Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by pdechavez, May 7, 2009.
Is it worth trading the 2 for a D700?
Hard to say without a few more details of what you shoot.
But yes, I upgraded to full frame recently and couldn't be more happy.
Here are some important questions.
Will you miss the video?
Are your lenses able to work on a full frame camera or will you have to purchase more?
thanks for the reply. Yes, all my lenses are full frame and im just getting the D90 tomorrow for free as a gift but don't really want it. i'm hoping i could trade both in for a D700. I love the fact that there's low ISO noise and such.
I'd do it in a heartbeat. all I need is a D300 and someone willing to trade
If you shoot weddings like i do...yes, worth the upgrade for the low light performance.
If you hate carrying a heavy camera all day, then no.
If you want to shoot some HD videos, then no.
Basically, the D300 is fairly close to the performance of the D700. ISO usable up to 1600. For D700, good to 3200.
You have all FX glasses...do it.
d300 and 700 iso is very close up to iso 400. after that it's very obvious what's better. D300 smudges detail, reduces sharpening to kill noise, which is pretty f'd up. I think the d90 handles this better too, which is a shame. The d700 is sharp and has excellent noise reduction up to 6400 (useable at 4x6 prints)
I'm considering selling my d300 w/17-55 lens right now as I really don't have much need for it.
Reading your other thread, for wedding work, no. Never do a wedding with a single body, it's irresponsible.
Wait till you can afford at least two bodies (d700 + dxxxxx).
If it's just for hobby/personal work, then yes, go for it, you won't regret it.
The most I've ever gotten was a coupon for a free frozen Turkey...
I don't see why anyone wouldn't want to go to full-frame if they are able...
A question for D700 users
Since the D700's viewfinder frame coverage is 95% as opposed to 100% in the D3 & D300, do you find yourself having to overly compensate for this while shooting and/or PP? I have no experience with the D700 and am curious if this would greatly affect your workflow. TIA.
it only means you capture a little more than you thought you did. don't see how that's a problem, and either way the viewfinder is bigger and brighter.
The talk about ISO performance ticks me off at times. IMO the noise/grain of the D90/D300 at even 3200 ISO is way better then what I got back in my film days at 800 ISO.
YMV, on the wide end sharpness might be there unless one goes for the newer lenses.
If you're shooting in a controlled/studio environment, I agree, not a problem. What about if you're shooting action/street/event, where you only get one chance to get the shot? If you get something in your image that you don't want, it just means you'll have to fix it in PP, which means added workflow. In the film days, you had to get the shot right, in camera and I still believe that's the best approach. Now don't get me wrong, I love working in Photoshop as it really opens up the creativity. I'm not as crazy about fixing stupid mistakes that should've been shot correctly, very tedious and boring, unless I'm being highly compensated for it.
If you get a little bit of something you don't want, then crop it out. As for "in the film days," most film cameras didn't have 100% coverage either, since the edges get cut off anyway when enlarging. The Canon AE-1 had ~94% coverage, the EOS 3 had 97%.
You could do a lot in the darkroom. Certainly cropping and dodging and burning was easy, small retouches were done too. I always adjusted the contrast and exposure too.
In the Nikon line of film cameras the "F" models always had 100% coverage viewfinders while the consummers line always had about 95% or something close to that.
As for if a FF DSLR is needed it depends mostly one how the images are to be used. It they will only be shown of an electronic screen then FF is a bit of a waste.
Is there such a thing as a "consumer" full-frame dSLR???
Not yet but I bet it won't be long now.... In the meantime, enthusiasts have the D700 while advanced enthusiasts and Pros have the D3 and D3x.....
Sell the D300 only, add some money and move that up to the 700, and use the 90 as a secondary body.
Doing it the other way around makes more sense since the D700 and D300 use the same batteries, compact flash cards, and can share the vertical grip.
Yes, Ansel Adams certainly did. I used to spend a lot of time in a darkroom printing B&W and really enjoyed it, though I was never crazy about being exposed (no pun intended) to all the toxic chemicals. You can do all those traditional darkroom things and more in Photoshop without all the toxic chemicals, not to mention water usage.
My F3/T and F4s had 100% viewfinder coverage(both stolen, damn thieves) and so does my D300. You would think spending $2700 on a camera would get you 100% viewfinder coverage. I know, buy a D3 or a D3x, right?