d300 to d700 or not??? - FM Forums

Register · Search · Software · Join Upload & Sell · Hosting

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

FM Forum Rules
Nikon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 3 … 5 6 end

Archive 2009 · d300 to d700 or not???

Chris Dees
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #1 · d300 to d700 or not???

If you're going into wedding photography you'll need at least two camera bodies.
The D700 and D300 is a pretty nice combo. Best of both worlds.

Jun 15, 2009 at 07:53 AM

pr4photos
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #2 · d300 to d700 or not???

yeah, i know. i do currently have a d300, d80, and a fuji s3

Jun 15, 2009 at 08:14 AM

nikt
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #3 · d300 to d700 or not???

If you're happy with the D300 then you probably don't need to upgrade, at this stage. If you're looking at doing weddings at some later stage, then maybe have a look at your options then.

Jun 15, 2009 at 09:45 AM

pr4photos
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #4 · d300 to d700 or not???

well, weddings could be starting for me in september, so need to think now. at the moment its only the low light photos that worry me

Jun 15, 2009 at 10:16 AM

Steve Perry
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #5 · d300 to d700 or not???

pr4photos wrote:
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.

That helps tremendously.

Yes, a D700 would be a great camera for weddings. If I was still shooting weddings (personally can't stand 'em), it would be with a pair of D700s. I think they would be the perfect wedding cam.

Jun 15, 2009 at 11:08 AM

MajinHurricane
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #6 · d300 to d700 or not???

I don't understand. Why can't you just crop the image on a d700? You would get the exact same image from the d300 correct?

Jun 15, 2009 at 11:11 AM

MajinHurricane
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · d300 to d700 or not???

Also I think alot of people seem to forget how on a cropped sensor how much different an f/1.4 image would look on full frame DOF wise, compared to the FF ones.

Jun 15, 2009 at 11:13 AM

Steve Perry
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #8 · d300 to d700 or not???

MajinHurricane wrote:
I don't understand. Why can't you just crop the image on a d700? You would get the exact same image from the d300 correct?

@ 5MP instead of 12MP.

Jun 15, 2009 at 11:13 AM

Makten
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #9 · d300 to d700 or not???

Chris S. wrote:
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.

You better be kidding. I went from D200 to D700, and the difference is huge. Especially in the shadows, which can be lifted like 3-4 stops from ISO 200 without disaster.
On the other hand, the D200 gave higher sharpness on a pixel level, at low ISO:s. But there are few lenses that hold up as well on DX as whatever simple lens does on FX. If we're ignoring blurry corners (I do).

Jun 15, 2009 at 11:59 AM

Andre Labonte
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #10 · d300 to d700 or not???

pr4photos wrote:
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.

Wedding photogs shot wedding using film at ISO400 for years and had no issues. Don't get me wrong, if new technology comes along, you should use it, and I LOVE digital and its ability to change ISO. What I'm saying is you may find the D300 offers what You need. I did a wedding this summer and had no issue even with the low-light shots. You gain a stop with the D700 over the D300. Also, if you are shooting weddings, you honestly need TWO camera bodies. Aside from being easier to shoot with two lenses and no switching, having two bodies is a necessary backup in case one camera body fails or gets damaged. The ideal setup is a D700 & D300. If you can't afford both right now, get a D40 for now and save for that D700.

Jun 15, 2009 at 12:53 PM

TonyBeach
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #11 · d300 to d700 or not???

pr4photos wrote:
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.

It really comes down to cost versus quality then. Yes, a D700 with a 14-24 is better than a D300 with a Tokina 11-16, but the price is about twice as much for the latter combination. Now if I were you I would get the D700, but that's because I already have the 14-24. I'm not you though and my priorities are different [see my previous post about waiting for a "D700x"].

If I were doing weddings or any other paid work, I would want two identical cameras because the user interface and post processing workflow would then be seamless. In that regard, the difference between the D300 and the D700 is not at all unreasonable (two bodies equals about the cost of one good lens), but it's those differences in lenses that is going to end up making FX a lot more expensive and a little more heavy than DX. If your charging appropriately for your work though, and it gets you even a little more work, sell the D300 and any DX lenses you own and buy two D700 bodies and pro quality FX lenses.

If you can't afford to buy two D700 bodies and a 14-24 right away because you don't have $6500 to invest, then I would get another D300 and start buying FX glass as you can afford it. Get the Tokina 11-16 for now and mount it on one of those D300 bodies; use the other body with your longer lenses. When you have enough lenses and business to make the move to D700 bodies relatively painlessly, then sell both D300 bodies and that Tokina lens -- i.e., I think it's best to be all in or all out and not to straddle two formats and two bodies (at least during any one shoot).

Jun 15, 2009 at 01:08 PM

Gilligan
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #12 · d300 to d700 or not???

If you are going for weddings, you will need a backup body. I think the D300 & D700 compliment each other very nicely, and they are based on the same body controls, picture styles, etc... I went from a D300 to a D700, there are many pros and cons. If I could have kept both, it would have been the best. The D300 is no slouch by any means, and certainly holds it own. Main advantages of the D700 are high ISO and DOF. Only you can judge if it's worth the extra cash.

Jun 15, 2009 at 01:40 PM

jamphan
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #13 · d300 to d700 or not???

I shoot weddings with D300 and have no reserve shooting at ISO 1000 which gets me most every shot I would need (I also shoot 1.4 primes). I am in the same debate whether to make the jump but I just can't justify it right now myself. The D300 does what I need it to do.

Jun 15, 2009 at 03:26 PM

Andre Labonte
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #14 · d300 to d700 or not???

Tony,

Interesting take on it. I was thinking more along the lines of a setup like this:

D700 + 24-70
D300 + 70-200 (the extra reach is great for long churches)

Throw in a 50 f/1.4 for the extra low light/shallow DOF stuff and an AF extension tube for the mandatory ring shot.

Cheers,
Andre

Jun 15, 2009 at 03:35 PM

clew
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #15 · d300 to d700 or not???

TonyBeach wrote:
pr4photos wrote:
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.

It really comes down to cost versus quality then. Yes, a D700 with a 14-24 is better than a D300 with a Tokina 11-16, but the price is about twice as much for the latter combination. Now if I were you I would get the D700, but that's because I already have the 14-24. I'm not you though and my priorities are different [see my previous post about waiting for a "D700x"].

If I were doing weddings or any other paid work, I would want two identical cameras because the user interface and post processing workflow would then be seamless. In that regard, the difference between the D300 and the D700 is not at all unreasonable (two bodies equals about the cost of one good lens), but it's those differences in lenses that is going to end up making FX a lot more expensive and a little more heavy than DX. If your charging appropriately for your work though, and it gets you even a little more work, sell the D300 and any DX lenses you own and buy two D700 bodies and pro quality FX lenses.

If you can't afford to buy two D700 bodies and a 14-24 right away because you don't have $6500 to invest, then I would get another D300 and start buying FX glass as you can afford it. Get the Tokina 11-16 for now and mount it on one of those D300 bodies; use the other body with your longer lenses. When you have enough lenses and business to make the move to D700 bodies relatively painlessly, then sell both D300 bodies and that Tokina lens -- i.e., I think it's best to be all in or all out and not to straddle two formats and two bodies (at least during any one shoot).

Best advice of the day right here, folks. If I could pass off ISO1250 photos on my D2H/D2X cameras, a D300 should be okay. I would go with two identical bodies (especially nice if they come out with a D400 which will drive down prices) for the processing benefits. If you've got the money and it's not an issue, I would consider the d700 but I'd probably wait until they come out with the next iteration. Stay a gen behind on bodies and buy glass. An 85 f/1.4 and a used D300 would do a lot more for your business than a D700 and save you $200.

Jun 15, 2009 at 05:31 PM

lou f
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #16 · d300 to d700 or not???

i really like the look off the images from my d700 compared to my previous dx cameras but i still have my d200 too.

Jun 15, 2009 at 06:16 PM

cgiff
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #17 · d300 to d700 or not???

I really agree with everything about sticking with DX if you need the reach, the D300 + a trip to actually spend time making photos is more valuable than a D700 in your backyard, etc. Even the high ISO ability isn't huge because unless you're a special case, that extra stop really isn't going to change your photography. But...

Andre Labonte wrote:

+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.

Here's the whole reason I love the photos from my D700 much more than the D300 files. Maybe I'm sipping from the Kool Aid, but being able to use all of an FX lens rather than the center is the whole "magic," to me. It's a completely different "look" than DX, just like 120 is completely different than 135. To me, that's the whole reason for switching over. And for someone looking into weddings I think that's of value if the price works.

Jun 15, 2009 at 06:49 PM

Gregory.Rotter
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #18 · d300 to d700 or not???

I plan on going D700 soon, and i use a D80. I don't plan on giving up my D80 when i go FF. (mainly because it's not worth selling). I'll still use my D80 and 70-300VR for street and candid stuff.

Jun 15, 2009 at 07:51 PM

Chris S.
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #19 · d300 to d700 or not???

pr4photos wrote:
. . .wanting to get into the wedding market. . .

. . .wider angle for some shots. . .

. . .low available light. . .higher iso shots.

Pr4photos, those needs fall right into the D700's sweet spot. Sounds like its the ideal camera for you.

I strongly agree with penghai that having a higher range of useful ISOs is a huge advantage for some of us. For me, it's revolutionary. The D700 gives me far more keepers in marginal conditions, and gives me images under conditions where in the past I simply would have put the camera away. My objection is with people who imply that a camera is better in every way that its forbears; that's rarely true--but the D700 is dramatically better in a few particulars than its forbears, and for you, two of those particulars sound like just what you need.

Best,

--Chris

Jun 15, 2009 at 08:39 PM

Len Shepherd
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #20 · d300 to d700 or not???

"Upgrade" is the probably wrong word.
By all means change if the D700 best meets your needs.
I use D300 and D3 alongside each other - and I find Nikon's claims and most reviews are right - i.e. no difference in sharpness, resolution, colour saturation etc to 400 ISO, a slight gain in dynamic range at 800 - and beyond 800 increasing noise, dynamic range and colour saturation for the D3.
The D300 obviously has more reach so if you need reach it costs a lot less and weighs a lot less than FX - 70-200 on DX having the same reach as 300 f2.8 on FX.
For the same viewfinder crop DX has 1 stop more depth of field or if not shooting wide open the option of 1 shutter speed faster - often useful in wildlife and macro.
FX has more wide angle advantage (with FX lenses) and better noise at higher ISO but (depending on lens combination) more corner shading. FX has 1 stop less dof for the same viewfinder crop - useful when you want to limit dof.
The AF zone covers more of the screen on the D300 and the D300 screen although about 15% effectively smaller (100% mag compared to about 72% offsets the smaller sensor) is brighter than the D3.
There is a lot to be said (if you can afford it) for owning both formats to take advantage of the pluses of each format.
If you can only afford 1 body and DX best meets your photographic needs trading from a D300 to a D700 is a downgrade.

Jun 15, 2009 at 08:46 PM

Chris S.
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #21 · d300 to d700 or not???

Chris S. wrote:
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.

Makten wrote:
You better be kidding. I went from D200 to D700, and the difference is huge. Especially in the shadows, which can be lifted like 3-4 stops from ISO 200 without disaster.
On the other hand, the D200 gave higher sharpness on a pixel level, at low ISO:s. But there are few lenses that hold up as well on DX as whatever simple lens does on FX. If we're ignoring blurry corners (I do).

Not kidding at all, Makten. Shooting tethered with proper lighting and exposure settings, my D200 shoots better images than my D700 at base ISO.

If you are lifting shadows 3-4 stops at ISO 200, you are effectively shooting those shadows at ISO 1600-3200--something that the D700 clearly does better than the D200. When I need to shoot under conditions where I can so little control contrast that I might need to lift shadows that much in post, I use the D700. But at other times, needing to adjust that much in post would imply a mistake had been made during capture. In that case, I'd be looking to improve my skills in lighting and contrast control, rather than switching cameras.

Where I often prefer the D200 is in macro and closeup work, where I can control light and contrast very precisely--either with flashes or available light plus reflectors. I keep wanting to prefer the D700 here, but the D200 is better.

By the way, I don't ignore blurry corners--yeckh. Also, I would strongly question the choice of a hypothetical person with poor lenses on an expensive camera. Glass first, then bodies.

Best,

--Chris

Jun 15, 2009 at 09:16 PM

LA_Sportsman
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #22 · d300 to d700 or not???

Of course all our opinions are worth what you're paying but I stick to my original opinion. A D700 would be a great complement to your D300 especially if you're shooting weddings. You need two bodies anyway, both as a backup and to have a long and wide both ready.

I can't speak to why pp would be harder with files from each - just batch one then the other. The controls are the same so it's an easy switch during a wedding and you get the benefits of DX and FX.

One note, because I plan on getting a D700 to complement my D300, I don't by DX lenses anymore although I may get the 10mm fish-eye one day.

Jun 15, 2009 at 11:03 PM

clew
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #23 · d300 to d700 or not???

It's doable either way, but if you're in it to make money I think the D300 is easily the better choice.

Jun 15, 2009 at 11:19 PM

revoke99
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #24 · d300 to d700 or not???

I have a d300 as a backup and now I want to sell it for another d700..The only reason I still have my d300 I use it as my 1.5 TC..

Jun 15, 2009 at 11:32 PM

Steve Perry
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #25 · d300 to d700 or not???

revoke99 wrote:
I have a d300 as a backup and now I want to sell it for another d700..The only reason I still have my d300 I use it as my 1.5 TC..

Best TC on the market

Jun 15, 2009 at 11:36 PM


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