d300 vs. d700 vs. Canon

[afowler]

Hello,

I'm looking for some camera upgrade advice.... (advanced amateur / semi-professional shooter.)

Currently shooting with an old Nikon D70 & 18-70mm DX and a 70-200 f/2.8 VR.

Subject matter is almost exclusively party/event... candids and "on-the-spot" small group poses. (Half the time with an attached SB-800, and the other times "available light" w/ pop-up flash in a dire emergency.)

The main reasons I am looking to upgrade are (in order of importance):

1) Better AF performance (speed) for candids.
2) Better High ISO for available light.

3) More resolution for when I need to center-crop my 18-70 photos. (I don't always carry the 70-200)

Upgrade options are:

1) D300 + 17-55 f/2.8 = $2728 from B&H.
2) D700 + 24-70 f/2.8 = $4098 from B&H

3) Something from Canon? (would entail the hassle of selling my 70-200 VR & SB-800, though.)

Besides it's price the D3 is not an option due to it's size and lack of built-in flash. (Don't laugh... it's really saved me a few times.)

I also briefly considered the Fuji S5 for it fabled skin tones, but have been put off by it's low resolution, non-availability, and slow speed.

So, what does spending the extra $1400 for the D700 buy me?

Is switching to Canon a sane option given my requirements? (I'm guessing not, due to reports of the Nikon's superior AF system in this price bracket.)

Thank you,
AF

 

[echelon2004]

Difficult to say really.

A D300 might be the best option for you, the 70-200 will work nicely on that, so will the Sb-800.

IF you get the D700 you'll need to get a sb-900 and pretty much hope for an updated 70-200 unless you don't mind some vignetting.

I wouldn't shoot people with the 17-55, that lens have a very unpleasing look, poor bokeh.

I have toally given up on canon so can't recommend anyone going that route...
--
Anders

'It is nice to be important but it is more important to be nice'

 

[Gary Foreman]

Why would he need to get the SB900 for the D700???

--
G-Man, D700, D300
Northern, VA

 

[echelon2004]

To get correct coverage of light and to not get visible banding at FP shooting...

Other than that, sb-900 is a lot better than sb-800, but that's regardless of camera. =)
--
Anders

'It is nice to be important but it is more important to be nice'

 

[BAK]

Good try at messge writing, but you missed one item: what do you do with these images?

If the end result is prints no bigger than 11x14 / 12 x18, forget anything more expensive than a D300 or Canon 50D.

Canon or Nikon? There's no good reason to change brands. On top of which, for snapshots at parties, I'd rather have a Nikon with off camera wireless handheld flash.

So we're narrowing things down.

From your original list, just the D300.

But for your uses, you'd be just as well off with a D90 -- built-in flash, excellent autofocus, the expeed chip is just as good as in the D300, costs less, and, for a party-picture kind of a guy who enjoys photography, you can have some fun with the movie mode, too.

For the D90 or D300, the 17-55 f2.8 is an excellent choice, unless you want to buy a 24-70 f2.8

Your choice of Nikon or Sigma.

If it was me, I'd pick a 24-70, to gain the extra reach at the longer end, and my nature is to not use extreme wide angle. In the old days, 35mm wide angle satisfied me, and a 24mm focla length on a Nikon would keep me happy, too.

Buy it could be too narrow if you need to photograph groups eight people wide inside restaurants or in normal-sized residential rooms.

Probably the best way to decide between 17-55 and 24-70 is to look back on your shots and see how often you were at the 18/24 mm range.

BAK

 

[Robotnik12356]

While you're considering options, what about the D90 - it will have better AF, better high ISO and more resolution than the D70. It doesn't have the magnesium body or weather seals of the D300, but neither does the D70.

Hello,

I'm looking for some camera upgrade advice.... (advanced amateur /
semi-professional shooter.)

Currently shooting with an old Nikon D70 & 18-70mm DX and a 70-200
f/2.8 VR.

Subject matter is almost exclusively party/event... candids and
"on-the-spot" small group poses. (Half the time with an attached
SB-800, and the other times "available light" w/ pop-up flash in a
dire emergency.)

The main reasons I am looking to upgrade are (in order of importance):

1) Better AF performance (speed) for candids.
2) Better High ISO for available light.
3) More resolution for when I need to center-crop my 18-70 photos. (I
don't always carry the 70-200)

Upgrade options are:

1) D300 + 17-55 f/2.8 = $2728 from B&H.
2) D700 + 24-70 f/2.8 = $4098 from B&H
3) Something from Canon? (would entail the hassle of selling my
70-200 VR & SB-800, though.)

Besides it's price the D3 is not an option due to it's size and lack
of built-in flash. (Don't laugh... it's really saved me a few times.)

I also briefly considered the Fuji S5 for it fabled skin tones, but
have been put off by it's low resolution, non-availability, and slow
speed.

So, what does spending the extra $1400 for the D700 buy me?

Is switching to Canon a sane option given my requirements? (I'm
guessing not, due to reports of the Nikon's superior AF system in
this price bracket.)

Thank you,
AF

--

 

[natureman]

Hello,

I'm looking for some camera upgrade advice.... (advanced amateur /
semi-professional shooter.)

Currently shooting with an old Nikon D70 & 18-70mm DX and a 70-200
f/2.8 VR.

Subject matter is almost exclusively party/event... candids and
"on-the-spot" small group poses. (Half the time with an attached
SB-800, and the other times "available light" w/ pop-up flash in a
dire emergency.)

The main reasons I am looking to upgrade are (in order of importance):

1) Better AF performance (speed) for candids.
2) Better High ISO for available light.
3) More resolution for when I need to center-crop my 18-70 photos. (I
don't always carry the 70-200)

Upgrade options are:

1) D300 + 17-55 f/2.8 = $2728 from B&H.
2) D700 + 24-70 f/2.8 = $4098 from B&H
3) Something from Canon? (would entail the hassle of selling my
70-200 VR & SB-800, though.)

Besides it's price the D3 is not an option due to it's size and lack
of built-in flash. (Don't laugh... it's really saved me a few times.)

I also briefly considered the Fuji S5 for it fabled skin tones, but
have been put off by it's low resolution, non-availability, and slow
speed.

So, what does spending the extra $1400 for the D700 buy me?

Is switching to Canon a sane option given my requirements? (I'm
guessing not, due to reports of the Nikon's superior AF system in
this price bracket.)

Thank you,
AF

Well, if all else fails you could read the reviews here and/or elsewhere about the cameras you may be interested in and do the same thing with the lenses. That way you can see lots of information and sample pictures and then make an informed decision on what's best for you.

 

[Jeff Behm]

Even more interesting to me than Gary's question above re: the SB900, is echelon's about given up on Canon. While I read the lukewarm reviews of the EOS 50D, and the 1Ds MKIII has left a few question marks (esp. on the $8k) and the Sony Alpha 900 has some impressive stats, how do these add up to "giving up on Canon"?
--
jrbehm
http://www.jeffbehm.com

 

[Kent Johnson]

The main reasons I am looking to upgrade are (in order of importance):

1) Better AF performance (speed) for candids.

This is more a function of the lens than the camera, especially where AFS is involved.

2) Better High ISO for available light.
3) More resolution for when I need to center-crop my 18-70 photos. (I
don't always carry the 70-200)

It's a "no-brainer"

2) D700 + 24-70 f/2.8 = $4098 from B&H

So, what does spending the extra $1400 for the D700 buy me?

High ISO and resolution. The 24-70 will get you faster focusing. Done.
-Kent

 

[Arved]

I do a lot of photography similar to the OP. BAK is dead-on IMHO with the following caveats:

the 51-point AF on the D300 and D700 is unexcelled. The D90 doesn't have it, and I think that's a major shortcomming comparing the cameras.

The D700 gives you less noise at high ISO, although coming from a D70/D70s (as I did), you'll be jumping for joy at what you can do with the D300. From my experience, though, the clients from these sort of events aren't going to be so picky about noise. The D300 will deliver.

As a professional, you have to look at return on investment. OK, so the D700+24-70/2.8 is about $1400 more expensive. First off, are your prictures going to be more valuable taken from a D700 than a D300? Are you going to recoup the price difference between the D300 and D700 combinations? What's the payback period going to be?

Your SB-800 is a very desireable flash unit. Currently, it seems you can sell it for at least $100 more than you paid for it, even assuming you paid full retail. It's still a mediocre flash, but the new SB-900 isn't really better (I own both). For all the improved interface of the SB-900, I'm still used to and comfortable with my SB-800, and given the fact that used SB-800s are selling for more than new SB-900s, I'd say the market agrees.

Other cameras to look into - from Canon, the 5D and/or 5D mk II. The Sony A900 and A700 seem to be comparable to the D700 and D300, respectively, and adds "steadyshot" in camera VR. I'm not recommending anything - just that if you're open minded enough to "jump ship" I think these are "the usual suspects" when making comparisons.

--

• Arved

'Highlights next to shadows to create detail, depth, dimension and added color saturation.' - David Ziser

 

[afowler]

Hello all,

OP here....

For just the AF reasons, I've decided to stay with Nikon... either D300 or D700.

BAK: Just to clarify, most output images will be on the small side, but some do need to go to 16x20. (A nightmare with the D70... if it was not shot at ISO200, forget it.... this is currently very limiting.... I've lost many good shots like this.)

So it seems that the main advantage of the D700 is the better high ISO.... However, I am wondering if it is actually reasonable to shoot at the extreme high range where the D700 is clearly better than the d300... (3200 / 6400+..)

That is to say, forgetting the noise, how would the lighting look in a typical indoor venue @ ISO 3200/6400... Would it look normal, or would the scene look "freaky" with tons of blown highlights, odd color, etc...

With regard to lenses:

-- How bad is the 70-200 VR on the d700? I've seen some less than flattering reports. (This would be a strike against the D700)

-- A previous poster above mentioned the 17-55 was poor for "people shooting".... Can anyone confirm this? I've goggled this but did not come up with anything. (This would be a strike against the D300)

Arved: Interesting viewpoint on the SB-800 vs. SB-900... Other than slightly longer recycle times, I assume my SB-800 will work fine with the D700?

Thanks,
AF

I do a lot of photography similar to the OP. BAK is dead-on IMHO
with the following caveats:

the 51-point AF on the D300 and D700 is unexcelled. The D90 doesn't
have it, and I think that's a major shortcomming comparing the
cameras.

The D700 gives you less noise at high ISO, although coming from a
D70/D70s (as I did), you'll be jumping for joy at what you can do
with the D300. From my experience, though, the clients from these
sort of events aren't going to be so picky about noise. The D300
will deliver.

As a professional, you have to look at return on investment. OK, so
the D700+24-70/2.8 is about $1400 more expensive. First off, are
your prictures going to be more valuable taken from a D700 than a
D300? Are you going to recoup the price difference between the D300
and D700 combinations? What's the payback period going to be?

Your SB-800 is a very desireable flash unit. Currently, it seems you
can sell it for at least $100 more than you paid for it, even
assuming you paid full retail. It's still a mediocre flash, but the
new SB-900 isn't really better (I own both). For all the improved
interface of the SB-900, I'm still used to and comfortable with my
SB-800, and given the fact that used SB-800s are selling for more
than new SB-900s, I'd say the market agrees.

Other cameras to look into - from Canon, the 5D and/or 5D mk II. The
Sony A900 and A700 seem to be comparable to the D700 and D300,
respectively, and adds "steadyshot" in camera VR. I'm not
recommending anything - just that if you're open minded enough to
"jump ship" I think these are "the usual suspects" when making
comparisons.

--

• Arved

'Highlights next to shadows to create detail, depth, dimension and
added color saturation.' - David Ziser

 

[Joe Federer]

So it seems that the main advantage of the D700 is the better high
ISO.... However, I am wondering if it is actually reasonable to shoot
at the extreme high range where the D700 is clearly better than the
d300... (3200 / 6400+..)

I shoot my D3 and ISO 1600 and blow these up to 20x30 all day long. The D3 at ISO 1600 looks like the D70 at ISO 200/400. I've owned (and still own) the D70.

That is to say, forgetting the noise, how would the lighting look in
a typical indoor venue @ ISO 3200/6400... Would it look normal, or
would the scene look "freaky" with tons of blown highlights, odd
color, etc...

The colors look good on the D3/D700 sensor until about 6400, depending on your level of concern. In fact, that lower noise floor will help in the situations you are talking about because you can underexpose and bring things up - keeping your highlights.

Consider ISO 12800 the equiv of your D70's ISO 1600. (in my experience). Perhaps not at a per-pixel level, but at a print level, for sure.

With regard to lenses:

-- How bad is the 70-200 VR on the d700? I've seen some less than
flattering reports. (This would be a strike against the D700)

For what you are doing, it's magical. The whole '70-200 is junk' brigade spends way too much time shoot brick walls.

The only time the falloff is an issue in real shooting is when stitching yet still using wide apertures.

Again, I've got the 70-200 as well so I speak from experience. I'm sure there are tests that show I've got falloff, but for real world photography - especially in the situations you are talking about, it's a 100% non-issue.

-- A previous poster above mentioned the 17-55 was poor for "people
shooting".... Can anyone confirm this? I've goggled this but did
not come up with anything. (This would be a strike against the D300)

I don't own the 17-55, but I do own the D300.

I know some really good photographers that shoot weddings exclusively with the 17-55.

The 'better' combo is the D70 w/ 24-70. There is no doubt. (but it's bigger, costs more, and has worse AF coverage)

The REAL question is, will that extra 1400 recoup itself with more sales or more gigs? Likely not if your current clients are happy with what they get from the D70.

But it only takes one or two extra paying gigs to recoup that cost. I'm not sure how 'semi-pro' you are or what rates you are looking at, ya know? Only you can say if you'll get 1400 dollars in extra work (or happiness, which I do understand factors in) because of that choice.

Arved: Interesting viewpoint on the SB-800 vs. SB-900... Other than
slightly longer recycle times, I assume my SB-800 will work fine with
the D700?

Your SB800 will work fine. So would a SB900.

There is a big "thermal shutdown" issue that's been blown out of proportion (like the falloff with the 70-200) with the SB900 that makes people skiddish and has artificially increased demand for the SB800.

(not that the SB800 isn't a good flash, just saying, the SB900 shouldn't be written off)

--
JOE FEDERER
Websites: http://www.joefederer.com

 

[afowler]

I shoot my D3 and ISO 1600 and blow these up to 20x30 all day long.
The D3 at ISO 1600 looks like the D70 at ISO 200/400. I've owned
(and still own) the D70.

The colors look good on the D3/D700 sensor until about 6400,
depending on your level of concern. In fact, that lower noise floor
will help in the situations you are talking about because you can
underexpose and bring things up - keeping your highlights.
Consider ISO 12800 the equiv of your D70's ISO 1600. (in my
experience). Perhaps not at a per-pixel level, but at a print level,
for sure.

OK, thank you for the first-hand advice.

Since you also own the D300, how does it stack up to the D3/D700 in terms of available light shooting?

-- How bad is the 70-200 VR on the d700? I've seen some less than
flattering reports. (This would be a strike against the D700)

For what you are doing, it's magical. The whole '70-200 is junk'
brigade spends way too much time shoot brick walls.
The only time the falloff is an issue in real shooting is when
stitching yet still using wide apertures.
Again, I've got the 70-200 as well so I speak from experience. I'm
sure there are tests that show I've got falloff, but for real world
photography - especially in the situations you are talking about,
it's a 100% non-issue.

Thank for the confirmation.

Although, DPreview's take on the 70-200VR is pretty harsh, for the kind of shooting I do, I think it'll be OK.

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_70-200_2p8_vr_n15/page5.asp

The 'better' combo is the D70 w/ 24-70. There is no doubt. (but
it's bigger, costs more, and has worse AF coverage)

Not sure what you mean by that.... The D70 is noisy & slow and the 24-70 on the DX body would kill my wide angles that account for 1/4 of my shots...

The REAL question is, will that extra 1400 recoup itself with more
sales or more gigs? Likely not if your current clients are happy
with what they get from the D70.

But it only takes one or two extra paying gigs to recoup that cost.
I'm not sure how 'semi-pro' you are or what rates you are looking at,
ya know? Only you can say if you'll get 1400 dollars in extra work
(or happiness, which I do understand factors in) because of that
choice.

Yeah, that's the tough choice... Most of the work I do is on a barter (and yes, + fun factor) basis, so it's hard to really equate the costs like that.

Really, it boils down to if the D700 is trully that much better than the D300 at "still sane" high ISO shooting.

(Not to forget, going with the D700 + 24-70 will also lock me in to the more expensive FX format...)

I'd be interested on your further thoughts on the matter....

--
AF

 

[Timberwolfpuppy]

You shouldn't need to "center crop" anything. You should have perfectly framed exposures.

 

[Joe Federer]

I shoot my D3 and ISO 1600 and blow these up to 20x30 all day long.
The D3 at ISO 1600 looks like the D70 at ISO 200/400. I've owned
(and still own) the D70.

The colors look good on the D3/D700 sensor until about 6400,
depending on your level of concern. In fact, that lower noise floor
will help in the situations you are talking about because you can
underexpose and bring things up - keeping your highlights.
Consider ISO 12800 the equiv of your D70's ISO 1600. (in my
experience). Perhaps not at a per-pixel level, but at a print level,
for sure.

OK, thank you for the first-hand advice.

Since you also own the D300, how does it stack up to the D3/D700 in
terms of available light shooting?

I honestly don't like it nearly as much.

Sure, nail the exposure and it's fine, but you can't play with it as much as you can with the D3/D700 sensors images.

I think 'quantitatively' it's 1 stop worse according to reviews... but I don't let me assistants go over 1600 with it, whereas I'm willing to go to 6400 on my D3 (though very rarely).

Great camera, awesome images, if I didn't have a D3 I'd be super pumped with it. But in comparison it simply doesn't 'massage' as well in post as you get to the higher ISO's. I never need to worry about noise at ISO 1600 on my D3 - I can basically process, push, pull that image all I want... with the D300 at the same settings, the final result sometimes ends up being a compromise between what is the image I want, and what's the image where I can tolerate the noise.

Honestly, from your D70, both the D700 and D300 are so far ahead (including AF), you'll be in a whole new playground of available light photography... it's like your D70 is a 2, the D300 might be a 8 and the D700 might be a 9.

Now if they'd just come out with more sensitive AF sensors, I'd be in heaven.

-- How bad is the 70-200 VR on the d700? I've seen some less than
flattering reports. (This would be a strike against the D700)

For what you are doing, it's magical. The whole '70-200 is junk'
brigade spends way too much time shoot brick walls.
The only time the falloff is an issue in real shooting is when
stitching yet still using wide apertures.
Again, I've got the 70-200 as well so I speak from experience. I'm
sure there are tests that show I've got falloff, but for real world
photography - especially in the situations you are talking about,
it's a 100% non-issue.

Thank for the confirmation.

Although, DPreview's take on the 70-200VR is pretty harsh, for the
kind of shooting I do, I think it'll be OK.

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_70-200_2p8_vr_n15/page5.asp

Right, and that's where the huge outcry came from. Before someone shot a test sheet and quantified it, no one ever mentioned anything but good things about the lens. In fact, many Canon people converted because of this 'legendary lens'.

The 'better' combo is the D70 w/ 24-70. There is no doubt. (but
it's bigger, costs more, and has worse AF coverage)

Not sure what you mean by that.... The D70 is noisy & slow and the
24-70 on the DX body would kill my wide angles that account for 1/4
of my shots...

I apologize, I mis-typed. I meant the D700.

The REAL question is, will that extra 1400 recoup itself with more
sales or more gigs? Likely not if your current clients are happy
with what they get from the D70.

But it only takes one or two extra paying gigs to recoup that cost.
I'm not sure how 'semi-pro' you are or what rates you are looking at,
ya know? Only you can say if you'll get 1400 dollars in extra work
(or happiness, which I do understand factors in) because of that
choice.

Yeah, that's the tough choice... Most of the work I do is on a barter
(and yes, + fun factor) basis, so it's hard to really equate the
costs like that.

Really, it boils down to if the D700 is trully that much better than
the D300 at "still sane" high ISO shooting.

At ISO 800 and lower, no.
At ISO 1600, the D700 pulls ahead.
At ISO 3200 the D700 wipes the floor.

Where do you plan to shoot.

And even at that, the question is: will the differences bring in the money to justify the extra costs.
Purely business-wise, the answer is probably not.

But, like you acknowledge, it's hard to quantify being able to get available light, sharp images by moonlight. ;0)

(Not to forget, going with the D700 + 24-70 will also lock me in to
the more expensive FX format...)

You can still use FX lenses on DX cameras. The 'locking' only happens the other direction.

Best of luck...
--
JOE FEDERER
Websites: http://www.joefederer.com

 

[Joe Federer]

If his lenses don't allow perfectly framed exposures, and he can't justify the additional lenses, and he has the extra resolution to do the crop...

then a crop is a perfectly valid thing to do.

I crop on birding images all the time... shoot, the dx format itself is effectively a 'center crop' all the time.

You shouldn't need to "center crop" anything. You should have
perfectly framed exposures.

--
JOE FEDERER
Websites: http://www.joefederer.com

 

[BAK]

And you are, of course, welcome to waste it 98 per cent of the time.

These 16 x 20 prints you make... only you can decide how good is good enough.

I cannot imagine a prospective customer (stretching the definition of customer, apparently) deciding not to pay you... what? $20. $150? -- because your photo was taken with a D300 instead of a D700. He'll either want a big print or not.

And rememb r, the D300 is a great camera.

Pros, years ago, would decide whether to shoot with 35mm cameras, 645 or 6x6 cameras, or 6x7 / 6x9.

At least with a D700, it's not much harder to carry it around than a D300, whereas carrying an RB67 was a pain.

As for usefulness without flash... that depends.

I shot a picture the other night in really lousy light, D700, ISO 1600, 1/40th of a second, f1.4 (on a 50mm lens) and the image on the back of the camera was wonderful, compared to real life, where the subject was dull, non-contrssty, and generally very difficult to see.

But think about where you are going to be shooting, and under what conditions.

At parties in commercial locations, usually, the lighting comes from up above, pointed pretty much stright down, putting mouths (and smiles) and eyes into shadows under noses and eyebrows.

Much of a woman's poretty party dress is in the dark, shaded by her bust. Bald guys have noggins that look like searchlights.

All of which is why pro party photogrpahers -- including wedding pros for decades, photographing receptions and dinners -- used flash to get rid of the deep set eyes and shadowy faces and blown out tops of heads.

As for the 17-55 -- becareful of whom you listen to. Anyone spreading fdrivel liek the 17-55 f2.8 Nikon lens is not good for photographing people is even less brainful that the promoters of shooting wide open with center focus points so the backgrounds are properly fuzzy.

All of which adds up to your photos from a D700 or a D300 still won't be any better than those taken with a D90.

All that said -- go to a store and buy the one that feels best.

BAK

 

[Arved]

At ISO 800 and lower, no.
At ISO 1600, the D700 pulls ahead.
At ISO 3200 the D700 wipes the floor.

At 1600, the D300 is still usable, but the D3/D700 is still the high ISO king - no doubt. Just don't get the idea that the D300 all of a sudden becomes a dog.

Third party noise reduction software helps, although the only one I've tried is Nik dFine 2.0, and I think it compromises a bit too much on detail. OTOH, the ladies love it because it automajically smooths skin blemishes (silly me, though, I like to see some texture in the hair, which dFine tends to plasticize). But this is boardering on digressing from the original question...

Reading this thread, I'm curious how these cameras compare to high ISO film? Was a time we wouldn't dream of shooting an ISO 3200 film because of the grain. There has to be some realistic expectations here. If you want the lack of grain and detail retention of Kodachrome 25 when shooting at ISO 6400 and beyond, I think you need a reality check. We can dream, but we must also have realistic expectations from our gear.

When someone figures out a free lunch, expect everyone to suddenly become fat and lazy.

(Not to forget, going with the D700 + 24-70 will also lock me in to
the more expensive FX format...)

You can still use FX lenses on DX cameras. The 'locking' only
happens the other direction.

I think he was worried about the other direction. After all, that 70-200/2.8 he owns IS technically an FX lens (even though testing here on dpReview seems to cast doubt on that fact). But, what's the alternative? The 80-200/2.8 Nikkor? AF-S only on used discontinued models, and never with VR. I've heard rumors of a 70-200/2.5 N VR-II, but I wouldn't put any stock in those rumors. It would take quite a feat to go from f/2.8 to f/2.5, and provide even more challenges to the lens designers. And I bet all three upgrades (f/2.8 to f/2.5, Nano technology lens coatings, and second generation VR) would nearly double the cost of the lens, I'm sure.

A bigger concern might be that going from DX to FX, the 70-200/2.8 doesn't have as much reach as it did on the D70 or will have on the D300. Does that mean losing a stop using a 1.4x converter to gain back the extra reach? If so, that only adds to the price difference between using the D300 and the D700.

I would recommend that, if at all possible, the OP rent or borrow the D300 and D700 on seperate gigs, and see for himself how it works out for him.

And since I brought up rumors, the "dark horse" is that many are expecting emminant release of the D400 and an upgraded D700 (D700s, D700x, D750 and D800 have been bandied about, so google those if you're interested). If you wait long enough, there will always be something "better" available.
--

• Arved

'Highlights next to shadows to create detail, depth, dimension and added color saturation.' - David Ziser

 

[echelon2004]

Even more interesting to me than Gary's question above re: the SB900,
is echelon's about given up on Canon. While I read the lukewarm
reviews of the EOS 50D, and the 1Ds MKIII has left a few question
marks (esp. on the $8k) and the Sony Alpha 900 has some impressive
stats, how do these add up to "giving up on Canon"?

I find Canon Af to be a bit iffy. I find Canon metering to be quite poor and I find that flash controll is quite lacking (mainly due to the poor metering of course).

And Canon service in my area is so poor that it is not a realistic option to use their equipment professionally Now that's a local problem and not really related to canon

There's also some significant holes in the lens line up, some that matters to me, some that dont.

--
jrbehm
http://www.jeffbehm.com

--
Anders

'It is nice to be important but it is more important to be nice'

 

[echelon2004]

-- How bad is the 70-200 VR on the d700? I've seen some less than
flattering reports. (This would be a strike against the D700)

Quite heavy vignetting is the main problem and it is a real problem. I'm confident that nikon will make a new 70-200 to combat the issue, but when? There's so much work they need to do and they do not have unlimited production resources...

-- A previous poster above mentioned the 17-55 was poor for "people
shooting".... Can anyone confirm this? I've goggled this but did
not come up with anything. (This would be a strike against the D300)

That was me

Theres quite a few people that won't agree with me on that. It's totally subjective and not being an optical engineer I can't even try to explain what it is that I don't like with it. I've tried though... It's just something about how that lens renders the image that turns me off. Now, you don't have to agree with me, but try it before you buy, and make sure you don't just look at the excellent resolution and sharpness, you'll need to take a less scientific approach.

Other that the subjective parts the only issue for me when I used it was that it wouldnt focus at infinity when at 17mm´, something that bothered me for about 1 second in total

--
Anders

'It is nice to be important but it is more important to be nice'