Nikon D300s Vs the D700

sundanceimage · January 14, 2011

I'm looking at getting a D300s or D700. The FX sensor of the D700 seems to be the main advantage over the D300s. Is it going to produce that much better image then the DX of the D300s and is it worth the extra $500 or so?
I don't understand the technical aspecs of how camera sensors work but to me if you have a 12 MP sensor (DX) and enlarge it (FX), still maintaining the 12MP the quality is going to be less but that does not seem to be the case.

Art Scott · January 14, 2011

the quality of the D700 is in the fact that the pixels are larger and thus gives much better resolution than the DX sensor which has the same amount of smaller pixels crammed into a smaller space thus giving more noise......

To me ....yes it is....also sorta depends on what you shoot...wedding / portraits...the D700 is fantastic from what I hear....but if it is wildlife the crop sensors can be of great benefit.....on the D300s the 70-200 becomes a 105-300 ......my bigma (50-500) becomes a 75 to 750 but on the D700 the 50 to 500 is just that 50 to 500........

ziggy53 · January 14, 2011

Larger image sensors allow larger photosites and place less demand upon the lens resolution to achieve the same overall image quality. The larger photosites also have a capability to collect a larger volume of light in a given time. This, in turn, allows less random sensor noise which allows higher ISOs.

Yes, the Nikon D700 is an excellent camera and part of the reason that it is so nice is the larger image sensor.

More importantly, how is the camera going to be used? Please be as specific to your applications as possible.

ThatCanonGuy · January 14, 2011

Depends on what you want to shoot, and the lenses you have. The D700 is a one-of-its-kind camera, but the D300s can be a better choice in some situations.

sundanceimage · January 15, 2011

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

Depends on what you want to shoot, and the lenses you have. The D700 is a one-of-its-kind camera, but the D300s can be a better choice in some situations.

What situations would the D300s be better for. I do all around just about everything shooting. I work for an airline so I travel as much as I can, just came back from Dubai. This trip was a fast 3 day trip to just get a feel for things and I did mostly city photography. I plan to go back in April and will do some tours and try to do more serious scenic photography. Also I have been bitten by the HDR bug.

Matthew Saville · January 15, 2011

sundanceimage wrote: »

What situations would the D300s be better for. I do all around just about everything shooting. I work for an airline so I travel as much as I can, just came back from Dubai. This trip was a fast 3 day trip to just get a feel for things and I did mostly city photography. I plan to go back in April and will do some tours and try to do more serious scenic photography. Also I have been bitten by the HDR bug.

If you do lots of architectural stuff, then I'd say go for the D300s hands down. Your lens choices are GREAT on a crop sensor, at least for a budget and the size / weight conscious buyer. The Sigma 10-20 and Tokina 11-16 are both amazingly sharp lenses, small, light, and affordable. Especially compared to the likes of the Nikon 14-24 and 16-35 / 17-35...

Sure, get the D700 if you shoot tons of hand-held, low-light images or maybe if you shoot a lot of portraits and need the exact DOF and perspective yielded by any of the stellar f/1.4 primes. But if you're on a tripod and shooting ultra-wide architecture, I gotta say my favorite system right now is actually the D7000 and the Tokina 11-16. Can't beat the value or size / weight...

=Matt=

ThatCanonGuy · January 15, 2011

I depends how much you want to spend on lenses... for your wide-angle purposes the D700 and the 14-24 would be a really nice combo. But, the combos Matt mentioned are much more affordable. And almost as good.

sundanceimage · January 16, 2011

Thanks for all the information. I didn't totally understand that the D700 requires special lens the take advantage of the FX sensor, not to mention lens that are as much if not more than the body. So it looks like the D300 is the best fit for me ...and my bank account.

Matthew Saville · January 16, 2011

sundanceimage wrote: »

Thanks for all the information. I didn't totally understand that the D700 requires special lens the take advantage of the FX sensor, not to mention lens that are as much if not more than the body. So it looks like the D300 is the best fit for me ...and my bank account.

Actually the FX sensors don't require a "special" lens to take advantage of them; FX is the ORIGINAL size used by the 35mm film SLR camera format! It's DX sensors and DX lenses that are "special"...

;-)

Having said that, there are so many DX lenses out now that the system has become normal for many, and as far as options are concerned, the DX system is very comparable to FX. As I said before, when it comes to 2.8 zooms I often prefer the DX sensor size because of lenses like the small, light, sharp, and affordable Tokina 11-16 2.8 and Sigma 50-150 2.8. Lenses (or at least value) like that are simply not possible in the FX format.

Either way, as I said I highly recommend a D300 or D300s or D7000 as an "all around" camera for anyone who finds themselves shooting a wide variety of things. It's a great system, and even though I shoot often with the D700 and other full-frame cameras, I plan on having DX in my bag forever.

=Matt=

ThatCanonGuy · January 16, 2011

DX is the "special" format, but you can use any lens on DX bodies (right?), even FX. But with FX bodies, you can only use FX lenses, no DX lenses. I'm right, right?

(That's the way it is with Canon)

ziggy53 · January 16, 2011

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

DX is the "special" format, but you can use any lens on DX bodies (right?), even FX. But with FX bodies, you can only use FX lenses, no DX lenses. I'm right, right?

(That's the way it is with Canon)

Most, if not all, Nikon FX cameras have a DX mode so that the camera will automatically crop to DX when you use DX lenses. Nikon DX and FX lenses all use the same lens mount and the same lens register distance (unlike Canon's EF-S which is different from EF mount).

The DX mode on FX cameras does mean reduced pixel count and a smaller effective viewfinder image frame.

ThatCanonGuy · January 16, 2011

Thanks, I never knew that about Nikon. That is SO cool

sundanceimage · January 16, 2011

ziggy53 wrote: »

Most, if not all, Nikon FX cameras have a DX mode so that the camera will automatically crop to DX when you use DX lenses. Nikon DX and FX lenses all use the same lens mount and the same lens register distance (unlike Canon's EF-S which is different from EF mount).

The DX mode on FX cameras does mean reduced pixel count and a smaller effective viewfinder image frame.

That is pretty much what I gathered but Matthew indicated other wise below "Actually the FX sensors don't require a "special" lens to take advantage of them"

By take advantage of I mean use the full sensor for the full res. and pixel count.

It can't be both, which is it?

catspaw · January 16, 2011

it's the 'special' designation that people are protesting.

FX lenses are NOT special - rather, they are the norm, the standard.

it is the DX lenses that are 'special' - and yes, using one on an FX body will produce a smaller image, but they CAN be used, at least in the Nikon line, on FX bodies.

sundanceimage · January 16, 2011

catspaw wrote: »

it's the 'special' designation that people are protesting.

FX lenses are NOT special - rather, they are the norm, the standard.

it is the DX lenses that are 'special' - and yes, using one on an FX body will produce a smaller image, but they CAN be used, at least in the Nikon line, on FX bodies.

Never looked at it that way but you are right. Since this all started with 33mm SLR's and the FX is basically the 33mm format, FX is just getting back to our roots.

Since I would have to buy new lenses to get the full advantage (res., pixel count), think the D300s is the way to go and the more I read about it the more I get excited. It's one heck of a camera. For it's time my D100's were great but the D300 is a Maserati compared to my VW D100.

Just wondering. When shooting in DX mode with the D700 how will the image compare with a D300 image in quality?

Matthew Saville · January 17, 2011

sundanceimage wrote: »

That is pretty much what I gathered but Matthew indicated other wise below "Actually the FX sensors don't require a "special" lens to take advantage of them"

By take advantage of I mean use the full sensor for the full res. and pixel count.

It can't be both, which is it?

It's kinda both... ;-)

Yes, you ought to use FX lenses on FX sensors. However, as some have pointed out, Nikon is not as restricted as Canon is, so you can mount ANY DX lens on an FX body, Nikon or otherwise.

And, here's the kicker, ...you can turn off the DX auto-crop, so that you get the full FX sensor, vignetting and all. The reason? Plenty of DX lenses actually DON'T vignette if you zoom them to the right focal length. For example the Nikon 12-24 DX works great on FX if you zoom it to 17-24mm. Or, my personal favorite right now, the Tokina 11-16 2.8 works great on FX at 15mm and 16mm.

The same goes with Canon, but ONLY with third-party lenses; Canon dis-allows you from mounting any of their EF-S lenses because the mechanics might smash into each other.

So, yeah, if you have an FX body you should pretty much stick with FX lenses, however if you ALSO own a DX body, you may be able to buy certain DX lenses that work on both DX and FX if you shoot carefully.

:-)

=Matt=

sundanceimage · January 17, 2011

Matthew Saville wrote: »

It's kinda both... ;-)

=Matt=

cool, got it now, thanks. How does the D7000 compare to the D300. What are the advantage and or disadvantage of the D7000 over the D300? I know the D7000 is DX as well but I think 14 MP rather than 12 MP on the D300. Reviews seem to favor the D300. It's only a few $100 more than the D300, why did you go with the D7000 rather than the D300?

Matthew Saville · January 17, 2011

sundanceimage wrote: »

cool, got it now, thanks. How does the D7000 compare to the D300. What are the advantage and or disadvantage of the D7000 over the D300? I know the D7000 is DX as well but I think 14 MP rather than 12 MP on the D300. Reviews seem to favor the D300. It's only a few $100 more than the D300, why did you go with the D7000 rather than the D300?

Now that's a complicated question!

The D300s is a great camera in it's own right, and I would prefer it in any situation where settings like metering, exposure, and autofocus would need to be changed all the time. However in other situations, I might prefer the resolution and low-light performance of the D7000. Oh and it's important to denote that the D300s and D7000 both have dual card slots, while the original D300 and the D700 don't. Like I said, the importance of these features will depend on what you shoot etc.

=Matt=

Farmer Fred · January 19, 2011

One slight advantage of the D300s (other than saving $$$): it will shoot 7 FPS w/o an external battery grip, while the D700's top speed is 5 FPS.

sundanceimage · January 19, 2011

OK, think the D700 is out but I am considering the D7000 as well as the D300s now. Boy this is hard, to take that leap with so many great choices.

So what might I miss if I purchase the D7000 rather than the D300s. It's really hard to look at the charts and figure which is better for me. I see the D300s has a lower sensor resolution and only does 720p video but the difference between 12MP and 16MP is not that great ..is it?.

Allan FG · January 19, 2011

I would rent them and see which one you like the best. A camera body is a good sized investment for most of us so I would think that renting would be a good investment.

sundanceimage · January 19, 2011

Allan FG wrote: »

I would rent them and see which one you like the best. A camera body is a good sized investment for most of us so I would think that renting would be a good investment.

At a $100 to $150, not really an option. Most rentals are only around $25 a day but have a 4 day min. Also I am in a small town so it would have to be shipped (additional cost I'm sure) or I would need to drive 50 to 70 miles.

Good idea, wish it wouldn't work for me.

Allan FG · January 19, 2011

You should try to meet up with some local photogs and see if someone has one that they will let you play with a little.

catspaw · January 19, 2011

watch for sales/coupons - I did a 4 day 7D with BorrowLenses.com for about $70 with shipping (FedEx) including return. Watch their twitter feed.

Matthew Saville · January 21, 2011

How much do you change your camera settings and stuff? Metering, exposure, focus, etc. etc? If you switch those settings a lot, get the D300s hands down.

I'm testing the D7000 right now, side by side with the D700, and have used the D300 for the past few years. I definitely LIKE the D7000, but my shooting needs are too diverse to use the camera in every situation. Personally, I'll be waiting to see if Nikon takes their new sensor and tech advances, and puts them in a D400. I'd buy that, so I can get back my metering switch, dedicated AF-ON button, etc. etc.

If however you usually shoot the same thing, and don't jump all over the place with your camera settings etc., then I think the D7000 is REALLY the best camera on the market today.

Sorry for not making the decision much easier!
=Matt=

jonh68 · January 21, 2011

I think the one question that hasn't been asked in all this is what is going to be the use of the camera? It's all been a technical comparison. Unless there is a specific application or need, a D3100 would be able to get the job done and there would money left over for some great primes.

six2one · January 21, 2011

Matthew Saville wrote: »

How much do you change your camera settings and stuff? Metering, exposure, focus, etc. etc? If you switch those settings a lot, get the D300s hands down.

I'm testing the D7000 right now, side by side with the D700, and have used the D300 for the past few years. I definitely LIKE the D7000, but my shooting needs are too diverse to use the camera in every situation. Personally, I'll be waiting to see if Nikon takes their new sensor and tech advances, and puts them in a D400. I'd buy that, so I can get back my metering switch, dedicated AF-ON button, etc. etc.

If however you usually shoot the same thing, and don't jump all over the place with your camera settings etc., then I think the D7000 is REALLY the best camera on the market today.

Sorry for not making the decision much easier!
=Matt=

this.

i would consider the 7000 to be an upgrade to the 90, not the 300s.

my serious shooting is motorsports. and i need that single step focus mode selector switch and AF drive mode switch (and a few other things). the 300s could be considered a semi-pro crop camera. where the 7000 i would say is prosumer level. the 7000 is awesome, dont get me wrong. but you can no longer change some of the settings with that camera with one hand.

Nikon D300s Vs the D700

Comments