D700 vs. D300: help?

I've read virtually everything on the forums about the D700, and now that I've got a trip coming up to Indonesia in November, I'm trying to decide if I should consider a D700 or D300 as an upgrade to my current D200.

Given that I'll be shooting mostly macro (w/a little wide angle) would I get frustrated w/moving to a full-frame sensor? I really like my 60mm on the D200, and I've read somewhere that moving the larger sensor limits the effectiveness of this lens a bit (at least for the types of subjects we tend to see underwater (critters, small fish, etc.))

I could definitely use better low light (and faster) AF, and from what I've read, either camera will deliver that relative to the D200.

So, is the D700 worth the extra $1300?

I know the housing/rest of the system costs play a role here, however I'm planning on buying an Aquatica housing for either camera (so I can share ports/etc. w/my D200 system) - yes, I know I can get a mod. for my D200 housing for the D300, but I'll likely buy a whole new housing for the new system so I have 2 working ones.

All advice/info welcome...

I would suggest having a read of my D3 review:

http://wetpixel.com/i.php/full/nikon-d3-fi...pacific-part-1/

Same sensor and AF as D700. A focus of the review compares it to DX Nikons.

Alex

Hi,

I used d700 for 2 diving trips so far & I like it so much.

You can check sample macro pictures of d700 at;

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=26558

(Moost of pictures were taken with 105mm VR + woody's wet diopter)

Sam

I own a D700, I love it for topside; but I still have not seen anything that REALLY makes me want to house it instead of a DX (D300) camera. One thing I do not want to give up is my 10-17 Tokina.

Ideally, I would like to be able to house both systems, if I only had a choice of ONE system I think I'd stay with DX.

Hi,

I think you are right, your 60mm lens (which equates to ~ 90mm on the D200) will revert to being 60mm again on the D700! This means you will need to be closer to get the same shot.

I have just put a 105mm macro in on a D300 in a Seatool housing and can highly recommend that option, a very sharp lens with lightning fast focus and long enough to avoid scaring those twitchy little critters. I have tried it on a film camera and it covers that format so will cover the D700 too.

Cheers. deepblue2

O.K. you can see the difference of DX vs. FX.

First one with 105mm VR in d700.

Second one with same lens in d200.

and choice is up to user. I prefer flexibility of

d700 as I can choose 'dx' mode or crop the

picture in camera if I want more details. I did

not have same flexibility in d200/d300.

Sam

I think the difference in lens perspective between DX versus FX is being overblown. For Nikon mount, here are some angles of view.

As you can see, you can get within 15% of the same perspective regardless of format.

The big difference between the two is not the usefulness of the perspective of your favorite lens, it's that DX gives you a 1.5x apparent magnification advantage. FX users not only have to work harder to shoot small subjects, the lenses they use are larger for the same perspective.

Also the FX depth of field makes it more crucial to hit focs spot on. Not to mention that the DoF is also smaller so stopping down to maintain focus is also important.

Also the FX depth of field makes it more crucial to hit focs spot on. Not to mention that the DoF is also smaller so stopping down to maintain focus is also important.

This is assuming you're matching angle of view with different focal lengths. FX and DX will have the same DoF with the same lens and same settings.

An FX camera will provide less DoF for focusing unless the equivalent lens you use is one stop slower (which it often won't be). Sometimes that will make FX harder to shoot and sometime perhaps easier. It's probably true that shooting macro with DX is easier in more ways than one. This difference is not one of IQ but ease of use.

As far as FX being more sensitive to critical focus because of shallower DoF, I would say that depends. In the case of the D300 and D700, the only issue is needing one stop higher f-number since resolution is the same. When comparing FX sensors with greater resolving power, then FX is more sensitive when you are trying to preserve resolution by accepting the more limited DoF. Getting best results from FX with higher pixel counts requires you to think more about what you are doing.

I prefer flexibility of

d700 as I can choose 'dx' mode or crop the

picture in camera if I want more details. I did

not have same flexibility in d200/d300.

But less megapixels. The D700 and D300 have the same number of pixels and indistinguishable image quality at base ISO per pixel. So by cropping a D700 image or shooting DX on D700 you will have less detail in the image.

The D700 and the D300 are both excellent cameras, but with different strengths. If it is solely for UW photography in the tropics then I would get the D300. If you do lots of deep/cold/dark water wide angle and/or lots of topside then the D700 is the better choice.

I really enjoyed exploiting the "shallower" DoF of FX when I shot it recently. After many years of DX it was fun to take images with a different look.

Alex

Alex, could you have achieved the more narrow DOF by simply using a smaller f-stop with increased lighting for the background with the DX camera?