D300S, Yes?

[borisvahed]

I've been a Nikon user since day 1. Starting off on a D70 then moving onto a D80 (The upgrade was prompted by a break in and the loss of my camera). Now I've used my D80 for a good 3 years and she's done me well in the past but I find her lacking now.

I've been doing some research and I think I'd like to move up the food chain onto the Nikon D300s, or do I need to move onto full-frame? The lenses I currently use are the 50mm 1.8 and an old 35-70mm 2.8 which is still great. Both are film sized lenses. The D700 is out of my budget for about 6 months but I'd like to hear the opinion of others before I take the leap. I could probably get the D700 sooner if I sell my D80, but I like the idea of having a 2nd body, especially for weddings.

I usually photograph weddings, fashion, photojourn general portraits. Never landscape.

What say you?

[swainsons]

I say compare cameras on www.dxomark.com. Shows you how they ACTAULLY perform compared to spec.

Regards,

Leon

[kay]

D700 will help at weddings if you need to do high ISO, e.g. late night parties and things like that. The move to FX means you have to rethink your whole lens lineup - are you happy with that? Do FX lenses cover your needs? Unless you only have FX lenses now, you gotta budget for the lens upgrades which is normally much more expensive than the difference between bodies.

D300s is a nice upgrade - you gain at least a stop of better high ISO, great metering and AF compared to your D80. The D700 adds one and a bit more stops of high ISO over the D300s but the AF sensors cover a smaller area of the frame and you lose the dual card slots. If you're thinking of having a backup/second body, having one DX and one FX body is far from ideal.

[Raxephion]

Dude, I'd seriously listen to Kay's advice. That man knows what he is talking about and I agree with what he says. I will take his advice at the drop of a hat. I've checked out and verified some of his opinions (not just on this thread) and he is always spot on.

[Irene McCullagh]

I've been a Nikon user since day 1. Starting off on a D70 then moving onto a D80 (The upgrade was prompted by a break in and the loss of my camera). Now I've used my D80 for a good 3 years and she's done me well in the past but I find her lacking now.

I've been doing some research and I think I'd like to move up the food chain onto the Nikon D300s, or do I need to move onto full-frame? The lenses I currently use are the 50mm 1.8 and an old 35-70mm 2.8 which is still great. Both are film sized lenses. The D700 is out of my budget for about 6 months but I'd like to hear the opinion of others before I take the leap. I could probably get the D700 sooner if I sell my D80, but I like the idea of having a 2nd body, especially for weddings.

I usually photograph weddings, fashion, photojourn general portraits. Never landscape.

What say you?

Your MAIN reason for wanting FF may well be the extra width afforded by the full sensor. Besides that, for your purposes, consider what Kay already said - it all makes good sense. If you don't do landscapes, that wiiiiide angle won't be a problem for you.

The D300 is a great body and a very worthy contender in anybody's shopping list.

I myself am a FF + 2nd body DX shooter. I can't agree with Kay that it's far from ideal. Why would you say that, Kay? The DX 2nd body gives me the reach on the long end that I can't get from my FF, even though IQ is better on the D3. But personally I'd say it's a good combo.

[kay]

Raxephion, thanks for the endorsement but don't forget that my views are shaped by my own needs and experiences, and so what's right for me isn't always right for others. I'm just a camera geek unlike a lot of other people on this forum who are actual working pros and I can talk a lot of s**t too. So apply your own critical thinking to your own situation and don't believe everything you read on teh internets

Your MAIN reason for wanting FF may well be the extra width afforded by the full sensor. Besides that, for your purposes, consider what Kay already said - it all makes good sense. If you don't do landscapes, that wiiiiide angle won't be a problem for you.

There are several options to go ultra-wide on DX at a substantially cheaper total cost than the equivalent FX setup. E.g. 10-24 + D300s vs 14-24 + D700. 14mm on FX gives you 5° wider field of view but at what cost? Not to mention the D90 + Sigma 10-20 combo, which can be had for less than the price of a 14-24 alone! We can debate the relative merits until the cows come home, but wide angle hasn't really been a problem on DX since around 2003 For me valid reasons for wanting FX are if you need the D3x's resolution, the D3s's ability to see in the dark, or tilt/shift movements.

I myself am a FF + 2nd body DX shooter. I can't agree with Kay that it's far from ideal. Why would you say that, Kay? The DX 2nd body gives me the reach on the long end that I can't get from my FF, even though IQ is better on the D3. But personally I'd say it's a good combo.

It's a great combo, and one that I'd love for myself, but this isn't what I'd call a backup. By definition, a backup should provide complete and full replacement if you lose something. Consider this: you're shooting with a 24-70/2.8 on your main FX body, and a 80-200/2.8 on your DX body. FX body dies on you, so now you're forced to use the 24-70 on DX and lose wide angle ability. Or you use a 17-55/2.8 on the DX body because you haven't yet saved up for the 24-70/2.8, and your DX body dies so you have to mount the 17-55 on your D700 and you're forced to use DX crop, limiting you to 6mp only. You can work around these issues but it's not 100%. Which is why I said "less than ideal", not "it won't work"

[Raxephion]

Kay, lol dude don't worry, I've researched your opinions all the time, cross checking them etc. That your views are shaped by your needs and experiences is true, yet your technical knowledge is superior. When I upgrade, you will be the first and only person I will consult. Of all the advice on these forums, yours have been the most consistent and the most logical. You talk sense in a way newbies like me understand. I'd rather consult a camera geek than an aloof pro. Your reply below is proof of that.

[James Voortman]

If it will only take you six months to save for a D700 and you already have a D80 then for your proposed usage, I would wait the 6 months.

The good news is that D700 will probably come down in price with the imminent launch (expected this month) of a presumed D900...so you may not have to wait 6 months.

I have D300 and D200. Can tell you the D300 sensor is a significant improvement on the D200 (same sensor as D80) in poor light, the AF is more sensitive and the D300 has a lot of useful extra features. D700 much the same.

You really just need to decide if you want to go full frame or not, then the decision is made.

Finally, a word of advice on ultra-wide DX zooms. I have the 10-20 Sigma and I love it for landscapes and unusual perspectives. But it is extremely harsh on people- either stretches them in vertical shots or squashes them in horozontal ones - due to distortion which is no issue in landscape shots. An in-shape person looks plump and a plump person looks positively obese and you will not be thanked for this at a wedding. If you are planning an ultrawide for your wedding work then I'd advise to shoot some horizontal and vertical test shots of people with any lens you plan to buy. Actually...just don't go the ultra-wide DX route. Rather use a decent 18mm on FX for wide angle shots with people.