Have a decision to make...stuck in a dilemma

[MichaelM]

After a recent trip out to shoot small birds, I have come to the conclusion that I need to replace the D2X. When shot side by side with the D300 the D2X's AF isn't up to snuff...After shooting the D300 with an outstanding keeper rate on such small spastic birds, the D2X just couldn't keep up. It's on ebay right now and will sell by tomorrow.

So what to do... what to do...

I much prefer shooting with two bodies. The D300's crop factor is key in birding and I will keep that body...it's king of Nikon's DX line now and who know what will follow in DX, if anything. But that's not the issue, DX is in no way dead.

The gross majority of my imaging makes use of the crop factor. But the clean high ISO of the D700 and D3 certainly offer huge benefit as well, though neither have cropped sensors (both will shot in pseudo DX mode, al beit at half the resolution).

Make life simple and add a second D300? Settings and controls could be exactly the same; it's a proven commodity; prices have plummeted and and they can be had for little more than I will fetch from the D2X. But my shooting style is still evolving and I wonder if one is to have two bodies should they be complimentary or redundant?

Add a D700? At nearly twice what the D300 and grip would cost, it requires some thought. It has the same AF engine as the D3, similar if not the the same clean high ISO; shares the grip and all other accessories with the exception of the eyepiece (my D2X eye cup and Rt Angle finder fit); Controls are nearly the same as the D300; it lacks the crop factor of the DX bodies... pro and con... makes all my lenses a bit more flexible, trades off higher ISO for focal length. Seems like a better idea than a second D300 since they will compliment each other well.

...however...the cost of a D700 plus grip is just about what a clean, pre-owned D3 will cost. And, I know I will miss the D2X's pro body ergonomics. If I add a D700, I will forever lust after the D3. It sports dual CF slots; higher frame rate; Higher in-spec max ISO and all the other goodness of the D700, with the same shortcomings (so few) and it's in the body I have come to love. Con? Pre-owned.. No warranty..

If Nikon would give us a pro-bodied DX there would be no problem...but alas, who knows what lies in the future.

So WWBPND? (What would BirdPhotog.Net do?)

D300 / D300

D300 / D700

D300 / D3

[John Chardine]

You've obviously thought about this Michael. I would suggest either a single FF or if you need two bodies, a complementary system Dx and FF. I have such a system in Canon- 50D and 5D and it works great. Each can work for the other if a breakdown occurs (and more-so the D700/300 combo as they are both modern bodies) but each has features that the other doesn't.

I can tell you that there are tremendous advantages to FF that extend far beyond just good high ISO noise performance (out of camera IQ, wide angle lenses to name two) and the costs as far as reach are minimal in my testing (have a look at this thread):

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.php?t=27083

The only thing that might temper my enthusiasm for FF is if I owned a significant crop of Dx lenses.

[MichaelM]

You've obviously thought about this Michael. I would suggest either a single FF or if you need two bodies, a complementary system Dx and FF. I have such a system in Canon- 50D and 5D and it works great. Each can work for the other if a breakdown occurs (and more-so the D700/300 combo as they are both modern bodies) but each has features that the other doesn't.

I can tell you that there tremendous advantages to FF that extend far beyond just good high ISO noise performance (out of camera IQ, wide angle lenses to name two) and the costs as far as reach are minimal in my testing (have a look at this thread):

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.php?t=27083

The only thing that might temper my enthusiasm for FF is if I owned a significant crop of Dx lenses.

John thanks... Much thought, yes. And Paralysis by Analysis as well.

I have to say that in the moments of positive mental clarity, the D300/D700 combo wins, with those rogue moments that lust prevails and I think it should be D300/D3. I shoot little to no wide angle so that is not an issue...more loss of crop (i'll read your link, thank you). Of the nine lenses I own, only one is DX.

[Tony Whitehead]

I don't think you've missed any important issues here, Michael. I use the D300/D700 combo and find they complement perfectly. I got the D700 mainly for stage/indoor work but find I am using it more and more for birds, to the point that it is my first choice unless I am needing all the reach I can get. Moving between the D300/700 combo would be easier than the D300/D3 would be easier IMO.

[Robert O'Toole]

I agree with Tony.

My current set up is D300/D700 and I am very happy with it. The only advantage I see with a D3 is the larger buffer (esp with the buffer upgrade). People find it very unusual that I am a "pro" and I dont use the "pro" D3, I find the numbers of hobby photographers shooting with D3s amusing. I think you should use what every body allows you to fulfill your artistic vision and dont get caught up with the status symbolism of a pro body.

In 2008 my D300/D700 combo has delivered beyond my expectations without a single problem.

Robert

[Marc Mol]

Hi Michael
I went through your same dilemma. I eventually chose option#1: D300 + D300.
But then I go to Africa quite often, and require 2 bodies, mainly for 2 reasons. First is the backup factor and second the dust factor, whereby I have the 200-400VR on one body and on the backup either the 17-55 or (mostly) the 70-200VR. I just preferred the 1.5 crop factor.
Just my 2c.
Cheers
Marc

[MichaelM]

I agree with Tony.

My current set up is D300/D700 and I am very happy with it. The only advantage I see with a D3 is the larger buffer (esp with the buffer upgrade). People find it very unusual that I am a "pro" and I dont use the "pro" D3, I find the numbers of hobby photographers shooting with D3s amusing. I think you should use what every body allows you to fulfill your artistic vision and don't get caught up with the status symbolism of a pro body.

In 2008 my D300/D700 combo has delivered beyond my expectations without a single problem.

Robert

Thanks Robert, I appreciate your response.

Frankly, considering the non-deductible cost of entry for the D3, it was only in the running for two reasons... Having had the D2X, and sporting some pretty large hands, I find the ergonomics of the larger heavier body more fitting. Its' more "invisible" in my hands when shooting. Second, a pre-owned copy costs about as much as the D700/grip combo evening the playing field. Otherwise, not a chance I would have been considering it.

That said... I was feeling some sellers remorse as I boxed up my D2X to send it to it's new owner. Then I woke up..

In the short term I will either do nothing and just enjoy the D30o by itself for a while, or add the D700.

[MichaelM]

Hi Michael
I went through your same dilemma. I eventually chose option#1: D300 + D300.
But then I go to Africa quite often, and require 2 bodies, mainly for 2 reasons. First is the backup factor and second the dust factor, whereby I have the 200-400VR on one body and on the backup either the 17-55 or (mostly) the 70-200VR. I just preferred the 1.5 crop factor.
Just my 2c.
Cheers
Marc

Marc, as an amateur, I need to be sure my gear is as flexible as possible. I'm not seeing identical bodies as working for me and I am leaning towards the D700. I have one DX lens. Conceptually, having both DX & FX bodies I double my lens lineup which makes a lot more sense.

[Tim Marks]

I agree with Tony.

My current set up is D300/D700 and I am very happy with it. The only advantage I see with a D3 is the larger buffer (esp with the buffer upgrade). People find it very unusual that I am a "pro" and I dont use the "pro" D3, I find the numbers of hobby photographers shooting with D3s amusing.

I was out at a local event yesterday and ran into two full timers for the local daily papers. One of them was shooting a D300 and the other a D700. I also believe that I read in one of his books that Bob Krist shoots with a D300.

Pro indeed

Tim