D300 or D700?

[Two23]

<p>I want you to take a good look at PROFESSIONAL portraits from pro photographers. Note how they look different from the shots you are probably doing at this time. What makes the difference? Is it the camera? No. Is it the lens that gives the PRO look? Partly. So, what's the MAIN THING that differentiates pro work from beginner snapshots? The answer is LIGHTS. You don't really have any. It's the classic beginner's mistake to concentrate on the camera, which for you is the least important thing. If you are serious about making pro portraits, you need pro lights. Look at buying a couple of Alien Bee B800 plus light stands, softbox, etc. You will be astounded at the difference that alone will make. Astounded. Next, you have no fast lenses. Buy the superb Nikon 17-55mm f2.8, a wedding workhorse. Get a used one, like from ebay. Finally, with whatever $$ you left, camera comes last. Consider a D200 from Best Buy for $600 or whatever they're going for. Don't make the beginner's mistake and dump most of your money on a camera body. BTW, the camera will quickly drop in value over the coming months. The value of the lens will stay about the same. The value of the lights might actually increase. As you make more money, add another pro lens. After you have made enough money to pay off all the stuff you have, then start looking at used or refurb D700. By then they might be going for under $2,000.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[ty_mickan]

<blockquote>

<p>I know that either choice will be SOOOOO much better than my D40x</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wrong! Oh the marketing team at Nikon will have you beleive this, but in reality, you will see no difference in image quality at normal ISO's. Better to spend your entire budget on lenses provided you have another D40x as a backup or second camera. Get yourself a couple of good flash units. <br>

I have gone from shooting D2X's and then lately to the D3's for weddings. I have sold the lot and now shoot only film (Superia Reala 100 and 400H). It cannot be matched especially for weddings...no more blown out sky's or dresses, better colours, more resolution and a more natural look as you only get with film. </p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>The rugged truth is that for snapshots that stay in the A5,6 print territory, you actually won't notice any difference from the D40. Its only with low light and/or larger prints bigger than A3 that the D300 and D700 even more so, stand out. The D700 is an FX version of the D300. There are few other differences.<br>

It will be difficult to use any DX lenses on the D700...so off to ebay. Use the money towards some FX lenses. You don't have to get the latest AFS lenses...some of the AF-D and manual AI-S lenses are optically right up there or better, anyway.</p>

[matt1664883317]

<p>If it helps any I went through the exact same decision a couple weeks ago after also finding myself more busy than I intended (a good problem to have). I went with the 300 and a Sigma 2.8 70-200 mm lens. The lens and camera cost together cost less than the 700 where I live. I am using a d90 as a backup body and part of my reasoning is I could afford two 300s for the price of one 700, giving me more options in case one of my cameras dies completely.<br /> I am shooting sports in low light where the extra reach of the dx is a huge benefit. I might have considered the 700 more if I was shooting portraits and weddings. One thing to consider is you can start with a 300 and some good glass and once your budget allows it you can all ways go to the 700 and use the 300 for a backup camera.<P><br /> One thing is for sure, coming from a d40x you will love the 300.</p>

[lou korell]

<p>If you plan to do weddings, go straight to the D700. You'll be very happy you have it. The thing is, you will need backup so you can either keep what you have now as backup or add a D300 or a second D700 later. Weddings require more backup gear because you only get one chance.<br>

You can easily do a whole wedding with just a few lenses.<br>

The most expensive option:<br>

14-24 f2.8<br>

24-70 f2.8<br>

70-200 f2.8<br>

All Nikon of course.<br>

I am happy with my lenses:<br>

17-35 2.8<br>

28-70 2.8<br>

70-200 2.8<br>

50 1.4<br>

85 1.4<br>

Those will cover a wedding without any trouble. It takes a while to acquire a full set of lenses if you're on a budget, but I wouldn't compromise on quality.</p>

<p>Lou</p>

[lou korell]

<p>Additionally, a lot of people will tell you to buy a D200 or a D2x or something that has gone down in price. I agree that it would suit the budget easier along with Sigma and other third party lenses. But you will end up spending more when you start re-buying the upgrades. And, believe me, you will.<br>

Start slow, get only what you need to do the job, add as you make more money, and you will have the best of what you need. Only my opinion but it was my experience.</p>

[holger]

<p>I shoot weddings (and portraits, and church events, almost always in available light). I work with a D300, a D200 as backup, and the following lenses:<br>

- 17-55 mm f/2.8 AF-S Nikon (stays on D300 all the time)<br>

- 18-200mm AF-S VR Nikon (stays on D200 all the time)<br>

- 85mm f/1.8 (portraits)</p>

<p>I had a chance to use and test a D700 around christmas. I loved it, but i decided to keep my D300. Reasons:<br>

No huge difference in high ISO in real life (much less than you will experience going from D40x to D300).<br>

Could not afford a comparable backup body (while you will find a used D200 as backup for the D300 for less than the cost of a new D60).<br>

24-70 way too expensive for my budget. 17-55 is perfect, I will add 70-200 one day, also f/2.8.</p>

<p>The 18-200 VR is a fine lens, but I prefer the 17-55: punchier, much better iq, and while VR freezes your own motion (heartbeat, hands, ...), f/2.8 freezes people: VR does not help when people move, while a fast lens allows for faster shutter speeds. Plus f/2.8 gives better blurred background for portraits.</p>

<p>From my experience I would get a D300, 17-55mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4 or 1.8, depending on budget. And keep your D40x as backup body, or get a D200 (similar layout and handling).</p>

<p>Just my thoughts, enjoy,<br>

Holger</p>

[rm_pierce]

<p>you have some really great points here. I plan on using my D40x as backup at this point in time. Actually it's the camera that got me started and the camera that has kept me far busier than I anticipated- IMPO this tells me that if I'm able to have a legitimate business with D40x then there is something there for a strong future. So in those regards I couldn't be happier with my little D40x. It really does great quality work. Its problem is the lens limitation that I have run into. With the autofocus needing to be in the lens instead of the camera body it really limits lenses- (yes autofocus is important to me because when your dealing with children that won't sit for longer than three seconds you have to be fast and can't count on manual very well!!) This is also a reason my lens selection is not so hot right now. Also, I do have lighting stands and 2 softboxes that I didn't mention because mostly everything I do is on location so a studio setup in lighting is not really feasable (they basically sit in the closet except for a few times a year), although someday I would like to add more studio options. <br>

So I really appreciate the "shaking" about staying in my original budget. I do think I can reasonably afford the D300, 17-55mm, and a prime, and the extra batteries and memory sticks without going over. So now- only being able to purchase one prime now- should I go with the 50 or 85? Are ya'll getting sick of me and my million questions and up/down decision making?? HA HA- if you only knew me!!</p>

[lou korell]

<p>"No huge difference in high ISO in real life" <br /> Above ISO 1600 I beg to differ. Exponential difference. My D300 is a great camera but I don't shoot much above 1600. Now, 1600 looks great but on the D700, ISO 2500 and above is a major difference and very low noise.<br /> The exposures you choose, coupled with the lighting will factor greatly in the results of using high ISO. Everyone's results may vary.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>I don't understand this obsession people have with high ISO. For 100 years we have shot at 800 iso and below with film. All of a sudden we have to shoot at 3200 or 6400! Is the world all of a sudden darker? Invest in some proper lenses rather than slow 2.8 zoom lenses and there is another two stops you won't have to worry about in the iso department. Oh and a tripod helps as well.</p>

[rm_pierce]

<p>Tom- what would you call a proper lens if you think a 2.8 is slow? I thought that was a pretty descent lens for a zoom (something I desire to have so I don't have to always be moving constantly with the primes!)</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>2.8 isn't slow, it is a medium speed lens. Zooms are a compromise and you will lose image quality and speed for the convenience of not having to cary the two or three lenses you would normally use to cover that focal range. But zooms are usually two to three times bigger and/or heavier than primes. Some will argue that the zooms can produce comparable image quality with Nikon's primes, but that is only because Nikon has neglected prime lenses. People seem to be happy to settle for zooms nowadays, and alot of people have never even used a prime lens. There are other options though, and there isn't a zoom lens that can match the quality of a good Zeiss or Leica prime lens.</p>

[stephen_fassman]

<p>You already have DX covered, so why buy another dx body and dx lens? The D700 is the only way to go. The 24-70/2.8 is in the same price range as the 17-55/2.8, and the price diff betw the 2 bodies should be your most pleasureable first major business expense, that hopefully your expanding growth will pay for rather quickly.</p>

[holger]

<p>"<em>You already have DX covered, so why buy another dx body and dx lens?</em> "<br>

DX does not cover anything, it's just a format. Upgrading to D700 just means that you can't switch between cameras without thinking, that lenses behave differently, and that an identical or even similar backup body is out of his financial reach for some time to come, as I understand the op's message. With no financial restrictions, I sure would go D700 (or D3) without looking back, but real life is about money, too.</p>

<p>17-55/2.8 is in a different price range at least over here in Switzerland and Germany. It's not thousands, but add the difference of the lens to the additional cost of the body, and you could get a backup D300 shiny new for that amount. Plus 17-55/2.8 are available used thanks to all the folks jumping to D700.</p>

<p>As far as the question 50mm or 85 is regarded: I would get the 50/1.4 for the D300, or the 85/1.8 (or 1.4, if financially possible) for the D700. I seldom use the 85/1.8 on my D300 since it's just that little bit too long, to adjust framing I need to step back or forth too much, and kids don't wait that long. For pictures of grownups, using tripod and having time, 85 is perfect. But that's about 1% of my pictures.<br>

That's also the reason for me not to stick to primes only: I have to be fast, too fast sometimes, and zooming helps. 2.8 is slower than 1.4, yes, but 1.4 does not help if you cannot adjust your position in time to get the picture. And no, high-end-zooms like 17-55/2.8 or 24-70/2.8 are not worse than primes, even good primes. They are different, that's all. Heavy, cumbersome, but they are versatile and offer very very good iq.</p>

<p>I have ordered the AF-S 35mm f/1.8, because I love primes too. But I will not do a wedding with primes only. And for kids, I would rather save for a 70-200/2.8 VR and an identical backup body, so as not having to change lenses. But that's another step, I suppose.</p>

<p>Enjoy, Holger</p>

<p> </p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>The difficulty which crops up with a choice between the D300 and D700 is just how much to invest in quality DX lenses before you make the move back to FX (assuming you once shot film). There is still a big difference between the price of both bodies. I personally bought a used D300 at a substantial discount over new price, and there are very few used D700s out there. Down here, the difference is more than A$2000. I took the risk and went for the D300 because I have a lot to unlearn about film and learn about digital. If I get good enough, then I'll step up in a year or so. The D700x will have come out by then and that will soften the price of the D700 and also make more available as people upgrade.<br>

If you can keep the DX investment reasonable with the prospect of easily selling quality DX lenses later on, then start with the D300. If price is less important and you do not have an arsenal of DX lenses, then try to find a good used D700. I would never buy new. You are looking at a 30-40% depreciation/obsolescence factor in the first year with digital.<br>

Tom made a good point about high ISO. A high ISO-capable camera will not compensate for slow consumer lenses. However, most of us know full well that even really good, "fast " lenses' sweet spots are between 3.5 and 8. Just how many daytime shots does one take dusk or dawn shots? Granted, being able to shoot at 3200/6400 is nice, but how often? These are questions to ask oneself. I am finding that I shoot a lot in full sunlight and my biggest problem so far has been flare. The D300 has been great. I really don't want to massage my shots for hours on the computer so I downloaded the Nikonians SS on picture settings and custom settings, fiddled a bit with these and created a custom menu to suit just about any situation. Thats a great feature. Then I was a bit deflated with the new D5000, and its 19 scene modes!! That would probably have saved me a lot of trouble. This is how fast obsolescence is catching us, folks! Fortunately, the D5000 is almost as expensive as what I paid for the D300, and I need the body integrity and prefer the quality of the D300/700 anyway. Where I shoot, dust is a big factor.<br>

The best advice I got was from an old hand who said that now, one should buy as good as one can afford at the present point of time, and be content for two years. The only problem for we geezers is that we have been used to getting 20 quality years out of our film gear before digital came along. Oh well.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em> No huge difference in high ISO in real life</em></p>

<p>The actual difference in high ISO image quality when you use the same lens is one thing, but with FX you typically get much sharper pics with fast lenses at wide apertures than you get with DX. Most f/1.4-f/2 lenses have to be stopped down quite a bit to render images adequately on 12 MP DX; whereas very good results can be obtained on 12 MP FX even wide open. This adds a couple of stops to the real life low light advantage of FX. Another aspect is that with FX you can use a 50mm lens for "normal" angle of view while with you have to use a retrofocus 35mm lens, which is typically if not always much less sharp than the 50mm lenses are. All these factors put together, there was roughly a five stop advantage when using the D3+50/1.4 over the D200+35/2. This doesn't work out the same way for a 300mm lens on FX, as you can use a one stop faster 200mm lens with DX, but for a lot of people photography I do in the 35mm to 105mm range, and it's made a complete revolution to what I can shoot in existing light.</p>

<p><em>I don't understand this obsession people have with high ISO [clip] </em> Is the world all of a sudden darker?</p>

<p><br /> The world probably isn't darker but the stuff that could be shot 100 years ago has already been shot. In the past I was constantly shooting at the limits of my gear, in many cases not quite getting the shot with existing light simply because there wasn't enough of it. Now things are much better and I can pretty much work the way I like to. Often I am still pushing the limits of my gear.</p>

[lou korell]

<p><em>I don't understand this obsession people have with high ISO. For 100 years we have shot at 800 iso and below with film. All of a sudden we have to shoot at 3200 or 6400! Is the world all of a sudden darker?</em><br>

I'll try and answer this too. In the past, it was not as popular to use shallow depth of field for weddings to produce more artistic and creamy backgrounds. I looked at a few old family albums from fifty years ago and it seems all pictures were done with a not so wide aperture and flash was always used. Today we like to keep flash to a minimum for the most part and utilize the light in different ways. It is not that easy to do in a dark reception hall with a slow speed. The combination of a fast lens and a high ISO capable camera gives us more options for creativity.<br>

Short answer - because we can. :)<br>

<em><br /> </em></p>

[rm_pierce]

<p>Thanks for everyone's advice! I have finally purchased my camera and the winner is... the D300. The kicker that got me was somebody mentioned that you shouldn't buy a camera that you couldn't reasonably afford a backup should something happen to your camera. The D700 and ONE lens was going to eat my ENTIRE budget. The two lenses (although not great) that I do already have are DX lenses. I just didn't think that I would be able to put the D700 to it's top game with the rest of the equipment I had. Plus for my budget I was able to get the D300, 50mm 1.4, 18-200mm (yes I know some suggested different but I really wanted the lens and I went to a Nikon convention and the intructor talked about this lens the entire weekend), an extra battery, a second flash, flash bracket, and memory sticks- I'm also planning on getting a white backdrop and stand with one more strobe light. I'd say that I really feel good about the way I spent my money. The D700 is an amazing camera that I really wanted but I finally decided that there is a ton more to taking pictures than the camera body itself. Once I have all the basics down and it's time for another upgrading the D700 it going to be old hat and there will be a new and far more impressive body out there I'm sure!!</p>