D700 with primes vs D300 with 17-55mm

<p>Hi all....<br>

I'm contemplating between the D700 with the 35mm f/2 50mm f/1.4 primes or the D300 with the 17-55 f/2.8. I was doing weddings but have pretty much changed directions. I now shoot more street, nature and family. I still do shoot the occasional wedding and do some studio work but fine art and family are my main focus. My pro's and cons are below for both cameras.<br>

D700 Pros-<br>

full frame, IQ, HI ISO capability, prism, screen size<br>

D700 Cons- <br>

size & weight, 95% framing, price, price for decent zoom is expensive<br>

D300 Pro's-<br>

price, size & weight, 100% frame coverage, focus point coverage, <br>

D300 Cons-<br>

DX sensor, HI ISO capabilities (still decent though), IQ not as good as D700</p>

<p>What do you guys think? Does anyone have either camera setups? Any sugestions?</p>

<p>Thanks in advance,<br>

-kevin</p>

<p>Kevin,</p>

<p>I have the D300 with 17-55 f/2.8. I'm strictly amateur. This set up is my first dslr coming from 30 years with an FE. It's an extremely capable combo. I do candids, event, nature, and street. I very rarely use the built-in flash, let alone an external flash. I keep the grip attached when using my zooms.</p>

<p>I didn't feel a need to go the D700 route due to the extra cost. Even with the D300, 17-55 2.8, and grip I still get asked if I'm a pro<g>. I do leave the hood on all the time.</p><div></div>

<p>i just got back from an art gallery in New Orleans and saw some nice HCB, Adams' prints, etc. and i'm glad to say that not once did i ever wonder what camera was used for the prints. Edouard (Edward?) the curator was so gracious in having a conversation with someone obviously not there to spend $85,000 on a print (of which there was a large selection at this price point) and himself never mentioned cameras, but photography. There was a large piece, maybe 2' x3' or so of which a new printing technique involving gold leaf and resin was printed; he mentioned that these women had used a holga in a plastic bag underwater and then printed that size. </p>

<p>that being said, i have a d700, 28/3.5, 50/1.8 and should have my 85/1.4 from my local store as soon as nikon will deliver it to them. i love the setup, and i don't want to think about how much money i put into that that could have been spent on seminars, courses and other things that might have made me enjoy photography more. There will be numerous discussions here and elsewhere on the internets about this very question. </p>

<p>The following posts will ask these questions in some order--</p>

<p>"what do you shoot"<br>

"what lenses do you have"<br>

shun will comment that you will not benefit from a new body, despite how you are thinking<br>

then others will say that they have the d300, and that the high-ISO is underrated and perhaps just half a stop below that of the d700.<br>

then someone will bring up the two cameras pixel densities and say that the d300 can't hold a candle to the d700.<br>

then someone will say to go out and shoot. <br>

then kent in SD will give some good advice that later you will wish you had followed about primes not being as good as the fast zooms, despite common wisdom, and that you should get your lenses in order and then pick up a mint second hand body at rock bottom prices when they come down--just be prepared to wait and be ready to pounce when teh good deal comes along but don't rush it.</p>

<p>either way, good luck on your photography and whichever way you end up, have fun.</p>

<p>I think this recent thread may be of interest to you, if you haven't seen it already: <br>

http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Tva8</p>

<p>I guess I'm curious why you feel a DX sensor is a "con?"</p>

<p>I had that choice to make and went with the D300 and first rate modern zooms. I honestly think not only am I getting somewhat better image quality from that combo (especially the 17-55mm f2.8,) but it's also faster, more flexible, and I have more options. Note that I am a night photographer. I will not compromise on lens quality. I tried the older so-called primes and they just didn't deliver for me. The latest ones with modern coatings (Zeiss ZF series, Nikon 50mm f1.4 G, etc.) are reported to be a match for even the best zoom, but there's still the problem of missing fast breaking shots. And having to make lens changes in dusty outdoor conditions. I just couldn't justify spending $2,500 to gain one or one & half stops over the D300. Prices on the cameras will certainly drop. When that happens I'll re-evaluate. Meanwhile, I'm using some of the best lenses Nikon every made. No compromises.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Kevin<br>

if you want to impress people get the primes and the D700, that seems to be the fashion. But if you want the most effective tools that don't break the bank get a D300 and a 17-55. If you had all the money in the world like it seems a lot of photonetters do, a D700 and a 24-70 would be great but the two lenses you mention and a D700 would not compare to the17-55 and D300 .<br>

Steve</p>

<p>I use a D700 with AIS primes, some AF-D primes and zooms. A D300 with the 17-55mm zoom will weigh a lot. Probably more than the D700 with the two primes. I like a 20mm, 35mm, 85mm kit or similiar range. If I have the time I like to use the older manaul focus lenses. It's a hobby for me and that is a personal choice for enjoyment, the main reason I have a D700. I also enjoy using rangefinders so take this with a grain of salt. Camera wise I doubt you will see much difference between the IQ with either setup unless you push print size. IMHO it depends more on how you want to work and your budget. Knock on wood but so far I have not had dirty sensor issues with all my lense changing.</p>

<p>I had the D300 and loved it, and then I "upgraded" to the D700. At the time I thought it was an upgrade anyway. The D700 simply has brilliant image quality, but at ISO 200 you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between the D300 and D700. I used the D700 for six months until I decided to sell it and go back to the D300 via the D200 (the D200 was great but the D300 is oh so much better).</p>

<p>The D700 has superb high ISO performance. At ISO 200 I didn't see enough of a difference between it and the D300 to justify the cost.</p>

<p>The D700 works brilliantly with Nikon primes. I also used it with the excellent Tamrom 17-35mm SP f2.8-4 zoom lens.</p>

<p>The main thing I hated about the D700 was the viewfinder. For a pro camera, Nikon really made a mistake putting an amateur viewfinder on it (in terms of coverage). I was used to the D300 100% coverage and stepping down to the D700 90% coverage was a shock that I never recovered from. It slowed me down and became a real pain in the neck for me. If the D700 had the same viewfinder as the D3 I'd probably still be shooting with it.<br>

<br /> The D300 and the Nikon 16-85mm VR zoom is a perfect combination for me. To get the same focal length coverage on the D700 it would have to be the Nikon 24-120mm VR zoom, which isn't all that great, and it's huge compared to the small DX zoom.</p>

<p>So for now, the D300 is the body for me. I am so satisfied with it I'm not planning to replace it for a few generations from now. Video is the last thing I want on a DSLR, so that won't sway me. More megapixels won't sway me.</p>

<p>The DX sensor is hardly a con. I prefer it for sports for the extra reach.</p>

<p>And the difference between IQ and ISO on both cameras is marginal as well.</p>

<p>"if you want to impress people get the primes and the D700, that seems to be the fashion."</p>

<p>That's a silly statement. I use a D700 and primes because I shoot indoor sports, sometimes without flash. Ever shot in a poorly lit gym? I need every stop of light that I can find.</p>

<p><em>Street, nature, and family</em></p>

<p>If wildlife and macro are included in your nature photography, DX is a solid choice as you get more reach / longer working distances and don't necessarily have to invest as much in glass.</p>

<p>For street I think FX is much better as you can really use the high ISO capabilities for this kind of work. Also, you have more choices in fast glass at suitable focal lengths. I like to use 50mm, 60mm, 85mm, 105mm primes for street photography a lot (on FX); you can get a corresponding set on DX nowadays with the 35mm DX prime and then just add the 50/60, 85. For a wide angle prime on FX you can get the 35/2 autofocus, or one of the following manual focus lenses 35/1.4 Ai-S, 35/2 ZF, 28/2 Ai-S, 28/2.8 Ai-S, 28/2 ZF. For 28mm and wider I would avoid Nikon's AF primes but you probably don't need these for street photography. On DX for a wide you can get the 20mm f/3.5 Voigtländer which is excellent but of course, manual focus. If you need an autofocus wide angle on DX, you should go with a zoom such as the 17-55 DX (a very nice lens but a bit bulky and a bit soft at the long end).<br /> <br /> I just recently did several days of street photography in NYC and I mostly shot ISO 400-1600 with some 3200; the skyscrapers block the direct light but act as reflectors resulting in beautiful light but often quite low light levels. I think FX is great for this kind of work; you see the subject more clearly thanks to the bigger viewfinder and you have more options as you can make more practical use of wide apertures also, thanks to the large spacing between photosites in the D700/D3.</p>

<p>For family pics, the FX sensor again is better as you get more options for shooting in different lighting situations. Also, lenses such as 85/1.4 or 1.8 give the intended angle of view and look on FX. You can of course do this with DX also, but you don't get the same groundbreaking possibilities for high quality images in low light.</p>

<p>For weddings FX is clearly superior due to the low light options; in fact I would as far as suggest that DX isn't competitive unless you light everything including ceremony or only do outdoor weddings.</p>

<p>Studio portraits I think can be done roughly equally on both formats; though you may get deeper tones with FX. The 17-55 is a nice portrait lens at its long end.</p>

<p>Given your applications I would suggest you consider getting one of each; FX for people photography and street, and DX for that part of nature photography requiring long glass.</p>

<p>So...</p>

<p>How big do you print? If you don't print above 11 x 14 will you really see any difference?</p>

<p>That was great, Dan.... :)</p>

<p>In view of the flood of people who want to go FX, Thom Hogan currently has a very timely write up on his home page <a href="http://www.bythom.com">http://www.bythom.com</a>:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em><strong>The FX Lust.</strong> </em>I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most people lusting after FX are using excuses to justify wanting it, not showing real need ....<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And then he goes on to discuss "<em>Upgrade the photographer ...."</em><br>

<em></em><br>

Would you consider upgrading the photographer first and equipment second?</p>

 

<p>In my opinion DX is no con and no pro, neither is FX. Based on image quality D300 and D700 are very good. I think it's time people buy bodies based on their lens need. I for instance like the Sigma 50-150 2.8 II so much, that I decided to buy another DX (D300) camera. Would I "upgrade" to D700, not only would I have to buy new lenses, but for the same reach I would be lumbering a 1.5 kg lens (80-200 or 70-200) and I know myself a little: heavy gear stays home after a while . So if you want to start building up a system first find out what lenses you realy want, than decide which body to buy. regards, Martijn</p>

<p>For what it's worth, I could have been very happy with a 5 MP cropped version of the D700 sensor. But that was not an option.</p>

<p>For street photography, the less obtrusive camera the better. It's hard to get people around you to be comfortable when you pull out a tank to shoot them.</p>

<p>For landscapes with wide angle lenses, get the D700. For macro or tele work, get the D300. If you are interested in both, probably D300. Generally, ditto Ilkka.</p>

<p>"For street photography, the less obtrusive camera the better. It's hard to get people around you to be comfortable when you pull out a tank to shoot them."</p>

<p>Silly me - I've used a Crown Graphic for street photography. But I usually take time to chat with folks that I plan to shoot.</p>

<p>I use the D3 a lot for street photography, with normal to medium tele primes. Nobody seems to mind. A huge lens like a 70-200/2.8 is another matter entirely and does tend to get people to be wary of what the photographer is doing, which is just one of the many reasons I shoot with primes. In the end you just have to find what works for you and learn to behave in a manner that doesn't upset people. I tend to prefer light late in the evening (in Finland in the summer you can easily shoot until 10pm or 11pm with FX and some fast glass) - just one of the many things you get with FX.</p>

<p>FX lust? Well the D3/D700 revolutionized the kind of natural light that can be used to create high quality images. It also allows one to get great results with a lot of old pre-DX lenses available for little money today. It's not surprising that people want to hop in. Of course there are people who only shoot in bright light - for that, DX is fine. To me that would be extremely limiting. While FX bodies are expensive it's a single time investment. Even today, almost two years since introduction the D3 is still at the top in high ISO. I wouldn't be surprised if I'm still using my current FX bodies 3-4 years from now. By choosing a too small format you're choosing a limited set of lenses that work well with it, and probably never-ending upgrade cycles trying to get it up to par in low light, tonality, performance at wide apertures etc. It's pretty hard to fix what a permanent crop of >50% of the image area does to the quality of the image. I was delighted when I was able to jump away from that world.</p>

<p>Ilkka has done an excellent job explaining why I'm about to move to a D700. I've shot a lot in low light, plan to continue doing so, and I much prefer shooting with primes than I do with zooms. I love shooting with my N80, and it isn't just because I love film. </p>

<p>I actively dislike DX, and feel it isn't for me. I want a 50mm lens to be a 50mm lens. No figuring out what it converts to or anything like that. Five years from now, when it has long since been surpassed by other technology in various cameras, the D700 will still be a full frame camera. That the Canon 5D is a popular model in the used world should give a clue as to how important full frame is to some people.</p>

<p>So lets get this right my D300 and D200 are only useable in bright light well thanks for letting me know that Ilkka</p>

<div></div>

<p>here's another</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>In view of the flood of people who want to go FX, Thom Hogan currently has a very timely write up on his home page <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.bythom.com/" target="_blank">http://www.bythom.com</a> :</p>

</blockquote>

<p>fyi, thom's article has moved off his frontpage. it can be found here: http://www.bythom.com/2009%20Nikon%20News.htm</p>

<p>have to agree with the thomster here (though that's not hard, since he's almost always right. in fact his knowledge keeper ratio rivals that of PN's own shun cheung. but i digress...) -- you need a solid reason or three to upgrade otherwise you're just throwing money at NAS.</p>

<p>i shoot a lot of club stuff where lighting is poor and flash isnt allowed and/or tolerated. i could surely use a d700 over my d300 since that extra stop of ISO buys me a faster shutter speed. but if i go for a d700, i have to rethink my entire lens strategy and maybe even carry two bodies all the time. it would be nice to use my 15mm fisheye at 15mm instead of 22.5mm where it's only semi-fishy, but all of a sudden my 30/1.4, 12-24/4, and 50-150/2.8 arent usable on my nice new camera except in DX crop mode. and i'll either have to fix the wobbly front ring on my 28-75/2.8 (took a ding -- the lens still works but not field-usable until its repaired) or (gulp!) bit the bullet on a bad-boy 24-70. then there's that missing tele range. in good light, having a 2.8 telezoom on a DX body and a wide angle or standar zoom on an FX body makes sense, but in situations where that stop of ISO is critical, i'd also need to add a 70-200 or 80-200 to take advantage of the FX sensor. so now i've not just forked over $2500 or so on a body, but at least an additonal $2500 on two more lenses just to get one stop of ISO over my current body and retain my lens set-up on DX.</p>

<p>OTOH, let's say i get a refurb d300 for $1200, giving me a second body of a camera i really like, and know well, which covers most of my shooting needs. for just a little bit more than the cost of a d700--@ NYC discount--i not only get that second body, but i can also pick up a nikon 10.5 fisheye and a 85/1.4 (or maybe 180/2.8 or 135/2 ). any of those last three would help prepare me for an eventual move to FX, but without any of them, or a 70 or 80-200 as i said before, i'd essentially be paying more for less by going FX.</p>

<p>so, is that extra stop of ISO really worth it? maybe not. if you can mimimize the amount of black space in a pic, the D300 can handle upwards of 1600 ISO. in fact, with that 50-150, i can zoom in tight enough to do so if i'm at the front of the stage (where i'd be with a shorter lens), and get away with what seems to be a fairly clean ISO 2500. in other words, my current set-up is good enough, i just need to think about composition more to compensate for the limitations of the d300--which arent actually that many, compared to my own limitations as a photographer...</p>

<p> </p><div></div>