nikon DX+500Vr Vs FX+???

Hi all,
I have a D300 and use it with a 500VR, I really loved them. To make my picture I use it 70% alone, 25% with TC14 and 5% with Tc17, never crop or do it sightly only to refine composition. I use mostly 400Iso, sometimes 200Iso or 800Iso and I push it to 1600Iso only few times per year.

Lately I feel I wish to buy an FX body mainly to improve AF and print quality (I print tipically A3+ on epson R2880) but also to try the "top gear".

So my questions:
Do you think is better in this situation a D700 / D3 or a D3x?
Do you think that an FX body used mostly with a 500+TC14 can improve my print quality over a D300+500 without Tc's?
Do you think that to have a really improvement I need also to change my 500 for a 600?

I'm sorry for my poor english...

Thanks

Massimo

A D3x is a fantastic but expensive option since it basically gives you FX at 24MP and you still get DX at 10MP. With a D3 or D700 when you need the DX crop you drop down to just 5MP.

But that said, a D300 should give you exceptional A3's and actually puts more pixels on the subject than either a D3x or D3/D700 so as long as noise doesn't become a problem at very high ISO you should be in great shape.

Note that I own a D3x, D700, and D300 and for wildlife/birds, the D300 is my choice 9 out of 10 times due to having more pixels for a given focal lengtha and shooting distance on the target (higher pixel density) while still giving excellent noise charachteristics to ISO 400 and it still holds up OK at ISO 800.

I totally agree with E.J.!!

I Just finished a wildlife photo contest and took most of my bird images with my D 300, with a Nikon 500mm f 4.0 AFS II with a Nikon 1.4x tc. Many of the better images were taken at ISO 3200. I needed a fast shutter speed in open shade conditions in late afternoon. I was very pleased with the results at the high ISOs. During the contest period I kept increasing the ISO from 800 up to 3200. I process my NEF files in Nikon Capture NX2. Until this contest I did not know that the D 300 was capable of producing such good results at these higher ISOs. Joe Smith

I use the D300 with a 600F4VR up to ISO400 and then put a D3 on for higher ISO-A3+ images are no problem with the D300

Dave

Ok, it seems that I'm right on the sweet spot of nikon wildlife & bird photography, at least when I set my D300 less or equal to iso400. Maybe I'm in a "marketing loop" here, or my wishes are more about toys that about gear.

I'm happy with my prints and I think that are good, but i'm looking for something better, if it exists.

E.J: you have D3x, D700 & D300, in some words this is my better dream! Why do you prefer D300 over D3x, for example (9/10 times?!?)? The piexl density is similar and I though that files coming from D3x are better than those coming from D300. I've read tons of opnions that put FX on higher quality comparing to DX.

Photoman4343: I dont know.... even at iso1600 I havent right DR and detail from my D300. It isn't only about noise, but I see that really I miss the good quality I have with lesser ISO's. Maybe I'm less able to use software tools on my raw!

thanks a lot

Massimo

I said that i prefer the D300 9 out of 10 times for wildlife and birds, not for everything. It's simply because that gives me a 12MP image where the D3x cropped to that (or in DX crop mode) gives me 10PM (assuming the same shooting distance). My D3x is my primary landscape camera not wildlife. The two cameras are two different tools for two different things. I use the tool that works best for me in whatever the situation is.

I think you will find the D700/D3 files significantly better in terms of dynamic range and robustness, especially at the higher ISO's. Whether or not that will translate in to better A3 prints, I can't say as other factors enter in to play. But if you need reach, then the D300 is the way to go.

OR just do as I have done and have BOTH the D300 and the D3.
I'm off to Botswana for 3 weeks next month and will be using the D3/500VR in early/late light and then change over to the D300/500VR when and IF extra reach is required.
I feel most of the time I'll have the 70-200VR on the D300.
I also purchased the 500VR & D3 for faster AF for BIF's when I'll hand hold for brief periods.

Cheers
Marc

E.J. Peiker wrote:A D3x is a fantastic but expensive option since it basically gives you FX at 24MP and you still get DX at 10MP. With a D3 or D700 when you need the DX crop you drop down to just 5MP.

But that said, a D300 should give you exceptional A3's and actually puts more pixels on the subject than either a D3x or D3/D700 so as long as noise doesn't become a problem at very high ISO you should be in great shape.

Note that I own a D3x, D700, and D300 and for wildlife/birds, the D300 is my choice 9 out of 10 times due to having more pixels for a given focal lengtha and shooting distance on the target (higher pixel density) while still giving excellent noise charachteristics to ISO 400 and it still holds up OK at ISO 800.

*****************
E.J., you indicate you use the D300 for wildlife/birds and the D3x for landscape. What do you use the D700 for? I assume it would be when you need the highest ISO.

Regarding prints from D 300 images I am looking at a 13 x 19 print right now in my family room of Cranes Lifting Off taken at ISO 1600 on my D 300. You can see the JPEG of it at Bosque Event, page two, photoman4343. I printed it uning Nikon Capture NX2 after processing the NEF file in NX2. I do not use Photoshop.

As far as I am concerned I have been able to make acceptable large prints from NEF files on D 300 images up to ISO 3200. Large to me is 13 x 19.

Joe Smith

I agree with E.J on D3x for landscape!!!

I am not sure about D300 but I certainly miss the fast shutter speed on D3.

I am just wondering if D300s will be as fast as D3 if its equipped with the Battery pack + D3 battery. Does anyone have any idea on this?

All inputs are appreciated and thank you all in advance!!!

Regards,
WW

The D300s will do 7 FPS without the battery pack and 8 FPS with the pack-plenty fast enough either way

Dave