d300 to d700 or not???

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules
Nikon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums | Nikon-mount SLRs | Join Image Upload

2 3 … 5 6 end

d300 to d700 or not???

pr4photos
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #1 · d300 to d700 or not???

i am considering whether to upgrade from my d300 to a d700 and want some honest opinion.

is it really worth it? i am very happy with my d300 but am wondering if the full frame is really worth spending £1700 to get. i do have all full frame lenses, so that isn't an issue. i like the idea of the higher iso quality images, but in reality if i am using the camera at 200iso would i see much difference, apart from the obvious dof difference.

all opinions welcome.

Jun 14, 2009 at 09:42 PM

MajinHurricane
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #2 · d300 to d700 or not???

yes.

Jun 14, 2009 at 09:45 PM

oneadam12
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #3 · d300 to d700 or not???

Ditto!

Jun 14, 2009 at 09:57 PM

nystrpr
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #4 · d300 to d700 or not???

I upgraded from the D300 to full frame and it was worth it for me. The high iso is pretty amazing. I captured shots my daughter's dance recital last week that I could not have done with my D300. I shot the D300 at the December recital and the D3 is a very nice upgrade.

Jun 14, 2009 at 10:50 PM

---XR---
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #5 · d300 to d700 or not???

if your shoot like me and rarely shoot over 100-800 ISO than the upgrade is pointless, you have an intresting dynamic with the FF and landscape work, but other than that i'd keep the D300.

Jun 14, 2009 at 11:14 PM

codeninja
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #6 · d300 to d700 or not???

It all depends on how much you want to pay for your camera. In my case, I don't make single dime out of my hobby and decided that D300 + 16-85 VR + 70-300 VR is good enough for me. If I ever go D700, I would get 24-70 + 70-200 VR which add $3000+ on top of my current equipments. I have no doubt that D700 setup will be better than my current setup, and I settled with what I have myself. Only you get to decide how much better is enough for you and how much money you want to spend on it.

Jun 14, 2009 at 11:39 PM

kjcramer
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #7 · d300 to d700 or not???

Yes, the camera is sooo good. I ended up selling my D300 after about a week with the D700. Unless you are at all concerned about "reach" for wildlife or sports, do it.

Jun 14, 2009 at 11:40 PM

LA_Sportsman
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #8 · d300 to d700 or not???

I say why look at it as an upgrade? I have a D300 and intend to purchase a D700 to complement it. The controls are basically the same and the grip is the same. Once I get both, I'll be able to use FX for wides and DX for tele shots taking advantage of the crop. Best of both worlds.

Jun 15, 2009 at 12:06 AM

Steve Perry
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #9 · d300 to d700 or not???

What are you shooting? Would losing the "reach" of dx be worth it for you? I'll agree with the above posts for sure - that FX sensor is really nice and the files are incredible. However, if it's the wrong camera for the job, doesn't matter how good it is.

Jun 15, 2009 at 12:11 AM

cbrandt
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #10 · d300 to d700 or not???

What do you shoot ?

I shoot as a hobbyist wildlife - I do NOT SELL my photos .. my D300 was trashed in an accident so I bought a D700 with the insurance money plus boot ..... I wish I had bought another D300 rather than the D700.

For close up shots, the D700 on my 600mm works beautifully, but I REALLY MISS THE REACH and excellent photos the D300 produces !!

Jun 15, 2009 at 12:13 AM

spentomuch
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #11 · d300 to d700 or not???

I've only had mine for 5 days, but I can tell you the pics are richer,,more intense.
But I shoot some sports and need the reach,not sure the dx mode will be enough
So I got a 1.4 to help out.

Jun 15, 2009 at 12:18 AM

TonyBeach
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #12 · d300 to d700 or not???

I considered this same question last year shortly after the D700 came out and decided to pass on it. I still have no regrets whatsoever, shooting to this day with my D300. I'm waiting for a "D700x" because I want to use the extra sensor space for more resolution; higher ISO performance is a very low priority for me which is why I passed on the D700 last year.

I recently bought the Nikkor 35/1.8 and 10.5/2.8, which are both DX lenses, and those lenses are a real treat to use on the D300. Today I placed an order for the Voigtlander Nokton 58/1.4 as my go-to portrait lens because that will provide an ideal head and shoulders portrait perspective on my D300. The way I see it right now, the total cost of these lenses is a lot less than the cost of a D700, and they give me most of what I would have wanted the D700 for; also, I sometimes use the reach (i.e., pixel density) of the D300 and there is no FX equivalent of the 10.5 fisheye -- a D3x would address these issues, but it's too expensive, so I am waiting.

Jun 15, 2009 at 01:19 AM

Tobin28
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #13 · d300 to d700 or not???

I went from d300 to d700 and it was one of the best moves. They say that glass is the best investment and it is, but with the d700 I am motivated to take way more pictures due to seeing my lenses the way they were meant to be used.

Find a used d700 or a refurb and never look back.

Cheers,

Tobin

Jun 15, 2009 at 01:30 AM

Andre Labonte
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #14 · d300 to d700 or not???

Unless you need the high iso or the extra shallow DOF it's not worth it.

Jun 15, 2009 at 01:52 AM

rjk55425
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #15 · d300 to d700 or not???

I think Thom Hogan has some great advice on this issue. Image quality is the same below a certain ISO so the answer is dependent on what you shoot. Forget all the "its worth it" advice and think thru what you shoot and let that guide you.

Jun 15, 2009 at 02:01 AM

cppguy
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #16 · d300 to d700 or not???

I enjoy shooting wildlife, landscape and air shows most of the time, thus I need the pixel density of the DX format. I'd only consider the D700 as a second body, but not a replacement for my D300.

On top of that, I already own several of DX lenses that I like:
* Tokina 12-24: Any FX variant is 3-4 times as expensive and way bulkier.
* Nikon 18-200 VR: This convenient travel lens has no exact match on the FX side.
* Nikon 10.5 fisheye

So the overall cost is not just the body alone. Let's suppose that I'd get a D700. I'd have to replace every wide angle and normal zoom. I could only use 3 of my current lenses, the 35mm, the 50mm, and the 70-200 VR, and that latter one would no longer be a long telephoto. Knowing myself, this could trigger a number of purchases. Considering that this is a hobby for me, and I don't intend to make any money with it, it's very hard to justify that right now. Buying further gear certainly wouldn't make me a better photographer. If I were to spend more money, it'd be something long, like a 200-400 VR, which is probably more reasonable to rent anyway.

Of course there is a different point of view. Some don't need the long range, but shoot indoors all the time. If that was me, I'd own a D700 already. But I think both formats will remain viable for the time being, as the ultra pixel density will keep going against the overall image quality of the fat pixels. Some people will just need to have both.

In short:
* D300 for the reach, less expensive, lighter system
* D700 if you can afford it and don't need the ultra high pixel density, especially if you shoot at available light.

BTW, being able to afford something doesn't automatically mean it's worth it. I'd rather go to Denali with my D300 than sit at home with my D3x.

Jun 15, 2009 at 02:13 AM

dspeed
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #17 · d300 to d700 or not???

New bodies are due; the equations will change.

Now may be the time to buy glass. Look for deals on recent stuff you need. (Good luck - if you find any, PM me <g>

Buying FX is not a bad idea; it looks great on a DX since you are using the sweet spot.

Dave

Jun 15, 2009 at 02:46 AM

Andre Labonte
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #18 · d300 to d700 or not???

rjk55425 wrote:
I think Thom Hogan has some great advice on this issue. Image quality is the same below a certain ISO so the answer is dependent on what you shoot. Forget all the "its worth it" advice and think thru what you shoot and let that guide you.

+10. Excellent advice. There's a lot of horse sh-- about FX having some magical quality. Just remember, magic is imaginary. Both formats work great if it's the right format for what you do.

Jun 15, 2009 at 03:00 AM

orangefirefish
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #19 · d300 to d700 or not???

Andre Labonte wrote:
Unless you need the high iso or the extra shallow DOF it's not worth it.
Also, if you're not filling the frame with the D700. At low ISOs the files from both cams are amazingly similar. If you're not able to fill the frame since you're focal length constrained or can't get closer to your subject (common in sports and wildlife) there's no point if you are shooting in decent lighting- the pixel density of the D300 is very nice. I totally agree with Steve on this- the D700 is an amazing camera, but in many ways- if you can't take advantage of it, you're actually better off with the D300.

Jun 15, 2009 at 04:33 AM

orangefirefish
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #20 · d300 to d700 or not???

spentomuch wrote:
I've only had mine for 5 days, but I can tell you the pics are richer,,more intense.
But I shoot some sports and need the reach,not sure the dx mode will be enough
So I got a 1.4 to help out.

Richer and more intense are all characteristics that depend heavily on your post processing workflow. In decent lighting, say, below ISO 640 or so- the results with a D300+ typical supertele would be better vs the D700 + 1.4x.

Jun 15, 2009 at 04:36 AM

Mike Mohrmann
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #21 · d300 to d700 or not???

cppguy wrote:
BTW, being able to afford something doesn't automatically mean it's worth it. I'd rather go to Denali with my D300 than sit at home with my D3x.

Probably the best piece of advice I have read on ANY online photography forum.

Jun 15, 2009 at 04:41 AM

Chris S.
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #22 · d300 to d700 or not???

+1 to all those standing up to the Kool-aid drinkers.

I have a D700 and a D200. At high ISO, the D700 is as good as people say. At base ISOs (ISO 200 on the D700, ISO 100 on the D200), the D200 produces noticebly better images--before and after RAW processing in Nikon Capture 2 Nx. This is especially true in the shadows.

If high ISO performance and wider viewing angle with FX lenses is worth the money to a particular individual, the D700 is worth every penny-I did it and never looked back. If not, the D300 or D200 may be better choices. I still prefer the D200 for telephoto in good light where the reach is important and high ISOs are not, for macro work, and other things where I'm shooting at base ISO. That said, the D700 is my workhorse camera and worth every penny if it's particular strengths shoot a shooter's needs.

But anyone talking about "full frame goodness being better in every way" is just simply wrong.

--Chris

Edited on Jun 15, 2009 at 05:37 AM · View previous versions

Jun 15, 2009 at 05:08 AM

voka_gsw
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #23 · d300 to d700 or not???

cppguy wrote:
* Tokina 12-24: Any FX variant is 3-4 times as expensive and way bulkier.

Dont quote me on this, but I believe this lens works on FF from 18mm and up.

Jun 15, 2009 at 05:28 AM

penghai
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #24 · d300 to d700 or not???

Move from D300 to D700, you will find the question is not how good D700 is at ISO 200, but rather, a much larger range of ISO space opens up. Suddenly you will find you are not limit by ISO 200-ISO400 (which is my ISO limit when I use my D300). I just shoot some BIF with D700 recently. I was really amazed to find some of my keepers were shot at ISO 1600. Cannot image in my Canon and Nikon D300 days.

It's a costly upgrade though. Many ended up selling D300.

Eric.

Jun 15, 2009 at 07:20 AM

pr4photos
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #25 · d300 to d700 or not???

Thanks for all the replies.

I use my d300 for press and pr work, and quality is great, but am wanting to get into the wedding market. Therefore i am thinking maybe i need a wider angle for some shots (i could buy the tokina 11-16mm for that, instead of going ff). also, i might want to take more with low available light, and as they will end up as prints, quality is an important factor, hence am thinking d700 for the higher iso shots.

Jun 15, 2009 at 07:42 AM


FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Image Upload 1 2 3 … 5 6 end