Wait for successor to D700?

<p>I hope this hasn't been beaten to death, but if you owned a D300 why would you "upgrade" to a D700 if both cameras have the same resolution? I know the D700 is FF, but it doesn't seem that the D700 is really capable of producing much better files or prints than the D300. I know the D700 is superior at high ISOs and low-light photography, but would that be the only reason for "upgrading from the D300?<br>

It seems to me that if you own a D300, and want to take the next step in image quality (excluding the D3x for obvious reasons) you should probably wait for a higher resolution version of D700? Does this sound reasonable? Thanks. </p>

<p>As always, "It depends."</p>

<p>I think the two primary questions you need to figure out are: 1. What sort of photography do you shoot and/or enjoy? 2. Do you have a large stock of DX lenses?</p>

<p>I sold my D90 and purchased a D700. I did this because, generally, I enjoy shooting wide to normal rather than telephoto. I also prefer prime lenses rather than zooms. I really missed the wide perspectives from my 35mm film cameras and the DX format, with my primes, was unfullfilling. I'm completely happy with my D700, in spite of the price and the weight. My interest in photography feels refreshed and similar to the day I received my first Nikon film camera when I was 14 years old.</p>

<p>As far as waiting for the successor... if you want full-frame, then don't wait. There will always be a new camera coming down the line. If you can afford it, do not delay your creativity or enjoyment.</p>

<p>Mike, is the image "quality" of the D700 a leap ahead of the D90, or is the wide angle issue the be all/ end-all for you switching?<br>

My point is that the only reason I would want FF is if the image quality, files and prints, surpasses the D300, and I know there's a lot of subjectivity involved there. I'm very happy with my Nikon 12-24DX for wide angle. This is what leads me to believe that, personally, I should wait for the successor to the D700.<br>

I can certainly see how others could benefit from a D700 over a D300 though. Thanks.</p>

<p>I have a D200 and 700. Not being full frame bothered me from day one, not that the images were so bad, but that wide pics were not wide and the portrait focal lengths of 85 to 135 were cropped down. The viewfinder image is larger and manual focus is better.<br>

There are scads of prime focal length lenses out there for Nikon and they work on Fx just as they did on film. Nikon is developing primes for Fx (60, 105, 50 1.4), nothing so far for Dx . This tells me the direction they are headed.</p>

<p>Not saying Dx is useless because for 95% of the people it is fine. I kept my Dx cameras and Dx glass and use it for family pics and when I do not want to put up with the size and weight of Fx body. A large lens and D700 makes a Hasselblad seem like a lightweight.</p>

<p>If you think a D300 and Fx make the same quality, you are wrong. MP count is not the sole criteria of output quality . They can cram 10MP on a 1/4 square P&S sensor. I would agree they are close at smaller print sizes and lower ISO settings.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Fair enough Ronald. I don't have a problem with the DX viewfinders at all, and even though I have a ton of AF-D and AIS lenses this is not compelling enough for me to want to switch.<br>

I never thought that the quality was the same, just that, with the exception of high ISOs, not that much better with the D700 (again subjective) to warrant switching, personally again.<br>

I know the D700 is a great camera.</p>

<p>I went from a D200 to a D700. I wanted the best high ISO preformance possible. I don't think IQ will be much less with a D300 and lower ISO values. I might have been OK with a D300 and the crop factor with teles. I suggest getting better glass if needed.</p>

<p>I used FF NIkons for 40 years, shooting mainly WA. But when I changed to DX I never looked back. A 24mm Nikkor prime is the same as a 35mm lens on a FF and 35mm was one of my favorite focal lengths. I've also got a 12-24 if I want to get wider. Don't miss FF at all.<br>

I suspect the DX image quality will continue to improve, too so if there comes a time when I need a new body, DX will probably be my choice--at least as the digital world currently stands.</p>

<p>Jeffrey wants FX with higher MP as D3X but with lower $ as D700. Yes, you'll have to wait. The longer you wait, the better products will be available in the market. By the time you see something you like, keep wait longer because you'll see something better down the road (time).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>i have both cameras, although i have used the D300 infrequently since i got my D700 in july. the past couple of days, i've taken the D300 out again. while i marvel at the reach of my long lenses on DX, when i took it out this morning to shoot in the early light, i was shocked at how much noise was visible, even at ISO 400. i'm not saying that under most conditions you couldn't produce a perfectly usable image with the D300, but i disagree that the D700 doesn't measure up as an "upgrade" from a D300.</p>

<p>Mike, I'd also be interested in the differences in image quality between the D90 and D700 - especially on low iso.</p>

<p>I think the high-ISO low-noise feature is where it is at. A couple extra stops is huge for indoor natural light and balanced flash work. In this sense alone, the D700 is a big upgrade.</p>

<p>OTOH, the 1.5x multiplier is huge for daylight telephoto shooting. So, that's a bit of an upgrade too.</p>

<p>Yes Frankie, I guess the Nikon version of the Canon 5Dmk2, or Sony A900. I think that camera will set me up for a long time.</p>

<p><I think the high-ISO low-noise feature is where it is at. A couple extra stops is huge for indoor natural light and balanced flash work. In this sense alone, the D700 is a big upgrade.><br>

Good point! Certainly if you shoot a lot in low light.</p>

<p>I never made side-by-side comparisons between the D90 and my D700. There are lots of comparisons that exist on the Internet by people who are more qualified than I am to do these comparisons. I think the D90 is a very fine camera and the video was occasionally way fun. But I can tell you that I'm routinely "wowed" by the quality of shots I'm taking at 3200 and 6400 ISO. And that's about as scientific as I'm going to get. I'm not a pixel junkie nor do I get too hung up about noise - as long as the image conveys what I intended, that's cool. (Sometimes I like noise! Shocking, isn't it? :-) )<br>

<br /> But, really, what I'm most interested in is composition. And based upon what I've enjoyed in photography, the D700 with its full frame allows compositions that make me happy. With the D90, and the host of previous Nikon DSLRs that I owned, I constantly had to do math and make concessions to the crop factor. Yes, it's possible to do the same thing with the many marvelous DX lenses that exist, but I always felt as if there were an additional and unnecessary layer between myself and my subject.<br>

<br /> Your mileage may vary.<br>

<br /> - Mike</p>

<p>There seems to be so many different reasons that photographers have switched to the D700 from a high-end DX camera, or is it rationalization for a dubious purchase?</p>

<p>If I owned a D300 I would not upgrade. But I have kids and responsibilites so wasting money is not something I am seeking. There is always something better out there, but it seems foolish to try and buy it all. I don't even want to try.</p>

<p>Alluding to different reasons for switching to a D700, one reason that interests me is being able to use a 28/3.5 PC lens on a D700. I haven't used mine since<em> </em>I started shooting DX, but not reason enough for me to pull the trigger.</p>

<p>Jeffrey<br>

I rented a D700 to use for two weeks. Its a very nice camera. I would not trade in my D300 for one. At ISO 200 there is no difference in a print. At ISO 6400 and 12800 the D700 kicks butt. But I do not shoot at those ISO speeds very often and I use long lenses more then wide.</p>

 

<p>"I know the D700 is FF, but it doesn't seem that the D700 is really capable of producing much better files or prints than the D300."<br>

I've worked with both and the short answer is : you are wrong. Whether you will push the cameras hard enough to see the difference is another matter.</p>

<p>Hi Jefferey,</p>

<p>I recently had to decide and I bought the 300, almost completely because of the price difference. I regretted it immediately. Now, I have had an accident and will have to replace it and I intend to purchase a D700. My major reason is the high ISO capability. Saying the d700 is better at low light but is that the only reason is understating what is a serious, huge advatage the low noise is. This is like moving from a mustang to a ferrarri, the kind that can change one's whole shooting style. I haven't shot a lot with it, but the little I did, I saw shots in handheld in natural light that were just impossible with any previous camera. And, as a previous poster noted there is noise in the d300. It is well controlled, but it is there and at 400 and above, quite noticable. It's not just the number of pixels but the quality of the pixels that matter. There is so much processing and each model is so individual that MP is a very unreliable indicator of overall resolution.</p>

<p>The d300 is a great camera and I am not sure if I would upgrade from it or not. If you are happy, wait for the next model, which will hopefully be a 21 MP FF around the same price, in a year or two. However, if you do want that, than keep it in mind when purchasing any new lenses or accessories in the meantime.</p>

<p>I have not read the entire thread. However, being a former D70s, D2Xs, D300 and D3 owner I agree with Ellis's comment. If FF doesn't offer an advantage to your style of shooting, then don't get a FF camera.</p>

<p>After the D700, Nikon will cram smaller pixels in the same area, leading to reduced low light sensitivity.<br>

Compared to the D300, I upgraded because of the higher light sensitivity, better rear button, "info" button, bigger viewfinder, and automatic active D-lighting.</p>

<p>The best analysis of digital camera quality I have seen is at: <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor">http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor</a><br>

Is the DXOMark sensor score the final word with respect to camera quality? Who knows. It is the most well thought out and rational approach. The increase in sensor score from the D200 to the D300 is 64.2 to 66.6. That is an increase in relative sensor quality of 3.7%. The increase in sensor score from the D300 to the D700 is 66.6 to 80.5. An increase of 20.9%.<br>

Just about anyway you measure it the D700 is a significant improvement in sensor technology.<br>

The decision to upgrade now or wait is strictly personal. The real trick is to use and enjoy whatever camera you have.</p>

<p>The high ISO capabilities of the D700 would be my only reason to upgrade. I also own a Sigma 30mm f1.4 and a Nikon 17-55 f2.8, so those would have to go. My ThinkTank Antidote only holds so much equipment!<br>

If Nikon would come out with a D400 tomorrow with the same ISO range as the D700 but <$2K then I would buy it in a heart beat.</p>

<p>I have a D300. I mostly shoot at night. Why haven't I bought a D700? I don't have the lenses to support one. Why would I buy an expensive camera when I didn't have the best lenses to take advantage of its performance? I've figured out that time is on my side. I buy top quality lenses and wait for the price on camera bodies to drop like a rock. They always do. I'm in no hurry to get a D700. I'll buy a 24-70mm f2.8 first. The lens is the important thing.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>