SportsShooter.com - Performance of Nikon D300 vs D700

	Santa Ana \| Ca \| USA \| Posted: 12:23 PM on 04.05.09
	->> I have the 80-200 2.8 and if I could do it again, I would have saved up more pennies and waited then bought the 70-200 2.8 I think the 80-200 is very, very soft

Thomas Quinn, Photographer

Valparaiso | IN | USA | Posted: 1:45 PM on 04.05.09

->> Although I do not have the D300, I do have the D90 which I believe uses the D300 sensor and I do have the D700 which uses the D3's sensor.

Overall, I think you will be much happier with the D700 over the D300.

1) Full Frame wide, nothing like it! Thinking the 70 or 80 to 200 is like 105 or 120 to 300 on the cropped body. (D300). The 300 reach being nice, I (personal opinion here) like hitting a true 70 or 80 on some of my news shots. Even wedding I have caught myself saying that I am sure glad I had the 70mm.

2) The high ISO is truly to die for on the D700. Enough said! I have shot in gyms that I thought would be dismal, but the D700 and ISO 4000 saved me. I know I have shot in those gyms before, with ISO 1600. Knowing then when the players hit the "slow" spot on a jump shot I could freeze that moment. There is just something nice about bumping the ISO to 4000 and shooting.

3) I believe the sealing on the D700 is superior to the D300. Seems a little more rugged for those quick April showers.

These are just my thoughts, your mileage may vary as 4 out of 5 dentists agreed.

Tq

Matt Brown, Photographer

	Fullerton \| CA \| USA \| Posted: 2:07 PM on 04.05.09
	->> Get the D700! Don't mess with the D300. Go full frame with the D700 and enjoy. The AFS VR 70-200 2.8 is much better as well.

Thomas Meredith, Photographer, Assistant

Austin | TX | | Posted: 2:26 PM on 04.05.09

->> Dwayne, -- are you planning on using the 70-200 with a D700?

I had read the smaller barrel design of the 70-200 is optimized for DX format - and that when placed on a D3 (or now a D700) there is corner softness and vignetting issues since it is a larger surface area to cover.

from dpreview:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_70-200_2p8_vr_n15/page7.asp

"The problem is that, with the introduction of the D3, DX is no longer the pre-eminent format in Nikon's DSLR line, and 35mm full-frame has re-arisen from the ashes in the guise of FX. This of course places different demands on lenses, which now need to cover properly an image circle 43mm in diameter, as opposed to the 28mm of DX. And the D3 is a top-end camera, so it seems reasonable to assume that Nikon's workhorse professional lenses should give excellent results on it; sadly, the 70-200mm F2.8 VR doesn't quite manage this, with significant vignetting at wide apertures throughout the zoom range, and distinctly soft corners at longer focal lengths. The big problem here is that many D3 owners will likely need to use a fast telezoom on a daily basis, and for some, the 70-200mm VR's performance will simply not be up to scratch."

So, my added question -- anyone have any real world, field examples of a D700/70-200 VR combo? is it a usable combination?

thanks.

Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor

Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 4:28 PM on 04.05.09

->> Dwayne - I think your main concern should be how you'll be using the cameras. You mentioned you might purchase "a D700 and D300 as a back up." Will the D300 be a second body you use all the time or will it primarily be a backup?

Do you typically use two bodies in tandem (i.e., with different lenses), or do you use one body and switch lenses? I use one body because most of the stuff I shoot is easier with one body. If I shot more professional sports a second body with a different lens would be almost essential, but lugging two SLR cameras into the mountains for 3-4 days really isn't practical.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, after reading these posts, you should purchase two D700's if you think both will see full-time use. If you're simply purchasing a second body as a backup that will just sit in you bag most of the time, buy a D700 and a D300, or skip the D300 and stick with the body you have now for the backup.

Just my $.02

Thomas Quinn, Photographer

	Valparaiso \| IN \| USA \| Posted: 5:04 PM on 04.05.09
	->> I will upload some of my D700 70-200 stuff tonight. Yes there is a little (and I mean little) vignette on the lens but it is the best combo I have used in a long while. I constantly use the 70-200 on the D3 and D700.

Thomas Quinn, Photographer

Valparaiso | IN | USA | Posted: 5:11 PM on 04.05.09

->> BTW if you goto my page and there is a gallery called D3 70-200. They are throw-a-way shots but there is a grey sky to see any corner darkening and a basketball shot to check for sharpness. These are not shots that I think are any good hence the throw-a-way status. They will be thrown away very soon.

http://www.sportsshooter.com/tquinn/70mm/

Tom Quinn

Hope this helps. Like I said, I love the combo.

Rich Cruse, Photographer

Laguna Niguel | CA | USA | Posted: 5:24 PM on 04.05.09

->> I really like the D700. The D300 was a great camera especially for the price. The High ISO sensitivity was THE reason for me to switch. I am also having issues with vignetting with the AFS VR 70-200 ƒ2.8G on the D700 and I am not happy about it. I don't ever recall having this problem before. I too believe it is because this lens is optimized for the DX format. There is even a camera setting that is supposed to minimize the vignetting effect by correcting for it in camera. I have tried all the settings with mixed results. Most of the time it isn't too bad. You notice the vignetting with blue sky. Still, I feel like I am getting a deal with the same chip from a camera that is nearly double the price! I wonder if this happens with the D3 (the vignetting). Anyone?

If you frequently find yourself in low light situations, the D700 is your camera. I am very happy overall with mine.

The D300 is a solid camera and very responsive. If you don't want to have to buy new lenses and you don't need a FX sensor or high ISO senisitivity, this is your camera.

Do get the grip AND the EL-4 battery. This battery allows 8 fps and it lasts much longer than the EL-3.

If you have one DX and one FX camera, you can switch lenses from one camera to the other when you need the multiplication factor of a DX camera. So you can switch your 70-200mm to your D300 or D90 and it becomes a 300mm!

Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor

Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 5:55 PM on 04.05.09

->> The D300 is a good body however I personally can't really say I agree with having both a DX and FX body.

Now obviously the crop factor giving increased "reach" does have its advantages in situations where you really need more reach and already are using a long lens, such as shooting home plate from the outfield.

However, having a D300 and D3, as well as now a D700, having the FX and DX proves to me at least to be more of a hassle than an advantage in most cases.

For example, I'll throw my 24-70 onto the D300 for more grab type shots but then what happens is its not wide enough for something and I have to switch lens and throw it onto my D3 where 24mm is 24mm and works fine but I just ended up swapping lens and sort of missing the point of a second body.

Additionally while the D300 does have nice looking files in most cases, they look different than the FX files even with the cameras set the same. With the D700 and D3, I can set them the same and shots look the same from both and as such, workflow can be the same for both.

It just makes life a bit easier when your lenses work the same on every body you own and the files out of every body looks identical.

D700 does feel a bit more responsive than the D300 overall as well. D3 is better still and is my main shooting body but the D700 makes an excellent second body, or should keep most users happy as their main body, depending on what you shoot. A wedding shooter for example would be someone very well served by a pair of D700s.

Harry Bloomberg, Photographer

Pittsburgh | PA | USA | Posted: 5:56 PM on 04.05.09

->> I've got both the D700 and D300.

The D700 generates higher quality images, especially at speeds above ISO 1600. However, the D300 isn't too shabby and in fact I think you've got to look carefully at ISO 1600 images to see a significant difference. However, above ISO 1600, it's no contest, the D700 is superior by quite a bit.

As far as AF performance, the D700 is a bit better than the D300 in terms of percent of tack-sharp images and image tracking. And I find the Nikon full-frame 24-70 f2.8 I use on the D700 is sharper than the 17-55 f2.8 that I use on the D300.

I'm fortunate that most of my football shooting is done in a very well lit facility like Heinz Field, so I use the D300 for shooting football because of the 1.5x magnification factor. This allows me to get by with my old Nikon AF-I 300mm f2.8 lens. But for basketball and everything else, I use the D700.

If money were no object, I'd buy a second D700 for football and either a 400 f2.8 or a 200-400 f4. But we're talking big bucks here, so I'll continue using the D300 for football.

Rich Cruse, Photographer

Laguna Niguel | CA | USA | Posted: 6:03 PM on 04.05.09

->> Good points Jeff. Unfortunately, I bought a number of lenses that are DX only and until I am able to buy replacement lenses and another D700 (or a D3!), I have to work with what I've got. I will mostly use the D700 with my 70-200mm ƒ2.8. I did buy a Tamaron 28-75mm ƒ2.8 for $399 that I like a lot. The AF is not as fast as a Nikon lens, but it is sharp and ƒ2.8 through the entire range of zoom.

I found this link to a review of the D700 that discusses vignetting and the camera vignetting correction settings.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond700/page21.asp

Dwayne Woodard, Photographer

Charlotte | NC | USA | Posted: 8:06 PM on 04.05.09

->> Thanks to all!!
I greatly appreciate the quick responses from everyone. I will definitely purchase the D700 first and I am still thinking a D300 as a back up, since the crop factor will be nice for football. My sports photography is on a well lit field (BOA Stadium). Nothing bets the full frame image quality. I normally use 2 bodies, (1) with a wide and (1) with an 80-200 and longer lenses when needed. I can make do with a D300 as a second body just because of the expense and can use the 1.5 crop for sports. I am switching from Canon to Nikon and trying not to drop more than I have to right now.

Thomas M, I have heard and read the same about the 70-200 VR on the full frame chips. I too believe it was optimized for the DX format and it is unfortunate that some are have issues with performance. That is why I was contemplating the 80-200 AFS or the 80-200 ED current model. However, I am concerned about the AF performance of these 2 lenses and if either are considered usable for sports.

Thomas Q, thank you for the images.

Dwayne Woodard, Photographer

	Charlotte \| NC \| USA \| Posted: 8:08 PM on 04.05.09
	->> I appreciate any info that anyone wants to continue to pass on about the D700/D300 and/or the 70-200 VR or versions of the 80-200.

Landon Finch, Photographer

Colorado Springs | CO | USA | Posted: 9:37 PM on 04.05.09

->> Other than the reach, the D300 has nothing on the D700. I dread using my D300 over iso 800. Just a few hours ago I shot my D700 at iso 2500, 1/160, f3.2 and the images look like the D300 at 800. I didn't even think of pulling out my D300 for this job.

I've never used the 80-200, but I love my 70-200 on the D700. Nice and responsive. Yes, it will vignette a bit, but nothing that isn't easily corrected in ACR or PS. I usually add a vignette to my images, so I don't mind it at all (I'm not a journalist, so don't anyone start calling me out on adding the vignette). I've never really seen any softness in the corners, but haven't pixel peeped for it either. My 28-70 also vignettes a bit too, but I love that lens as well on the D700.

Bottom line, if reach is important, I'd consider the D300. If reach is a minor concern, forget the D300.

Michael Fischer, Photographer

	Spencer \| Ia \| USA \| Posted: 10:05 PM on 04.05.09
	->> Dwayne; I bought a 80-200mm f2.8 AFS used Nikkor when I switched back. When I dumped Nikon to switch to Canon I had a 70-200 VR and I think both lenses work well. One of the reasons I went with the 80-200 was because of the problems the 70-200 was having with the FX sensor on the D3.

Rich Cruse, Photographer

Laguna Niguel | CA | USA | Posted: 10:22 PM on 04.05.09

->> From what I can see on the Nikon web site, the AF 80-200mm ƒ2.8D ED has fewer elements and is a D lens which means it doesn't have an AF motor built-in. The S lenses have the built-in Silent Wave Motor which "(enables ultra-high-speed auto focusing with exceptional accuracy and powerful super-quiet operation."
I don't know how big of a difference the SWM makes in AF speed or accuracy. Who else owns the AF 80-200mm ƒ2.8D ED? Have you used it with a D700 or D3?

I would prefer the lens with the least vignetting.

Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor

Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 12:05 AM on 04.06.09

->> I've used a 80-200 a few times and there is no contest in terms of focus performance with the 70-200. The 80-200 is a bit optically better honestly, but its a rather outdated design and I really can't suggest it as far as sports photography goes.

70-200 is a very quick and responsive lens, however, it is isn't really that great optically. Its a bit soft in the corners and does vignette a bit. For what now is a $1800 lens its a bit disapointing in that regard. Luckily, at least in the manner I use mine, its not an issue because I'm shooting subjects with a shallow DOF and dont really need tack sharp corner performance.

Surprisingly the 70-300 VR which is about 1/3rd as expensive is pretty much on par with the 70-200 2.8 and actually the lens I'm using these days for telephoto shots where I actually need the full frame sharp such as landscape photography. Its less than half the weight as well so much nicer to carry on a hike to boot.

You've really got to have a 70-200 2.8 in your kit I feel. Its definatly my most used lens and I couldnt imagine shooting sports like basketball without it. Especially on full frame its a very useful range.

Its not a perfect lens and theres certainly a range of lens that are every bit as good optically if not better such as the 85 1.4, 135 f2, 80-200 and even the 70-300 VR but none of that glass can really serve as the jack of all trades like a 70-200 2.8

If/when Nikon introduces an updated version I'll definatly be in line to trade mine out. The current 70-200 does not compare to the 14-24 and 24-70 G series 2.8 zooms Nikon has recently itroduced which are in my experience the finest zoom lens I've ever owned.

Michael Coons, Photographer

LA | CA | | Posted: 1:37 AM on 04.06.09

->> I have the Nikon D700 and have used the AF-D 80-200, AF-S 80-200 and AF-S 70-200.

The AF-D 80-200 is not great for sports. Slower auto focus is the main problem. The lens is sharp and its lightweight makes it a nice travel lens compared to the AF-S versions.

The AF-S 80-200 has night and day difference in auto focus compared to the AF-D version. I have owned this lens for 8-9 years and its been great for sports. Now that I have a FX camera, the 10mm difference on the wide end doesn't bother me anymore (like when shooting basketball) I do notice some vignetting with the lens.

The AF-S 70-200 is a great lens but has confirmed issues on FX cameras such as vignetting and soft corners. The VR is great but I can shoot ISO 3200 on the D700 and it looks great.

The D700 does have built in Vignette control and does have the ability to act like a DX camera with reduced megapixels, which can be handy. The autofocus micro-adjustment with the D700 should fix any issues with auto focus as I find all three lenses have the ability to be very sharp.

Steve Ueckert, Photographer

Houston | TX | | Posted: 8:53 AM on 04.06.09

->> My experience pretty much reflects the last two posts.

Both the 70-200/2.8 and the AFS 80-200/2.8 vignette on my D3's, the 80-200 a bit less but still noticeable if there is much sky in the image. I tested the 70-200 and sold the 80-200 that I owned. I was unhappy with the sharpness and the light fall-off for both of them. However, there was no observable vignetting on my D300 with either lens.

I have the AFD 180/2.8 and it is far superior both in sharpness @ 2.8 and has no light falloff, at all, in the corners. I also have the VR-AFS 70-300 as it came packaged with the D300. This lens is likewise sharper than the 2.8 zooms and like the 180mm, it has no light falloff in the corners with the D3's.

With the high ISO performance of the D3's (and the VR works quite well for stationary subjects), I now use the 70-300 in situations where I would once have reached for the 2.8 zoom, and if I need 2.8 for depth of field reasons, I use the AFD 180/2.8 or the AFD 85/1.8 or even (one of my all time favorites) the manual focus Ai 105/2.5. I have no complaints about the autofocus speed of either the 180 or the 85. The screens in my D3's are such that I can easily manually focus the 105.

The D300 works well with a 300mm/2.8 VR-AFS. I find the D300 about 1 1/3 stop behind the D3 in high ISO image quality. I have no issues with the D300 up to ISO 2000 and have used it at ISO 3200 with minimal noise reduction in CS3. I shoot only RAW.

Dwayne Woodard, Photographer

Charlotte | NC | USA | Posted: 10:22 AM on 04.06.09

->> Thank you for the great info on the lenses. I am going to look into on of the AFS 2.8 lens. I am becoming interested in the 70-300 AFS VR. Alot of people seem to like this lens and would be nice to have.

I read an article that Nikon D300 is advertised 6 FPS, but if you're shooting 14 bit files then it drops to 2.5 FPS. Can anyone confirm this for me as I haven't purchased Nikon yet. I would also like to know how this effects the D700 the most. I shoot RAW files and am interested in shooting 14 bit files to add dynamic range.

John Cheng, Photographer

New Milford | CT | USA | Posted: 12:57 PM on 04.06.09

->> D700 all the way if you are an indoor shooter and stay above ISO3200 most of the time. I purchased a D300 last year as a high mileage body to compliment my D3s, and just wasn't that happy with IQ above ISO3200. Replaced the D300 with the D700 in Sept 2008 and been very happy. IQ and AF are almost identical to the D3.

Having said this tho, the D700 is on its way to NPS for repair as the mirror was continuously getting stuck after a few short bursts. But I guess it was approaching its 200k lifecycle because I put about 161k clicks on it since last Sept... :)

Jeff Stanton, Photographer

Princeton | IN | USA | Posted: 1:36 PM on 04.06.09

->> A year ago, so many people were singing the praises of the D300 and now it's a dog with fleas to so many of you. Seriously, I can use an old D1H I still carry around in my trunk and get acceptable, colorful images that will reproduce well in the newspaper.

I would love to own a D3 or D700 as the high ISO capabilities would be nice. But I have a D300 and I shot an entire season of high school basketball with it under a wide variety of lighting conditions. And I shot with an 80-200 AF-S. I used a 70-200 and found the images to be a little softer.

The high school basketball team in our town finished at 29-0, won a state title and we published three extra sections and a book on the team's season, all with images I shot with the D300 and they look great! I haven't had one single fan in our town lodge a complaint that the photos weren't shot with a D700 or a D3.

The point of my input is I think it's important to learn to use what you have, exploit all of its strengths and go from there.

Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor

Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 3:23 PM on 04.06.09

->> Jeff, remember its a very different thing to have a D300 and sell it to "upgrade" to a D700 vs trying to make an informed initial purchase that will best meet your needs.

I'm guessing a D700 probably wasn't an option yet when you bought your D300 right ? I know when I bought my D300 it wasn't out yet.

If it was I would of certainly gone for the D700 if it was a choice between the two. How about you ? If you were starting again would you still choose a D300 over a D700 ?

Jeff Stanton, Photographer

	Princeton \| IN \| USA \| Posted: 5:17 PM on 04.06.09
	->> Well, in my world, money is an issue, like it is for many of us. Given those circumstances today, I would buy the best camera with whatever funds I had available.

Steve Ueckert, Photographer

Houston | TX | | Posted: 10:20 PM on 04.06.09

->> I like my D3's, and I 'spose I would also like a D700 as I've heard they both process images the same from the same full frame sensor. The D3 does other things better and does them faster, but the IQ for the D3 & D700 should be identical.

But I also have a D300 and have no plans to get rid of it. The 1.5x crop of the D300, at ISO 2000 and under, means I don't have to go to a 1.4x convertor and give up a stop of exposure if I want to extend a lens. The D300 is a solid camera, not inferior to the D3 or D700, just different because of the crop factor.

The D300 will run 8 fps with the En-EL4 battery of the D3, and D2's, for jpg's and 12 bit RAW, however, it slows way down when shooting 14 bit RAW.

Debra L Rothenberg, Photographer

	New York \| NY \| USA \| Posted: 4:26 PM on 06.01.09
	->> I am thinking of getting rid of my D300 and am trying to decide whether to get another D3 or a D700 (keeping the grip in case I opt for the 700) I can't say I have been at all unhappy with the D300, however. I was, until recently, using it more than the D3

Dave Doonan, Photographer

	Kingston \| TN \| USA \| Posted: 6:53 PM on 06.01.09
	->> I love my d300 I use it in all types of situations and if the D700 is better at high iso's I am going to get one. I mean the d300 gives me good results in low light, so I can't wait to get a D700!

Ronal Taniwaki, Photographer

	Denver \| CO \| \| Posted: 6:54 PM on 06.01.09
	->> geez... let's not forget that with the D300, the AF points cover MOST of the viewfinder area.

Debra L Rothenberg, Photographer

	New York \| NY \| USA \| Posted: 6:54 PM on 06.01.09
	->> my D300 went to a good home a few moments ago now..another D3, or the D700?

Eric Canha, Photographer

Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 8:50 PM on 06.01.09

->> Debbie that depends on your budget. If have the funds a second D3 IMHO would be a better long term investment. While the x00 bodies are well made they (AGAIN IMHO) aren't built to the same brick in the face ruggedness.

Besides to keep a unified battery system you'll have to add a grip and the funky battery cap for the grip. That means that while all the batteries would be the same, you can't just reach in your pocket and grab a battery and go as the endcaps are different. A pet peeve of mine with the D2Xs and D3.

Debra L Rothenberg, Photographer

New York | NY | USA | Posted: 8:59 PM on 06.01.09

->> Hi Eric,
I am not worried about the $$, but thinking about:
-the weight of the D3 vs D700
-I like that the 700 has the sensor cleaner while the 3 doesn't. It seems ot be a dust magnet
-I kept the grip I had with the 300, and the battery cover in case I opt for the 700

not sure which one I am going to get-I have never personally tried the 700 but the image sI have seen from it are great

Just wondering if Nikon is soon going to announce their version of the 5D Mark 2. Seems EVERYTIME I buy a camera or computer, something better is announced and comes out fast. I have too many cameras in my closet-I feel like B&H's little sister

Eric Canha, Photographer

Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 9:47 PM on 06.01.09

->> Valid points and concerns. I've never been one to worry about weight (fr cameras anyway). I can certainly understand your desire for a lighter camera, it's just not something that I ever factor in.

The battery issue for me is a bigger one. I don't like having batteries that are capped with D2 and D3 end caps. I want to have ONE battery and be able to carry a backup that will slip into either body without changing caps. Sort of like having one clip or caliber of round that will work in multiple guns.

Have you contacted NPS to ask if an eval body is available? That would get you (normally) a body to play with for 2 - 3 weeks.

Robert Hanashiro, Photographer

Los Angeles | CA | | Posted: 10:58 PM on 06.01.09

->> Have used and love both cameras.

I have no hesitation using the D300 at ISO 1600.

When I work "documentary - style" (behind-the-scenes types of shoots)...the D300 is what I use. The smaller size ---versus the D3 --- I love and it is a bit more quieter.

I also use my D300 bodies for basketball remotes.

For football the D300 is my "around-the-neck" camera...it's light and the AF is responsive and very accurate.

You can't go wrong with either the D300 or D700.

'Nuff Said!

Debra L Rothenberg, Photographer

	New York \| NY \| USA \| Posted: 10:16 PM on 09.06.09
	->> does anyone think NIkon will announce a D700s, to rivals Canon 5DMark2 by years end?

Pat Farrington, Photographer

	Ft. Collins \| CO \| USA \| Posted: 10:58 PM on 09.06.09
	->> Debra, Thom Hogan is predicting the announcement of a D700x sometime around November. He's not always correct on his predictions but he does a pretty good job.

Debra L Rothenberg, Photographer

	New York \| NY \| USA \| Posted: 11:56 PM on 09.06.09
	->> Pat, the "X" won't have video, will it?

Pat Farrington, Photographer

	Ft. Collins \| CO \| USA \| Posted: 1:35 AM on 09.07.09
	->> Who knows? I would be surprised if either Nikon or Canon would release a new high-end camera without video. It's the wave of the future after all.

Shane Psaltis, Photographer

	Aquebogue \| NY \| USA \| Posted: 9:50 PM on 09.07.09
	->> Debra, I think the D700 surpasses the 5dMK2 already, it has a lower MP but who cares, its does 8fps, has incredible high ISO, and it is built like a tank, to some people the only thing it is missing is the video.

Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor

Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 10:01 PM on 09.07.09

->> Shane, its all rather relative.

I personally don't care about 8 FPS, or incredible high ISO or being built like a tank as I've already got a D3 for all those things.

What I don't have is a very high resolution camera with more than 12 mega pixels for things like team photos, landscape and commercial photography.

I've considered buying a 5D mkII (or actually even Sony) to fill that role but then I'd have to buy glass as well.

Nikon already has some of the best glass made with the 14-24 and 24-70 zooms. All they need now is a high resolution body to really show just what those lenses can do. D3x of course would fit the bill but at $8k its just not in my price range.

I'm happy with my D700 in the meantime and it does take great photos, but hopefully I'll have an "affordable" 24meg Nikon body sooner rather than later.

Dianna Russell, Photographer

Springfield | MO | USA | Posted: 12:31 AM on 09.08.09

->> I'm glad this thread is continuing. I will be upgrading in a few months and was wondering about the D700 and the D300s.

The "Quiet drive mode" in the D300s piqued my interest but the higher ISO of the D700 sounds equally enticing. Or maybe holding out for the D700x would be best. Hard to know the best choice given the fact that Nikon seems to put out new cameras so quickly.

Does anyone have a comparison between the D700 and the D300s?

Thanks.

Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor

Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 12:53 AM on 09.08.09

->> Dianna, I believe the D300s has the same sensor as the D90, which in itself is basically the same as the D300. The D700 is the same as the D3 for all intensive purposes as well.

So if your looking on the basis of IQ, a D300 vs D3 or a D700 vs a D90 et al would give you the same results as the D700 vs D300s. FX vs DX

Full frame vs 1.5x crop. FX has better high ISO performance. FX has shallower DOF with the same framing which could be a good or bad thing depending on what your after. DX gives effective "reach" on the long end.

They are sort of apples and oranges depending on what your needs are. FX isn't the end all as DX does have some advantages in some situations, but overall prefer FX.

Only reason I'd buy a DX body again is just to gain effective reach on a telephoto for shooting baseball from the outfield etc. If your using a 400 and tc already and still not filling the frame with FX, you can crop and then have about a 5 meg image, or you can use a DX body and get that same framing but with a full 12 megs.

D700x would of course solve both problems by giving you full frame with 24megs and then if you wanted to crop it down to DX framing, you'd have about 10megs which would be fine, thus no real need for DX

Dianna Russell, Photographer

	Springfield \| MO \| USA \| Posted: 1:24 AM on 09.08.09
	->> Interesting points Jeff. Thanks for your good explanation. I must have missed the differences in the FX and DX entirely. Thanks. Something more to think about.

Debra L Rothenberg, Photographer

	New York \| NY \| USA \| Posted: 6:31 PM on 09.08.09
	->> I'd like a D700s everything the D700 has..PLUS a voice recorder, and video I love my D3, but it is a little heavy I guess I can keep dreaming, or hoping

Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor

Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 7:03 PM on 09.08.09

->> Its worth pointing out by the way that a D3 is actually smaller/lighter than a D700 if you add the battery grip.

It is nice to have the option to remove the grip though which does make the camera easier to travel with. Still pretty darn heavy though so I wouldn't put let the weight factor weigh too heavily into your decision.

D700 is one heavy brick of a camera for its size. The D90, which my girlfriend just bought is a really nice size/weight for travel I might add. Very functional camera with still great ergonomics but so much lighter. It will be a great travel camera as its light enough, along with some DX zooms to allow for a compact tripod/head as well. Its something to consider if portability is going to be a concern.

D700 takes amazing pictures, but if your got a D700, even without the grip, and a few FX 2.8 zooms, your going to be hauling a very heavy bag with you, need a good tripod/ball head etc. Usually thats worth it to me but I can see myself really using the D90 in some situations where its just walking around a city etc.

Return to --> Message Board Main Index