Originally Posted by christian_piper
One thing- Macro photography is done using manual focus mainly- It is actually easier. (Many people will move the camera itself a few inches to focus) It is faster/m,ore reliable than autofocus in that situation......... plus you can buy old nikon macro lenses with reeaallyy high quality and just mf them!
Dont worry about autofocus when thinking about macros... MF is easier than you think. And you would still be fine with either in terms of autofocus- Locking recomposing takes almost no time- Focus, keep shutter half down recompose and shoot- Takes under a second... And I am using slow autofocus (D60 with a single AF point in the center....)
Yes, I guess you're right with regards to macro. I could just lock focus at a set amount of inches away from the front element and then move the camera until the subject was within the focus plane. I guess that would work.
Having said that though, I think I'm going to have to pass up the D700, sadly. I've had a look at the lenses available and they're just hugely expensive. Both lenses I would need to start, cost more than a D300 individually.
With the D300, to start, I'd be going with good optical quality third-party lenses, which are very reasonably priced. I'd be looking at the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 for landscape and other ultra-wide-angle shooting and the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 as a standard zoom and also for some portrait work until I get hold of the Nikon 50mm f1.4 prime.
With the D700, to replicate these focal lengths and max apertures as closely as possible, I'd need to get the Nikon AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8G ED (the 12-24mm is for DX, not FX) coming in at Â£1100 (around $2200 USD) and the Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f2.8G ED, which costs another Â£1100 ($2200 USD). These would be the only AF lenses (with the focal lengths I need) available to me for full frame (FX). There are no third-party (that I know of) lenses for the FX format, only for DX.
That's Â£2200 (around $4400 USD) on two lenses alone, ignoring filters/protectors. Even with not having to pay for the D700 for a whole year, that's still outside of my budget; a budget, I may say, that has been stretched already out of all recognition since I first thought about the move to DSLR. Having only looked at DX lenses (and decided upon third-party, with excellent optical performance for the D300) I had no idea how enormously expensive FX lenses were.
So, sadly, I think I'll have to stop any thoughts of getting the D700. Even with the buy-now-pay-next-year offer, it's just too expensive once you factor in the cost of FX lenses. If I had the cash of course, I'd get both the D300 and D700, or even look towards a D3 or even a Canon 1Ds Mark III, but if I had the cash, I wouldn't have to base my decisions on financial cost at all and would just get the best of everything...
Anyway, thanks for your help guys! I appreciate the input on the issue!
Highly-AnnoyedEdited by Highly-Annoyed - 7/18/08 at 10:26pm