D300 v D700 my opinion!

[IDB]

Having looked at the reviews on these 2 cameras and my own personal needs (portraits/landscapes) this is my view.

The D700 is best suited for Professionals who operate sometimes in low light, ie concerts and night time photography and need to push the sensor.

It is also very expensive if you want a long focal length as there is no crop factor.

Its not wise to use DX lenses as this will only give you approx 6mpx

Its not as high a resolution (in the center of an image) if you crop, this is because of pixel density.

D700 has larger viewfinder but smaller lcd panel (on top)

However it will answer most peoples needs if you are willing to spend £800 more (almost twice the price of the D300).

The D300 will only give as good IQ up to and including 800 ISO.

It has a greater selection of lenses available, at better value for money.

It gives you a crop factor which is an advantage only if you need long focul length.

The image quality is identical even at A3+

Its weighs less

Overall I am swaying towards the D300 for the above reasons. Tell me if my comments are accurate and any additional info between the two.

By no means am I saying these views are correct its just a summary of what I have seen in mags and on forums.

Thanks

Ian

 

[ignatio]

I'm a D300 user now waiting for my D700.

Besides the need for a second body the main reason is high iso capability and use of TS lenses...

Grtz
Ignatio
sightwaysphotography.com

 

[scotts11]

I would say ISO usable up to 3200 on D300 properly exposed, def sellable images at 1600.

-Scott
--

 

[Mario Giannini]

The only factor I would add is the focal length magnifyinf effect of the two sensors.

People who prefer wide-angle work will appreciate there is no focal length magnifier on the D700. People who prefer telephoto work will appreciate the 1.5 magnification factor of the D300.

With that said, I do very little telephoto work, but will stick with the D300 until someone hands me at least $2,000 of unexpected cash.

--

Everything I write is a personal opinion. Even when I quote facts, they are the facts I personally choose to accept.
http://www.pbase.com/mariog

 

[Jay Adeff]

There is a difference between the AF on the D300 and D700, but depending on what you photograph it may not matter. If you do a lot of sports, the D700 may hold an advantage in that area.

 

[Michael Oersigh]

I have just returned from staying at a 5* hötel and all 6 pros there are still using DX cameras for a wide range of shots both still and fast moving.

Lets face it does anyone in significant numbers want a 35mm dogital camera. It´s like a wrestling match we all know its not real but no one actually owns up to it.

DX is the future what else can it be.

Mike

 

[andrzejmakal]

In general you are right.
I stick with my d300 cause actually I don't see any reason to change.
But my next body will be some D5sXIIsuperduper...whatever...
Cheers
--
http://www.pbase.com/andrzejmakal/galleries
D300/D50/ZEISS25mm2.8/18-200VR/Sigma10-20/50mm1.8/85mm1.8/SB600

 

[Simon Garrett]

I assume you've read the thread on the other forum. You'll get no consensus. I think my D300 is just great, but I'm biassed; I've got a D300 and haven't got a D700. People that have just shelled out to get a D700 are bound to be a wee bit biassed the other way. So read all the posts.

The thing that intrigues me: quite a few posts in recent months talk about Full Frame being better because, well, because it's 35mm Full Frame. It needs no explanation, it's just better. With film, the bigger the better. And the only reason why (most) photographers didn't go larger than 35mm was that medium format kit was really too large for most people to carry outside the studio.

But with digital, the advantages of larger format sensors are much more mixed. There are advantages in terms of image quality, but there are also disadvantages, and even with image quality the advantages are not all one way.

When it comes to size, weight and cost - no question, DX wins hands-down. A D300 plus the excellent (though much-derided) 18-200 VR costs (in the UK) around £1300-1350. With a D700 you would need to get two lenses to cover the range, and if you get cheaper Nikkors you would pay (for D700, 24-85 and 70-300) around £2500. Twice as much for comparable quality. If you want better quality lenses (than the 18-200) you'd pay rather more. And, instead of slinging a camera and one lens over your shoulder, you would be carrying a larger camera and two larger lenses around with you. That makes every camera outing into an expedition.

I don't doubt that the D700 has advantages over the D300, but it also has significant disadvantages.

 

[allenelc]

As far as I can determine the D300 and D700 use the same CAM 3500 AF module, the same 51 points sensor array, the same SRS firmware. The only difference is that the 51 points remain in the same physical arrangement and size field which means they cover more of the sensor in the D300 than in the D700. The low light capability of the D700 may give a slight advantage in LOW LIGHT CONDITIONS ONLY, but in every other way it would seem the advantage goes to the D300 with an effectively denser sensor array because it's superimposed on a physically smaller sensor. This should allow one to use focus points farther toward the edge of the field view and allow for improved dynamic tracking of moving subjects.

AC

 

[squeamish]

The low light capability of the D700 may give a slight advantage in LOW LIGHT CONDITIONS ONLY

The D700 doesn't have any "low light capability" compared to the D300 (or the D200 or the D1 or anything else) when the mirror is down.

 

[ignatio]

I don't see any disadvantage using a fullframe digital camera except maybe the price...

But professional users don't care about the price difference between dx and fx facing the advantages...
Just my opinion.

Ignatio
sightwaysphotography.com

 

[lmpmd]

There is a difference between the AF on the D300 and D700, but
depending on what you photograph it may not matter. If you do a lot
of sports, the D700 may hold an advantage in that area.

Let's say I'm shooting HS football with a D300 and a 70-200 f2.8 in evening and using iso 1600 and stuggling to get fast enought shutter times. Now I buy a a D700 and sell my D300. My 200mm reach has now dropped considerably (I was getting 300mm equivalent cause of the crop factor with the 70-200). So if I need that reach, what lens do I buy that's fast enough. I guess I've now got to buy a 300mm f2.8 (at what expense?) to get the same reach, with no zoomability (if I only have one camera). So the camera cost me a lot, over the D300 price, and now I have the expense of the 300mm (I'm not selling the 70-200). And how much picture qualtity have I really gained? I think DX is a no-brainer here.

--
Larry

 

[JCDoss]

People who prefer wide-angle work will appreciate there is no focal
length magnifier on the D700.

I think with all the DX-based wide angle lenses available now that this argument is much less relevant than it was a few years ago. I'm using a Sigma 10-20 on a D200 with very good results.

--
JCDoss

 

[andrzejmakal]

I don't see any disadvantage using a fullframe digital camera except
maybe the price...
But professional users don't care about the price difference between
dx and fx facing the advantages...
Just my opinion.

Ignatio
sightwaysphotography.com

For birding, crop is very nice.
regards
--
http://www.pbase.com/andrzejmakal/galleries
D300/D50/ZEISS25mm2.8/18-200VR/Sigma10-20/50mm1.8/85mm1.8/SB600

 

[Simon Garrett]

I don't see any disadvantage using a fullframe digital camera except
maybe the price...

Some minor disadvantages to FF:

1) Shallower depth of field. Sometimes this is a disadvantage, and you have to stop down about 1.5 stops more with FF (in equivalent picture-taking conditions, according to http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Optical/Depth_of_Field_01.htm .

2) Poorer quality from some lenses, as DX uses only the centre of the lens. For example, the VR 70-200 gets Highly Recommended for DX but only Recommended for FF (see http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_70-200_2p8_vr_n15/page7.asp ).

3) Diffraction: you can stop down 1 stop more on FF (better for FF) but if you are stopping down for better DoF you need to stop down 1.5 stops more, so you hit the diffraction limit sooner on FF - in this specific circumstance. But the diffraction limits (f/11 for D300, f/16 for D700) are below the sweet spot aperture of most lenses, so very often if one stops down that far it's for depth of field...

As I said, I don't doubt the IQ advantages of FF, but there are also some IQ disadvantages. And size and weight. As you say, most pros can cope with the price, but a 2:1 price difference is quite a lot for most hobby photographers.

 

[photomik]

one of the reasons why I like MF. I do not like PP work as much any more. The challenge is to shoot and be good at the instance. Sniper work. ;-)

 

[Daniel Oh]

In the past weeks I read the reviews and forums extensively. My biased (not having either camera) conclusion was that D700 was much better camera for me (indoor middle school gyms ). Almost ordered one...

...but then I woke up as I checked what it would really cost me and placed an order for D300 and the grip.

You see I have 6 lenses, but the main 3 ones are all DX. I would need to buy the 14-24, 24-70 at least...

I decided to get the grip, and wait for some AFS primes and build up a more versatile collection of lenses and wait for the D700 (or similar) to drop to below $2000 (Isn't D300 a smaller D2X with a better sensor?)

--
Daniel Oh

ps. I truly believe photography as a hobby is defined by the pleasure you get from the activity. It does not matter what equipment or results. I am a hobbyist and a very awful photographer (snapshooter is a better name) but a very happy one.

 

[squeamish]

1. You wouldn't need to buy new lenses if 5MP would be sufficient.

2. What are you shooting in a middle school gym that would utilize a 14-24? That seems wide.

 

[Jay Adeff]

But if you're shooting in really low light, like some of the skating rinks I've had to shoot in, the exposure might be 3200 ISO with f/2.8 and 1/250sec. On the D300, that's starting to look pretty bad. But on the D700, it would look a lot better, and still have the option of shooting at 6400 ISO to bump the shutter up to 1/500sec.

Let's say I'm shooting HS football with a D300 and a 70-200 f2.8 in
evening and using iso 1600 and stuggling to get fast enought shutter
times. Now I buy a a D700 and sell my D300. My 200mm reach has now
dropped considerably (I was getting 300mm equivalent cause of the
crop factor with the 70-200). So if I need that reach, what lens do
I buy that's fast enough. I guess I've now got to buy a 300mm f2.8
(at what expense?) to get the same reach, with no zoomability (if I
only have one camera). So the camera cost me a lot, over the D300
price, and now I have the expense of the 300mm (I'm not selling the
70-200). And how much picture qualtity have I really gained? I
think DX is a no-brainer here.

--
Larry

 

[lmpmd]

But if you're shooting in really low light, like some of the skating
rinks I've had to shoot in, the exposure might be 3200 ISO with f/2.8
and 1/250sec. On the D300, that's starting to look pretty bad. But
on the D700, it would look a lot better, and still have the option of
shooting at 6400 ISO to bump the shutter up to 1/500sec.

Usable iso 6400 sounds great! But how do I get the reach of a 70-200vr f2.8 lens (300 equavalent) with FF. What do I need to buy? Just crop? And what does this set me back? Sure I'd love the usable iso 6400 if that's true, but the reach issue is a big one. This is gonna cost a few pennies and If I dont want to sell my 70-200 ( price of D700 plus a new lens)?