D300/D700/D3 Users, Can you share your experiences...

[elliot1]

I am interested, and perhaps other D300 users might be interested in hearing from any D300 users who have

upgraded to the D700 or any D3 users who have purchased the D700. Do you notice any difference in metering,

white balance and overall image quality as compared to your D300/D3 (not related to the high ISO advantage)?

Care to share any other thoughts/insights? Thanks!

[elmroc]

Perfect time for this Elliot!. AS you may remember, a couple months ago i was seeking and bought a backup body/2nd shooter to bring with my on my Yellowstone/Grand Teton trip. I ended up with a d200, so now i have the d300 and a D200 (2 crop sensors).

 

I'm thinking now, that i might want to drop the 200, and go for a 700, so i'd be very interested in learing more about the hands on experiences with it. asically, since i still do sports and wildlife, the D300 would stay on with that, and the lowlight work (dance recitals,) etc and landscape/portrait work will be done by the 700.

[russ_konrad]

We use the D200, D300, and D3 in our wedding work.

 

The D300 has a much more accurate Auto white balance and a sharper image than the D200.

 

Moving up to the D3 increases the white balance accuracy from the D300, but the sharpness seems to be the same as the D300.

 

D200 tends to underexpose slightly compared to the D300 and D3. Both of the newer models seem to be very accurate in the metering department.

[paul.droluk]

I have all three cameras, though the D700 is very new to me (1 week).

 

I'm a bit disappointed with the auto white balance on all three cameras... mixed indoor lighting gives all three fits. I haven't observed a difference in

metering accuracy.

 

The D300 images are a bit sharper than the D3/D700, but the D3/D700 images have a noise structure that renders more like film grain, which I like

a lot better. I very much appreciate the shallower DOF on the FF sensors. It's hard for me to quantify, but the D3/D700 images have a sense of

trueness, while the D300 images look a bit more "digital"... perhaps it's just the noise structure.

 

In the end, the D3 remains my favorite. I bought the D700 thinking it might displace the D3 due its smaller size and lighter weight (though same

sensor)... but in the end the D3 just feels better to me. The D3 shutter is MUCH quieter than the D700, and the card door on the D700 feels almost

cheap. I also miss the second card on the D700, but the built in flash and sensor cleaning are certainly a plus.

 

For the meantime, I'm keeping the D300 to use with long lenses. But if the upcoming D3X, in DX mode, can match the D300... it's a gonner.

[wpahnelas]

i've only had the D700 for a week after using a D300 most of the year, but have tried to work with it as much as possible. so far i've noticed:

 

auto white balance seems to be vastly improved -- routinely much more accurate than the D300;

 

given the roughly comparable pixel count, i'm impressed by how much better images from D700 "hold together" when viewed at 100 percent;

 

one will inevitably compose a shot with a D700 and remember later, when viewing the image on a computer, that the viewfinder only covers 95 percent of the image area!

 

while it was widely predicted in various "previews" that battery life would be shorter on D700 than D300, i find that it is substantially less -- i'm trying to confirm my initial impression that it's closer to about one-half;

 

i'm still trying to get the hang of the metering, which has been different for each DSLR i've used. so far, however, it looks like the D700 requires a couple of ticks -EV;

 

the multi-function wheel is bigger, but also feels mushier -- at least, it seems more difficult to get the feel for navigating a zoomed image;

 

on the othe hand, i really enjoy how much easier it is to place the focus point indicator where i want it -- it goes where i want it to;

 

the battery door does kind of make me nervous. i try to always keep it closed;

 

finally, i love the way the D700 has enabled me to rediscover my lenses. i realize i've lost reach on my long lenses, but at the same time primes like the 50 and the 105 can be used the way they were intended -- which is welcome.

 

there are many other things worth mentioning, but i'm sure PN will be putting up a formal review shortly.

[photo5]

I'd like to get my 105 back too, it just isn't the same lens on a DX format camera. But I don't see the D700 as an improvement *other than being full-frame* over the D300, so I'm not feeling left out. I still see the D3 as the upgrade from the D300, but it's far too expensive. Maybe the D800 will be a good improvement over the D700. I'd like to see a 100% viewfinder but I realize that will be for the top pro bodies only, as it was with the F series. I find the D300 is about a 99% viewfinder which is still pretty amazing.

[ShunCheung]

Concerning the D700's viewfinder, Nikon's data is a bit misleading: it is showing 95% of each dimension so that

concerning the area you can view, it is more like 90%.

 

In the end, the D3, D700 and D300 are three similar cameras except for the format. The D700 is essentially the FX

version of the D300 plus a few features such as virtual horizon, and the D3 has a few "luxury" features over the D700

such a the dual CF cards, optional memory upgrade, an even more durable shutter, 100% viewfinder, etc.

 

As far as I know, photo.net has not received any D700 review sample from Nikon, so there is no review in the near

future. Personally, I would like to see first what Nikon has to offer leading to Photokina next month.

[andy a.]

Here's some impressions having a d300 with 17-55 in one hand and a d700 with 24-70 in the other (own both).

First, the d700 is a <i>lot</i> heavier. I didn't think I'd care or notice. I'm still not sure I care, but I do

notice. The first thing I did getting the d700 out of the box was slap on a mb-d10 with en-el4a and rrs

L-bracket, and boy, you can feel the heft. It might have to do with the huge glass prism in the top shifting the

balance. I also felt this with 200-400 attached to a monopod. Not a major thing, potential buyers should try it

out in the store if a light setup is important to them.

<br/><br/>

I also did some quick IQ testing between the two. Not crazy iso 6400 stuff, but stuff I encounter all the time

at weddings. D300 + 17-55 shooting an incandescent scene at iso 640. D700 with 24-70 zoomed to same framing iso

640 (both cameras at f/2.8). Shooting with a lamp in scene and some textured fabric with deep shadows. The D700

wins of course. Then I double the shutter and iso on D700 (1250). It still looks better by a long shot. The

shadows are graying out with noise on the D300 at iso 640, while the D700 has rich blacks and great tonalities

into the shadows at iso 1250. That's all the peeping I've done so far (just got my D700).

<br/></br>

I've been shooting the US tennis junior nationals this week with both cameras as well. First impressions of that

are, despite what I want to believe, the D700 focuses quite a bit differently. Both cameras are set to 8 fps,

af-c, group focus 21 point, release+focus priority. Same lens (200-400 f/4). Both have very fast subject

acquisition. The d300 framerate slows when it's tracking a diving player, etc. but still nails it nearly all the

time. The D700 is nailing focus all the time too, but the framerate basically never slows. I had a chance to

shoot about 500 frames with each camera, and a very high rate were keepers. Trying to decide what's more

important, low noise or extra reach, will be harder to answer, and thus far for me the answer has literally

changed from shot to shot. A cloud passes by the sun, I lose two stops of light, and it's time to switch

cameras. (The D700 auto-iso with high minimum shutter speeds is great for that. When will they put that in D300

firmware?)

<br/><br/>

I'll try to update this as my experience changes. I'm sure it won't be the last of these threads.

[ShunCheung]

Andy, does it bother you that on the D700, the 51 AF points cover a much smaller percentage of the frame?

[garrison_k.]

"...Nikon's data is a bit misleading: it is showing 95% of each dimension so that concerning the area you can

view, it is more like 90%."

 

really, Shun? That's...bad.

[elmroc]

Do you really think Nikon has something up their sleeve for Photokina Shun? Care to elaborate?

[andy a.]

Shun, the af points are a mixed bag. I like the added precision on fx, but of course the coverage on dx is handy. For sports I tend to stay towards the center, so I would say it is a wash there.

<br/><br/>

After more tennis this week, I'm still not sure on AF speed between the two bodies. I think the d700 still edges the d300 out, but I'll need to see some controlled testing to figure out what's going on. One thing I did notice yesterday listening to the mark 3s, was boy those things put my framerate to shame. It would be interesting to hear a d3 along side and also to see what they are getting in focus.

<br/>

Anyway, some photos...<br/>

USTA 18s national champion:

<br/>

D300, 400 mm f/4, 1/1250, iso 400

<br/>

<img href="http://aardema.smugmug.com/photos/349584817_MWuSH-L-0.jpg">

<br/>

D700, 400 mm f/4, 1/1250, iso 500

<img href="http://aardema.smugmug.com/photos/349584836_yhESL-L.jpg">

<br/>

Both slight crops, different angles, and different light, so don't read too much into them. This guy (Austin Krajicek), is a player to watch.

[andy a.]

Hrm, linking not allowed?

<br/>

trying again...

<br/><br/>

D300, 400 mm f/4, 1/1250, iso 400

<br/>

<img src="http://aardema.smugmug.com/photos/349584817_MWuSH-L.jpg" />

<br/>

D700, 400 mm f/4, 1/1250, iso 500

<br/>

<img src="http://aardema.smugmug.com/photos/349584836_yhESL-L.jpg" />