Andre Labonte wrote:
The D700 & D300 combo is the "poor man's" way of getting the best of both worlds. The ultimate combo seems to me to be the D3x/D3. I don't have that kind of money and DX suits all my needs so that is where I'm staying.
I don't know if I would call you poor if you can afford D700 AND D300.
Jul 22, 2009 at 09:09 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
codeninja wrote:
I don't know if I would call you poor if you can afford D700 AND D300.
, yea, thus the " " marks around "poor man's". But you can have both a D700 & D300 (with optional battery packs) for less than the cost of a D3, let alone the lofty D3x. Poor is a relative thing.
Unless you need the speed of the D3 or the resolution of the D3x, then the D700 & D300 combo is the way to go from a cost point of view. In either case, I'm not that rich .... I'll just enjoy my D300 and be greatful for what I have.
I've shot Canon 30D, 40D, 5D, 5D Mk II with 'L" glass and Nikon D300 and D700 with 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200.
Changing systems because you hope to have your RAW files come out-of-camera (2 different bodies) needing the exact same Levels, Curves, Saturation, Contrast, etc. adjustments does not make a great deal of sense to me.
Even if you shoot identical bodies, you are shooting with 2 different lenses, so the contrast, sharpening, etc., requirements will be different anyway.
I use the D700/D300 combo for weddings. It works well, although two D700s would be my preference. I'm just waiting for a D700 with video before I jump again.
The colors are very similar. I use Picture Control DX Mode 1. This provides a nice match. I shoot RAW and apply the Picture Control upon import in Lightroom.
There was a much more noticeable difference between the D300 and D200. The D200 gave great skin tones. The skin tones on the D300 are not all that great. D700's are better, still not as good as the D200's were. No where near as good as the Fuji cameras.
Some people say the D700 has more plastic-looking images than the D300. I think it's because the D300 is noisier. It doesn't have a really clean low ISO setting. Again, for that, you need to go to the D200.
In practice, none of this seems to matter much, however.
I have both, and the D700 is the winner in IQ. If you shoot at ISO 200, you might think the files are very similar, but once the ISO goes up, it's no contest with the D700 clearly better, and not just from a noise perspective. The highlight recovery and shadows are much better on the D700, and you can work the D700 files much more heavily.
I'm a big proponent of the D300, always have been since I got my hands on maybe the first unit into this area. I still believe that the D300 and D700 are a real match made in heaven for the right purposes. For a sports shooter, it's sometimes nice having the "reach" of the DX format, especially in a package that feels and handles almost identically to the D700.
However, having said that, and if I had to be honest, I'm putting 10 times the miles on the D700 than I am the D300 any more, simply because for most jobs I know it's the better tool. And for sports use I'm finding the D700 is fantastic with TC use in comparison to the D300 naked with the same lens... even if it means going a stop further with the ISO sensitivity. It truly is one incredible image-maker.
The D300's no slouch, but if I were a wedding shooter, I'd rather go with 2 D700's. YMMV.
If the main concern is equalizing the images then it strikes me that a couple minutes in Lightroom setting up the various settings to even things out and then running batches off those established settings makes much more sense than a system switch. I can think of lots of good reasons to move to Nikon but I don't think this one would be on the top of my list.
, yea, thus the " " marks around "poor man's". But you can have both a D700 & D300 (with optional battery packs) for less than the cost of a D3, let alone the lofty D3x. Poor is a relative thing. 