Upgrading - to D300s or D700?

MtBikesAndtheRest

Hello,

I'm fairly new here and have been reading my way around. I hope this is the right place to ask - I'm currently using a D80 and I'm thinking about upgrading. But I'm not sure how "big" I should upgrade. I've been taking serious pictures for 1-2 years now.
I shoot a lot of mountain biking and would like to sell a couple of the shots next to my ordinary job in due time. I would concentrate on mountain biking and portraits. So definetely not a pro, but willing to invest for the future. I don't need a zoom very often - mostly I am positioned very close to the object or the trail:

I shoot in the woods a lot and am not happy with the ISO of the D80 for shots like these:

I looked at a couple of comparisons of the D80 and D300 and feel like my pictures look dull and unsharp in comparison. The video function of a 300s would be "nice" but not a must. Since I ride my bike to most of the spots I appreciate a small, light camera but the difference between the two is not substantial enough (one is 880-ish grams, the other 950g). Same goes for size. If I need a small, light camera I could still take my D80... Anyhow I would like to stick with something that will keep me happy for a fair amount of time into the future.

Here's the rest of my equipment:
- Sigma 24-60mm 2.8 EX DG D
- Tokina 11-16 2.8 (IF) DX (I guess I would need to scrap that one for a full frame?)
- Nikon DX 18-135mm 3.5-5.6 (same)
- SB 900
- PocketWiz Plus II

Would I really need to replace two of the lenses if I decide against a DX?
If you like you can see more of my shots here: http://photo.morgi.ch

What would you recommend? Any experience with the cameras? Did I miss out on a model you would see as more fitting?

Thanks for any opinions!
Linda

InsuredDisaster

You know, I've got a D300 and I'm putting full frame on the table for my next upgrade. I've also got a couple of wide angle lenses, the Sigma 10-20 and the Nikon 10.5. My plan is NOT to toss the D300 or upgrade the DX wide angles but simply use the D300 with the wide angles until they fall apart, and then I'll get FX lenses. I think you might be able to use the D700 with non DX lenses, and whip out the 80 if you are shooting with one of your really wide angle lenses. Something to consider. This will also give you a two body flexibility/redundancy. Also, doesn't the D700 have some DX mode, same as the D3? So you probably can still use the DX lenses on the D700 anyway.


Also, I know rumors don't mean much, but the D300 has been upgraded (the D300s), the D3 has also been upgraded, (x and s) so I think it is a given that the D700 will also be upgraded soon. Its a long time to wait I think, but if you desire video, I would bet that the D700 successor will have it.

Qarik

Since you are doing sport related shots then I would say stick to D300s (otherwise a D90 would fit the bill). The autofocus is much more robust. You can use your tokina from 14.5mm to 16mm on a D700 in full frame. The D700 also allows you to shoot DX lens but with reduced pixel count. Frankly I don't see a compelling reason to get the D700 except for the low light capability. The d300s will give you about 1.5-2 stops more usable iso over your d80.

If I were taking my camera on bike rides though..hehe..I would never bring a D700.

borrowlenses.com

The D300 and D700 are basically the same except for crop versus full-frame. Since you're shooting sports, and already have DX lenses, the D300(s) would probably be the way to go. It's Auto-focus is extremely good, but it also helps if you have good glass too

jonh68

I have a D700 and D300. IF i had to choose between the two, I would pick the d700. Unless you will be doing a great amount of field sports, the D700 is the better camera. Yes, its true the only major difference between the two is ISO performance. For me, that is a huge difference between the two. It can open up new photo opportunities.

As a sports camera, the AF of the D700 is better than the D300. I have read the AF is improved on the D300s so they may be equal in that regard. I use my D300 when I have to shoot field sports or wildlife in good light. For my goto camera though, the D700 is it.

MtBikesAndtheRest

Thanks for your input. Let me add a couple of things:
- I work with prefocusing during action shots. - Do I need the advantage of the newer and better autofocus of the 300s then?
- Few of you have mentioned image quality. What about it and the two cameras?
- Weight and size will always be an issue when lugging the camera to a shooting site. In the end it boils down to: is it worth carrying the extra weight for the added quality in shots? => I answer that with yes. And if the improved ISO capabilities allows me to leave the flash equipment out of the bag - suddenly the total weight of the backpack is reduced dramatically.
- Yes, I agree it would be nice to wait for the D700 replacement - only question is: how long's the wait? I'm going to decide by July the latest. But I've checked some sites: no D700 on stock.
- I do some portrait photography in- and outdoor as well.

With all this said I'm leaning slightly towards the D700 - the main points keeping me from it is the price difference and my lens collection I would need to "dump" or renew for the D700...

PS:
Does anyone know where I could find more comparisons of the d300s with the d700 like these?
http://www.neutralday.com/nikon-d700-against-nikon-d300-full-frame-matters/
http://mansurovs.com/nikon-d300-vs-d80-high-iso-noise-comparison

Tharhawk

I wish I could answer your questions, but I only have had the d200 and the d700. I really use my camera in the outdoors, too. It's been frozen, dipped in water, rained on, dropped on the ground, pavement, mud and it still works like a champ. No issues. I've taken the d700 on week long mountaineering trips and have pretty much had it with me for the past year everywhere i went, including on the water. That's probably 275 days out of the last year, all outdoors backpacking. Hope that helps. One reason I went with the d700 is because I knew that I'd eventually want to have a full frame.

cab.in.boston

jonh68 wrote: »

the AF of the D700 is better than the D300. I have read the AF is improved on the D300s so they may be equal in that regard.

I'm no expert, but just going by specs, the D300 appears to be exactly the same as the D300s. From Nikon's website:

D300 AF:
"TTL phase detection, 51 focus points (15 cross-type sensors) by Nikon Multi-CAM 3500DX autofocus module; Detection -1 to +19 EV (ISO 100 at 20 degrees C/68 degrees F); AF fine adjustment possible. Focal-plane contrast [in LiveView (Tripod) mode]"

D300s AF (identical):
"TTL phase detection, 51 focus points (15 cross-type sensors) by Nikon Multi-CAM 3500DX autofocus module; Detection -1 to +19 EV (ISO 100 at 20 degrees C/68 degrees F); AF fine adjustment possible. Focal-plane contrast [in Live View (Tripod) mode]"

And for what it's worth, here's the D700:
"Autofocus TTL phase detection, 51 focus points (15 cross-type sensors) by Nikon Multi-CAM 3500FX autofocus module; Detection: -1 to +19 EV (ISO 100 at 20°C/68°F); AF fine adjustment possible. AF-assist illuminator (range approx. 1.6-9.8 ft./0.5-3.0m)"

So they call the module in the D300/s Multi-CAM 3500DX and in the D700 it's Multi-CAM 3500FX. I have no idea if there is any actual difference in those two systems other than DX vs. FX. Perhaps the AF works better on the D700 simply because the sensor is more sensitive due to the larger photosites, which is of course why the ISO performance is better, and is the main reason the D700 is "better" than the D300/s. But I don't think the main sensor is in use for AF, is it? I don't know, maybe it is. I really don't know how AF works.

I would think that for sports shooting, the D300s would be better for two reasons. The first is a higher frame rate (7 fps vs. 5 fps on D700) however both bodies can shoot 8 fps when using the MB-D10 battery grip, but that of course adds more weight which may be undesirable when carrying the camera around on a bike. The second is the crop factor which gives more reach from the same lenses, and that is usually a bonus for sports.

On re-reading the OP, I guess I'd probably say go for the D700 if funding allows. If you're shooting mostly biking events as opposed to brightly lit ballfields (and one of the pics you include is in fairly dark conditions), then the lower noise of the larger sensor probably would come in handy. And for portraits, I think it's a given that the full frame D700 is superior to the D300s. This means trading off on that higher (non-battery grip) frame rate and also that you may need some new lenses, but if you can swing it, it's probably the better camera for you.

Qarik

Although they appear to have very similar AF modules, the D3 AF is slightly "better" then the D700. The D700 is slightly "better" then the D300(s).

Enitsugua

cab.in.boston wrote: »

I'm no expert, but just going by specs, the D300 appears to be exactly the same as the D300s....So they call the module in the D300/s Multi-CAM 3500DX and in the D700 it's Multi-CAM 3500FX. I have no idea if there is any actual difference in those two systems other than DX vs. FX.

Camera processor speed will affect how fast the AF works. Not sure if the processor got an upgrade in the D300s. The D700 has a faster processor than the D300. It outperforms the D300 for focusing (especially for sports). Again, not sure if the D300s is now up to the same processor speed as the D700 or not.

cab.in.boston wrote: »

I would think that for sports shooting, the D300s would be better for two reasons. The first is a higher frame rate (7 fps vs. 5 fps on D700) however both bodies can shoot 8 fps when using the MB-D10 battery grip, but that of course adds more weight which may be undesirable when carrying the camera around on a bike.

Higher frame rate is not dependent on the motor drive. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG5UKwgGRJI. Of course, without the motor drive, you get 9 frames in a burst at the higher rate. With it, you get up to 40.

jeffreaux2

Linda,

Ill leave the suggestions on gear to those here that shoot Nikon. As you know, I am in the other camp.:D

I did want to comment on your photographs though...and especially on the use of the off camera flash in some of them, as it really adds something dynamic to those images.

...I will add this though...

You remember that big beast of a white lens I had? The stabilized 70-200 F2.8?

I use it FAR more than I ever would have imagined.

Nikon's are of course...black...but still, they focus super fast, and when used at large apertures add the bonus of nicely blurred backgrounds and isolated subjects. A nice trick....even if it forces you to position yourself farther from the action to be able to use it.

jonh68

cab.in.boston wrote: »

I'm no expert, but just going by specs, the D300 appears to be exactly the same as the D300s. From Nikon's website:

D300 AF:
"TTL phase detection, 51 focus points (15 cross-type sensors) by Nikon Multi-CAM 3500DX autofocus module; Detection -1 to +19 EV (ISO 100 at 20 degrees C/68 degrees F); AF fine adjustment possible. Focal-plane contrast [in LiveView (Tripod) mode]"

D300s AF (identical):
"TTL phase detection, 51 focus points (15 cross-type sensors) by Nikon Multi-CAM 3500DX autofocus module; Detection -1 to +19 EV (ISO 100 at 20 degrees C/68 degrees F); AF fine adjustment possible. Focal-plane contrast [in Live View (Tripod) mode]"

And for what it's worth, here's the D700:
"Autofocus TTL phase detection, 51 focus points (15 cross-type sensors) by Nikon Multi-CAM 3500FX autofocus module; Detection: -1 to +19 EV (ISO 100 at 20°C/68°F); AF fine adjustment possible. AF-assist illuminator (range approx. 1.6-9.8 ft./0.5-3.0m)"

So they call the module in the D300/s Multi-CAM 3500DX and in the D700 it's Multi-CAM 3500FX. I have no idea if there is any actual difference in those two systems other than DX vs. FX. Perhaps the AF works better on the D700 simply because the sensor is more sensitive due to the larger photosites, which is of course why the ISO performance is better, and is the main reason the D700 is "better" than the D300/s. But I don't think the main sensor is in use for AF, is it? I don't know, maybe it is. I really don't know how AF works.

I would think that for sports shooting, the D300s would be better for two reasons. The first is a higher frame rate (7 fps vs. 5 fps on D700) however both bodies can shoot 8 fps when using the MB-D10 battery grip, but that of course adds more weight which may be undesirable when carrying the camera around on a bike. The second is the crop factor which gives more reach from the same lenses, and that is usually a bonus for sports.

On re-reading the OP, I guess I'd probably say go for the D700 if funding allows. If you're shooting mostly biking events as opposed to brightly lit ballfields (and one of the pics you include is in fairly dark conditions), then the lower noise of the larger sensor probably would come in handy. And for portraits, I think it's a given that the full frame D700 is superior to the D300s. This means trading off on that higher (non-battery grip) frame rate and also that you may need some new lenses, but if you can swing it, it's probably the better camera for you.

Going by the specs, the D300 and D700 should have the same AF capabilties, but they do not as I see it in practical use. The D300s is supposed to be more like the D700 but I cannot testify to that.

The d700 is my main sports camera, without the grip. It is a misconception that you need high fps for sports. AF accuracy and timing is more important. The only time I wish I had higher fps is when a player is about to catch a ball when it is difficult to time. Other than that, I have better luck with peak action anticipating rather than pray and spray.

MtBikesAndtheRest

Starting with the lenses
Everyone,

jonh68: on the fps I'm with you. Only situation I use the multiple shots is when a rider is coming at me head on.

thanks for your advice and the c&c. It looks like I will eventually get a FX camera. But I'm thinking of waiting for now - getting a Nikon ED 70-200 f2.8 first. (For shots like these for example):

And then a 14-24 f2.8 which would also allow me to use it on a full frame.
Also for my biking pictures I'm looking to get a second flash and Pocket Whizs... because some shots would just need a tiny second source of light:

That way I'm getting the most out of my D80 and have time to decide if I wanna go D700 (and by then the much awaited successor should be here). And the amount of money I'm investing doesn't change, just the order in which I spend it - but leaves all possibilities open.

What are your opinions on that?

Cheers,
Linda

InsuredDisaster

I definately think you have a good plan of action. I'm biased, as I've been on that same plan for a while now.


While I'm sure the 14-24 is a great lens, and it's one that I'm also lusting after, don't forget that you can still use the 11-16DX that you have with you D80 for a while.