D700 or D300s?

[vandevanterSH]

"So, as some one else suggested, get better lenses in anticipation of the move and work on improving your skills in the mean time."
************
That's my plan also...stick with the D-300 for a couple more years and buy "glass".  I have added the 14-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, 300 f/4 and pre-ordered 70-200 f2.8 VR II, so hopefully if 24mp FF comes down to a consumer price point I will be ready.

Steve

[mas55101]

Thank you all for the comments - D700 looks like the one... To get used to the 150 grams difference in my tiny hand, I can stick my 50 mm for now. I used to use 17-35 mm and also rented 24-70 mm once so I know how heavy they are - though their brilliance well compensated the bulkiness IMHO! On the body, the only size difference to note is 114 mm (D200/300) vs 123 mm (D700) in height: do you feel it in the grip? or is that nothing?

Try a 35-70 f/2.8.

[jduncan]

Just to add. When you say:

My photographic style/interest: nature - I started with landscapes, moved towards close-up shots of nature, prevalently using 50 mm (35-70 is my range). No prospect of changing it.
Mari

are you talking dx?, because if that's the case you will have to add an 105mm capable lens to your collection busting up the D700 price.
The other option will be to use the D700 5.7mpix camera.  The 50mm on the D200 will give you the EQ of 75mm on the D700. To fill the same % of the frame you will need to get closer with the D700.
I don't know if that's a problem for you. But be aware.

[kpmedia]

The pixel quality and ISO range make it a no brainer for me. I went from a D200 to a D3, it's transformed the way I think and go about my photography.

My thoughts exactly!
Although I find the D200 color more appealing in sunlight photo work, so I kept it.

D700 for sure. Skip the D300.
If you want to re-create the crop body, add a 1.4x filter as needed. The loss of aperture is easily correct by the +3 stops of ISO performance from the D700.

[Ray]

IMHO the only reason to choose the D700 would be if you want/need to shoot at high ISO a lot. Although the D300/s is pretty good up to ISO 1600 it can't compete with the D700/D3. But at base ISO there's no real difference except a very slight edge in dynamic range for the D700. On the other hand if you're used to working with a cropped sensor and have lenses that you like, moving to FX could be a negative. The wide angle advantage of FX is vastly overstated IMHO. It used to be true, but there are a wide variety of wide zooms for DX nowadays.

Are there any really good wide angle lenses for the DX format, Jeff?

I tend to think, when choosing a format, one should always start from the perspective of the quality of available lenses for the particular format.

How does the Nikkor 10-24 (F3.5-4.5) on DX compare with the Nikkor 14-24/2.8 on FX? The 10-24 has a longer range and is more useful in that respect, but I get the impression that resolution fall-off in the corners is pretty bad.

The MTF 50 absolute resolution figures at Photozone cannot be compared across systems because different sensor resolutions are introduced into the equation.

However, the relative resolutions within the frame can be compared. On the D200 at 10mm and F3.5, progressing from the centre to the extreme edge, we have 2152, 1798 and 947 line widths per picture height (LWPH).

947 compared with 2153 is lousy. I don't think anyone could deny that.

The situation with the 14-24/2.8 on FX is much better, at the widest angle. The LWPH figures at 14mm and F2.8 are 3863, 3466 and 3033. Of course, they are all higher because the camera used for testing is a D3X. However, notice the much, much better edge performance in relative terms.

The frequent debates on this forum about MFDB image quality versus full frame 35mm also apply to DX versus FX, except that the jump in price, the increase in weight, and reduction in features is not as great as it is when moving from 35mm to MFDB.

As I see it, there are two main features that tend to distinguish the larger format from the smaller format.

(1) Lower noise and higher DR.

(2) Higher resolution with the same lens at the same F stop.

On the first point, there may be a few anomalies when comparing different formats. The D300 has about the same DR as the D700 at base ISO, but significantly more noise at 18% grey, according to DXOmark. This means, whilst the deepest shadows are as good as those from the D700, the rest of the image will exhibit more noise, at base ISO.

Above base ISO, even at ISO 400, there is no contest. The D700 has clearly lower noise, higher DR, better tonal range and better color sensitivity.

Combine these attributes with an 'effectively' better lens, then the gap widens.

However, here is where DoF enters the equation. Lens performance tends to fall off (at least to some degree) at apertures wider than F5.6, with most lenses.

This factor puts the DX or APS-C format at a disadvantage because the greater pixel density of the smaller format (at equal pixel count, compared with FX) requires a lens with higher resolution, not lower resolution.

However, this disadvantage of the smaller format tends to disappear at bigger F stop numbers (smaller apertures).

If an extensive DoF is sought, the larger format ceases to have a significant advantage, especially when one equalises shutter speed.

In other words, a 12mp D700 at F16, 1/100th sec and ISO 400, should have little or no image quality advantage over a D300 at F11, 1/100th and ISO 200.

If you disagree, show me the test results. I'd be interested.

[kpmedia]

Would f/16 add too much diffraction and soften the image, compared to the f/11 shots?

[Ray]

Would f/16 add too much diffraction and soften the image, compared to the f/11 shots?

No, because the pixel density of the FX format is less and doesn't require as sharp a lens for equal resolution, comparing equal size images of course, and comparing cameras of comparable pixel count such as the D300 and D700.

F16 on the D700 provides approximately the same DoF as F11 on the D300. However, at the other end of the DoF spectrum, the D300 can have a big disadvantage, depending on lens quality at wide apertures. You can then be caught between a rock and a hard place. If you want to reduce noise by using a 1-stop lower ISO and a 1-stop wider aperture, say F2.8 on the D300 instead of F4 on the D700, which provides the same DoF, you will almost certainly get worse resolution with the D300. It's not just the fact that a lens at F2.8 is usually not as sharp as the same lens (or similar quality lens) at F4, but the D300 requires the lens used at F2.8 to be actually sharper than the lens used at F4 with the D700, for equal resolution.

It's very rare for a lens to be sharper at F2.8 than F4.

[kpmedia]

I'll have to test that sometime. Interesting.

I do know the D200 makes some of my best film lenses look soft, and it drives me nuts. I simply cannot use those on DX bodies. Looks fine on D3, although the high MP sensors still show more errors than negatives and slides ever did (and still do, on the off chance I pick up my F5). Having to replace glass was not in the plans.

[cecelia]

I am surprised by the GF1 comment.  I have had a D200, D300, and D3.  I currently have a GF1 with the 20 mm lens, D3x and arsenal of lenses including the 24-70.  A D700 with the 24-70 is bulky and heavy--but the overall quality and ergonomics are outstanding if you can bear the weight.

The only thing the GF1 has on the D200 is form factor.  If form factor is important, a D700 with the 24-70 is the wrong camera.  If form factor is not important the D300 or the D700 will beat the GF1 hands down on ergonomics (focus precision, focus speed), control of perceived DOF, and high ISO.  High ISO is important because it lets you get away from the tripod if you want to shoot with any spontenaity. 

My 2-cents would be to get the D700 and 1 Zeiss prime - perhaps the 35 mm f2.

[kpmedia]

A D700 with the 24-70 is bulky and heavy--but the overall quality and ergonomics are outstanding if you can bear the weight.

I like a heavier camera -- less shake that way. The camera itself acts as a balancer.