D300 or D700?

[Robryan]

Hi guys! Need some advice for this two model. Tks

[Lumiere]

quite hard to advise u know

D300 is a DX camera and D700 is a FX camera

of course the D700 is a much better camera in many ways and if price is not a factor for you
I dun see why its hard to decide.

[Blur Shadow]

It may be a good idea to state your photographic requirements such that we are better able to assist you.

[entropy_h]

Originally Posted by Robryan Hi guys! Need some advice for this two model. Tks

Get the Nikon D3. Confirm the pictures you take will make people go WOW.

[Robryan]

Tks for all e advice Actually my main concren is performance and function. Oh btw...
Wats the difference between DX and FX?

[JohnSG]

Originally Posted by Robryan Tks for all e advice Actually my main concren is performance and function. Oh btw... Wats the difference between DX and FX?

The main different is the sensor size. FX is equal to 35mm film size, DX is smaller by 1.5 times (diagonal). If your pocket is big, go for D700

[aero]

I switched from my D300 to D700. High ISO, low noise was the biggest factor otherwise D300 was a great camera too.....

[jtchoy]

Originally Posted by JohnSG The main different is the sensor size. FX is equal to 35mm film size, DX is smaller by 1.5 times (diagonal). If your pocket is big, go for D700

Nah, go for D3.

[Robryan]

I see...Guess i'll go for D700! Tks for e reply

[jeffyen]

Please remember the other difference...that if you get a D700 or FX camera, your expenses for your lens become much more because if you use DX lens, it'll only be a 5.1 megapixel camera.

[Daedalus Trent]

Originally Posted by Robryan I see...Guess i'll go for D700! Tks for e reply

now that was easy, wasn't it?

and yea, be prepared for more expensive lenses

[Lumiere]

Originally Posted by Daedalus Trent now that was easy, wasn't it? and yea, be prepared for more expensive lenses

the 50 f1.8 is not expensive, 35mm f2, 85 f1.8 too...works brilliantly on the FX

if at DX 17-55 at around $1.8k...the FX lens 24-70 isn't priced much too expensive too at around $2.2k you get a whole lot more just by spending that bit more.

[Daedalus Trent]

Originally Posted by Lumiere the 50 f1.8 is not expensive, 35mm f2, 85 f1.8 too...works brilliantly on the FX if at DX 17-55 at around $1.8k...the FX lens 24-70 isn't priced much too expensive too at around $2.2k you get a whole lot more just by spending that bit more.

$400+

my point exactly

[Danntbt]

Originally Posted by Robryan Tks for all e advice Actually my main concren is performance and function. Oh btw... Wats the difference between DX and FX?

...if you don't know, u don't need neither D300 nor D700........

[yyD70S]

I think what Danntbt meant was that it would be easier if you buy both the D300 and D700 and use them extensively for about a month; then return the one you don't want to the shop; assuming of course the shop provides you with a return policy.

Sadly, I don't think such shops exist in Singapore or maybe I don't know of it.

Which will leave you with both the D300 and a D700.

You could actually keep both. They do share the same vertical grip at the very least.

[nice1888]

Originally Posted by jeffyen Please remember the other difference...that if you get a D700 or FX camera, your expenses for your lens become much more because if you use DX lens, it'll only be a 5.1 megapixel camera.

How about use D700 (FX format) with those old lenses which is designed for film camera like F90? For example, 28-70D F3.5-5.6 zoom lens. Any side effect?

Or what will happen if I use the above lens I have mentioned with D300 (DX format)?

Please advice. Thank you in advance.

[jeffyen]

Originally Posted by nice1888 How about use D700 (FX format) with those old lenses which is designed for film camera like F90? For example, 28-70D F3.5-5.6 zoom lens. Any side effect? Or what will happen if I use the above lens I have mentioned with D300 (DX format)? Please advice. Thank you in advance.

You may want to look at the following..

http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-bin...i=&p_topview=1

[xxccxx]

According to what I read somewhere, D300 has more pixels per unit length, since it's 12mp on smaller sensor, while D700 has less, cuz also 12mp but on bigger sensor.

What that means is that if u want more detail, u should go for D300. If u want speed and low noise at high ISO, then D700.

Alternatively, u can wait for the next FX model from Nikon, maybe D700x or D800, which has more pixels?

However, someone once said, "Tomorrow's camera cannot take today's picture!"

I'm going for the D700 soon! Just bought the 24-70mm for $2200 nett. Saving $$$ for D700.

[Legoz]

Originally Posted by Danntbt ...if you don't know, u don't need neither D300 nor D700........

I totally agree...
Has seen too many people holding big ar*e camera's body with both hands.

Regards

[deklan]

oh man, you dont know the diff between the DX and FX and ure getting a d700...
im jealous......