Nikon D300 vs. D700

[peasant]

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]

Originally Posted by nova474

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.

[ConciergeMike]

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8830/4.2.2 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/105)

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.

[Thalassa]

Originally Posted by ConciergeMike

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8830/4.2.2 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/105)

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]

Originally Posted by peasant

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]

Originally Posted by mux2muxx

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]

Originally Posted by icedancer

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]

Originally Posted by jhm

…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!?

Wow, that sounds like anything but leisure to me.

Originally Posted by jhm

(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]

Originally Posted by anrkitec

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]

Originally Posted by anrkitec

You are on a plane on average every three to four days, year-in and year-out, for leisure!?

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]

Originally Posted by jhm

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.

Cheers,
T.