£2000!!! It'd better be good, then. The D300 takes some beating.
|
 |
 From reviews it looks very good. I still don't inderstand how they can fit a pop up flash on it though. I know if Canon had tried to do that on the 5D, the size of the top of the camera would have been stupid. Me thinks they have cut corners on the mirror housing and you wont get even 90% of the view.
|
|
Just read that the view finder is 95% which isn't half bad.
|
|
 If there wasn't an anti dust mechanism then I don't see any reason why they couldn't have worked in a 99%+ viewfinder...
|
|
£2000!!! It'd better be good, then. The D300 takes some beating. It really is better. In summary it's a D300 body with 90% of the D3's features inside it, including that full frame FX sensor. Ni bad! 
|
|
Wanna buy a 5D mike? 
|
|
 I had both camera's until last week when I sold my D300 and all its DX lenses. The difference between the D300 and D700 is really significant but the benefit is, of course, relative to what its used for. What you need to take into consideration is that the new range of pro lenses for the FX cameras are, without exception, significantly better than their DX counterparts. Add the 2 together and the results are outstanding but very expensive. The only slight weakness is the lack of 100% view but this doesn't bother me because the 95% you can see is much larger, brighter and very easy to use for precise composition. The camera's does also have a few advantages that aren't widely known including the ability to process 14 bit RAW images just as fast as the 12bit (the D300 frame rate drops significantly if you do this). Additionally, the multipurpose i button is incredibly useful when shooting and effectively means you dont have to dip into the menu's when shooting.
|
|
I had both camera's until last week when I sold my D300 and all its DX lenses. The difference between the D300 and D700 is really significant but the benefit is, of course, relative to what its used for. What you need to take into consideration is that the new range of pro lenses for the FX cameras are, without exception, significantly better than their DX counterparts. Add the 2 together and the results are outstanding but very expensive.
It was probably worth selling the D300 to pick up an FX lens - the couple that I used were fantastic. But as you say, at £1000+ a piece it's the same price as a 'normal' camera. The 14-24mm is a bunch of fun too, but then I'm a sucker for wide angle.
|
|
...
|
| Edited: 29/08/08 11:01 |
I had both camera's until last week when I sold my D300 and all its DX lenses. The difference between the D300 and D700 is really significant but the benefit is, of course, relative to what its used for. What you need to take into consideration is that the new range of pro lenses for the FX cameras are, without exception, significantly better than their DX counterparts. Add the 2 together and the results are outstanding but very expensive.
It was probably worth selling the D300 to pick up an FX lens - the couple that I used were fantastic. But as you say, at £1000+ a piece it's the same price as a 'normal' camera. The 14-24mm is a bunch of fun too, but then I'm a sucker for wide angle.
Yupp, I'm fortunate to have the full set inc. the 14-24mm. I've just uploaded my first 2 images and both were taken with it.
|
|
 Sorry Sean, would you guide me to which images taken with the D700 please........ all six of your albums seem to have been updated on 29/08/08.
|
| Edited: 17/09/08 20:44 |
Hi Clive, Best place to look is flickr in my tags... http://www.flickr.com/photos/manteys/tags/d700/ This will bring up all the photo's I've taken with it so far. Sean
|
|
I see you're another nocturnal ! Done it Sean, many thanks.......... lovely, the 700's working fine and the guy on the shutter even better!  Clive
|
|
