D700 with primes vs D300 with 17-55mm

[seancrane]

<p>Hey Kevin,<br>

I have both of these camera and use them equally. I used to use a D200 and picked up a D700 so that my 17-35 would be a 17-35 again. What I didn't count on was missing the extra reach that the DX sensor gave me (I shoot mostly wildlife). Due to this, I dumped the D200, which I had relegated to backup body, and picked up a D300. Both the D300 and D700 have their benefits (and not many weaknesses). As someone else stated, I don't see the DX format as a con. In my case it's very much a positive and the reason for getting the camera in the first place. To get the same reach on an FX body, you'd have to use a 1.4 teleconverter at all times. I'd much rather shoot with a DX sensor than use the teleconverter (not that I don't use the teleconverter from time to time with my D300). I keep the wide angle 17-35 on my D700, unless I put the 70-200 or 200-400 on it when the light gets really low. The high ISO image quality is close between the two cameras, but I still don't like to push the D300 past 800, sometimes 1600, whereas I feel much better about the D700 at 1600.<br>

As for lenses, I prefer quality FX zooms (and sometimes not so quality zooms which can return some very good photos although might not zoom fast enough or let in enough light when you need it). I don't want to state the obvious, but you don't have to use DX lenses on a DX sensor. I use all FX lenses and can use them on either camera (which, of course, you can 't say for DX lenses, which only work to their full ability — without pixel cropping — on a DX camera).<br>

As for size, the D300 is a bit smaller, but it's negligible and they seem about the same to me. Good luck. They're both great options, just depends on what you shoot most.<br>

Oh, and one other thing. On these forums I keep seeing people talk somewhat condescendingly about how the camera doesn't matter. It's the person behind the camera and the lenses. This might have been the case in the film days when the camera was just a light box for the lens and film. Of course, the skill and knowledge and vision of the photographer and the lenses obviously matter, but now the film is the camera's sensor, making the choice of camera much more important. So when someone asks a very legitimate question about which camera to get they should be able to get some good advice that doesn't stop at "go learn how to become a better photographer."</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>ok sean, but you have the 17-35, 70-200 and 200-400 already, so for you it's maybe more of a no-brainer to get a d700 for true wide angle on your 17-35. for others, it might be a different story if they dont have good FX glass in the bag.the other day, i saw someone with a D3 shooting with a 10.5 fisheye, which is a DX lens. a total waste of FF if you ask me. maybe that person couldnt afford a 17-35 or 14-24 after buying their camera. but they might have been better off with a d300 and tokina 11-16 or 10-17. in other words...wait for it...YMMV.</p>

<p>btw, i think the OP got some good advice, the point being that getting a more expensive camera wont magically improve your technique overnight whatsoever.</p>

[emraphoto]

<p>"if you want to impress people get the primes and the D700, that seems to be the fashion"<br>

yay! i am finally, for once in my life "in fashion". it feels sweet because i didn't even try! </p>

 

[billsymmons]

<p>Horses for courses!! <br>

The D700 IS better in low light and for me it gives more freedom in choice and use of wide to short tele lenses. But for general, street or all round work a DX (D300) is great. Also DX works for long telephoto work by letting us use lighter smaller lenses for the reach we are looking for.<br>

My personal most used equipment for commercial work such as weddings etc is the D700 with 24-70 f2.8 and an Olympus with the 50 - 200 f2.8/3.5. I have 24 - 400mm at hand without changing lenses and the quality is superb.<br>

If you can own both FX and DX then as photographers we are blessed with todays camera capabilities, and versatility.<br>

If we are limited to one format then DX has to be the one for overall versatility, capability and value.</p>

 

[hughes]

<p>Beautifully stated Mr Symmons<br>

Just so people don't think I'm some sort of Luddite, I do think there are some cases where a D700 would rule, I should think for an available light wedding photographer who makes a lot of money and when fitted with say a 24-70mm lens the D700 would be very hard to beat. My point is that for an occasional amateur photographer with a couple of old primes the D700 probably doesn't make a lot of sense over a D300, and I find it bizarre that people defend and recommend a camera just because they made the investment themselves to own one. As Mr Symmons stated it's horses for courses but when giving advice should we not take economics, the persons needs and common sense in to account.</p>

<p>Cheers to everyone<br>

Steve</p>

[ivan_j._eberle1]

<p>I have a D300 and 8 other cameras. The image quality at ISO 640 or below is absolutely stunning with the lenses I've got and use most (including the 17-35mm). I find I just don't use the focal lengths around "normal" all that much in the smaller formats. The biggest downside to DX and the biggest draw for the larger formats is that the wide side of things gets easier to see and critically compose in a bigger viewfinder. (It's sheer bliss to manually focus with my Pentax 645N and 35mm SMC-A f/3.5 ultrawide.)<br>

I can tolerate the DX viewfinder with telephoto, but only because the final image is so stunning and I the 200-400mm VR is even better as a 300-600mm equivalent with no additional weight gain and it remains an f/4. A well exposed ISO 1600 is entirely useable on the D300. That's huge. I think folks forget what a tremendous boost that is beyond what we had just a few short years ago. Sure, there are now cameras like the D3/700 that have faster useable ISOs, but justifying the use of it dips into the realm where the many images created to showcase it start to look gimmicky and trite.<br>

But if you can find and articulate a sufficient reason why you need the D700 over the D300 (concert and stage work, chapel interiors immediately come to mind) by all means, buy it. Somebody's gotta keep this economy afloat.</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>"My point is that for an occasional amateur photographer with a couple of old primes the D700 probably doesn't make a lot of sense over a D300, and I find it bizarre that people defend and recommend a camera just because they made the investment themselves to own one."</p>

<p>You've already made up your mind, and it seems that it is impossible for you to see why someone else's requirements may be different than your requirements. There are valid reasons why a D700 and a few primes make sense for some folks, and this thread already contains statements of some of those reasons.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>hmm, 1/2 size sensor with a zoom lens compared to a full frame 35mm with proper lenses...i'll take the d700 and the primes.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Tom...</p>

<p>A little simplistic perhaps? I'll take the D300 with a 17-55 DX zoom over the D700 and a crappy old 28mm f2.8 any day! Keep in mind, some of the newer zooms outperform some of the older primes (and even some of the recent primes).</p>

<p>Now, today... can we let the thread die? (I'm talking to myself here...)</p>

[hughes]

<p>Robert<br>

do you actually read the posts before you reply, please don't hate me because I think buying a $3000.00 camera and putting a $50.00 lens in front of it is not the best of ideas .<br>

My last word on the subject<br>

Steve</p>

[dansutton]

<p>another great fountain of advice from a which body post. phenomenal.</p>

[robert gordon]

<p>In all likelihood the equipment produced by every camera and lens manufacturer is superior to our photographic abilities.</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>Well, I just took a 1:5 close up on my D300 using my 55/3.5 micro Nikkor that cost me fifty bucks and seriously the only non-specialist lens that I can consider upgrading to based on image quality alone is the Zeiss 50/2 makro. The price of a lens is a very poor yardstick for its performance and age is not such an obvious indicator either.<br>

The size and weight difference between the D700 and D300 is not a big deal. The lenses you put on your camera will affect size and weight a lot more.</p>

[jessica_miller7]

<p>Wow! Things are getting heated on this forum.<br>

My story:<br>

I have a D300. I'm an "amateur". I shoot weddings and landscapes. I love my 17-55mm f/2.8. I'm glad I didn't spend the extra money for a D700.<br>

The end.<br>

-Jessica</p>

[vincent_p]

<p>Hi Kevin - I think you already have your answer in your post, and this has been supported by the responses given. You probably have to ask yourself how "low light" do you shoot. And since you are shooting street, nature and family - how often do those situations are in low light ? are they often enought to justify the extra $$ (including lenses)? I use both my D700 and D300 a lot but primarily depends on the assignment I'm going for. The lenses I use are FF only thus the weight does not make much of a difference (as what Oskar has pointed out). It does look like the D300 will serve your purpose (I guess) and the DX lenses will not weigh as much as the FF ones (like 24-70 or 70-200), nor as bulky, thus giving you more opportunities to "blend-in" for street shooting.<br>

Both are great cameras, though I prefer my D700 more.</p>

 

[kevin_johnson3]

<p>WOW.... thank you all for your help. Much much appreciated! Of coarse I'm still a little torn on which direction to go but am leaning towards the D700 with Primes. My reason is that I probably shoot wide most of the time and the FX will help me acheive this. Also, I was in a shop the other day and tested the d300 with the 17-55 lens. While the images looked great and tack sharp but did have noticable noise at ISO 400. I'd prefer to get cleaner image at ISO 400. </p>

<p>Is this a trait of the D300 or did I miss some settings?<br>

Thanks again for all of your help<br>

-kevin</p>

[marklcooper]

<p>Kevin,</p>

<p>Here's a 100% crop of my friend's T-shirt. Granted, this is at ISO 3200 and it is grainy. There was no post processing, this is cropped from the raw original posted above.</p><div></div>

[marklcooper]

<p>An ISO 400 photo, D300 w/17-55 f/2.8 @40mm 1/50s f/3.5 handheld, resize of raw file, no pp. Taken in available light at a little out of the way bar and grill (Big Daddy's)</p><div></div>

[marklcooper]

<p>100% crop of the above image. Again, no PP of the raw image other than cropping</p><div></div>

[benjaminm]

<p>In my opinion sooner or later most of advanced DX users will switch to FX. There will be some exceptions of course (wildlife, sport photographers). I think it is not wise to invest in DX body like D300 and expensive DX Nikon lenses (17-55 f/2.8, 12-24 f/4), because in some years there will be no buyers for them. D40 and D60 users don't use such kind of lenses, D90, D200 and D300 users will switch to FX. When I'm saying FX, I don't have any special model in my mind. D700 is a superb camera, but new and better FX bodies will come soon (and the D700's price will drop). Just my opinion.</p>

 

[john_newell2]

<p>I think you're going to see DX here to stay...but I could be wrong.<br>

Whichever way you go, I'll be totally counter-culteral and suggest that you buy it now and avoid the consumer-targeted features that will no doubt clog the D300s and D700s when introduced - "features" like video that may look good on a sell sheet but make an already crowded menu and conrol interface more crowded still.<br>

But hey, what do I know, I'm just a photographer... :-(</p>