out to buy the Nikon D100 when it first came out, I liked it a lot, it travelled all over the world with me, it was followed by D2. However, for me, there is always this problem of unable to use my 17-35mm as a ‘superwide’ as it should be (on DX cameras it becomes a (approximately) 30mm-70mm), there were times when I wish I could use a ‘superwide’.
The D700 solved that problem, now the 17 mm can be used as it should be. One should not under estimate the low-light capability of D700, not just that it can take photos in low light, but the usability of the photos. The photos (without flash) taken at 6400 is nothing short of sensational (to me anyway), and the test shots at ISO 25600 (6400 + 2EV) produced a usable print.
One function on the D700 tipped the balance for me is the Image sensor cleaning function.
IMHO, the D700 is probably the best all round camera today (taking into account of price, functions, capability, size and build quality). There are other cameras can perform better in some areas, but at a price, and not all in a neat (albeit somewhat heavy) package.
CPRich
Jun 22, 09, 5:20 pm
Thanks, nova474 for the link to the Ken Rockwell site. The amount of information he has is mind-boggling.
Ken's opinions are sometimes also mind-boggling. He once published a couple of images proving two cameras were "identical" where there were obviously resolution and color differences. When I wrote him he basically replied "I don't see it". I've pretty much dismissed any of his opinions since. And I'm not the only one.
nova474
Jun 23, 09, 12:16 am
Ken is a love or hate guy. Just like every other reviewer, he has a bias, abiet a stronger one. Thus, it's up to the reader to do his/her research and compare Ken's opinion with other reviewers.
One thing you can't deny is that Ken has a very respectable database of lens.
SJUAMMF
Jun 23, 09, 2:26 am
...My thought at the moment is to get the D300 kit with the 18-200mm VR lens, AND the 50mm f/1.4 for low-light indoor stuff. Does this seem redundant? The 50mm would be my at-home lens for pics of the baby, ....
The Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 I had on order at Amazon finally arrived. For $200, it's another option since it gives you about 55mm equivalent coverage for the 1.5x crop cameras.
I was surprised to find a metal mount and gasketing at this price. I haven't had a prime lens for a while other than my Canon manual focus film SLRs. Not having the zoom ring made the lens seemed quicker. Mounted on a D40, it is tiny.
pdxer
Jun 23, 09, 3:21 am
Thanks, nova474 for the link to the Ken Rockwell site. The amount of information he has is mind-boggling.
mind-boggling is not the word i'd use. be sure to read his about page,
http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm
While often inspired by actual products and events, just like any other good news organization, I like to make things up and stretch the truth if they make an article more fun. In the case of new products, rumors and just plain silly stuff, it's all pretend. If you lack a good BS detector, please treat this entire site as a work of fiction.
I offer no warrantees of any kind, except that there are many deliberate gaffes, practical jokes and downright foolish and made-up things lurking. While this site is mostly accurate, it is neither legally binding nor guaranteed. The only thing I do guarantee is that there is plenty of stuff I simply make up out of thin air, as does The Onion.
Ugh...I think I'm more undecided now than I was when I asked the question :p
My thought at the moment is to get the D300 kit with the 18-200mm VR lens, AND the 50mm f/1.4 for low-light indoor stuff. Does this seem redundant? The 50mm would be my at-home lens for pics of the baby, and the 18-200mm would be my go-to for travel. The question in my mind is whether I take enough photos in big, dark places where the need for excellent low-light capability and >50mm zoom is needed to justify the extra expense of the D700.
On a side note, I have no interest whatsoever in video capabilities.
I think your combo of the D300 with the 18-200 and a 50mm is great. There are two 50mm 1.4 and a 1.8 as well. I have the Classic AF (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/97413-USA/Nikon_1902_Normal_AF_Nikkor_50mm.html) model (~$330 USD). There is the new AF-S version (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/585343-USA/Nikon_2180_AF_S_Nikkor_50mm_f_1_4G.html) (~$470 USD) and another AF 50mm f/1.8 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/247091-USA/Nikon_2137_Normal_AF_Nikkor_50mm.html) (~$135 USD).
A lot of people like the 1.8 for the value it represents and it should open up nicely for those shots in the dark. (Links and prices from B&H)
Hope this doesn't confuse things too much.
icedancer
Jun 23, 09, 2:30 pm
mind-boggling is not the word i'd use. be sure to read his about page,
http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm
While often inspired by actual products and events, just like any other good news organization, I like to make things up and stretch the truth if they make an article more fun. In the case of new products, rumors and just plain silly stuff, it's all pretend. If you lack a good BS detector, please treat this entire site as a work of fiction.
I offer no warrantees of any kind, except that there are many deliberate gaffes, practical jokes and downright foolish and made-up things lurking. While this site is mostly accurate, it is neither legally binding nor guaranteed. The only thing I do guarantee is that there is plenty of stuff I simply make up out of thin air, as does The Onion.
I must admit that the above is a little (more than) over the top, but he doesn't want to get sued because someone followed his advice and then didn't like the outcome. You need a filter to interpret the disclaimer just as you do with everything else. But I am in complete agreement that whenever opinions are being discussed, it helps to have more than one source :)
anrkitec
Jun 23, 09, 6:46 pm
I must admit that the above is a little (more than) over the top, but he doesn't want to get sued because someone followed his advice and then didn't like the outcome. You need a filter to interpret the disclaimer just as you do with everything else. But I am in complete agreement that whenever opinions are being discussed, it helps to have more than one source :)
Ken Rockwell is an idiot, a huckster, and a piss-poor photographer to boot.
He might just as well paste "This way to see the egress" on his homepage.
I am sure though that he greatly appreciates any click-through/page hit revenue that is generated by people hitting his site to read his latest "review" on equipment he has never even seen let alone used. :rolleyes:
bdjohns1
Jun 24, 09, 8:47 am
Ken Rockwell is an idiot, a huckster, and a piss-poor photographer to boot.
He might just as well paste "This way to see the egress" on his homepage.
I am sure though that he greatly appreciates any click-through/page hit revenue that is generated by people hitting his site to read his latest "review" on equipment he has never even seen let alone used. :rolleyes:
Ah, Ken, the PT Barnum of photo gear. :rolleyes:
jerseyfinn
Jun 24, 09, 10:07 am
Well this is certainly a timely thread as I keep bouncing around the idea of a D300. Special thanks to Thalassa & Nova who basically address the issues I'm presently wrestling with.
I've not touched my old film Minoltas in years ( SRT101 & X700 with a set of old rokkor lenses - a 28mm, a 135mm & 55mm -- expensive glass in their day ). So my dilemma is which lens to go with. I'll likely start with a moderate zoom but want to invest in quality as this lens is where I'll mostly work doing landscape and street candids. But I also like the idea of a solid fixed lens for low light. Economics may delay this purchase, but not for long. But once again quality is important since this platform is likely my last major photography investment.
. . . there are persistent (and credible) rumours about an updated D300 with pretty much the same spec but added movie mode . . . . The cameras won't be available until Q4 most likely but the announcement could affect pricing of older models.T.
Yeah, I saw some talk on DPreview of this but did not know the details you speak of. Just another reason to wait to see if D300 prices drop. It would be nice to grab an "old" D300 at a better price as I'm not overly enthused about video capability in D-SLRs ( it's a nice feature to have for an on-the-fly capture, but I have a dedicated HD Sony video cam for that stuff and can capture full 1080 res). I'd love to capture a price break since I'm still luckless in the lottery :( .
mind-boggling is not the word i'd use . . . While often inspired by actual products and events, just like any other good news organization, I like to make things up and stretch the truth if they make an article more fun. In the case of new products, rumors and just plain silly stuff, it's all pretend. If you lack a good BS detector, please treat this entire site as a work of fiction . . .
Interesting quote by Mr. Rockwell. Then again, one must always evalute the certitude of what we read and post in this virtual world. All assertions are not necessarily equal. Context is a difficult entity to divine in this virtual sphere. I've read his postings and definitely could feel his free spirit. No surprise that he cautions the veracity of his own words, but a bit surprising that he is so glib. Then again, even this seems consistent with the context by which he writes and acts. Still, Rockwell offers an authentic photographic point of view which added to other resources along with one's own photo instincts creates a more wholesome photo acumen.
I'm gonna keep digging on the resources mentioned by folks here while I let the clock run and see what happens with the D300. My final obstacle will be sneaking my new toy past my wife when the day of reckoning finally comes. :(
Barry
j_the_p
Jun 24, 09, 3:58 pm
My wife is the photographer in our family and I bought her a D700 last year for her birthday when they came out. She had used the D300 a few times and quite liked it (she owned only the D80 at the time), but her love of the D700 for it's amazing abilities in low-light is what completely sold her on it.
Just my 2 cents.
icedancer
Jun 29, 09, 12:52 pm
Per UPS, my D300 and all of the assorted accessories are "Out for delivery". The feeling of anticipation is overwhelming :D. I'll try to weigh in on the D300 after I've had a chance to play with it.
Also, pdxer, thanks for the link to the Tom Hogan site. Interesting stuff there as well. I would say that his writing style is a bit dry (less "edgy"?), but more comprehensive and perhaps better organized than Rockwell. I really like how he lays out the pros and cons of each camera and who should buy it.
bdjohns1
Jun 29, 09, 9:13 pm
icedancer - Thom has yet to lead me wrong. His eBook guides for Nikon cameras are the manuals Nikon should be including in their boxes. He's also got much better cred with working photogs, based both on his writing and on his actual photography.
icedancer
Jun 29, 09, 11:21 pm
OK, here's one of my first test shots. (My daughter). Taken with the 50mm f/1.4G Nikkor lens. Taken at f/4.0, ISO 200, 1/60 sec exposure. No white balance correction. Cropped from original. Lighting is from the window.
Nice photo... My wife & I are Canon users, with a D450 and a 5DII. All I can say is - full frame wins hands down. The extra light sensitivity, and wide lenses >> the crop factor on a DX camera. Having a 24-105 be a 24-105, not a 38-170, is a relief. Then again, I prefer wide angle to telephoto, so am biased
And with 21MP, doing even radical crops in a photo editor still leaves you with enough resolution for decent sized prints.
SoCalGreenie
Jun 30, 09, 1:16 am
Finally, I would not recommend getting the 24-120 VR. It's widely considered a soft lens, and you can do much better for the price.
I know the reputation, but I disagree. And the price nowadays is under $300 for a mint quality used one. I personally think that the 24-120 VR is quite a bit better than it's reputation, at least on a DX-format camera. I greatly prefer it to the 18-200 VR because the linear distortion is much better controlled.
I tested a 24-120 VR on my D90 and I found that it was equal in sharpness at 24mm compared my 24mm f2.8 AF-D Nikkor prime, and it was very nearly the equal to my 50mm f1.8 at f4 and smaller apertures. After these tests, the first thing I did was sell my 24mm f2.8 and my 18-200.
Personally, I pretty well cover everything I need on my D90 with the Tokina 12-24, the 24-120 VR, and the 70-300, and my 50mm f1.8 when I need to shoot with available light.
Question real quick: what is the Nikon equivalent to Canon 40D? I'm not opposed to switching from Canon and I thought the 40D sensor, frame rate, etc. were perfect for my needs.
Question real quick: what is the Nikon equivalent to Canon 40D? I'm not opposed to switching from Canon and I thought the 40D sensor, frame rate, etc. were perfect for my needs.
If you mean current Nikon products, it would be either the D300 or the D90. Spec-wise the latter is closer, from the perspective of the position in the manufacturer's camera line-up the former.
Cheers,
T.
mux2muxx
Sep 7, 09, 3:24 am
Nice photo... My wife & I are Canon users, with a D450 and a 5DII. All I can say is - full frame wins hands down. The extra light sensitivity, and wide lenses >> the crop factor on a DX camera. Having a 24-105 be a 24-105, not a 38-170, is a relief. Then again, I prefer wide angle to telephoto, so am biased
And with 21MP, doing even radical crops in a photo editor still leaves you with enough resolution for decent sized prints.
Is the D450 any good and what exactly advantage full frame have?
Thanks
Shay
Thalassa
Sep 7, 09, 5:15 am
Is the D450 any good and what exactly advantage full frame have?
Thanks
Shay
Welcome to FT!
The D450 is an excellent camera -- as are all modern dSLRs.
Full frame has a larger sized sensor chip, so it can either (simplifying a bit):
(a) feature more pixels with the same light sensitivity
(b) have larger pixels resulting in better light sensitivity
Most mortals who are not professional photographers or very keen on low-light photography are perfectly fine with APS-C size sensors. The smaller sensor cameras are smaller, lighter, less expensive, and can have lighter and less expensive lenses.
Cheers,
T.
jhm
Sep 16, 09, 4:50 am
My thought at the moment is to get the D300 kit with the 18-200mm VR lens, AND the 50mm f/1.4 for low-light indoor stuff. Does this seem redundant? The 50mm would be my at-home lens for pics of the baby, and the 18-200mm would be my go-to for travel. The question in my mind is whether I take enough photos in big, dark places where the need for excellent low-light capability and >50mm zoom is needed to justify the extra expense of the D700.
Like you, I'm starting from scratch as far as digital goes (I only have an old film SLR) and I want something to go travelling with (around 70-100 flights a year; 99% leisure). I think I've narrowed it down to the following:
(i) D300 or D700 + 18-200 + 50/1.4; or
(ii) Panasonic GF1 + 20/1.7 (equivalent to 40mm) + zoom
Could anybody please help with the following questions ?
1 I understand that the 18-200 fitted on the D700 will mean that only the central part of the sensor (about 6MP) will be used. That sounds okay to me but a camera dealer I spoke to yesterday was (of course) trying to persuade me to ditch that in favour of two more expensive (and, crucially for me, heavy) zooms. Am I reasonable to still want the 18-200 for its weight (at the expense of IQ) even though it'll be attached a D700 ?
2 Is the mark II version of the 18-200 worth the additional money (around £150 here in the UK) ? I understand the VR is enhanced ?
3 I appreciate that it's not released yet but the Panasonic setup would be 1kg lighter than the D700+50! I have the opinion though that it'll really complement rather than replace the DSLR. Any views ?
Thanks in advance!
anrkitec
Sep 16, 09, 11:25 am
…and I want something to go travelling with (around 70-100 flights a year; 99% leisure).
You are on a plane on average every three to four days, year-in and year-out, for leisure!? :eek:
Wow, that sounds like anything but leisure to me.:o
(i) D300 or D700 + 18-200 + 50/1.4; or
(ii) Panasonic GF1 + 20/1.7 (equivalent to 40mm) + zoom
Could anybody please help with the following questions ?
Thanks in advance!
I can’t speak to the issue of the Panasonic, as I have never used one.
As for Nikon, unless you happen to have a collection of existing full-frame [FX] Nikon lenses or absolutely need the improved ruggedness and low-light capabilities of the D700 then I would suggest the D300/D300s.
The D300/D300s is extremely well built, has virtually every feature one could need, is smaller and lighter than the D700, and has both great low-light/high ISO performance and great overall image quality.
Having owned both the 16-85 and the 18-200 I would personally recommend the 16-85 by a country mile. The 16-85 is better at 16 than the 18-200 is at 18 [lower barrel distortion, less vignetting, etc.] and in my travels I find I use a wide angle far more often than I do a telephoto, YMMV.
Is the 18-200 II better than the 18-200? Yes, the 18-200 has a nasty case of lens creep [unwanted sliding of the zoom tube when pointing the lens up or down] This was not a problem of sample variation but was in fact a design flaw from the beginning which has, apparently, been solved with the Mark II version.
Cheers.
Thalassa
Sep 16, 09, 11:43 am
As for Nikon, unless you happen to have a collection of existing full-frame [FX] Nikon lenses or absolutely need the improved ruggedness and low-light capabilities of the D700 then I would suggest the D300/D300s.
The D300/D300s is extremely well built, has virtually every feature one could need, is smaller and lighter than the D700, and has both great low-light/high ISO performance and great overall image quality.
I strongly concur with this opinion. In fact, the mere consideration of the 18-200 as your primary lens suggests to me the D300/D300s is the more appropriate choice for you.
Cheers,
T.
jhm
Sep 16, 09, 11:47 am
You are on a plane on average every three to four days, year-in and year-out, for leisure!? :eek:
This is FT of course :) and it's easy to (say) spend a fortnight's holiday on a RTW with 20+ flights; 4 or 5 flights in a weekend as a status run; etc.
Many thanks for the advice! I'll have to take another look at the 16-85 as (like you) I think the extra wide angle will be more useful than the zoom; and also the 300/300s again (originally, I discounted them on the basis that the step up in price from 300s to 700 isn't that large so why not go FX ?).
Thalassa
Sep 16, 09, 12:12 pm
This is FT of course :) and it's easy to (say) spend a fortnight's holiday on a RTW with 20+ flights; 4 or 5 flights in a weekend as a status run; etc.
Many thanks for the advice! I'll have to take another look at the 16-85 as (like you) I think the extra wide angle will be more useful than the zoom; and also the 300/300s again (originally, I discounted them on the basis that the step up in price from 300s to 700 isn't that large so why not go FX ?).
I bought my D300 about six months ago and managed to get it for 1099 € (including the Finnish 22 % VAT) as someone had upgraded to a D700 and traded the D300 in. I would suspect now that the D300 has been discontinued and more people upgrade, pretty sweet deals can be had. The difference in price is quite significant and buys a lot of lenses or other good stuff.
And, IMHO, the idea of getting an FX camera and buying a DX lens for it is plain daft. If you need/want an FX body, you also need/want FX lenses. Using an existing DX lens with it occasionally is a different matter.