The D700 is a great camera, wonderful files, excellent AF and high iso, however it is heavier, and lenses used on it are heavier and more costly.
The D300s is not as quick as the D700, but only very, very slightly slower and only in ultra low light. It has a great VF and I don't notice any real difference when using MF, esp. in any reasonable light. The advantage is in the smaller form and smaller/less costly lenses, plus the dual cards (for me at least).
Looks like I will spring for the D700. I did a side-by-side comparison today with the D300s and I think the D700 will suit my needs better. The bigger, brighter VF is quite noticible between the two cameras. I was suprised to see that the D700 is almost identical in size and weight - only slightly taller. The store owner and myself took a lot of pics with both camera's (indoor & outdoor) and he even printed out two pics (8"X12") from each camera. It was quite evident that the D700 files printed much better with more resolution, were sharper, and the range of colors seemed better to me. I may have been seeing things but I feel the prints looked much better out of the D700. For me, this is a big selling point. Thanks again everyone!
hashaama wrote:
I do agree with you the lenses are very important, however matching the lens to you needs is important too. For example if you are trying to shoot a portrait of child smiling and the best lens available for portraits looks like a torture device then no matter how good technically that lens is you will find it difficult to get the picture you want.
Oh, I totally agree. If you come across the places where advice is asked and I offer an opinion, you'll see I do put a lot of thought into it. I even look things up to pass along. Totally agree that the whole secret is match your needs to what's available. One of the kinds of posts that gets me a little peeved go something like this: "I have a D90. What's the best lens I can buy?" And absolutely no clue is given what they photo, want to spend, and so on. I mean, here! The OP here was much more specific, and that's appreciated.
At my paper we have a D200, D300, and D700.
My D700 lives in my bag with the D300 relegated to being body capped and put in a side pocket for tele use with the 80-200.
The ISO performance of the D300 is a huge let down when compared to the D700.
The ability to have my 17-35 be actually wide, is awesome.
I am eager for the D3s chip to hit the D700s so I can grab one of those suckers.
If you want a lens (but not an expenxive one) to go with this camera, you might want to try the Tamron 28-75/2.8 I used it some time before I got the Nikkor 28-70/2.8
Both are excellent lenses, optically they quite close IMHO
Other option: Nikkor 24-85 AFS (not the 2.8-4, but the slower version). It's the bigger brother of the 18-70 - more or less the same optical quality.
Both can be found (mint quality) used for somewhere between $ 200 and $ 300
here! The OP here was much more specific, and that's appreciated.