I can't imagine wanting to shoot video at all - would only end in tears re. facebook and my drunken behaviour!

I do definitely want full frame, because I do portraits, and I do think it makes a difference where that's concerned - the quality of tone is so gorgeous with full frame - but I'm in no burning rush - portraits are equally possible (and equally lovely) with even the D80 - so I think for now the D300 would be the way to go, and go for the next full frame up from the D700 when it's released!

xx

Having had the D70s-D200 and now the D300, the D300 is far superior to my previous cameras. As for the difference between the D300 and the D700 it depends wher your comming from. Having read reports on this very subject the journalists came to the conclusion that if you already own a D300 then changing up to the D700 isn't worth it. However comming from a lower speck like the D200 or lower priced models then the conclusion was to go for the D700 if one could afford the price difference.

Personally I am totally happy with the D300 and should I wish to go down the movie road then I would be looking at a dedicated camera designed especially for that purpose.
The D300 really has everything one could wish for.
The huge difference I found ,as already stated in a previous post, was comming out of the menu into button/dail setup for the main camera modes.

As for full frame I don't really understand what all the excitement is about, it all depends on which lens you use, you can get exactly the same picture on a D300 using a wide angle lens as you can on a D700 using a narrower lens, so not only have to change your camera but also have to change your exisiting lenses to accommodate full frame. The cost would be enormous.

Stick with the D300 and use your existing lenses and save your money.

Bazza

It's interesting that the D70, and D70s particularly are held in such high regard. If you follow some of the other photography forums they are in high demand and still in much use. I did say that the 300 was a better camera based on a combination of things but certainly not just IQ. In fact I always thought the D70s had better IQ besides build quality than the D80 but not the D300. The D70 is more contrasty I think but the D80 na little more unpredictable with exposure. Concensus seems to be here get the D300 which I have and enjoy very much. Choose any further lenses carefully ready for a step to full frame which we know is coming.

That was one of the points I made Bazza - I have been deliberately buying non DX lenses - because I plan to go full frame. I do think it's where the future of cameras will go anyway - but whether or not it is, it's definitely something I want to look to. I've handled a few full frame cameras, and I really like them.

The other option was to return to film - I am also very interested in getting an F5 or F6... but we'll see - it's the processing costs that put me off - though I am also enchanted by the idea of having my own dark room (laziness, space etc put me off that! )

Thanks for the input though guys, all very useful.

xx

ETA - just to add - the DX lenses I do have came with the camera, and are not lenses I rate that highly anyway! any lenses I have bought myself have been non DX.

How many lenses do Nikon make in the FX format?

Bazza

I have no idea - but was under the impression that all lenses made for 35mm SLR Nikons were also full frame suitable. Certainly, I know the Sigma I have, the 50mm and the macro are all full frame fine.

xx

ETA - this link could answer your question:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_F...l_Focus_Primes

Laura
Like everything else you need to look beyond the main purchase and find out what is available and suitable for a FF camera. Don't get me wrong ,I have nothing against FF cameras its just that I am very happy with my D300 and can't see any reason to upgrade.
In your case going from a D80 to a D300/700 is a personal choice, its just that I can't see any reason for spending out all that extra money on a D700.

bazza

Because the quality of the photos produced with a D700, especially for portraiture, is so much better. The ability to perform in very low light situations is a massive thing for me, as I currently do a fair bit of local band photography, and photographsof live music for pubs etc.

xx

This is a bit weird, I thought the step to a D700 was worthwhile which is why I was advocating it but you seem to be going for a D300, the advantages of which are lesser. That last post you made Laura seems to suggest the D700 is the way to go, push the boat out now and keep it for a couple of years. It's around £700 difference, not a massive amount of money.

I think sometimes we forget many of the best photos through the years were taken on cameras less quality than a compact!

Nope, I don't see the point in full frame either!!

The D300 is great in low light, and I don't think I could justify spending any more than that on a camera body. Everything I've read pretty much says that the D300 is basically a DX format D700, there's not a hell of a lot of difference in image quality. To go that extra mile, you'd need one of the serious pro cameras like a D3 or D3X.