Wanna help a teacher out... Nikon D300S vs. D700

<p>Hey, I'm having a buying dilemma, and really could use some help...<br /> I teach high school in Boston, and shoot kids basketball, football, soccer, prom, graduation... on and on.<br /> I currently have a D90, but am going to give it to my best friend, as he's having a baby soon.<br /> So, I have the following glass: 35mm 1.8, 50mm 1.8, 85mm 1.8, 55-200 VR (3.5-5.6) and a 35-70 2.8. My choices are either a D300s or a D700. Money is a little tight, but I'm willing to go for either, if it's the right solution.<br /> the problem is, I don't have a ton more for lenses. Basketball season just ended, and our gym lighting is atrocious. I can't really go more than 200/s shutter in it, even with the 1.8 glass. This makes me want a D700. But then I think of football season, and how the extra reach of DX will mean that all I can't get with my current lineup is nighttime football... but during the day, I'm all set with the 55-200.<br /> So, in short, given what I shoot, which body do I get? Believe me, I'd rather save the cash and get the D300, but a lot of what I shoot is in the dark (prom, assemblies...) and I'm afraid that I may need the D700.<br /> Being that you all know way more about this than I do, please advise me before I drive myself insane...<br /> Thanks! :-)</p>

<p>Robin,</p>

<p>My experience of both bodies is that the D700 is worth the extra $$ over the D300 for the low avail. light / noise penalty factor. Esp. when dealing with the auditorium/ school hall dim lighting.</p>

<p>Aside of the 55-200mm DX lens your remaining lens group are FX, all quite fast and all worth keeping if you went D700 - you can maximise the faster lenses on the D700.</p>

<p>I'd be going for the D700 and saving more $$ for a longer faster tele (like the 80-200mm f/2.8) whilst in the mean time using your current 55-200mm VR in DX mode on the D700.</p>

<p>Either way $$ wise or convenience wise, like everything else related to photography, it';s a compromise and one only you know the correct answer for.</p>

<p>As we have repeated in this forum many times, the D700/D3 will give you merely one more stop of high-ISO results over the D300/D300S/D90. While one additional stop is non-trivial, it isn't like that will make a huge huge difference.</p>

<p>The D700 is not some miracle camera that will immediately resolve all of your high-ISO problems. By the same token, the D3S is merely 1 to about 1-1/3 stops better than the D3/D700. Again, that is not trivial, but it isn't like the D3S will resolve all high-ISO problems either.</p>

<p>If I were you, I would upgrade those consumer lenses such as the 55-200 first.</p>

<p>I'd get a D90 (wait a minute, I did get a D90) and put the money saved into a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM EX II. I see the advantage of the D700, but I don't think it's worth the extra money for your needs. I don't see an advantage of the D300s over the D90 for you. You'll be paying almost $1000 for weather sealing and rugged construction that you don't need. The sensor is the same and the IQ is the same.</p>

<p>It's a trade off. A D700 that you probably can't afford. A D90 with a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 (or similar), or a D300s that doesn't give you anything that you really need.</p>

<p>It's your money to spend as you please, but I'm tired of seeing people spend money they don't have for things they don't need.</p>

<p>Thanks guys...<br>

@Mark: the thing is I am giving my friend my D90, and so need to get a new body either way. So the options would be either a refurb D300, or a new D300s or D700.<br>

I think I only have the 55-200 and the 35mm that are DX lenses, and even then, on FX the 50mm will take the place of the 35mm perfectly, leaving me the 85mm for basketball/yearbook portraits...</p>

<p>Do you shoot video with your D90? That should tell you whether you should get the D300 or D300S.</p>

<p>I have used it a little, but to be honest the mono sound is crap, and it has always been a pain to have to focus manually. Does the D300s still have that issue, or will it auto-focus video?</p>

<p>Sorry, Robin, I ommited the 35mm lens from my take on your lens line up.</p>

<p>D700 or D300, either way, you will appreciate the improved AF servo module for sporting action on these bodies compared to the D90.</p>

<p><strong>Mark Drutz's</strong> suggestion about the Sigma HSM 70-200mm f/2.8 lens is too, a good one IMHO.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think I only have the 55-200 and the 35mm that are DX lenses, and even then, on FX the 50mm will take the place of the 35mm perfectly, leaving me the 85mm for basketball/yearbook portraits...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You may have answered your own question right there.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>In your situation get the D300s. The D700 would not work with your 35 1.8 or your 55-200 leaving you with no zoom. It's a no brainer, the D300s is the better choice.</p>

<p>I agree with Dave Lee. The D300 is an excellent camera, and you already have the lenses for it.</p>

<p>I have just bought the D700 and have found that it is a great camera it does work with DX lenses as i have a few it just crops the image within the view finder the best suggestion would be to go into a camera shop with some lenses and ask to try the cameras out to see which works better for you</p>

<p>I see you are no proffesional photographer, so I guess all is a matter of compromises. What about a D300 + a 80-200 f/2.8 AF? That would cost more or less what your D700 body would cost. As I understand VR is of no help here to stop players movement so it doesn't matter that your lens have or not. Then a 1.4 AF teleconverter could be used to push your zoom to a 112-280 f/4 for the football shoots. If you need to take some wider pictures you still have your 35 and 50 primes for this purpose.</p>

<p>It may not be the state of the art combo ,but is versatile, good quality and fullfills your budget. Well, at least on numbers, on numbers I haven tried any of the things I have recomended! :-P</p>

 

<p>I apologize, I am not sure that you can use a teleconverter with AF lenses. Still there is a 80-200 f/2.8 AFS version that could be use with a AFS teleconverter.</p>

<p>"The D700 would not work with your 35 1.8 or your 55-200 leaving you with no zoom."</p>

<p>Absolutely untrue. The DX lenses work, they are just cropped to the size of a DX sensor. Not a huge issue unless you plan to make large prints.</p>

<p>I shoot indoor basketball often, and I opted for the D700. The low light performance is very good. I'd much prefer the D700 with a prime to a D300 with an expensive zoom.</p><div></div>

<p>I think the best return for money for those applications and given a limited budget would be some kind of f/2.8 telezoom. It doesn't need to be the latest type. The D300s/D300 have great autofocus which would also be helpful but the image quality should be comparable so maybe changing to the higher end DX body isn't cost-effective. If you want the best results in indoor sports you probably need an FX body but since you have so many DX lenses you'd have to get a lot of new glass. So I'd proceed in this order: purchase a 80-200/2.8 or 70-200/2.8 that you can afford. This should help a lot with outdoor sports compared to the 55-200. Then you'd also be "FX ready" in the range 35mm to 200mm for indoor work, when you can put in the investment for such a body. But I would not go & get an FX body before you have the lenses for it. By that time, if you wait 6-12 months, you the D3s sensor may have progressed to a "D700s", giving a bigger edge in low-light work than the current D700 would. I like the D700 myself a lot, but go update your lenses first. Be patient with the body purchase; there's a lot going on in the sensor development.</p>

<p>In your position, I'd go for the D300/D300s and something in the 80-200 range, if you can swing it. However, even though the 55-200 is a DX lens, it may actually cover the FX sensor at the long end. Perhaps someone else can confirm this? I know the 18-70 DX from my D200 could cover the FX sensor on my D700 past about 24mm. Just a thought.</p>

<p><em>even though the 55-200 is a DX lens, it may actually cover the FX sensor at the long end. </em></p>

<p>This lens has substantial vignetting even on DX so I would very much doubt its usefulness on FX.</p>

<p>I agree with Robert in this issue. I own and shoot both D700 and D300. I may have a bad copy of D300, I do not know... but generally I found D700 at ISO 6400 being much better than D300 at ISO 1600 in low light situations. For me the real difference (only for low light....) is like that from Agony and Extase :-)</p>

<p>For normal light situations, the difference is not so dramatic, but for low light I'd prefer like Robert, D700 and a prime instead D300 and 80-200. </p>

<p>The D700 may be much better but we are thinking about a very specific aplication here which is sport photography. I am not a pro but I can imagine that a D700 + a prime is much more limiting than a D300+80-200. Is not only about the purest/best photography but also to have the tools to get it.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>This lens has substantial vignetting even on DX so I would very much doubt its usefulness on FX.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for clearing that up, Ilkka.</p>

<p>I have the D200, D300 and the D700. Shoot HS and College Sports. My vote > D700 hands down. Current setup is my D200 stays in my studio, the D300 is on my shoulder as backup on the sidelines and the D700 is my main. (I'm finding that I do not use my backup that much in my HS shooting) Next year I will upgrade to the D3, have the D700 as backup. Turn the D300 into my Studio Camera and and pass along the D200 to a young upcoming Photographer. </p>

<p>You have a tough problem. I shoot similar situations including horribly lit indoor basketball. In these circumstances, EVERY stop of sensor capability is valuable. And don't underestimate the need for a sensitive, low-noise sensor for football season. I've shot night football games in poorly lit high school stadiums where I also needed to push the limits of my D300 to get usable results using the 70-200/2.8 VR.<br>

The ideal solution no doubt is to win the lottery and have tons of money to spend on a great body and lots of great glass. In the real world, you will be making trade-offs. Anytime I have traded for better quality glass, I have never regretted it. I can't say the same when I have skimped on glass quality.<br>

My recommendation: Get the D300 or D300s and put the savings towards a great long prime or zoom. The focusing capability of the D300 is a big step up over the D90, especially in low light. I have had good (though not great) results in poorly lit venues when using good glass. The DX format wil give you badly needed reach when shooting footbal. With the D700, you will probably not be happy shooting football at night with anything less than a 300/2.8. On the D300, a good 200mm/2.8 or zoom with similar capability will be acceptable.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.digital-camera.gr/index.php?option=photos&action=view&photo_id=35699">http://www.digital-camera.gr/index.php?option=photos&action=view&photo_id=35699</a><br>

<a href="http://www.digital-camera.gr/index.php?option=photos&action=view&photo_id=35601">http://www.digital-camera.gr/index.php?option=photos&action=view&photo_id=35601</a><br>

<a href="http://www.digital-camera.gr/index.php?option=photos&action=view&photo_id=35462">http://www.digital-camera.gr/index.php?option=photos&action=view&photo_id=35462</a><br>

The above are with the Nikon AF 85mm D f/1.4. Personaly I would go for the D700. I got both but on the games I used the D700. In the site you might see some more with the D700 with another lens (70-200mm). The 35-70 you got is very nice for shots near to the basket.</p>

<p>Robin,</p>

<p>While the D700 will help with low light, I'm not sure it will help as much as a fast tele-zoom or fast tele-prime. What the D300/s will give you over the D90 is faster, more precise focusing. Look at your budget and then consider the following:</p>

<p>D700: $2400<br>

D300s: $1500<br>

Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 : $1100<br>

Nikon 300mm f/4: $1400</p>

<p>I think the choice is clear. The D300s and either of the lenses listed will cost close to just the D700 Body. What would be even better would be to purchase a used D300 and a Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR. I always say purchase quality lenses as they will last longer than 5-10 camera bodies.</p>

 

<p>Thanks for all of the responses guys... one thing...<br>

I see a lot of you say that I need to not invest in the D700, but rather in better glass. The thing is, indoors, in a gym that is horribly lit, I can't really get much better glass than a prime 50mm or 85mm 1.8. The jump to 1.4 isn't going to do much.<br>

You can see a home game on my photostream here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tbaphotoalbum/page6/<br>

Some of the away ones are much better lit, and aren't as much of an issue. If someone has the time, browse around, and tell me what to do... God, it's like I'm talking to my wife! ;-)<br>

Thanks for your help guys!</p>