D300 OR D700

[dave_petley2]

<p>Is there a real big difference in the D300 and D700 in the picture quality, for someone who only goes to 8x10 or 11x 14. Every time Nikon brings out a new camera, everybody thinks the old one in no good anymore. </p>

[rnt]

<p>Get a D700 if for no other reason than the low light quality...</p>

[sam_ellis]

<p>The D300 is a GREAT camera. It does 99% of what I need it to do, but I just ordered a D700 for the low light capabilities. I'm just not crazy about the D300 above 800 ISO and couldn't justify the $5000 D3.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>As Robert is getting at: there's no difference when you're comparing shots taken within each camera's useful boundaries of light sensitivity/noise. The D700's boundaries go farther, that's all.<br /><br />Well, and then there's the question of which lens(es) you're using. These cameras have two different sensor formats, and a truly great array of lenses on one camera wouldn't be the same on the other. So your question is a bit apples-oranges, in that regard. <br /><br />The D300 hasn't become "bad" just because there's a D700 available. But the things the D300 could never do - and which the D700 now <em>can do</em> - still matter (to some people, and some budgets).</p>

[ronald_moravec1]

<p>D700. Love mine. My D200 is relegated to back up status and to ISO 400 and lower, preferably 100. The D700 is amazing.</p>

[Philip Freedman]

<p>I have both a D700 and a D300. The big difference for me is the much larger viewfinder screen of the D700. It is much easier to compose your shot and much better for manual focusing if you need it. (I wear spectacles and those who do not may not mind the smaller screen of the D300). The quality of the photographs are much the same within normal parameters although as others have said the D700 is a little better at the higher ISOs.</p>

 

[mars790]

<p>I have both and do agree with the above comments.</p>

<p>But there is something to be said for the pixel density of the D300. Depending on your needs - you might be better off with the D300. Unless you shoot a lot above ISO 800...</p>

[mars790]

<p>

<blockquote>omit - double post (why is there no "delete" option?)<br /></blockquote>

</p>

[chansonbleu]

<p>Dave,</p>

<p> I can't speak for the low light capability of the D700, however the D300 is useable up to at least 3200. The only problem I have with the D300 is finding a reasonably priced wide angle prime.</p>

<p>Steve</p><div></div>

[dave_petley2]

<p>yes, can you tell the difference in the quality and in print size up to 16x20</p>

[dale_dimmick1]

<p>Great question: Now, you too understand the marketing genius of electronic imaging. The manufacturers whole point is to release incremental improvements in the imaging technology so the consumer can justify purchasing the latest & greatest. You can expect this every 2 years... forever.<br>

Canon has already deteremined that addiltional megapixels will not improve their top of the line, full frame sensor. ALl their new developments are oriented toward better image tonality, that is less noise and more information being captured with smoother gradations of detail from black to white. Hmmmm, which reminds what attracted me to the Fuji sensor....Anyway;<br>

My biggest immediate concern would be the effective focal length of the APS size lenses you have now and their incompatability with a full frame sensor. The APS lenses cover a smaller image area which likely will make your D300 lenses incompatible. There is a magnification factor of about 1.5x in comparison to the full frame sensor or 35mm image area. ie: A 50mm full frame lens performs as a 75mm on the D300. The depth of field is also greater (larger area of acceptable focus) with the smaller sensor as well.<br>

I shoot Fuji cameras and purchase only full frame lenses which will be compatible when and if the sensors go full size for my cameras in the future. Because the body technology changes so rapidly, the glass becomes the single most important investment and it will serve your imaging needs for a considerably longer time than the bodies. Buy the best glass whenever you can! If it were me I'd probably purchase better lenses now and wait for the enxt generation of body to be released, or just hold on awhile and save up the $$$. My next lens will be an 85mm 1.4 D AF.<br>

Unless you're really pushing the exposure and tonality envelope with the D300, and have very specific needs for large prints/higher resolution your images won't really look appreciable better. The camera is just a creative tool that you use to express your vision. I routinely make up to 42" prints with my Fuji S5 and have made amazing 16x20 portraits from a fuji 6 meg (that's really about 3.75 meg) file sizes.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p><em>The manufacturers whole point is to release incremental improvements in the imaging technology so the consumer can justify purchasing the latest & greatest. You can expect this every 2 years... forever.<br /><br /></em>I'm not really sure what you're implying Dale. It has to be either:<br /><br />1) You think that Nikon <em>could</em> have produced the D700 many years ago, for the same price, but didn't, so that they could milk sales out of everything they sold along the way.<br /><br />2) You think that a given camera (say, the D700) is just fine, and nobody should need or want or expect better, and they should just stop right there. Then, in 10 years (or would you prefer 15?) they can gear up and do another round of R&D, and produce another camera.<br /><br /><em>The camera is just a creative tool that you use to express your vision.</em><br /><br />What if another person's vision involves shooting in light so low that your Fuji S5 simply can't handle the job? Should we be glad that someone has now made an affordable camera that can rise to the occasion, or tut-tut at the photographer for having a silly vision and being a sucker for buying the newly more useful tool?</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>And to give my input on the original question.<br>

For most of my work the D300 is perfect for me. It is very usable up to a ISO of 3200. The crop factor means I can use a 300 f/2.8 to get the shots I need. When I need to shoot at a higher ISO I rent a D700. The higher ISO is very nice. The full frame is almost a drawback for my work.<br>

In 8X10 and 11X14 prints you can not tell which camera it came from. I have not done any 16X20's from the D700. But I would think that the difference if any would be minimal. <br>

I shoot a lot of super speed primes on my D300 and do not have any problems with focusing them. (50mm f/1.2 85 mm f/1.4 105 mm f/1.8 all MF) <br>

So I think it all boils down to what kind of photography do you do. Do you need ultra wide angle? Do you need 6400 ISO? The you should get the D700, If you need to do long lens work. If a ISO of 3200 is good enough. The a D300 should do just fine for you</p>

[anthony_wright]

<p>I'm also in the same boat. with all else being equal (ie price, being able to afford the d700) I think I may just get the d700 for the following not sure if this will help<br>

1. I'm thinking of having a f.frame and a dx for backup.<br>

2. right now not quite sure what's about to happen but there will likely be at least 1 more prosumer level dx body ( I'm guessing because the d700 is still out of most ppls reach by at least 5-700$ with tax) with more advancements over the d300 probably putting you close to a baby d3x )<br>

3. If you get the d700 if something else comes out that cause N.A.S you will get a better price on selling the d700 to fund a new purchase <br>

Not sure not trying to jack your thread but hope it helps<br>

P.s my other rationale is to get a d300 with battery grip and 85 1.4 which will still put me under or close to a d700. now that's a tuff one :)</p>

<p>good luck</p>

 

[hawkman]

<p>"Is there a real big difference in the D300 and D700 in the picture quality, for someone who only goes to 8x10 or 11x 14."<br>

for 8X10 difference is visible at ISO 1600 upward for 11X14 difference is at ISO 800 upward, for viewing on screen at 100% there is difference even at ISO 200. However you are completely missing the point of D700, D700 is a full frame camera meaning that you can use lenses like 14-24, 17-35, 24-70, 50 etc. <em>AS THEY ARE INTENDED </em>you can't do that with D300. </p>

[chris hughes]

<p>My feeling on the D300/D700 issue is this:<br>

<br /> 1) There's nothing wrong with DX format. People who are dogged advocates for full frame are welcome to their opinions, but the notion that there's a VAST difference between the two is hogwash. Some people like the crop factor DX offers, some people like the traditional lens ratios. Both approaches are valid.<br>

<br /> 2) The D300 is a very refined body. There's practically nothing wrong with it. It's solid in ways that blow the D200 out of the water. The D700 on the other hand suffers from a number of 1.0 niggles that plagued the D200. It's not a refined body... yet. It's an initial run. For that reason alone, I'd strongly suggest the D300.<br>

<br /> Ultimately, both cameras offer advantages, but neither one is so far beyond the other to make the choice obvious. Personally, I'm choosing to stick with my D300 until a D800 comes out that brings the D700 up to the rock solid level that the D300 is at right now. I don't see any reason to bother with all the kind of niggles that the D200 threw at me. The D700 just isn't fully baked yet.</p>

[robertbody]

<p>I would take D700 over D300...... most of the time, because I have reached the limits of D300 where I wished for more and D700 could do it.<br>

This picture is at ISO-800 and 1/8s f/5.6<br>

<img src="http://www.robertbody.com/things08/images/2008-12-29-mesa-temple-reflect-69170.jpg" alt="" width="750" height="500" /><br>

It looks good compared to IS0-3200 which I tried in other pictures to use smaller aperture... and these objects are moving, slightly.. so i would prefer to use a faster shutter speed. With D700 i could have used a higher ISO, or get more quality at the same ISO.<br>

I have seen noise I don't like even at ISO-400 in night scenes. You are getting the same pixel count but around 230% of the area in the sensor........ cropping from the original still keeps more quality than D300 would.<br>

But you get that 1.5x multiplier with D300 so you don't have to crop..... but overall I would pick D700 for the lower noise on higher ISO. Also the viewfinder would be brighter on D700. Trying them in store side by side could help you decide too.</p>

[robertbody]

<p>With D300, the lenses 'behave' differently than they would with D700.<br>

I had a 18-35mm lens on film camera and it was my wideangle, now with D300 it is my "primary" lens, becoming 25-52mm making it my primary lens. When I got rid of the 28-105mm from film, I got [some time later] 105mm macro which behaves like 155mm.<br>

When i switch to D700, my 17-35mm i will need for wideangle, but it won't be my primary any more [it replaced my 18-35mm], but instead i will want 24-70mm for primary. Also my 105mm won't do anymore, so i will want 70-200mm to give me same reach and more [and zoom too], so it becomes for me a $1500+1600+$1000[approx D300 to D700 difference]=$4100 upgrade to let me do a little more than i can now [and gives me real wideangle too]. Not to mention the weight increase. I like to carry all my gear with me, otherwise why have it if you don't bring it, opportunities arise that you don't anticipate.</p>

[hawkman]

<p>"The D700 just isn't fully baked yet."</p>

<p>I am sorry but looks like you have no idea what you are talking about, I would refrain myself from making such strange claims unless I provide some evidence.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>I based my decision on high ISO performance, I upgraded from a D200 and did not like shooting past 320 ISO. I have many FX lenses so I did not need to a lens. I also use tele's and the crop hurt a bit there but as always its a compromise. If you don't need the extra stop I would go for the D300.</p>

[dave wyman]

<p>Dave, I say purchase the best camera you can afford.</p>

<p>For the kinds of photographs I make, nature and travel plus family snapshots, the benefit of gaining a stop+ isn't compelling enough to spend the extra money on the D700. The D300 came out before the D700, and so I have a D300.</p>

<p>Perhaps Nikon wants us to use their lenses with focal lengths as they were originally designed, but I don't. My 12-24mm on my D300 gives me wider coverage than I ever needed with my film cameras, and the telephoto end has been enhanced considerably. My 50mm optics all make dynamite portrait lenses, my 35mm f/2 performs as a terrific "normal" prime, etc. The equivalent of my 18-200mm on a FF.....well, there isn't one. </p>