D300 Vs D700

flyinglphoto

Ok I have gotten myself in a twist over my next camera upgrade.

I have the old faithful Nikon D70 and it is time to move on up.

I have looked at all the web info on the D300 and the D700.

Honestly I think they both fit the bill for the work that I do. What I need to know is which one is the best camera for the money to grow with. They both seem to be fast, versitile and handle changing light well.
I know the D700 is more expensive but is the extra cost worth it?

I would like to hear from anyone who shoots with either of these cameras.

Thanks for the input!

~Lindee

jonh68

Get the D700 if money is no object. If it is, save up for it.

swintonphoto

I'd personally get the D300. More affordable, extremely feature packed, plus has the telephoto benefits of the crop sensor. If you make a living as a landscape photographer consider the D700, otherwise, the D300 will do EVERYTHING you need. If you think both fit what you need, then you likely don't need the D700.

jonh68

A more detailed response.

In daylight and good light, they are both the same. In bad light, the D700 far outperforms the D300. It is worth the price. You may not shoot in low light, but you will find applications to take advantage of the performance. If I had the choice of a camera today, I would get the D90 over the D300.

The D300 can perform great at ISO 3200, but it smooths out detail which the D700 does not. For me, the D700 performs better than the D300. I use the D300 for wildlife and sports if it's during the day. Since getting the D700, I have found I use it more than the D300. If I had to choose between the two to give up, it would be the D300. I actually think the D700 is more versatile because it makes wide angle true wide angles and even slow lenses faster because of the high ISO performance.

geospatial_junkie

I took both out for a test run one weekend and it's not even close. You just cannot compare the chip in the D700 to the D300. Maybe I'm biased (I own a D700)... but you are comparing apples and oranges (FX and DX).

If you are going for reach (i.e. wildlife), then the D300 will serve you well (due to the DX format). If you are going for low-light capabilities and BETTER photo quality that the D700 is your camera (show me a site that says otherwise or they are the same). You are getting the EXACT same low-light and image quality as you would with the D3 in the D700 as it is the EXACT same processor.

A previous poster mentioned he got great ISO 3200 images in the D300. I've heard this before and didn't experience it at all. I found that ISO 1600 was the utmost of the limit I would shoot at with an confidence at all. Please post some examples so we can all see.

Check out my post here: http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=105902 with ISO 6400 examples from the D700 in very poor light conditions.

The D300 is an excellent camera no doubt and has terrific qualities! But there really is no comparison between the two. Shooting ISO 6400 is the same as shooting ISO 800 on a D80 and ISO 1600 on a D300. Also, the photosites on a D700 are much better at capturing detail as they are larger even though more pixels are compacted into a smaller space on the D300. In essence, the D700 shoots like a 17 MP camera even though it is a 12.1 MP camera. Its like comparing the Canon 40D to the MkIII....

I think you need to be also concerned with the amount of money you'll spend in glass between each format and how compatibile what you have already is. If you have a heavy investment in DX equipment, then maybe that is the route for you.

flyinglphoto

I appreciate the input and I went and looked at the D700 shots that were mentioned and that put it into perspective for me. I shoot quite a bit inside and at concerts and I hate flash, so it sounds like the D700 would be the smarter investment for me.

I have a feeling it is going to spoil me so much that I forget how to shoot with a low end DSLR.

When I get my new gear I will post some images to let you know how it is working out.

Thanks again!

david_h

Yes, the D300 is a great camera - I have one that I use as a backup to my full-frame Nikons.

The D700 is really special though, probably the best value in photography right now. I'd say it is 90% of the D3 at just about 50% of the price. The D700 price is also likely to reduce because of market pressure from the new 5DmarkII as well.

Since you shoot in dark places there is no question as to which would work better for you. While the D300 is much better in low light than the previous generation Nikons, the D700 blows it away.

geospatial_junkie

If you are purchasing a D700 and planning to use DX lenses, go with the D300. To really experience all the features of the D700 you really need to use a lens made for FX sensors.:D

flyinglphoto

I was actually looking into the glass that you used on those shoots. I think it was the 70-200 VR. I would love to know what other lenses you would suggest adding to my collection. I need one that would be good for portrait work too.

geospatial_junkie

You're going to get a ton of different answers regarding that!!! My opinion is something with decent reach: either a 84.. 2.8 or 105mm 2.8 or something equivalent. The 70-200 2.8 is an awesome portrait lens.

geospatial_junkie

For landscape work.. the 14-24 nikkor is simpy awesome, however very pricey. It is a very sharp lens at all apertures and really lives up to its reputation as to one of the finest lenses Nikon has made. One minor downfall is that the front glass element doesn't allow for filters because it protrudes (it's a beast). If you are a die-hard UV filter type, then you'll have to learn to be more careful with this lens (though I've never had an issue with any lens). I've had some discussion with B&W filters though, and they said that custom filters and holders for has been made in the past for this lens via special request (approx. $500.00 for filter and holder). It would have to be 5x7 inches though and thats huge. It would be nice to get a polarizer or ND filter for it. For now though, I'm just going to have to plan to be at the spot I want at the right time.

The Sigma has an f4 wide angle alternative for FX sensors (don't know anything about it though). You are giving up the f2.8 and that can be pretty valuable in other types of photography (such as weddings, indoor events, low-light, etc...). The Tokina 12-16mm f2.8 is designed for DX sensors and will not give you full FX capabilities on a D700 or D3 so it is not really an option.

Personally I use most of my filters on my 24-70mm or 70-200mm (I use this lens a ton and its just as good as the other two).

flyinglphoto

Personally I use most of my filters on my 24-70mm or 70-200mm (I use this lens a ton and its just as good as the other two).

That is funny because those are the exact 2 lenses I am planning on purchasing to get rolling with the FX format.

I have similar DX lenses and I love them so I figured I would stay with what I know.

Thanks for the advice. I will officially be broke for the next few months to buy all this crack for my addiction but I know it will be worth it in the end. I am planning on renting a D700 kit next weekend for a shoot and if all goes well I will be draining my savings to move on up in the world!

Thanks for the info on everything!

geospatial_junkie

Have fun! The 24-70mm is a real sleeper lens. It really is incredible!