From D300 to D700

Dennis Worrall · Nov 30, 2009

Hi, I am at the point of buying the D700, I currently use the D300 and I would like to know from those who have made the same change just how much better the D700 is in its all round image quality, I know it has much better high ISO capability but I want to know about all the settings. I am sure that this has cropped up before but this is my first post in this forumn, All info gratefully received from those with user experience not just reviews. Dennis.

Jack Bishop · Nov 30, 2009

I went from the D300 to the D700 for its better high ISO performance and am quite satisfied; however if I didn't need this feature I would have been more than satisfied with the D300. As far as IQ is concerned, I can find no appreciable differences. There are other features that are nice to have, but IMHO not worth the added cost. I also lost the use of my 18-200 which was my work horse on the D300. This lens is the best walk around lens in the NIkon arsenal in my opinion. In addition, I had to replace my 12-24 with the 14-24 which set me back another $1200.00. If you don't absolutely have to have one of the features, keep what you've got and go shoot.

Joseph O. Holmes · Nov 30, 2009

My own experience is that there's very little visible difference in image quality. I did some tripod, side-by-side shots before I sold the D300 and except for the ISO benefits, I couldn't see any difference. (Those shots looked to me like the D700 had about 1 2/3 stop improvement in ISO quality.)

Of course the D700 has advantages and disadvantages outside the questions of ISO and image quality -- I love going back to full frame, and I like the shallower depth of field at similar apertures. The D300's set of focus points fills the frame much farther out toward the edges, though, which I miss.

-=-Joe
--
http://portfolio.streetnine.com/index.html
daily photo at http://joesnyc.com/index.html

harold1968 · Nov 30, 2009

I had a D300s

1. dynamic range
2. better and smoother pixel level detail

3. ISO 3200 for D700 is same as ISO 400 on a good day and ISO 800 on a bad day for the D300s

4. I kinda of liked the dual card of the D300s - but i guess you won't miss what you didn't have

5. Settings are mostly the same. On the D300s i had auto D-lighting on all the time, on the D700 just when I have large contrast with dark bits outdoors. The dynamic range is a bit better.

6. Many of the filters in capture NX2 work better on the D700, due to detail retention

will you find the difference light and day ? If you look at pixel level detail yes, if you don't, except for ISO, you might take time to appreciate.

Lastly, extra wide angle and a smaller DOF plain is great

Dennis Worrall said:
Hi, I am at the point of buying the D700, I currently use the D300 and I would like to know from those who have made the same change just how much better the D700 is in its all round image quality, I know it has much better high ISO capability but I want to know about all the settings. I am sure that this has cropped up before but this is my first post in this forumn, All info gratefully received from those with user experience not just reviews. Dennis.

mtsullivan · Nov 30, 2009

my main reason too was high ISO performance, which is amazing up to 4000.

I don't regret making the change!

--
m.t.
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mtsullivan/

Carsten Thomsen · Nov 30, 2009

Switched about 18 months ago. I miss the convenience of the D300 with 18-200. I don't like the weight of the D700 with its heavier glass. BUT, Files are smoother and cleaner and can tolerate an amazing amount of postprocessing, I regularly see up to 2 stops highlight headroom that I can recover. Also you don't have the D300 grainyness in the sky on at the lower ISOs.

I was frustrated in the start due to the step down in convenience. But the D700 grows on you. There are just so many cases where it absolutely "nails it" in terms of focus, sharpness, lighting etc. The extra high ISO performance is a plus, and no amount of VR in the wider DX lens will help stop the action

Finally, not having the 18-200 "all in one lens" means that I had to back off and learn to use compose using the 24-70. That has been a good discipline, and has led to a lot more interesting compositions. I discovered that with long reach zoom, I ended up zooming way to often, getting un-interesting shots.

Previously I had always suffered from "upgrade-itis", moving quickly from one model to the next (D70, D200, D300). Now I'm happy, and am not even tempted by the prospect of the D3s in a D700 house.

Carsten

alijan · Nov 30, 2009

Colour and overall image quality I found to be about the same. I find the D700 has a more silky and pleasant looking overall rendition - this might be due to using the Nikkor 24-70 f2.8, but I find similar qualities using the 50mm f1.8

Yes there is better higher iso performance with regard to noise but don't forget the higher the iso the less effective dynamic range - at least that's how it looks to me.

And of course, I find it great to have the focal lengths having the field of view as intended without any crop factor

Kabe Luna · Nov 30, 2009

...of image quality, the D700 is better. Functionally, you may miss the D300's 100% viewfinder, broader AF-area coverage and locking CF door. If I didn't need to use ISOs above 1000, and had existing DX lenses, I'd stick with the D300.

Dennis Worrall said:
Hi, I am at the point of buying the D700, I currently use the D300 and I would like to know from those who have made the same change just how much better the D700 is in its all round image quality, I know it has much better high ISO capability but I want to know about all the settings. I am sure that this has cropped up before but this is my first post in this forumn, All info gratefully received from those with user experience not just reviews. Dennis.

--
- -
Kabe Luna

http://www.garlandcary.com

Petruska · Nov 30, 2009

for what you shoot? If not then you probably won't be too happy spending that chunk of cash on a new D700 as you won't see much difference IQ wise at lower ISOs.

If you need the higher ISO perforamnce then yes go for the D700, otherwisw I would wait for the D800 which would most likely come out in a few months that should have something special over the D300/D700.

eNo · Nov 30, 2009

Joseph O. Holmes said:
...I like the shallower depth of field at similar apertures.

Please clarify this for me. If I have a DX camera and an FF one, and use the same lens on both cameras set to the same aperture, and keep camera-to-subject and subject-to-background distances the same, how would I get different DOF? I know I would get a different FOV (Field of View) due to DX cropping, but the lens physics and camera-subject-background relationships remaining the same should give me the same DOF... or what am I missing?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's easy to argue about equipment, but hard to argue with a good photograph.

Gallery and blog: http://esfotoclix.com
Special selections: http://esfotoclix.imagekind.com
Flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/22061657@N03

harold1968 · Nov 30, 2009

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/digitaldof.html

eNo said:
Joseph O. Holmes said:

...I like the shallower depth of field at similar apertures.

Click to expand...

Please clarify this for me. If I have a DX camera and an FF one, and use the same lens on both cameras set to the same aperture, and keep camera-to-subject and subject-to-background distances the same, how would I get different DOF? I know I would get a different FOV (Field of View) due to DX cropping, but the lens physics and camera-subject-background relationships remaining the same should give me the same DOF... or what am I missing?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's easy to argue about equipment, but hard to argue with a good photograph.

Gallery and blog: http://esfotoclix.com
Special selections: http://esfotoclix.imagekind.com
Flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/22061657@N03

YYZ Research · Nov 30, 2009

The DOF is a matter of the lens, only. In the conditions you say, the DOF will be the same. Many people are confused because to obtain the same FOV with a FF (versus a DX) you must be nearer the subject, giving a narrower DOF. The sensor has nothing to do with DOF except for the marginally pixel width and circle of confusion.
--
Miquel

eNo · Nov 30, 2009

harold1968 said:
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/digitaldof.html

Which makes this misleading statement: "For an equivalent field of view, a Canon APS-C crop sensor camera has at least 1.6x MORE depth of field that a 35mm full frame camera would have - when the focus distance is significantly less then the hyperfocal distance (but the 35mm format needs a lens with 1.6x the focal length to give the same view)."

I say misleading, and not false, because I know what he wants to say, which is "if you step back with a DX camera to obtain the same FOV."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's easy to argue about equipment and technique, but hard to argue with a good photograph -- and more difficult to capture one .

Gallery and blog: http://esfotoclix.com
Special selections: http://esfotoclix.imagekind.com
Flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/22061657@N03

Mark den Hartog · Nov 30, 2009

I came from film went to cropped sensors.

Somehow the lens focal length is more clear, even though I shot for 5 years with fuji's and Nikon's DX format Going to the D700 made feel back home

I rarely used my 80-200 on DX now I need it for the extra reach but it makes more sense

I now can identify the lens I need more clearly. hope this makes sense : )

a bigger viewfinder.
Less chance on camera shake blurring your picture.
being able to use the 14-24

is superb.

missing on length though!

Joseph O. Holmes · Nov 30, 2009

I'll leave the DOF discussion to others.

But here's another point about D300 vs. D700 -- don't think that better high-ISO quality matters only to those who shoot at night or in the dark.

For everyday shooting, including in sunlight, I have no hesitation to routinely set my D700 at ISO 400, or even 800. What this means is, I'm now shooting at a smaller aperture if I need or want, or at a higher shutter speed if that's what I like. It means I spend a lot less time fretting about whether my shutter speed is high enough to eliminate motion blur, or my aperture is small enough to be where my lens is the sharpest.

I've used ISO 800 when shooting with a set of three Nikon flashes, because I wanted to stop down to f/16 and f/22 for greatest DOF.

I've shot portraits at ISO 800 and they've come out looking terrific. I've shot in concert settings at ISO 1600 and 3200 and come home with fantastic images.

In short, having great image quality at ISO 400 and 800 means that my camera is a little more transparent for me, a little less frustrating. And that's a difference I feel all day, every day.

-=-Joe
--
http://portfolio.streetnine.com/index.html
daily photo at http://joesnyc.com/index.html

eNo · Nov 30, 2009

That's interesting. I wonder why the D300 would be more detailed since they roughly have the same number of MP (12)? Is it because the D300's photosites are closer together?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's easy to argue about equipment and technique, but hard to argue with a good photograph -- and more difficult to capture one .

Gallery and blog: http://esfotoclix.com
Special selections: http://esfotoclix.imagekind.com
Flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/22061657@N03

YYZ Research · Nov 30, 2009

I own both; first the D300 and a year later a D700. The D700 has about two stops of high ISO noise advantage and, obviously, a wider FOV. At low ISO, the D300 is sometimes noisy and this is not happening to the D700. Overall, subjectively, the D700 has better image than D300. Both are great machines.

Another question are the lenses you use. Better, faster, lenses give you more than two stops of light and more image definition (sharpness). Now, I think that I would buy better glass first.
--
Miquel

YYZ Research · Nov 30, 2009

The D300 have a narrow FOV per pixel; more angular resolution.

--
Miquel

Dennis Worrall · Nov 30, 2009

Hi everyone,

Many thanks to you all for your considered opinions, I have absorbed the info and I liked the 'less noisy skies ' of the D700 and also the little morre dynamic range of the D700 I also liked the one that said 'slightly smoother images' all these are important to me, thanks. Some time back I got embroiled in a real dogfight when I supported the view by a lady who had bought the D300 for pro. portrait work and was dismayed by the amount of noise she could see even at iso 200, I nearly had to move house, but I still feel that the D300 is a superb camera but that the files are on the noisy side but not disastrously so. The larger sensor with the same amount of pixels should cure this, so I will be joining the D700 owners shortly. Best wishes Dennis.

Mark Burnham · Nov 30, 2009

I got my D700 for hi iso performance, and it works great for that. But, I have found that my D700 images are cleaner than my D300 images even at base iso. I have kept my D300 because I don't know of a cost effective alternative to D300+TC14+300 f/4. The equivalent FOV on my D700 is way to expensive for me. This is pretty much the only situation where I still use the D300.
--
-Mark

From D300 to D700

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Well-known member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Member

Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts