Each individual would have to qualify heavily the term "worth" in order for this statement to be true.
Indeed each individual would, and that's why I said "
and in my opinion, not worth it." Maybe you should have seen that before you said "for this statement to be true" because I qualified it, therefore making my statement true.
But - but, the D700 is significantly better than the D300 and, at least in my opinion well worth the difference in price.
We disagree on the "worth" question. Fair enough. It is a $1200 difference in list price, plus the difference in tax on that $1200, which, in my state, is $60, so I would have to pay $1260 more for the D700, or maybe soon $1300 list/$1365 total difference. Since you insist, let's examine why you think it's worth it, and why I'd rather put that money towards a professional lens instead.
The D700 is faster in all respects - it turns on faster, there is less shutter blackout, it focuses faster, it flushes images more quickly, etc.
Faster, yes, but it's relative. Do I want to pay $1260 for a marginal increase in speed? I don't. For example, the D3 is 9fps, while the D300 is "only" 8fps with battery pack. It's still very fast. It focuses fast, too. It's still a very fast performer. I don't need the next level. I'd rather have one more pro lens.
The ISO performance is on another plane entirely. I find that the D700 can be set and left on 1600 in all conditions and still return results almost indistinguishable from the D300 at ISO 200. And ISO 3200 is still clean and ISO 6400 will produce quite acceptable 11x14s.
All this is true, and is the main reason I considered the D700--it's because it has the D3 sensor. I've tried it and it's amazing. I would say it's 1 1/3 - 1 2/3 stop better performance; you'd probably say 2+ stops, though you imply "almost" 3 stops better when you compare D300 @ ISO200 vs D700 @ 1600. I don't agree with that. If it were truly or or nearly 3 stops better, I'd say the camera is perhaps worth it. Either way, as long as it's 2 stops or less ISO performance, which admittedly is great, would still make it not worth it to me, Again, I'd rather spend the money on a great lens.
Then there is the viewfinder. Not only is it significantly bigger and brighter but the eye relief means you can now wear glasses/sunglasses and still see all of the finder info all at once, without having to "look" around the viewfinder.
Another plus indeed, but I am happy with the D300's viewfinder. I was just happy to get 100% view. I'll live with less than perfection. All these little improvements are nice but don't,
to me, add up to being worth the $1260 difference. Obviously it does to you.
Also, no matter how good Nikon’s DX cameras have gotten [or any less than 24x36 camera in general] DX is fundamentally flawed. While you can roughly interpolate focal length factors, the distance to the film/sensor plane doesn’t change thus the depth of field/focus and circle of confusion remain the same yet are all compromised by the cropped field of view.
Yes, the distance doesn't change no matter the crop factor and most people don't realize it, erroneously thinking it's a true 1.5x magnification. No doubt full frame is preferable. But this is a question of value and worth.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to be on all full frame, but it's an expensive investment. Not only would I have to spend $1260 on the body, I'd also need to get an ultra wide to replace my 12-24 DX because I have no full frame lens wider than 24mm. Those 2 things combined means that the jump to a D700 could cost me $3k easily, just to get the body and a lens to replace the ultra-wide coverage I already have.
To me, for now, the solution is to have full coverage. I have coverage from 12mm - 300mm. 12-24 is DX; everything longer is full frame, so I should be closer to being ready for FX when it comes down in price. 12-300mm. It works for me.
The best bet for developing DX would have been to develop an entirely new lens system- but ask Olympus how well that is going.
Nikon has the DX lenses. Same mount, but it seems to be going well.
Simply put FX [full-frame] is the small-format future.
I agree, but that doesn't make it the present (especially at current prices) and that doesn't make it worth the price premium to me.
Finally, like the D3 [because it shares the same sensor and processor] the D700 gives an overall image quality that is less "digital" looking and more film-like than anything before it.
Except that Canon 5D, which came before it.
Yes, $3K is a lot of money, but to say that spending $2k for a D300
It's $1800 for a D300.
is worth it but $3K for a D700 isn't absent a specific context is pretty meaningless IMHO.
Call my opinions "meaningless" all you want, but the guy whose question I answered seemed to appreciate it and not find it "meaningless." Are you always so impolite? Or is it just here on a message board?
I have now given context. And I didn't owe anyone a context in the first place; I was giving my opinion and answering a question. As you are giving yours and that's fine and fair but I would encourage you to be a bit more polite, at least when offering a contrasting opinion to someone like me, was not "wrong" in any way, but whose opinion merely differed from yours. It's one thing to say why you disagree with me and think it's worth it; it's quite another thing to say my statements are untrue and "meaningless."
Having said that
I feel the D700 is not worth it, I confess it's not an easy call. If you have the money, it definitely is. But if you're on a budget, I think you can still make great images almost as easily as with the D700. I could afford it, but I didn't feel like I would get enough of a performance increase to justify the $1260.
Also, if I were ready to get a full frame, there is no question I would skip the $5k D3, but instead, get the $3k D700. The D700 is an awesome camera--no doubt about it. If money is not the issue, I can not find any reason not to get it.
Plus, the other reason I felt it may not be worth it is that I may hold out and see about that high resolution D3x. That would be awfully tempting. It may be worth it to me, but again, maybe not.