Recommenations on choosing a new Nikon body

<p>Nikonians out there please share your opinion with me to choose the right body.<br>

First of all, my lenses: 14-24/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8<br>

Now, I am trying to decide between D300s, D700 and D3.<br>

I have hands on experience with D300s (currently own) and D700. Here are my observations. Pros for D300s: lighter and smaller body, good balance with MB-D10, I like the crop factor with all the three zoom lenses. (I don't really need 14mm so staring at 21mm is not a disadvantage for me). Cons: the viewfinder is like looking into a tunnel. Pros for D700: viewfinder, high ISO advantage. Cons: very heavy, too big with the grip.<br>

I did not use them long enough to have any difference noticed in IQ under normal lighting conditions.<br>

My first question is, does anyone can name any IQ difference between the two cameras (except noise level at high ISO)?<br>

Second, is it true that the D3 (original D3) has higher IQ then the D700? Or better high ISO performance. Many experts state that the IQs of the two cameras are identical, but then I saw post on the net saying that D3 is better.<br>

If that is correct, I might just get a d300s and a d3.<br>

The D300s for travel and just walking around and the D3 for professional work. (I used D700 for pro work before - but don't have it anymore). The question is do I really need a D3 or just save and get D700 again.<br>

Please if some of you think that I have no idea what i want, spare your criticism. I asking for ideas and opinions.<br>

Thanks!</p>

<p>Here you can get an <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor">idea</a> how the various sensors perform. From my experience even the D90 has image quality comparable to the (old) EOS5D. If you like the crop factor then I would choose the D90. The full frame sensors should have somewhat better high ISO perfomance. Personally I have found that I can handhold smaller and lighter cameras much better than bigger heavier ones so I can stick to lower ISO settings.</p>

<p>You have great lenses. They will maximize whatever camera you stick on it. D700 are now hitting less than $2,000 used. The main thing about D300s is it has video. You didn't even mention video, so I'll assume you don't "need" it. A D300 would work just as well. You could buy a used D700 and a Nikon D5000 (tiny!) for travel. The D5000 has same sensor as D300. If you "needed" a D3, you would almost certainly know that.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

<p>With those lenses, I'm surprised that you notice the size difference between the D300 and the D700 enough to worry about it. But if the D700 is too big and heavy, then the D3 should certainly be too big. So that leaves a D300, right?</p>

<p>John, I would have to look it p, but isn't the D3 smaller and lighter than the D700 with second battery and grip attached? The OP said the D700 was too big with the grip. Not the first person I have heard say that.</p>

<p>Guys, thanks for the very constructive answers.<br>

Mike, I agree with you on the better hand-held performance. I actually forgot to mention that in my OP. That is also due to the enormous mirror slap of the D700. On that note, I really like the Q mode on the D300s.<br>

Kent, yes you're right, I do not care about the movie mode.<br>

John, the IQ difference I noticed between the two bodies is only at ISO over 1600. I don't see other difference, and I just wanted to know if others had noticed IQ difference.<br>

Thanks again.</p>

<p>The D3 and D700 have the exact same sensor, which means exact same image quality. The D700 with a grip is slightly larger and heavier than the D3.</p>

<p>I shoot a D700 daily for the newspaper I staff for and it's wonderful.</p>

<p>Unless you're constantly going above 1600, you won't see much difference between the D300/D700.</p>

<p>Overall I really prefer the handling of the D300 over the D700, but maybe I have small hands. The D700 is too chunky compared to the D300, and the CF card door not having a secured latch was a pain at times. The thing that did it for me was the viewfinder on the D700 having only 90% coverage vs the 99.9% coverage of the D300. Going back to the D300 after having shot with the D700 for six months was like going back to an old friend. Even the D300 is too big and heavy for me at times, and lately I've been using my Nikon P6000 with pleasure on hikes and walks. It will accompany me to Japan (along with D300) for those times when I want to be somewhat obscure like in train stations and the like.<br>

Go for the D300s! It's a marvelous camera. </p>

<p>The D700 is essentially the same size as a S300, except that it has a larger prime, which probably makes it look big.</p>

<p>The D3 is faster than the DX00 grade cameras, it's built even tougher than the already well built DX00s, and it has a few special features such as the integrated vertical grip. Although the D3 is the camera of choice for many working pros and enthusiasts with enough budget, the D300/D700 are already good enough for essentially all tasks. The D700 and D300 are more cost effective than the D3. </p>

<p>You have to decide if you really need FX, and what's considered heavy and cumbersome while what's considered light and compact. </p>

<p>with those lenses, i'd probably go for a d700.</p>

 

<p>Unless you shoot much above ISO 2500, I think that the main desicion is between DX or FX here.</p>

<p>Those lenses beg for a full-sensor, and are not a great match for a D300.</p>

<p>Simple. D700.</p>

<p>I agree with Peter :)<br>

In reallity D3 gives slightly better final results than D700 (both have same sensor, but...)<br>

In a few days i am buying D700+MB10, 24-70, 70-200, 105 and SB-900<br>

I will be little short with 200mm on FX, but for my job it will be just fine package.</p>

<p>Those lenses you have are perfect...so if you need quality go with FX, and if you have need for action then go with D300 (no D300 S)...<br>

Thats my opinion.<br>

...in the end you wont miss with any of those three...</p>

<p>So if the D700 is too big and too heavy with the grip, to me the question becomes: do you need the grip?<br>

Do you use the grip on the D300s? Cause the only difference in size, as far as I know, between D700 and D300 is the viewfinder. The rest is pretty much the same, and the weight differs by less than 100 grams. Which given the weigth of your lenses cannot really be the issue?</p>

<p>Given the lenses... The D700.</p>

<p>Thank you everyone for the ideas and comments.<br>

Just to update this thread, I returned the D300s and got a D700.<br>

Many of you said there is no big difference in size and weight so I went for the FX.<br>

Also, having done an extensive high ISO noise comparison, I concluded that the d300s is not just a little bit worse in high ISO. I found a significant difference: at 1600 D700 is perfectly clean and d300s requires noise clean-up. At 3200 d700 has acceptable, hardly visible noise, d300s is really bad.</p>

 

<p>Sorry to join in late. But you made the right choice in my view. I LOVE the D700. It is the first new piece of gear I have ever purchased that was a HUGE step forward in capability. I have used it extensively at 1600, 3200, and even 6400. I will bet that you even find 3200 more than just acceptable in practice! </p>

<p>Yes, all the initial reasons why I was trying to justify the d300s got defeated. The d300s is not that much lighter and smaller. And all the "official" high ISO quality specs, IMO are wrong. I had been reading all over the internet that the d300s high ISO performance is only one stop behind the d700. I think that is not true. I would say it is at least two stops.<br>

Nevertheless, the d300s is a great camera, but the d700 is even better. And the price difference is not that big (I got a refurbished d700 for $2100).<br>

Another reason I prefer the d700 is that I love to use a 50mm primes. I found the 50/1.4 is a better lens than the 35/1.8.</p>