As someone who has gone from D90 to d300 to D700 to D300s to D700, to D3 to D300s, (and dabbled in 7d and 50D).
I can already tell you, if you are not shooting professionally or all the time, it won't matter what you get, you'll want something from the other model when its gone.
In essence, unless you know what you are shooting or have the money to spend on both, you will have a hard time getting the "right" camera.
I missed the reach of the D300 when shooting birds with the cheap(ish) 300mm lens I could afford. So now back to the D300s, and am missing the low light performance and the lost wide angle is wide angle capability of the D700.. and the sheer lovely feel of the D3.
But, I'm hoping to take out the D300s and the 300mm 2.8 AF-S II I just bought used and see if I can find some birds to shoot...
Its November, and this is Wisconsin.. should I move to warmer climes? But then I'll miss the beautiful fall colors next year.. Decisions
I recently shot 2 weddings and several concerts using the D3 and the D90 at the same events. The D90 is very slow but I was absolutely happy with the results. Putting the images side by side, I really couldn't tell the difference.
I had the D300s and sold it in favor of the D90. My only complaint about the camera is it is slow-other than that, it comes with me as much as my D3's.
Outdoors = D300. The crop factor helps... Even with my D300 + 300mm/f4 or 500mm f/4 I've never had the thought "I'm too close to this bird" heh
For the person who mentioned D300 ISO... I myself can't really stand 800 or higher on it. It's okay and all but still plenty of noise imo. 3200 is out of the question!
pawlowski6132 wrote:
So, I think I'm going to sell my D700 and pick up a D300 instead. I don't use the D700 that much and it seems like a bit of over indulgence for me and I can use the extra money.
I'm not a pro but, I'm wondering if anyone else has done this and did they regret it and why?
thanx in advance for your considerations.
Joe
I could never downgrade from my D700. I love the high ISO and speed of the camera to much. But if you think it's to much for you, then go for the D300. but if you do any lower light stuff, then you'll miss the D700.
Why do you think you might be downgrading?
The D300 has different pluses such as more reach and for the same viewfinder crop either more depth of field or a faster shutter speed.
If these are more important to you than better noise and DR above about 800 you will be upgrading
Correcting the mythical viewfinder image misquotes between D700 and D300 I use a D3 and D300 alongside each other several times a week.
Both have a 100 viewfinder coverage but as the D3 viewfinder has 70% magnification and the D300 has 93% so the D300 image appears only about 10% smaller through the viewfinder - and the D300 image is slightly brighter.
Dof differences can be observed to as wide as about f2.2 on the D300 compared to about as wide as f2.8 on the D3. Overall I rate the D300 viewfinder very slightly ahead.
The AF points in the D300 cover a greater area than in the D700 - an advantage to the D300 with some subjects.
In the UK the D300s street price is now within 12.5% of the old D300 price - another possible option.
Len Shepherd wrote:
Correcting the mythical viewfinder image misquotes between D700 and D300 I use a D3 and D300 alongside each other several times a week.
Both have a 100 viewfinder coverage but as the D3 viewfinder has 70% magnification and the D300 has 93% so the D300 image appears only about 10% smaller through the viewfinder - and the D300 image is slightly brighter.
I am not sure if this comment was mainly or partially directed at me. I said earlier in this thread that the viewfinder on the D700 made it easier to use with my glasses compared to the D300. I stand by that statement.
Where I have had trouble with the D300 is in eye relief. If I am not using my glasses, then the D300 is almost the same for me as the D700. But once I put my glasses on, the D700 has the advantage.
Maybe I shouldn't have stated the D700 as having a better viewfinder, but I find it easier to use because of the high eyepoint and eye relief.
I would've thought the difference is negligible. I only own the D80 and D700, but I would've thought any more snappyness of AF by the D700 could be evened out by the fact that the D300's sensors are evened out across more of the frame. Anyone else care to comment?
Nov 15, 2009 at 10:17 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Outdoors = D300. The crop factor helps... Even with my D300 + 300mm/f4 or 500mm f/4 I've never had the thought "I'm too close to this bird" heh
For the person who mentioned D300 ISO... I myself can't really stand 800 or higher on it. It's okay and all but still plenty of noise imo. 3200 is out of the question!
Funny you say this, indoors without a flash is the only time I wish for FX. I make do just fine with DX and love DX for all else. But there are those times.
pawlowski6132 wrote:
I didn't notice any comments regarding the AF; D300 vs. D700. This is important to me. Thoughts?
Both D300 and D700 share many compenents, including the AF module (AF-3500 multi.) I own D300 and have used D700 several times. I saw no difference at all in AF performance. Note that I am using Nikon state of art AFS lenses though.
I did just that. Sold my D700 and got a D300, man what a mistake for me. The high iso performance is a big difference. For me we are talking about at least 2 stops difference. If you are going to use it for shooting mostly in low isos do it, but if you need iso 800 up you need the D700. In the end I am selling my D300 and got myself a used D3. DO NOT DO IT!!
Makten wrote:
If 600/4 is the lens for you on FX, the 400/2.8 should be it on DX. They cost about the same.
Of course, since the lens you propose is one stop faster on the DX system. The real equivalent would be a 400f/4 like the wonderful 200-400 f/4 VR which is 1/2 the price of the 600 f/4 and a zoom to boot. Smaller and lighter too. Now the cost saving of DX over FX is quite clear!
I know, I know, with FX you have the choice of pushing the ISO. but if you don't need it, why add the cost and weight? (please note: retorical question)
Two23 wrote:
Both D300 and D700 share many compenents, including the AF module (AF-3500 multi.) I own D300 and have used D700 several times. I saw no difference at all in AF performance. Note that I am using Nikon state of art AFS lenses though.
Kent in SD
No difference in performance as far I've seen.
Some folks take issue with the auto focus coverage range...I can probably count on one hand how many times in the last 15,000 shots that I've had to focus on something in the extreme edge of my viewfinder. It's never been an issue that's stopped by from getting my shot.
I shot with a D700 for about a week before determining it was too much camera (cost-wise) for me to keep, so I bought a used D300 here on FM.
Boy, I really do miss the D700
If you're shooting a lot of high ISO stuff, you're going to regret it. If you keep ISOs at around 800 or less, there isn't a HUGE difference, though of course the D700 has the noise advantage.
I've had good results from the D300 at ISO 3200, but we're talking decently-lit scenes and not much cropping -- If you crop heavily in photos, ISO 800 is about all I can stand with the D300 (for intance, birding - I max out at ISO 800).
From my tests, the D700 seemed at least 1 stop better than the D300, and probably around 1.5 stops easily.
D300 is a good camera, as I own one but I would think long and hard before selling that D700 -- I really wish I had it again, and have strongly considered buying one again.
I think pretty much the same as most people here. The high ISO of full frame is such a wonderful difference that I find it hard to even find the interest in processing any of the thousands of shots I took when I was on DX. I also really like the fact that your RAWs out of the D700 barely need any processing at all before converting to jpg.
I don't find the difference in size or weight to be that much different between the D300 or D700 and UWA is the only real problem on FX if you are not willing to go for the Nikon 14-24, which if you wanted in the future, turns the FX UWA frown upside down.
I would sell 2 of my 3 lenses and rely only on my 50/1.8 before selling my D700.
). I'm stuck on full frame.