Nikon D300 or D700?
Discussion
I'm looking to buy a new body and am looking at these options, I've read a few reviews comparing the two and there seem to be pros and cons for both bodies depending on how they are going to be used. Does anyone have experience of both and what did they like or dislike with each one?
I've used both. The biggest difference of course is the DX/FX aspect. The FX sensor of the D700 gives you class-leading high-ISO performance, a larger viewfinder and somewhat shallower DOF at any given focal length.
The DX sensor of the D300 gives your lenses 50% greater 'reach' and the high-ISO performance is not shabby at all. You can also use the full range of Nikon lenses (and those from indys), and DX lenses are generally lighter and less expensive than FX ones.
Both cameras share the same metering and AF systems, but the spread of AF points is smaller in the D700. My first thought was 'which klutz put all 51 points in the middle?'. Again this is a personal thing - I like to compose then choose the nearest point; I'm not tracking racing cars.
As you said, it depends what you want to do. If you need the advantages of the FX sensor then get the D700 - but you'll have to buy FX lenses and if you're really fussy you'll notice issues such as CA and vignetting because FX sensors are more demanding on lenses.
I decided on the D300 because the DX sensor gives me the reach I need for my work, the range of lenses is more versatile and I end up with a smaller, lighter camera bag (at weddings you're on your feet all day and constantly moving around so you can't leave stuff in the car). Price wasn't an issue for me but it's about half the price, and therefore has to be better value IMHO.
I wanted to like the D700, I really did, and it's really a cut-down D3, but for my particular needs it wasn't the best option. The D300 doesn't give me any bragging rights but on consideration it's the best tool for my job. But YMMV as they say
The DX sensor of the D300 gives your lenses 50% greater 'reach' and the high-ISO performance is not shabby at all. You can also use the full range of Nikon lenses (and those from indys), and DX lenses are generally lighter and less expensive than FX ones.
Both cameras share the same metering and AF systems, but the spread of AF points is smaller in the D700. My first thought was 'which klutz put all 51 points in the middle?'. Again this is a personal thing - I like to compose then choose the nearest point; I'm not tracking racing cars.
As you said, it depends what you want to do. If you need the advantages of the FX sensor then get the D700 - but you'll have to buy FX lenses and if you're really fussy you'll notice issues such as CA and vignetting because FX sensors are more demanding on lenses.
I decided on the D300 because the DX sensor gives me the reach I need for my work, the range of lenses is more versatile and I end up with a smaller, lighter camera bag (at weddings you're on your feet all day and constantly moving around so you can't leave stuff in the car). Price wasn't an issue for me but it's about half the price, and therefore has to be better value IMHO.
I wanted to like the D700, I really did, and it's really a cut-down D3, but for my particular needs it wasn't the best option. The D300 doesn't give me any bragging rights but on consideration it's the best tool for my job. But YMMV as they say
First off, I should point out I've no experience of the D700, but do own a D300...
Can you afford the lenses to justify the D700 over the D300? I'd rather have a D300 and send the extra on glass theskrimp for the D700. The D300 is stonking, it really is, and as a photographer you'd have to be s
t hot to have the skill to warrant the difference.
I'd say the D700 would be lovely if you REALLY need high iso capability. With a 50mm F1.8 you can handhold in a room lit only by a couple of candles with the D300 (at 6400 granted) - you really need more? With the FX sensors and a 50mm F1.4 you can probably take a picture in any light in which you can see... THings are getting silly.
The D300 has the same AF (AF fine tune rocks!), the same metering, mostly the same body, there really isn't much difference.
Can you afford the lenses to justify the D700 over the D300? I'd rather have a D300 and send the extra on glass theskrimp for the D700. The D300 is stonking, it really is, and as a photographer you'd have to be s
t hot to have the skill to warrant the difference.I'd say the D700 would be lovely if you REALLY need high iso capability. With a 50mm F1.8 you can handhold in a room lit only by a couple of candles with the D300 (at 6400 granted) - you really need more? With the FX sensors and a 50mm F1.4 you can probably take a picture in any light in which you can see... THings are getting silly.
The D300 has the same AF (AF fine tune rocks!), the same metering, mostly the same body, there really isn't much difference.
Well in that case I confidently predict that even the humble merely-DX D300 will blow your socks off. I too cut my digital teeth on a D70 and loved it, yet now it looks positively quaint! Of course there's not much difference between 12 and 10Mp - you could get a D200 and an extra lens...? The D200 is good up to ISO800 and took 99% of the photos on my website.
Edited by Simpo Two on Thursday 4th December 22:29
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff