Upgrade. D300 or D700?

[cottonfoo]

I'm outgrowing my Nikon D50 having had it the past four years, it's been a great camera and has taught me a lot but I now want something more.

I'm considering either a D300 or (huge jump) D700. I only have a couple of lenses so am not too bothered about replacing them, I will keep the D50 anyway.

I mostly do landscape and architectural shots, especially in low light, but will be doing more portrait/fashion later on. The higher ISO performance will be brilliant, as will the virtual horizon.

Does the 95% viewfinder on the D700 affect you much? There is less lense choice of course but I expect this to change, and I have no extreme needs - will probably go for a 24-70 f2.8 and a fast prime initially.

Either camera is a huge step up, but will FX be worth it in the long run? I don't want to upgrade again for another 4-5 years.

[GetCarter]

Are your lenses DX? (they probably are)... in which case they will be much wider on the 700.

The sensor on the 700 is however, MEGA good.

If it were me I'd go 700, but I always spend too much.

[cottonfoo]

Yep both DX, but I'm not adverse to buying FX lenses. The 300 would more than cover my needs and give me room to grow, but the extra performance of the 700 is more than tempting ...

[GetCarter]

It's the ISO which is so much better. If you need to shoot in low / medium light without flash, the 700 is a no brainer. The 300 - like the rest of the Nikon range apart from 700 and 3 is crap at 800 ISO and above. The 700 will go to 4200 without stress and much further if needed. If that's not an issue then the 300 is still a great camera.

This either 4200 or 5000 ISO (can't remember now... makes no difference, they are both totally useable. My D2X would have died a death in this situation - without flash)

http://www.stevecarter.com/poole/lads.jpg

Edited by GetCarter on Tuesday 17th March 17:13

[cottonfoo]

Yeah I saw that photo, it's bloody amazing. I definitely need the ISO performance, am sometimes taking pictures in poorly lit gyms, but very often in low light outdoors.

Looks like I will go for the 700

[CivicMan]

cottonfoo said:

I mostly do landscape and architectural shots, especially in low light

I'd suggest a tripod rather than pushing the ISO to 1600+. Just IMO.

[cottonfoo]

CivicMan said:

I'd suggest a tripod rather than pushing the ISO to 1600+. Just IMO.

I do (well, Gorillapod + remote) when out and about, but sometimes it just isn't practical, especially indoors when moving around a lot.