D700 vs D300 ISO - difference

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by bms, Aug 13, 2008.

  1. bms

    bms

    Though I am pretty happy with my D300, my commercial "wanderlust" got the better of me and I picked up my D700 from my local store today. The excitement was fairly quickly replaced with the beginning of buyer's remorse - for an amateur, $2900 (sic!) if a hefty sum. After my wife actually let me through the door rather than making me return my purchase, I needed to reassure myself and did a fairly quick and unprofessional comparison of what I consider one of the D700 strong points, namely performance at high ISOs. I was pretty impressed and although the small JPEG takes way from it, I thought I'd share
    00QV2S-64049684.jpg
     
  2. You made the right choice! Enjoy your new camera!
     
  3. There are reasons to have a D700 & there are reasons to have a D300.

    Enjoy your toys.

    Lil :)
     
  4. Congratulations on your purchase!

    Noise is definitely well controlled in D700. And, and don't see much loss of details in D300 either. I don't know, why some people comment on total detail loss at high ISO with D300 then??

    Enjoy!
     
  5. Capt. J--

    Could be they are turning on the in-camera noise reduction to max.


    Kent in SD
     
  6. Kent may have a point. I am suspicious to see no noise in the D700 ISO 3200 crop.
     
  7. Here is a comparison that has the D3 and the D300, which I think is a much more accurate test. And as you can see, the difference in noise at ISO 3200 is slight. Scroll halfway down the page.

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3/page18.asp
     
  8. I did a D3 and D300 comparison last December:

    http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Ng7Q

    Both cameras had High ISO NR set to Normal. Yes the D3, and by extension the D700, really is very good even at ISO 3200.
     
  9. Noise is not so much the issue as is detail, or lack of it. Any noise reduction program can remove noise from photo. The more noise you reduce, the more detail you loose. The D700, like the D3, provided significantly more detail at low noise than the D300. And yes, the D700/D3 images will have some noise if in camera NR is turned off, but you still end up with more/excellent detail once you remove the noise.
     
  10. Noise, noise, noise. That's all the amateur world seems to be interested in.... <sigh!>

    BTW, does anyone recognizes the difference in price between D300 and D700? Obviously just peanuts for serious photographers.
     
  11. Frank, for a pro or a serious photographer, low noise/high detail is important. I like my personal pictures to look the best they can. My clients don't care or know about noise, they want great looking pictures.

    For a pro, the price difference between the D300 and D700 is not significant considering all the advantages the D700 will give a photographer and his/her clients.
     
  12. "...For a pro, the price difference between the D300 and D700 is not significant considering all the advantages the D700 will give a photographer and his/her clients."
    For a real professional - even the price of a D3 is well worth the investment for what it is capable of doing compared to the D300. (We own and use both bodies.)
     
  13. That dpreview that Dave Lee mentioned :-

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3/page18.asp

    ...... is interesting because you can see the detail and the noise at the same time.

    Up to ISO 400 the D3 and D300 look roughly similar in detail I'd say but at ISO 800 and beyond the D300 is noticeably worse.

    That ties in with the noise graphs further down the page where you can see the yellow D300 noise curves take a dip at ISO 800 where the noise reduction starts to have a big effect.
     
  14. Elliot

    "Frank, for a pro or a serious photographer, low noise/high detail is important. I like my personal pictures to look the best they can. My clients don't care or know about noise, they want great looking pictures."

    No matter if professionals or amateur photographers, both have to admit that even the D300 delivers a better IQ than any 24x36 film slr. Have the users of single lens reflexes for film ever been so worried about noise as digital photographers of today are? Did they permanently discuss or complain about the "grain problem"? No. IMO people forgot very quickly how mediocre highspeed film was in comparison with today's digital camera performance - even with of a crop camera. The D700 with its bigger sensor size is less noisy than the D300? Sure! That's not a new finding. But does that mean that serious or professional photography needs a D700 or a D3? After having seen so many happy pros and amateurs with a D1, D2x and D200 not long ago I doubt...

    "For a pro, the price difference between the D300 and D700 is not significant considering all the advantages the D700 will give a photographer and his/her clients."

    Well, I think most people here are amateurs who use cameras just for fun as a hobby not to earn their living. Is it for an amateur really so important to use the best of the best of the newest, no matter what it costs? I don't think so.
     
  15. "...Is it for an amateur really so important to use the best of the best of the newest, no matter what it costs? I don't think so...."
    Every amateur and/or professional will make that choice for themselves. They certainly don't need some "forum nanny" like yourself to tell them what they should or shouldn't buy. Perhaps you should just go out and shoot some images with whatever camera body that you own rather than trying to preach to someone else.
    If your own means limit you for some reason to what you can afford - don't try to tell anyone else what they should buy or not buy.
     
  16. "...No matter if professionals or amateur photographers, both have to admit that even the D300 delivers a better IQ than any 24x36 film slr..."
    And every photographer will admit that a D700 and D3 will allow a much better image to be captured at low light levels.
    Your point?
     
  17. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Well, I think most people here are amateurs who use cameras just for fun as a hobby not to earn their living. Is it for an amateur really so important to use the best of the best of the newest, no matter what it costs? I don't think so.
    Frank, I am afraid that you are making some very incorrect assumptions. There are plenty of amateurs who take better pictures than the avarage pros and some of those amateurs also own plenty of high-end equipment.
     
  18. And then you get into the argument "what is a pro?" which is meaningless. I know Shun is a pro, and I consider myself a pro, despite the fact that I do not earn my living shooting photos full time, just here and there.

    I see the D300 as a pro-level body, just as the F100 was in its day. Certainly if you're a full-time high-end pro, you can afford the D3 no problem. I could just afford to pay off the D300 in six months with no interest (thanks to the 'Bill Me Later' option at B&H). I couldn't afford the D700 or the D3 at all at this time (a trip to London and Paris are currently being paid for this year).

    The point is, there are a lot of extremely talented and knowledgeable photographers on this forum, and we all need to respect that fact. I love reading this forum and I learn a ton from all of you.
     
  19. We're already enjoying the benefits of low noise, high ISO performance through the photos coming from this year's Olympics. I'm seeing higher quality photos from some of the most difficult events to photography, such as fencing, which for some odd reason seems to take place in a dark alley. There are also some photos of cycling events that appeared to have been scheduled either at night or in the early morning before dawn.

    Considering what I paid for the D2H on closeout a little more than three years ago the D300 and D700 represent some of the finest values ever offered.
     
  20. The difference is quite clear (and noise free). Congrats on your purchase.

    BTW, thanks for the memory. Haven't used one of those timers in a couple decades.
     
  21. Russ:

    "Every amateur and/or professional will make that choice for themselves."

    I know and I fully agree.

    "They certainly don't need some "forum nanny" like yourself to tell them what they should or shouldn't buy. Perhaps you should just go out and shoot some images with whatever camera body that you own rather than trying to preach to someone else. If your own means limit you for some reason to what you can afford - don't try to tell anyone else what they should buy or not buy"

    Pardon me, that's a quite silly and aggressive reaction. Preaching? You should read again. I just gave MY opinion. If you don't like it maybe a public forum with controversial statements is not the right place for you?
    Obviously the only format you accept is FX. Fine.
    <dg>
     
  22. Shung:

    "There are plenty of amateurs who take better pictures than the avarage pros and some of those amateurs also own plenty of high-end equipment."

    I agree with you, but there are as many excellent amateur photographs taken with more inexpensive and older equipment. IMO the technical aspect of photography is often overestimated. I've got a notion that since the beginning of the digital era every camera is primarily judged by its high-ISO cababilities.
     
  23. Sorry for the typo, Shun.

    :)
     
  24. "...Obviously the only format you accept is FX. Fine...."
    Wrong again. We use the D200, D300, and the D3 in our wedding photography business.
     
  25. hus

    hus

    Hi everyone! Those who turn on the NR on their D300 to Normal or High will definetely get bad results in terms of loss in sharpness. I think the best thing to do is to put it on Low NR and reduce noise using a software like PS CS3. Of course, I agree that the image quality will not be the same as the fullframes but you win some you lose some. Or if possible use a tripod and long shutter times with a lower ISO. Do the fullframe cameras gain an extra 150mm when a 300mm is attached? Is a D700 faster than 300 in terms of continuous shooting? No. Plus, D300 itself is lighter which makes it easier to carry around all day. Plus the lens you attach on it doesn't have to be a very long and heavy, attach a lens and multiply it with 1.5 without losing any pixels. What I'm saying is that while we have the DX we should just enjoy the merits instead of depraise.
     
  26. Frank, Russ, perhaps you two could take your personal argument to private e-mail.

    As Frank said himself: "Noise, noise, noise."
     
  27. Wow! I haven't seen a darkroom clock in years!! Nice comparison. Everyone knows you get better noise with a larger sensor, but I'm just happy Nikon has finally stepped up to the plate big time.
     
  28. bms

    bms

    Dan,
    BTW, thanks for the memory. Haven't used one of those timers in a couple decades.
    you seem to get the irony to have that in a comparison of Digital cameras..... BTW, I use it once every blue moon....
     
  29. A professional is someone who is both competent (trained) and practicing the activity as their primary vocation.
    The word, for some reason, is way overused among photographers who aren't professionals. I know that a painter
    would never call themselves a professional if that wasn't their primary source of income. Nor would a carpenter
    etc. I would never even think about calling myself a professional photographer although curiously others have. It
    seems that some equate "pro" with being competent or having earned a dollar from photography, but clearly most
    definitions include the fact that it is your primary vocation, as well as the fact that you have been trained
    formally in the art (through the appropriate schools and professional training).

    Curiously in Finnish, the word is often used of someone in the crafts, sports, but not often in the context of
    someone who has an academic education. Whereas many definitions in English suggest that it should be an activity
    requiring a lengthy and often academic formal training. Perhaps the confusion in the use of the word is related
    to different cultures and languages.
     
  30. Ilkka, that's just your opinion.

    I have a college degree in Commercial Photography, which is more than most professionals out there. I call myself a professional and if you say I'm not a professional just because I don't earn my primary income shooting that's your right, but I say you're wrong.

    A professional is someone who has the tools and the knowledge necessary to take a high quality photo as required. He or she may or may not work full time. I've met many pros who shoot freelance and still have another job. You would insult them if you said to their face they aren't a pro just because they don't earn most of their money shooting.
     
  31. Ilkka , many of the most famous photographers (especially from the past) never had any formal training in photography schools, just like some of the best writers in history never specifically studied writing.That doesn't mean that they weren't pros. For example, Henry Cartier Bresson never studied photography I consider "professional" someone who gets professional results regardless of whether they have a diploma or not. Although I think this debate is rather academic and not very productive.
     
  32. It comes down to your perception of what a 'Professional' is. Is it the definition from a dictionary? Or is it the common use of the word?

    To me a 'Professional' is someone who regularly makes a money doing whatever it is that they do. I only make money on occasion with my photography, and I don't consider myself a professional photographer. But I consider someone who relies on photography for income on a regular basis a professional, weather or not it is their main income. I don't feel special training is required, but I do feel that a certain level of quality is, weather it comes from training or experience.
     
  33. I too am in the process of purchasing the D700. Yes the cost of the D300 would make it a more favourable option for an amateur such as myself, but having used the D80 till now and achieving , what I consider to be, average to reasonable results (when not photoshopped) I can see the advantages of an upgrade to the D700 over the D300. Of course both work well but for the additional cost the low light resolution and pixel clarity of the D700 makes for cleaner files and means I won't have thoughts of an upgrade for some time. It may be the case that the grass will in fact be greener on my side with the D700:)
    Money well spent i say Benjamin
     

Share This Page