|Quote, originally posted by TheHamofMam »|
|Anyone with experirence with a Nikon D700? Want to buy it for my fiance paired with a 70-200 2.8 for wildlife and schit..|
D700 is outstanding, but for wildlife (can't comment on the schit, I have little experience with that subject matter), you'd be better off with the D300s. DX format means you get a bonus 50% focal length (your 70-200 2.8 becomes an effective 105-300mm), and the D300s has the same CAM3500 AF as the D700, but the focus points cover almost the entire frame, so if your wildlife moves, it'll track almost anywhere as long as you keep the subject in the viewfinder. CAM3500 only covers the centre (DX equivalent area) of the D700 viewfinder. D300s also does HD video, D700 does not. Also agree with group3 that it would be quite heavy, especially for occasional/recreational purposes. This may not matter too much, but to get to the more interesting wildlife, you generally need to be prepared to hike to out of the way places, and a lighter rig can often make the difference between getting out there and not being bothered to haul all that weight. D700 is better (IMHO) at portraits and wide angle stuff. FX means you can go real wide (but there's also the 10-24mm for DX, which comes close to the angle of view on the 14-24mm 2.8 FX), and also means you can throw on the 50mm 1.4 and get ultra thin depth of field in portraits, which DX doesn't do as well.
If you want to shoot skittish wildlife, you'd also probably want a longer lens than the 70-200mm. The 70-300 VR is a pretty high quality lens in the 70-200mm range (almost as sharp as the 70-200, minus the faster aperture), plus you get an extra 100mm beyond that. And on a DX camera like the D300s, you are essentially getting a 105-450mm lens.
I shoot a bit of wildlife, with a D90 and the 70-300mm, and always wish I had something longer. I'm just waiting out for the 80-400mm replacement.
Modified by dkr at 7:10 PM 3-11-2010