D300 vs D700

[kayuh_laju]

Just go out there and get the D700... you will definitely love it.

[lou korell]

<p>Why choose?  Get 'em both.  I did.  :)</p>

[mike_farwell]

<p>Ok, I really dont get the problem about the d700 and the loss of telephoto, For all of you thinking use lose 1.5 factor you dont! you just have more in your frame, There is absolutly<br>

no magnification loss, remember the 1.5 factor is crop value only! a 200mm non dx is a 200mm non dx, so in other words the image that you get with a d200, 300, or whatever nikon dslr other than a d700 or d3 the dx image is just a smaller cropped image of what would of been in a full frame fx image. Where you really lose out with a dx image with a non-dx lens is wide angle now there is truth to that!</p>

[dave wyman]

<p>>a 200mm non dx is a 200mm non dx, so in other words the image that you get with a d200, 300, or whatever nikon dslr other than a d700 or d3 the dx image is just a smaller cropped image<<br>

True, Mike. However, imagine two photographers are standing some distance away from, say, a water buffalo, one with a DX camera, one with a FF camera, each with the same 12 magapixel count.</p>

<p>The buffalo is the same size in each sensor, except, of course, there's a lot more space around the buffalo in the FF sensor, while the buffalo essentially fills the frame of the DX camera.</p>

<p>If the FF photographer crops away some of the extraneous scenery, the photo now has several less megapixels spread out over the image of the buffalo. The DX photographer is happy with his shot, and he retains the full 12 megapixels. </p>

<p>So the choice isn't always so easy to come as to what makes a better camera, at least in certain situations.</p>

[robertbody]

<p>bigger sensor = better sharpness, and low-light performance.<br>

the "1.5 magnification" is a result of projecting an image onto smaller sensor, using only part of the available image.<br>

I took a picture with 300mm lens and cropped to 10% on the bird because that's how small he was [with my D300]. So with D3 tlhe crop would have been even more ridiculous, but that's because the lens is just not enough. The right way would be with 500mm f/4 + 1.4X, a 700mm lens and then crop. or the $11,000 800mm f/5.6 [oh wait Nikon doesn't make that one in VR, but Canon does] Otherwise it's just 'wanting more than paying for'.<br>

There was some feedback on here how a cropped FX image was still better than not-so-cropped DX image...... DX wasn't better, it was slightly worse. If you want max quality, then DX is not the smart solution, it's a smaller sensor that's more affordable, the "magnification" is an illusion.... you are using a smaller sensor, that's the bottom line</p>

[thomas_salway]

<p>Been thinking about upgrading to the D700 from my D300 as well, so this thread is very useful. With me it would come down to higher quality images and ability to use lenses from my F100 as well. Looking to do more landscape pictures really.<br>

Also, where is the total frame counter on the d300, as i'm wanting to know if its due a service!</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"Also, where is the total frame counter on the d300, as i'm wanting to know if its due a service!"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Check the EXIF data in any meta data reader. Even the freebie/donorware program Irfanview can do this. Be sure to check the total shot counter for the camera, not the media card.</p>

[john_newell2]

<blockquote>

<p>If you're shooting sports you'll love the D700.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In most cases, only if shooting <strong><em>indoor</em></strong> sports. Outside, the crop factor of the D300 might be a big advantage.</p>