D90 is the same if not slightly better than D300- and when i was shooting D90 and D700 side by side, that is about what i saw. By ISO 1600 i could definately see a difference.
ISO1600 wrote:
if i was forced to cut down my kit, i would simply sell lenses and keep my D700 with a 50mm f1.4 and/or 18mm f2.8.
I think this is part of my consideration. It is real tempting to sell it all (D700, 24-70, 70-200 VR1) and be able to pick up two D300's and several lenses (12-24, 17-55, 50-135, etc.) for the same or less cost as my D700 setup. It becomes even more of a cost difference if I consider an UWA zoom for the D700 (14-24 but more likely the 17-35).
But if it came down to cost and/or lens sizes, I would likely keep the D700 and swap the 17-35/24-70/70-200 for smaller zooms like the 18-35/24-85/70-300VR or some primes, although I am not a prime lens person.
pawlowski6132 wrote:
I have the D700 w/ 50 1.8D and 70-200 2.8 VR.
I'm leaning towards keeping the D700. Drats.
Not sure how I'm gonna get that Hassy now.
What's more important, the D700 or the Hassy? If it is the Hassy and, as you said, you don't use the D700 that much, why not downgrade? It is one thing to downgrade a lens that you might use very infrequently, but tends to keep its value. Compared to DSLRs, which lose value slowly over time.
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
I noticed a slight differance I think in the d700/d300 af speed with the 70-300 af-d. Can't say for sure because the uses were a month apart, but I remeber thinking it was faster.
I have a similar kit, and have considered getting rid of the 24-70 and replacing it with the Panasonic GF-1 and a couple of lenses.
The issue I have is that the D700 is just too heavy; I'm thinking the Panny is a decent alternative to a P&S versus getting another heavy-ish Nikon body.
How much do you miss the crop factor of the D300 over the full frame sensor? Does it make that much of a difference? I shoot indoor sports (boxing / mma), sometimes with the 400mm f/2.8 from a million miles away. Pacquiao / Cotto was shot with the 400 and 1.4x TC and it as still short, even with the DX body.
However, I think that I would be able to crop better with the full frame sensor vs. the DX. Am I wrong?
Hi pawlowski6132 I too may be making the same switch and going back to a D300. I know the D700 is a fantastic Camera but I would rather have the extra reach than the high iso (noise) performance.
I think I got carried away with the reviews and got a little blinded by it all
