michael_holtz Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 ok after just having decided the D300 is the way to go (vs D90) I now find myself oggling the D700.I shoot mainly Macro & wildlife - it would seem that the D300 would be the better match due to the crop factor. Yet I find myself drawn to the ISO performance (Macro in Forests etc can be pretty dark & gloomy) & large viewfinder. Is this crazy talk ? - I can't find much info on D700 (or D3) vs DX for Macro. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josephbraun Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 If you're using a macro flash or a tripod then iso sensitivity won't matter. I say save your money and get glass:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bms Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 I second Joseph. You'll kick yourself if you buy a D700 and then you cannot afford the 200-400 f/4 ;) Then again, I hear the credit markets are loosening up.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bms Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 Sorry, should have paid more attention to the category, the 200-400 obviously would be better for wildlife (half serious anyway). For Macro, I shoot D300 with a 105mm Micro and I am pretty happy. I would invest in a good suitable flash, if you haven't done so already. The D700 ISO performance is great..... is it $1000+ great? You have to be the judge of that...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 Why would you want to shoot macro at high ISO? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph_smith3 Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 The D 300 is the camera for you for the reason you mentioned--crop or mag factor. Invest the extra money in the Nikon 200mm f 4.0 AF macro lens if you do not alredy have it. Or a better or second tripod. Or the R1C1 macro iTTL flash. I shoot 99% of my macro work with my 200mm on a tripod or monopod. Joe Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_holtz Posted November 4, 2008 Author Share Posted November 4, 2008 Thanks guys, a brief moment of hysteria I think. I have a Sigma 180 F3.5 & the R1C1 flash kit. I will go D300 & use the money saved to put towards a Nikon 300mm F4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo5 Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 I love my D300. I took a hard look at the D700 when it was introduced and nearly went for it. I decided it wasn't enough of an upgrade from the D300 (merely a full frame digital SLR) and decided against it. After seeing the results of the real image quality tests done on dpreview, I'm glad I did too. I don't think it would have been worth my spending another $2800.00 over my already superb D300. I'll wait for the D700x, hopefully with 24mp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_burke3 Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 The D300 viewfinder provides greater coverage than that of the D700 - 100% vs 95%. You've got to go to the D3 to get 100% VF coverage in DX format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studor13 Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 "Why would you want to shoot macro at high ISO?" Sometimes I can't be bothered chasing little critters with my D300 clamped to a tripod, so hand-held high ISOs can be a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Brennan Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 "Why would you want to shoot macro at high ISO?" Ditto Andy A. even a simple shelf fungus photo opportunity at ground level in a tall (thus dark) forest is going to take rock steady hands or a boost of ISO sensitivity to get the shutter to an acceptable speed (baring carrying a tri-pod into the forest with you..........or a nice VR lens........) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Andy and Matthew: if you shoot a lot of still subject macros, I would suggest always use a tripod. Fortunately, macro lenses are small so that you don't have to have a huge tripod. Additionally, use flash to help freeze motion for moving subjects; that is what the R1C1 macro flash set is for. The D3 and D700 have convenient high ISO's when that becomes necessary, but using the base ISO still provides you better results with less noise and superior sharpness, not to mention that macro typically requires a very small aperture for depth of field; therefore, either a slow shutter speed or a flash is necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaron l Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 You want all the reach you can get for what you're doing and the D300 is generally the better choice for that. You won't have to buy a 500mm f4, only a 300 f2.8. Much more reasonable. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_holtz Posted November 5, 2008 Author Share Posted November 5, 2008 Tom, the D700 95% coverage is way bigger & brighter than the 100% D300 viewfinder. Thats FX vs DX for you. Of course i'm coming from a D70s so anything will be better. If you look through any older 35mm film camera (e.g N90) its viewfinder will toast the D300. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwallphoto Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 Michael, the 95% vs. 100% refers to viewfinder accuracy. In the D700, 5% of the image you get on your sensor will be absent from your viewfinder. A little thing, but it can be annoying to carefully compose a shot, only to find something extra in the exposed frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malcolm_farrow Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 I used to own the Sigma 180mm and found it hard to hand hold, so think you're better off with the D300 and a tripod if you plan to use that lens. However, with shorter focal length macro lenses you can hand hold quite satisfactorily and this can be very advantageous for active subjects such as butterflies. Certainly, with DSLRs like the D300 and even more so the D700/D3, the ability to work at ISO400 (and even faster ISOs with the FX bodies) means that the old maxim that you always need a tripod when shooting macro is no longer true. In my opinion, it depends what kind of macro subjects interest you. If you mainly shoot static subjects, the advantage of a tripod is undeniable. But for more active subjects the DX crop factor means you can use a 105mm quite effectively. Certainly the improved performance of digital cameras, first at ISO200, now at ISO400 or even 800, in terms of noise and colour saturation compared to slow slide film has completely changed the way I shoot insects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aruns Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 <p>As much as I love to have base iso for my macros, here's another example of shooting macro in dark forests when long shutter speed and tripod alone won't cut it: I was in the redwoods state park in northen California in Feb 2009 on a rainy, bleak and windy day. I tried to shoot some ferns, mushrooms and abstract macros in the redwood forests.. I was using my manfrotto 190xprob (a solid n heavy tripod) with my d70 / 105mm f/4 ais micro nikkor. I was quite disappointed with the breeze that made its way thru the trees, rain drops falling on ferns from the trees (and causing movements, which I could not control) and the less amount of ambient light on that cloudy / rainy day. Higher iso with acceptable quality (say on a d700?) would have been nice. A macro flash unit needs more space and adds to the bulk (I carry my manfrotto on my travels), especially when we travel by air frequently. (I travel for work frequently, take a medium sized camera kit with me and shoot during weekends or evenings). I am also not sure if it will create the same quality of light as we see in nature. (I don't shoot critters but mostly plants n flowers in overcast conditions).</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now