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.
+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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 06:59 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
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.
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).
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.
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 10:26 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
TonyBeach wrote:
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)....Show more →
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.
