Drdobs said:
Why would it get closed?

Because this was already asked a few days ago!!!! And it has been discussed numerous times before that. Do a forum search next time!
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=3225

PB PM said:
The viewfinder on 35mm cameras, film and digital are huge compared to the ones found on DX bodies, it is like night and day.

He's right. Just go to a camera shop and compare. You'll never want another DX again. ;]

The viewfinder on 35mm cameras, film and digital are huge compared to the ones found on DX bodies, it is like night and day.

I've heard some people report that the viewfinder is actually larger on FX cameras as well and that they are 'such a joy' to look through and compose compared to DX (or APS-C) cameras. Is that true as well?

The D700 would probably be fine for me sans the video, and if I knew the D800 would be out in the next 2-3 months, I'd obviously wait assuming that D7000 like or better video would be included along with hopefully maybe a little bit better ISO performance.. The cost is not that much of a factor for me considering the 4-5 years worth of planned use..

Jon

Drdobs said:
.. but pure pixel by pixel sharpness/clarity - I wouldn't have thought it would be that much different.

Jon

there are some good articles about that explain why, but image quality is not just about the number of pixels

it shows up particularly well at weddings in large group photos
the faces are just a lot clearer on the D700 compared to the D90
which is I suspect why the D700 is so popular with many wedding photographers
you will also notice better tonal range when doing landscapes
you may not notice the difference with you holiday photos
when the D700 has the big disadvantage of being heavier

cant help with video as you know video on the D90 is not very good

pabnj said:
It won't be long before this forum gets closed.

Why would it get closed?

I have a D90 now, am really happy with it, but would really like a camera that can do a little better video wise and also looking for something 1-2 stopps better in low light performance. It appears, based on reviews, the D7000 is a full stop better in low light and that a D700 is maybe 2 stops better.

Is the real 'quality' of the image on a full frame sensor like the D700 that much better than a D7000 / D300s? I wouldn't think the sensor would be that much of a difference in image quality. Yes, flexability, depth of field, wide-angle, yes.. but pure pixel by pixel sharpness/clarity - I wouldn't have thought it would be that much different.

Jon

It won't be long before this forum gets closed.

FX is going to lot more expensive than DX especially if you need a set of proffesional Nikon FX lenses

I went from a D90 to a D700 and there was a very big jump in image quality, which as far as I can make out, is not matched by the D7000

I have unreliably been told, Nikon are trying reduce their camera range, so you might not have a choice

Ok, I know this question has been discussed before, but time is marching on and I'm trying to get a feel from you all when your best gut feeling is that we'll *really* see the upgrade to the D700 and the D300s...

I'm going to need to get a new body here in the next couple of months and because I intend for this to last me 4-5 years (which feels like a lifetime as far as I'm concerned) I really don't want to invest in a technology package that is 3-4 years old before I start the clock on my new purchase. Also, video quality is something that has importance to me, and I can only assume the upgraded bodies will, at a minimum, carry the same video quality the D7000 has - which would be ok.

As for whether I go with FX or DX, I'm on the fence here too... I'd frankly probably purchase whichever body came out first assuming the other wouldn't come for another 6 months after the introduction of the first.

Throw me a bone here and let me know how much longer I'm going to need to wait!

Thanks guys,

Jon