UPGRADE TO D700

<p>HI, GUYS: I CURRENTLY HAVE A NIKON D-300, AND WANT TO UPGRADE . THERE ARE TWO CHOICES NOW. ONE IS D3S, BUT IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE. THE OTHER ONE IS D700. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN D700 AND D300 IS DX AND FX. IS IT TRUE?. DOES IT WORTH BUYING WHEN I HAVE HAVE D300 OR JUST WAIT FOR D400 OR D800? THANK YOU.</p>

<p>What lenses are you using? What do you photograph?</p>

<p>Moving from a D300 to a D700 is not an upgrade, it is changing from DX to FX format. The real upgrade from the D300 would be the D3s.</p>

<p>I second what Matt asks. You are moving from a DX to an FX camera so the issue of lenses is critical. Also important is what you intend to do with it. If you want a great wide - normal camera with fabulous low light and ISO abilities then D700 makes sense (again assuming you have the lenses for it). If you prefer more telephoto photography (eg wildlife, sports, etc) then the DX format of the D300 will be far better suited to you.</p>

<p>The crux of the matter is that going from D300 to D700 is not just an upgrade. You're not just getting a newer model of essentially the same thing. You are changing from DX to FX, and so have to look at the strengths and weaknesses of each of those formats and decide what suits you best. You say this is 'the only difference'. But it is a very important difference.</p>

<p>Dave - the D3s is also an FX camera so in fact moving from D300 to D700 or D3s would be the same in terms of the most important element of change. I think the 'natural' upgrade within the DX format is from D300 to D300s.</p>

<p>I agree with Dave, going from a D300 to a D700 is not an upgrade but a format change therefor the first thing you should do is to look at the lenses you already have. If you mostly have FX lenses then going for a D700/D3s won't be a problem.<br>

Another question you should ask yourself is "Why you wanna jump from DX to FX". I don't think anyone can answer that question here.<br>

The last part of your question, when you asked if you should wait for a D400 or a D800 gives me a feeling that you just want a new camera coz again, one of them should be a DX camera and the other one an FX.<br>

So before making a jump you should think again what is wrong with your D300.....<br>

Good luck on your decision! Cheers!</p>

<p>As already said here, it depends on what type of shooting you do. My guess is that you should stick w/ the D300 and buy some new glass if you have $ burning in your pocket or are in need of an upgrade.</p>

<p>If you are shooting weddings or events then I'd say switch to the D700. The improved ISO performance will be greatly appreciated. Just keep in mind you may need to purchase new glass w/ the D700 given the FX sensor.</p>

<p>Going from a D300 to a D700 is a bit of a trade off. You'll loose the reach and higher pixel density of the D300; while gaining better low light performance and greater flexibility with WA shooting. As other have said, there could be some issues with lenses. </p>

<p>Even if the D700 end up being the better camera for what you do, it could still be better to hold off the purchase and stay put; as it is almost always a cost effective to do so, and that more capable cameras will always get introduced in the future. </p>

<p>i had the d80 and moved up to the d700 mostly because i wanted full frame pictures.i bought myself the 28 - 70 nikon lens and the 70 - 200 vr lens and the differences im getting in picture quality now is massive.the fx format to me for landscape brings this camera into a league of its own.if your primarily thinking of the bigger picture then the d700 would be the choice hands down.but if you dont have the glass you would be looking at more payout get get proper results.</p>

<p>James, what is driving the 'upgrade?' The D700 is an upgrade in terms of high-ISO performance. It's a downgrade due to the arrangement of AF sensors, IMO.</p>

<p>As already mentioned, it's a format change -- all of your lenses get wider. DX lenses may work, but at lower resolution or limited zoom range. If you have specific needs, you may have to invest in additional lenses.</p>

<p>I made the change from D300 to D700 about 18 months ago. I personally think it was a huge upgrade. The low light capabilities are exceptional. I shoot alot of HDR's and inside pics. I had a 18-200mm DX and went the 24-70mm 2.8 and 70-200mm 2.8, and again both are a dream to use. The only trade-off to me is the weight - the D300 system is small & light compares to the D700 system.<br /> <br /> ALSO, the move to the D700 and those two lenes cost me about $7000 at the time - but the D700 body has come down in price.<br /> <br /> Just to be clear - the DX lenses do not work correctly [ different size light cone ] on FX bodies.</p>

<p><em>"Moving from a D300 to a D700 is not an upgrade"</em></p>

<p><em>"I personally think it was a huge upgrade."</em></p>

<p>If you compare features side-by-side, the answer becomes obvious. Aside from improved IQ at higher ISOs (starting perhaps as low as ISO 1000 and certainly at ISO 1600), the D700 hosts many valuable features that most photographers would appreciate. A larger viewfinder, no slow down if frame rate when shooting 14 bit RAW and a faster processor (noticeably faster AF) lead the way. There are many more.</p>

<p><em>"It's a downgrade due to the arrangement of AF sensors"</em> Actually the arrangement (size/position) is identical to the D300. But because the FX frame is so much larger than DX, they AF points appear more concentrated to the center. The faster AF processing of the D700 makes it more appealing to many to that of the D300.</p>

<p>"WORTH BUYING WHEN I HAVE HAVE D300" Answer Matt's question and you will have your answer.</p>

<p>Moving from a D300 to a D700 is a huge upgrade in high ISO performance. For me, that mattered far more than the format change.</p>

<p>Most people who want to switch to FX don't have a compelling reason that they need to.</p>

<p>If you don't already know the reason you need to switch, you very likely might be better served by getting better at photographing with what you have.</p>

<p>Elliot, worth nothing that quoting Joe 'it was a huge upgrade', the upgrade also involved going from the 18-200VR to the 24-70 and 70-200VR. Likewise for Dean who says a massive upgrade, but also buying into seriously good lenses and coming from the D80...I think the upgrade in such a case is at least as much the lenses. Not saying you are wrong, but putting things in perspective.</p>

<p>For me, liking long lenses quite a bit, in many ways a D700 could be a downgrade too.<br>

So those asking: what do you take pictures off, under which conditions, and which lenses do you have. Those are the right questions. Without answers to those, nobody here can give proper advice.</p>

<p>I think you need to answer Matt's question. The D300 and D700 are different and each has there strong suite. Decide what you want to do then get the tool that best fits. I use a D700 and should also have a D300 for my tele's.</p>

<p>I use D300 for night shooting and tried a D700. I just didn't see enough difference to justify the huge expense in buying new lenses to fit FX. So I'm staying with D300 for now. Will you sell more photos if you have a D700? I decided I wouldn't.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I pondered a simular decision and went with a D300s instead of the D700. Reason I made this choice is I shoot a lot of wildlife and still have my F5 for landscapes plus I am using my FX lenses on my 300 with great results until such times a D700 upgrade comes along. Just can't swing the $$ for a D3s or a D3x.</p>

<p>I went from a D300 to a D700, and found it was merely a format change and not an upgrade. In the end I sold my D700 after 5 months and bought another D300 a couple months later.</p>

<p>Not an upgrade:<br /> 1. D300 has better viewfinder, 100% vs D700 90%. This is a huge deal for me as I tend to crop in camera and not in post. Really slowed me down.<br /> 2. D300 has better handling, not as heavy and chunky as D700<br /> 3. D300 has longer battery life than D700<br /> 4. D300 has better battery door design than D700<br /> 5. D300 has better AF Sensor arrangement in viewfinder than D700<br /> 6. D300 is less expensive than D700<br /> 7. D300, being a DX camera, has a 1.5x zoom advantage over D700</p>

<p>An upgrade:</p>

<p>1. D700 has better image quality starting at ISO 400 than D300. It is noticeable. Some might even say it's better at ISO 200 but I prefer D300 at ISO 200. D700 has stronger anti-alias filtering than D300, resulting in softer images out of camera than D300.<br /> 2. Full frame means a bigger overall viewfinder. D700 has a gorgeous viewfinder with tremendous eye relief compared to D300. <br /> 3. D700 has the ability to shoot wider than D300. The Nikon 14-24mm FX zoom has no equivilent lens in DX.<br /> 4. D700 has faster 14 bit NEF capture (if that is important to you. not so important to me). <br /> 5. D700 lets you use your prime lenses as they were designed, full frame, with no crop factor. Yay! I loved being able to shoot with my 105mm f2.5 AI'd Nikkor as it was designed.</p>

<p>So for me, the pros outweigh the cons for the D300 vs. D700 deal.</p>

<p>Now, if I were going FX today, with all this in mind, I would either:</p>

<p>1. Buy the D3s, knowing it has a 100% viewfinder, and better image quality than D700.<br /> 2. Wait for D700 replacement which will hopefully have the same sensor as D3s.</p>

<p>I really didn't find the high ISO performance of the D700 to be that great. Sure, it's better by a stop or two than D300, but the D300 is still superb. And the drawbacks as I listed above made it just not worth it for me as I don't shoot at high ISOs for all my work.</p>

<p>Hope this helps!</p>

<p>Dave,</p>

<p>Does the D3s really have better image quality than the D700? I was under the impression that it has the same sensor as the D700, but processes the data in-camera differently?</p>

<p>Am I right?</p>

<p>Cheers, <br>

Vineet</p>

<p>Yes the D3s is a new generation! I was shocked to see how much better high ISO performance was. Take a look at the excellent review the nice folks over at dpreview.com did on the D3s.<br /> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3s/page30.asp<br>

ISO 6400 looks amazing on the D3s</p>

<p>D300 vs D700<br>

1. dx vs fx sensor<br>

2. D700 is about 1 to 1.5 stops better ISO performance.<br>

3. Size and ergonomics.<br>

I like to keep things very simple</p>

<p>thank you everybody. the main reason for me to buy a D-700 is my wife likes my D-300 and ask me to buy another camera. both of us will go to Shanghai this summer for the World Expo 2010 and so many photos will be taken i think. i am thinking of D-700 or D3s. as for the lenses i don't have to worry about because i have 14-24 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 VR f2.8, 12-24f2.8 dx, 24-85 f2.8-4, 80-400f3.5-4.5.</p>

<p>Taking all the technical issues (ISO, viewing area, noise level, filtering etc., that have been discussed in this forum), under consideration I think that the most important plus point of D700 is the FX format. One can take full advantage of it to use super wide angle lenses (not the DX lenses), which is a real limitation for DX camera like D300.</p>

<p>As one who has both, I think that the D700 is definitely an upgrade. One of the places where I really notice it is with macro work; the bokeh is significantly better. The biggest problem is having to fork out for expensive lenses.</p>

<p>My 135mm SLR equivalent bag is currently home to a D200, a D700 and an F5. To me the D700 is a workhorse with the full frame (FX) sensor, quality resolution at high ISO and a good balance when paired with a 70-200 or other working lens. To me the DX format is a disadvantage because the perception of a greater focal length in lens is brought about by digital cropping. I view the comparison of DX vs FX in digital formats, to be similar to comparing a 135mm film format to a 6x4.5 film format. I like the idea of having a 50mm lens giving a 50mm view rather than 75mm; and the same for my 12, 20, 85, etc. <br>

The D300 is a fine camera, but I prefer the Nikon FX format.</p>