Hard to say without a few more details of what you shoot.
But yes, I upgraded to full frame recently and couldn't be more happy.
Here are some important questions.
Will you miss the video?
Are your lenses able to work on a full frame camera or will you have to purchase more?
I'd do it in a heartbeat. all I need is a D300 and someone willing to tradethanks for the reply. Yes, all my lenses are full frame and im just getting the D90 tomorrow for free as a gift but don't really want it. i'm hoping i could trade both in for a D700. I love the fact that there's low ISO noise and such.
thanks for the reply. Yes, all my lenses are full frame and im just getting the D90 tomorrow for free as a gift but don't really want it. i'm hoping i could trade both in for a D700. I love the fact that there's low ISO noise and such.
Since the D700's viewfinder frame coverage is 95% as opposed to 100% in the D3 & D300, do you find yourself having to overly compensate for this while shooting and/or PP? I have no experience with the D700 and am curious if this would greatly affect your workflow. TIA.
Basically, the D300 is fairly close to the performance of the D700. ISO usable up to 1600. For D700, good to 3200.
YMV, on the wide end sharpness might be there unless one goes for the newer lenses.You have all FX glasses...do it.
If you're shooting in a controlled/studio environment, I agree, not a problem. What about if you're shooting action/street/event, where you only get one chance to get the shot? If you get something in your image that you don't want, it just means you'll have to fix it in PP, which means added workflow. In the film days, you had to get the shot right, in camera and I still believe that's the best approach. Now don't get me wrong, I love working in Photoshop as it really opens up the creativity. I'm not as crazy about fixing stupid mistakes that should've been shot correctly, very tedious and boring, unless I'm being highly compensated for it.it only means you capture a little more than you thought you did. don't see how that's a problem, and either way the viewfinder is bigger and brighter.
If you're shooting in a controlled/studio environment, I agree, not a problem. What about if you're shooting action/street/event, where you only get one chance to get the shot? If you get something in your image that you don't want, it just means you'll have to fix it in PP, which means added workflow. In the film days, you had to get the shot right, in camera and I still believe that's the best approach. Now don't get me wrong, I love working in Photoshop as it really opens up the creativity. I'm not as crazy about fixing stupid mistakes that should've been shot correctly, very tedious and boring, unless I'm being highly compensated for it.
RL
In the film days, you had to get the shot right, in camera and I still believe that's the best approach. Now don't get me wrong, I love working in Photoshop
In the Nikon line of film cameras the "F" models always had 100% coverage viewfinders while the consummers line always had about 95% or something close to that.
Is there such a thing as a "consumer" full-frame dSLR???
Sell the D300 only, add some money and move that up to the 700, and use the 90 as a secondary body.
You could do a lot in the darkroom. Certainly cropping and dodging and burning was easy, small retouches were done too. I always adjusted the contrast and exposure too.
In the Nikon line of film cameras the "F" models always had 100% coverage viewfinders while the consummers line always had about 95% or something close to that.