D300 or D700?

[rm_pierce]

<p>Hey All,<br>

I just want to thank you advance for taking the time to help me out! I have been persuing a photography career and it has rolled a whole lot faster than I ever imagined. Now I'm in DESPERATE need of upgrading my equipment. Right now I have a Nikon D40x with 18-55 mm and 50-200mm lens, along with the SL600. I have been going back and forth between getting the D300 and the D700. I have read almost every review out there on both cameras, along with forums that were asking the same question but I'm still undecided!! Obviously I need to get some better/faster lenses as well. Budget is always an issue- when is it not? If I went with the D300 I would probably be able to afford two good lenses along with another flash. With the D700 I would probably only be able to get one lens and probably not another flash at this time. My main source of photography is portrait (mainly small children) and I do have an occasional wedding as well. I was also asked to do a local high school's prom and tennis banquet. I do hope to do more weddings as I get my feet more on the ground. Knowing this info- I'm seeking which route you would go because I want to do it right the first time. Is it worth spending the extra for the D700 upfront and continue to add to my bag along the way or do I just go with the D300 and get the needed equipment from the start? I know that either choice will be SOOOOO much better than my D40x. Also, your top lens suggestions for both bodies would be great to know as well!! I do not have a local store that rents so I haven't had a chance to get my hands on very much. Which adds another question to my list- would you trust purchasing off the internet? I really appreciate your time in helping decide which route to go!!</p>

[nsfbr]

<p>It sounds to me that for the type of things you shoot, the D700 is a better choice - simply because its strengths line up better. That is, you are going to be working shorter focal lengths, in often challenging lighting situations where high ISO and FX give you more than the DX crop advantage on telephoto work would. The major drawback is that your lenses don't work to their full potential on an FX body, so it will be more costly than just the difference in price of the bodies for your to go that way. If you are able to swing it financially, I'd do the D700, a fast prime and fast normal zoom - say the 85mm 1.8, and the 24-70 2.8. </p>

<p>I would also listen to what others say, with more emphasis on the views of people who shoot this type of thing over those (like me) who do not.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>For wedding type work, there is little doubt that the D700 is the better camera than the D300. However, budget is the key.</p>

<p>For whatever it is worth, my advice is that spend no more than 50% of your budget on the body, which is going to depreciate quickly anyway. Say the D700 is $2500; I would get it only if you have at least $5000 so that you can get some good lenses to go along with it. Otherwise, you are much better off with a D300 and some more good lenses. Lenses will be a much better long-term investment, and the D300 is still a fine wedding camera.</p>

<p>Additionally, if you shoot weddings professionally, make sure you have at least one back up camera body. The greatest D3X, D3 or D700 is uesless if it is accidentally dropped and stops working during a wedding.</p>

<p>See also this recent thread: <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00T3um">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00T3um</a></p>

[wpahnelas]

<p>that's a tough choice, because the D700 might be better in the long run, but it's not going to do you much good without adequate lenses. at least the D300 purchase with a 17-55/2.8 would get you working right away. if your business is taking off like you say, pursue what you can use to most effective advantage now, and let the future take care of itself.</p>

[chris_whitcomb1]

<p>Internet ordering: Adorama & B&H Photo are 2 safe sites.</p>

<p>I would get the D700 & the 85 1.4 if I could afford it or the D700 & the 85 1.8. The D700 is going to give you more depth to your images, almost 3D like, compared to the D300. Your "SB600" will be perfect for filling in those shadows either on camera or off using CLS. I would not forget that you'll need CF cards instead of the SD cards for your D40 & maybe an extra battery. An almost mandatory item for our work is the Lastolite Tri-grip 8in1 reflector set since they have a grip enabling us to have the camera in one have and the reflector in the other. This is JMO but if you get the D300 you'll always wish you had the D700.</p>

[nishnishant]

<p>Keep in mind that FX lenses will be way more expensive than DX equivalents.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>The D700 may be better but lots of wedding photographers made a living with the DX format. I think your glass and flash would be more important then the body. It seems lots of event photographers use the 17-55 and 70-200 f2.8 type zooms. If you planned to go FX in the future a 24-70 might be an option but you may have wider focal length needs. I enjoy my D700 very much but I also liked my old D200 for everything except high ISO preformance.</p>

[rm_pierce]

<p>I know that lenses are the more important way of spending my money and I think that's why I'm having such a hang up. Since I really don't have any "great" lenses I'm basically starting from scratch- that's why I'm having a hard time deciding between an FX and DX format. Obviously DX are more affordable and I can purchase more right now. I don't have the $5000 to spend like Shun suggested right now for the D700 (although I think it's great advice) but do I purchase the D300 with some great lenses now and upgrade in the future only to find that I invested into DX format lenses? I guess my point is that I'm worried DX is at it's prime and FX is only beginning- In your opinion will the FX format for lenses carry me further down the road even if I can't afford all of the bells and whistles at this moment. Did that make any sense??? I guess I'm with Chris when he says I'll always wish for the D700- but I just don't currently have the lenses to make it work at it's top performance.</p>

[williamting]

<p>Buy a D300 and FX lenses. If you ever decide to fully commit to DX, you won't lose too much by reselling the FX lenses.</p>

[bgelfand]

<p>There was an interesting article that addresses the Full Frame / DX decision in the April 2009 Popular Photography: <a href="http://www.popphoto.com/Features/The-Full-Frame-Decision">http://www.popphoto.com/Features/The-Full-Frame-Decision</a><br>

Be sure to look at the conclusions at the bottom of page 2.</p>

 

[rm_pierce]

<p>ooohhh- Brooks- good article- definately makes me think</p>

[photo5]

<p>Yeah, the D700 is a no-brainer for shooting events and weddings. It's such a great camera, I had one for six months (since sold to pay off a credit card). If I were shooting jobs, I'd have two of them. The D300 itself is no slouch though, and would also be a great choice. Can't go wrong either way. They are both winners. I can't see how Nikon will improve the D300, supposedly there will be a replacement announced this year sometime.</p>

[rm_pierce]

<p>Ok- after reading all your thoughts, this is what I'm thinking- the D300 with the 18-200 mm and the 85mm f1.8 lens- would you agree this is a good choice?</p>

[lwg]

<p>I have a D300 and in your position I would get the D700 if I could afford it. Sounds like you need the extra speed much more than the extra magnification. However it also sounds like you can't really afford it. The D300 is a fine camera and would serve you well with a D80 or D200 for a backup. Make sure you get fast lenses, especially for the D300.</p>

[alan_goldhammer]

<p>My Association just had its annual meeting down in San Antonio. We had a local photographer on site for the three day meeting and photos were shown during the meeting on the large screens (aside: we also had the Judds for entertainment, first time in a year that both have sung together). His two cameras of choice, Nikon D300s. He had the two zooms that Carl Becker notes above. I was able to chat with him between sessions (I'm a D300 owner) and he said this was more economical than the 700 and he hasn't had any problems with the cameras. He was shooting almost everything with available light. Didn't has a chance to ask about what ISO he was using.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I think you are much better off sticking with the D300 and get some good and fast lenses, such as f2.8 zooms. Nikon's 17-55mm/f2.8 AF-S is ideal for events and weddings, but there are less-expensive 3rd-party options. Also get something like Nikon's 30mm/f1.8 AF-S for a faster lens.</p>

<p>The 18-200 is a great compromise lens for travel when some people want to have just one lens. It is too slow for weddings and events.</p>

[kuryan_thomas]

<blockquote>

<p>would you trust purchasing off the internet?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Much more than I would trust some of the local stores that I know of. Go with good internet retailers such as B&H or Adorama (there are many others). Amazon is also good, with a generous return policy.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>"Ok- after reading all your thoughts, this is what I'm thinking- the D300 with the 18-200 mm and the 85mm f1.8 lens- would you agree this is a good choice?"</p>

<p>for portraits, the 85 is good, although at 127.5mm equivalent on DX its a bit on the long end of the portrait range. the 18-200 wouldnt be my first choice for anything but casual walkaround use or travel. the most future-proof choice might be the 24-70, or, if you're on a budget, the older 35-70 or 28-75 tamron.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>I have had very good success buying from B&H, Adorama and KEH-used. I have only had a few issues off the auction site but that is seller dependent.</p>

[rm_pierce]

<p>shesh- I think I'm more confused than ever!! There have been so many good points for me look at and there are really pros and cons for either choice. I think I really need to see how much of a budget I really am able stretch. Now I'm beginning to lean towards the D700 because I think I'll regret it down the road for not spending the money and get the 24-70mm lens- it puts me about $1000 over budget but if I just book one more wedding it will pay for itself. Would this move get a thumbs up or a thumbs down?</p>

[photo5]

<p>RM, you will not regret getting the D700. Face it, the camera outperforms the D300 at all ISOs. Even at ISO 200 I could see shadow noise with my D300. With the D700, there is none. It's silky smooth. Even ISO 3200 is totally usable. Thumbs up! Go out there and get ya one!!</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>RM Pierce, what exactly is your budget for camera, lens, and maybe flash, memory cards, etc.?</p>

<P>

Good photography is the sum of many parts. First of all you have to be a good photographer to begin with. After that you need a good balance among your equipment. It makes little sense to have a lot of good lenses but a poor camera; it also makes little sense to pour your money on a fast-depreciating body and have little left for some good lenses, tripod, flash, etc.

</P>

[gurbally_seth]

<p>Your best option is D300 with 50mm f1.8 and 70-200mm f2.8.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>I think you will regret an unbalanced setup the most. </p>

[rossb]

<p>Professional photography is also about money management and profit. Camera gear needs replacement at the worst possible times. In addition you probably need batteries, flash gear, memory cards and better quality glass. What are you going to do if your D700 fails to function or is stolen. Are you going to run out and buy another one. Probably not. You are going to bring out the D40x and try and re-adjust. i guess I am saying you need to stay in budget so that you can keep your gear up to date and working. Buying a body that you cannot replace might not be a great idea. If the D300 is lost or something then you probably could pick up a D90 and shoot away with little change. Just as good really in a lighter body. As far as that goes you could just buy two of those and have two working camera's right now.</p>