I'm really torn here.

Currently have a Nikon D200 which is great. I really like it and it does everything really well. The issue is that I'm getting more into photography and will be doing a few weddings where it would be practical to have a two-body setup. One with my Sigma 30mm f/1.4 lens (probably on D200) and a Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 lens on the other body (probably D300 or D700).

I believe the general concensus is that the really great primes such as the 85mm work best on full frame bodies. I've taken a load of shots with it on my D200 and they're fantastic for shallow DoF and all that, but sometimes, it's just a tad too long (around 130mm with the 1.5x crop). So in that respect, a D700 would be the perfect compliment.

But then, the D300 has just about all the other bells and whistles that are upgrades from D200 - better resolution, liveview, fantastic high ISO performance (which is my only real gripe with the D200).

So, bottom line is that whilst my heart says D700 because it would be great to have one FX body which is no doubt a fantastic bit of kit, it is twice the price of a D300 and I ask whether I can really justify it.

As I said, I'm doing two weddings end of August, and I can pick up a D200 for £800 or a D700 for £1700 on Monday when I fly back out to Berlin.

Third option is to pick up my old D70 and not buy a D200 or D300 for the time being, and just use D70 + D200.

I know it's up to me to ultimately decide. If I already had a D300 I certaintly wouldn't upgrade to the D700, but the fact I don't have decent high ISO perf which I would use and liveview which would no doubt be useful means a D300 could fit the bill. But then again, real proper full frame on the 85mm :drool:

Aaaarrrrgggghhhhhhh!

Nikon D700: Camera Test - - PopPhotoSeptember 2008

gives quite a meaningful comparison

Thanks Val

I kind of knew it all already but it does help. In a way, I'd really like the full frame with larger viewfinder and all that. But it's twice the price :confused: