Why should I keep my D700?

[Radu Tenenbaum]

This question assumes that Nikon will soon release a D400 which approaches the D700's low light and dynamic range capabilities. It's a variation of the FX vs DX question.

I have a D300 and a D700. I use the D300 for wildlife shots, mostly BIF's. I got the D700 for landscapes and its low light capabilities.

For the D300 I have the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 and the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS

For the D700 I have the Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4 and the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8.

I have other lenses as well, but they do not factor in this decision.

With the lenses mentioned above, both bodies cover similar ranges.

So, if I was to replace the D300 with a D400 and sell the D700 and it's lenses, what would I be sacrificing other than somewhat narrower DOF?

--
Radu
www.raduray.com

 

[fft81]

Radu Tenenbaum wrote:

This question assumes that Nikon will soon release a D400 which approaches the D700's low light and dynamic range capabilities. It's a variation of the FX vs DX question.

I have a D300 and a D700. I use the D300 for wildlife shots, mostly BIF's. I got the D700 for landscapes and its low light capabilities.

For the D300 I have the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 and the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS

For the D700 I have the Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4 and the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8.

I have other lenses as well, but they do not factor in this decision.

With the lenses mentioned above, both bodies cover similar ranges.

So, if I was to replace the D300 with a D400 and sell the D700 and it's lenses, what would I be sacrificing other than somewhat narrower DOF?

 

[Robin Casady]

Replace both the D300 and D700 with a D800. The DR of the D800 in DX mode is greater at base ISO than the D700 in FX mode. At around ISO 400 they are very close. In FX mode, the D800 exceeds the D700.

The D800 in DX mode is higher resolution than the D300, and will do 6 fps.

 

[Johnhk]

I agree with Robin, in fact, that's the route I've taken. This has created a small problem for me; it has left me with only a 24-70, 70-200, and a 50 1.8 for my D800e. I think the 80-400, 16-35, and maybe a 105 macro are appearing in my sights, time will tell. Good luck with your decision. Regards,

 

[HobbiesAreFun]

fft81 wrote:

In 50% of cases DX body is a good replacement for FX body of older generation. D400 should match or outperform d700 in Low light IQ and frame rate.

Ha. Where on earth have you been getting that the D400 should outperform the D700 for low light IQ... I highly, highly doubt that.

 

[fft81]

HobbiesAreFun wrote:

fft81 wrote:

In 50% of cases DX body is a good replacement for FX body of older generation. D400 should match or outperform d700 in Low light IQ and frame rate.

Ha. Where on earth have you been getting that the D400 should outperform the D700 for low light IQ... I highly, highly doubt that.

 

[romfordbluenose]

fft81 wrote:

HobbiesAreFun wrote:

fft81 wrote:

In 50% of cases DX body is a good replacement for FX body of older generation. D400 should match or outperform d700 in Low light IQ and frame rate.

Ha. Where on earth have you been getting that the D400 should outperform the D700 for low light IQ... I highly, highly doubt that.

--
-Eric (18 years old with tons of things I can't wait to learn)
http://eswenson.smugmug.com

Because D400 must have much better ISO performance than d300s to be a viable product.

I would have thought that if the D400 is indeed going to happen then it'll have the same or similar sensor to the D7100 which is indeed better than the D300s. The D700 is a completely different beast though.

 

[fft81]

romfordbluenose wrote:

fft81 wrote:

HobbiesAreFun wrote:

fft81 wrote:

In 50% of cases DX body is a good replacement for FX body of older generation. D400 should match or outperform d700 in Low light IQ and frame rate.

Ha. Where on earth have you been getting that the D400 should outperform the D700 for low light IQ... I highly, highly doubt that.

 

[eNo]

If you have a D300 that's the one that should go when a D400 comes out.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://imagesbyeduardo.com/

Los Angeles wedding photography that seeks the heart and spirit in each image

 

[Zlik]

Radu Tenenbaum wrote:

This question assumes that Nikon will soon release a D400 which approaches the D700's low light and dynamic range capabilities. It's a variation of the FX vs DX question.

The next APS-C camera from Nikon will probably exceed the D700's dynamic range at base ISO, but the chances that it will perform even remotely as well at high ISOs is extremely low (have a look at the high ISO progression over the last 4-5 years in Nikon APS-C at dxomark.com: they went from 977 (D90, 2008) to 1256 (D7100, 2013) and the D700 has a score of 2300 !). Sensor size is extremely important for low light.

Once you move away from base ISO, and you take into account all the parameters (SNR, color, DR, tonal range), the D700 is still clearly ahead. Unless you need more than 12MP or the newer features (video, auto ISO, etc), there's nothing wrong with your D700

Personally, even though I have a DX body for backup, I would never go back from FX to DX for my main body, even if it was "just" a D700.

I have a D300 and a D700. I use the D300 for wildlife shots, mostly BIF's. I got the D700 for landscapes and its low light capabilities.

For the D300 I have the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 and the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS

For the D700 I have the Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4 and the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8.

I have other lenses as well, but they do not factor in this decision.

With the lenses mentioned above, both bodies cover similar ranges.

So, if I was to replace the D300 with a D400 and sell the D700 and it's lenses, what would I be sacrificing other than somewhat narrower DOF?

I would sell both cameras (unless you need a backup body) and get a D800, which is basically a D400 in crop mode except for the FPS.

--
Radu
www.raduray.com

 

[Zlik]

Robin Casady wrote:

Replace both the D300 and D700 with a D800. The DR of the D800 in DX mode is greater at base ISO than the D700 in FX mode. At around ISO 400 they are very close. In FX mode, the D800 exceeds the D700.

The D800 in DX mode is higher resolution than the D300, and will do 6 fps.

Exactly. Same advice from me.

 

[fft81]

eNo wrote:

If you have a D300 that's the one that should go when a D400 comes out.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://imagesbyeduardo.com/
Los Angeles wedding photography that seeks the heart and spirit in each image

Sounds like he IS selling d300 to pay for d400, but he wants to know if there is any reason to keep d700.

I'd bet he will shoot d400 more often than d700, but d700 will offer more "creative" shots rather than perfect focus all over the frame machine-gun approach that d400 should deliver.

 

[Zlik]

fft81 wrote:

Radu Tenenbaum wrote:

This question assumes that Nikon will soon release a D400 which approaches the D700's low light and dynamic range capabilities. It's a variation of the FX vs DX question.

I have a D300 and a D700. I use the D300 for wildlife shots, mostly BIF's. I got the D700 for landscapes and its low light capabilities.

For the D300 I have the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 and the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS

For the D700 I have the Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4 and the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8.

I have other lenses as well, but they do not factor in this decision.

With the lenses mentioned above, both bodies cover similar ranges.

So, if I was to replace the D300 with a D400 and sell the D700 and it's lenses, what would I be sacrificing other than somewhat narrower DOF?

--
Radu
www.raduray.com

In 50% of cases DX body is a good replacement for FX body of older generation.

D400 should match or outperform d700 in Low light IQ

No.

and frame rate.

However FX body will always offer you more creative shots with shallow DOF lenses. DX crop is just too sharp for some shots. Plus to match 50mm FL on FX body you need 35mm FL on crop, which results in longer DOF at the same focus distance. So basically think of FX body, like d700, as a "more creative" body vs d400. I'd expect d700 to maintain slight edge on d400 in regards to focus speed, but depending on what system they put in d400 it may not be so.

AF speed might actually be the only thing that could be slightly better in the D400 (other than DR at base ISO, probably), if they use the same module as in the D800 (it will work in lower light levels).

 

[Radu Tenenbaum]

The D300 is definitely going. Options are:

1. D400 and sell D700

2. D400 and keep D700

3. D800

Unfortunately, funds are not unlimited

The responses to my question are informative, raising some interesting issues:'

1. I'm surprised to see several posts claiming D700 IQ superior to that of the D7100. I had thought them similar based on my reading.

2. I thought the frame rate of the D800 in DX mode without a grip was 5 fps, not 6.

3. I have to wrap my head around viewfinder "tunnel vision" shooting a D800 in DX mode. I guess I can practice that with the D700.

Of course, all this is hypothetical and it will be interesting to see what the D400 offers, if it's ever released.

 

[Radu Tenenbaum]

I read this post after posting my other reply above and I take your point about high ISO performance.

 

[mistermejia]

Radu Tenenbaum wrote:

This question assumes that Nikon will soon release a D400 which approaches the D700's low light and dynamic range capabilities. It's a variation of the FX vs DX question.

I have a D300 and a D700. I use the D300 for wildlife shots, mostly BIF's. I got the D700 for landscapes and its low light capabilities.

For the D300 I have the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 and the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS

For the D700 I have the Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4 and the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8.

I have other lenses as well, but they do not factor in this decision.

With the lenses mentioned above, both bodies cover similar ranges.

So, if I was to replace the D300 with a D400 and sell the D700 and it's lenses, what would I be sacrificing other than somewhat narrower DOF?

 

[PHXAZCRAIG]

That's pretty much my story. I bought a D800e this spring, and I haven't shot one frame since them with my D300 and D700. Seems such a waste, but the D800e is just better than either, with exception of frame rate.

However, if the mythical D400 does come out, I plan on buying one, for wildlife shooting. I do miss a high frame rate. (If only the D4 were cheaper...)

 

[PHXAZCRAIG]

Radu Tenenbaum wrote:
2. I thought the frame rate of the D800 in DX mode without a grip was 5 fps, not 6.

Yes, I believe you do need the grip. Plus the right battery. However, you can get cheap aftermarket batteries and grips.

I'm using the Nikon grip, but the Smartree battery for it. The battery plus charger cost me $75. (The charger is built into the battery, and the battery includes the grip 'battery door' thingie, so it's about $400 cheaper than getting the real Nikon battery and overpriced charger).

I get 6 fps in DX mode, with the big battery, and 5 fps in 1.2x crop mode. I use both those modes quite a lot when shooting wildlife - actually much handier than I expected.

 

[Funduro]

Lots of people are in sort of the same situation, yup I'm one too. I've decided to not buy the D800/e to replace both the D300s and D700. The highly rated D400 will no doubt top all DSLR's on DXo Mark's Vaporware ratings.(sorry couldn't resist) If and when the D400 does show up it will cause lots of D300/s to be sold. I might be one of those selling my D300s to buy a D400, (1/2 year after release, do not want to be Beta tester), not selling the D700 though.

 

[RedFox88]

fft81 wrote:

In 50% of cases DX body is a good replacement for FX body of older generation. D400 should match or outperform d700 in Low light IQ and frame rate.

I really, really doubt that. If you compare the d700 to the d7100 and nex 5n they don't even come close to the high ISO score on dxomark. The d7100 is a full 1000 points below the d700's high ISO score. The d7100 is better at DR and color depth but not at all high ISO.

In fact the d7100 is still 100 points behind the Canon 5D that came out in 2005 for high ISO. 35mm dSLRs having an image sensor 2.5 times bigger than aps-c is a very hard thing to overcome for aps-c SLRs even a long awaited d400.

However FX body will always offer you more creative shots with shallow DOF lenses. DX crop is just too sharp for some shots. Plus to match 50mm FL on FX body you need 35mm FL on crop, which results in longer DOF at the same focus distance. So basically think of FX body, like d700, as a "more creative" body vs d400. I'd expect d700 to maintain slight edge on d400 in regards to focus speed, but depending on what system they put in d400 it may not be so.