Sounds like you have the skills to make the most of the D700 - guess you just need to decide if the photographic benefits (low light shooting without flash \ DOF \ wide angle) outweight the costs (mainly financial but also the increased weight of all the gear if you need to carry it on your back any distance). For portraits and landscapes improved auto focus and weather sealing are perhaps less important considerations.

For bigger prints you really need a bigger jump in mp ... but you should easily be able to get good A3 prints from your current setup. Sadly at present with the Nikon line up, the next mp step up is a huge one to the D3x. If you wait 6 - 12 months this should change ... but then you end up in the "analysis paralysis" situation of always waiting for something better.

I would really recommend testing the D700 ... even in a shop especially if you can use your own memory card, to get a feel for the camera itself and also to test the differences between your current setup and the D700 after processing. It seems like your heart is set on an upgrade but the head is undecided ... much like me. At the moment, my head is ruling the heart as the cost \ benefit of an upgrade doesn't make sense to me. Only you can really decide if it makes sense to you.

Happy New Year ;-)

aetas said:
Sorry for the lack of Imformation. I shoot some portraits. Not by any means a pro shooter but every shoot I have done the person/persons have been happy with the results. I have would have liked using a little less "light" and perhaps used a little more ambiant light. My main love for photography has always been landscapes of all kinds. The reason i would like to move up to the 700 would be for portraits I would like to be able to give a print that they could print a little bigger. Plus dof would be great. On my landscapes I would like to get to a real wide angle. Current lenses are 14mm 2.8, 105 2.8, and thinking about 70-200 2.8. As far as fx goes. Good to start I believe.

Sorry had to add...i do have a 50mm 1.8. Thanks for the advice though. It really is a great lens.

I would probably throw a 50mm ƒ/1.8 prime into your kit aetas :^)

BTW 12mp won't let you print that much larger than 10mp.

Sorry for the lack of Imformation. I shoot some portraits. Not by any means a pro shooter but every shoot I have done the person/persons have been happy with the results. I have would have liked using a little less "light" and perhaps used a little more ambiant light. My main love for photography has always been landscapes of all kinds. The reason i would like to move up to the 700 would be for portraits I would like to be able to give a print that they could print a little bigger. Plus dof would be great. On my landscapes I would like to get to a real wide angle. Current lenses are 14mm 2.8, 105 2.8, and thinking about 70-200 2.8. As far as fx goes. Good to start I believe.

I was with you 100% until you defended the D100. ;)
I HATED that fucker with a passion. Hot pixels out the wazoo, chroma noise at ISOs over 320 (the mostly luminance noise on latter cameras is not so objectionable), worst meter I've ever seen on a Nikon, I can go on and on. IMHO every other digital SLR Nikon has made is at least twice the camera.

Let's put this in terms even bmxdad can understand. ;)
Aston Kutcher would be limited by a D100. ;)

(I kid, I kid, I kid, but I DO really hate the D100).

Very well put, Graham.

Useful summary and a lot of sense. I have a D200 and keep looking at upgrades in moments of "weakness" ;-) But to be honest I'd rather:
- spend time improving my technique than money on new gear
- spend money on a good holiday to use the D200 rather than spending it on new gear

But that is my personal opinion as an amateur who has no intention of making money from a hobby. I may miss some shots that a more expensive ("better") camera might have captured but in general at the size of prints I do (8x10 to A4) I really don't think there is a huge difference in Image Quality. If the photo is strong enough (composition \ exposure) then (IMO) the difference in IQ is not sufficinet at that size (and pretty much non-existant when the pictures make it to the web). If you make a living from photography then obviously a completely seperate set of criteria applies.

One thing I like about this forum (rather than the DPReview site) is that people here seem to realise that there is more to photography that camera specs. A great photographer doesn't need the latest and greatest to take great photographs. Photographs shot with the D100 that were great then are still great now.

So my advice - write down what you use the D80 for now. Then take a look at the photographs you are taking and see:
- is there something consistent about the shots you are discarding?
- could you reduce that by improving technique?
- will the D700 (or even D300) improve the photographs more than just improving your technique?
- are the shots you are missing important to you? Important enough to spend £3000 - £4000 for D700 body + new lenses?
- how do you display your photos? Prints? What size? To the web? Again, is the difference in IQ at the scale you are printing worth a sizeable chunk of money which could actually be spent on a couple of great holidays using what you already have.

Main thing is to be happy with your choice - so perhaps try to rent a D700 for a weekend and go out shooting it alongside the D80 (or find someone local with one that you can test out).

Good Luck

Graham

Please read this first:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=32587911

If You have the glass to benefit from FX sensor, than go for it. If not (most likely) don't bother with FX, and get d90/d5000 or d300s - You will save a lot of money (for glass) and lost only the ability to:
- shot over iso 1600
- nicer DOF

Ok... All together now .... click [Send Post] !!

I switched from a D70 to the D700 and very happy that I did. The biggest thing is the ISO performance. The autofocus was a noticalbe improvement as well. I have also found the FX is better for my needs (Your usage may show a difference or not). I also like the faster frames useful to get the right shot when I'm shooting sports.

heartyfisher said:
Hey Johnny, Most of the advabtages you listed can be gained from moving to the D300 level. He doesnt need FX for them.

We seem to be practicing synchronized posting, hearty. ;-)
I revised my suggestions based on what you said.

heartyfisher said:
HSorry, but if you dont know why you need FX then you proably dont.

Actually, hearty has a great point. Maybe the D300s is a better option. You get all of the things I mentioned except that you'll be able to keep using SD cards in it and the low-light performance will be lots better but not quite as much as with the D700.

EDIT: Also, there's no wait on the D300s. It's available now for the same price ($1500!) the D300 was selling for 5 months ago.

Benefits? Everything!

• Better image quality:
  • Cleaner high-ISOs
  • Less dependance on lens sharpness
• Better build quality
• Quicker access to controls
• Faster everything
• MUCH better AF

In other words, one of my favorite slogans (from the D200):

Faster. Smarter. Stronger.

BTW welcome to the forum!!!

Hey Johnny, Most of the advabtages you listed can be gained from moving to the D300 level. He doesnt need FX for them.

Welcome to the forum, aetas!
Here are some differences I can think of:
-much better low-light performance
-better metering
-more accurate white balance
-better autofocus
-heavier and bigger
-better weather sealing on the buttons
-much better screen (I didn't care about this when I upgraded to the D300, but it turns out I love that 920,000-dot screen)
-you'll want FX lenses (sounds like you've thought about that)
-more expensive remote release options
-compact flash instead of SD cards
-HD video if it's the D700 replacement

If you're not in a hurry, I think you should wait for a D700 replacement.

Hi, aetas, Welcome !

Not sure if you know what you are asking :-)

What lenses do you have? Why do you want to move to FX. Gain in what? Weight? :-)
Sorry, but if you dont know why you need FX then you proably dont. The main advantage of FX is reduced Depth of field! Other advantages are better high ISO performance. Also if you have lenses that are not very sharp they will look sharper. Thats about it.
The disadvantages are.
1) Increased weight of gear.
2) Increased cost of camera
3) Increased cost of lenses 2-5 times more.
4) Increased size of gear.
5) Increased nerdines.

I have a nikon d80 and was thinking about a d700 or its replacement. If moving to the 700 will it be a noticable gain. What will I be getting. What are the benefits. I want to move to a fx and I believe it is about time. Any advice would be great. Thanks