Complex D300s or D700 question.

[lahuasteca]

<p>I know there have been a number of D300s-D700 threads recently, but none answer my question. Yes, ultimate image quality and DR, buy the D700. But there are some other variables - namely cost for lenses and portability. My use - trail, backpacking, sliding down stream banks, rocks, etc. to get in position for waterfall shots, or travel to remote locations, ethnographic photography. For me, the ultimate Nikon film camera was the FE2 (I still use it), small, dense, great viewfinder, and capable of the same IQ as the more higher priced Nikons at the time. Currently I use a D80/16-85 combo, which is fine for tripod use. The matrix metering isn't too great, but I shoot in manual using the histogram. I have lots of primes left over from the FE2 days, but I borrowed a D700 - they didn't produce very good initial RAW images, except for the 35 mm f2.0 AI. The 28-105AF returned very flat images. So I'm thinking, $2500 for the D700 and another $4000-5000 for two good f 2.8 zooms. I don't have that cash, and I'm not a professional that can go out and shoot a few weddings to pay for it.<br>

D300s? A professional friend recommended DX plus the 18-200 for backcountry travel. What would I be giving up in terms of IQ with D300s instead of D700? I occasionally enlarge to 12 x 18 and enter local fine art competitions (one year I noticed the winner used a point and shoot - it was all about composition, not pixels). D300s, 10-24, keep using the 16-85 - about $2500, the limit of my budget. I'm interested in the comments of those who have used either camera, D300/s and/or D700. Thanks for taking the time to read this post.</p>

<p> </p>

[wpahnelas]

<p>sounds like you've answered your own question(s).<br>

i am fortunate to have one of each. incidentally, beside me on the desk is my D700 with the 35/2 AI mounted. it's my favorite walk-around lens.<br>

this can be argued both ways forever. i mostly use the D300 when shooting long, and for just about everything else prefer the D700.<br>

that said, the D300 can do everything you want it to. it's a great camera in its own right.<br>

as for the 2 f/2.8 zooms for $4000-5000 you talk about, if you aren't shooting action, 2 or 3 MF primes make for a light kit that works just about anywhere.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I too like to sometimes backpack to remote locations and have some idea of what you are doing. I love waterfalls too! The problem with a D700 is the lenses, as you point out. What's the point of buying a $2,000 camera because it can do higher ISO, and then stick an old consumer grade f5.6 lens on it? I really like compact, lightweight cameras. What you might consider is the D5000 for a camera body. It's very small but shares the same sensor as the D300/D90. It also has a cool fold out LCD screen, making it easier to do macro shots etc. I don't see any sense in buying a D300s unless you've really been wanting the video. There are plenty of refurb D300 out there that will save you about $600. I have D300 but don't like the bulk when I'm on long hikes. I've gone back to my D80 for that. The D5000 looks about perfect for long hikes.<br />Here's a package you might consider. It's a compromise between weight/bulk and image quality, skewed in favor of image quality:<br />D5000 camera, Nikon 17-55mm f2.8, Nikon 70-300mm VR, lightweight carbon fiber tripod, AcraTech Ultimate ballhead, two Nikon SB-800 flash (portraits,) polarizer. <br />This would be reasonably compact and give you the image quality you are after. For 12x18 prints I think I'd avoid the Nikon 18-200mm. The Nikon 17-55mm is their best pro DX zoom, and available on eBay, KEH etc. You could keep using your current lens or not get the 70-300mm if you need to cut cost.<br />Kent in SD</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The D80 + 16-85 is fine for back-country landscape photography. If you want something longer the 70-300 VR would be a relatively compact, versatile choice that doesn't cost all that much. If you want significantly better quality than the kit you have, you have to pay a lot and the weight of your kit will increase dramatically, but the gains in quality for this type of work might seem only slight. E.g. 14-24, 24-70 or 17-55 and 70-200 would produce improved quality and increase the focal length range (not to mention FX compatible) but at a huge cost. I think this kind of an investment would only make sense once higher resolution (i.e. 24 MP) FX cameras get less expensive. Since you're a tripod user you'd likely like such a camera and then you could actually start talking about a significant improvement over your current gear.</p>

<p>If you just want a nicer body with some improvement in image quality but better ergonomics, the D300s seems like a good camera. Just don't put a 18-200 on it or you might find you're paying a lot and results aren't as good as you used to get.</p>

<p>To add, yes, the D700 has improved dynamic range and tonality over the DX cameras but again the to get the best of the camera would also require a significant investment in glass. I'd wait until 24MP gets to a prosumer body and then upgrade.</p>

[eric friedemann]

<p>Gene, a couple of things:</p>

<p>1. I switched from shooting a pair of D200's to shooting a pair of D700's. At first, I was underwhelmed by the size and resolution of the RAW images I was getting from the D700. </p>

<p>I figured that my D700 was set to the default RAW setting, which was "compressed" RAW. Once I set the D700 to 14-bit depth and uncompressed RAW, the images improved.</p>

<p>2. That said, even at 12x18 inches, I didn't see a huge difference between the D200 and the D700 in resolution or image quality at ISO 100-200. You certainly won't see a night-and-day difference in resolution as between the D300s and the D700 at lower ISOs, where you'd usually shoot landscape images.</p>

<p>3. Where you'd see the difference in image quality as between the D300s and the D700 is at higher ISOs- the D700 is stellar at ISO 800-1600. Again, though, you'd generally be shooting landscape shots on a tripod at minimum ISO.</p>

<p>4. The D300s is a VERY COOL DX DSLR. I sortof wish I'd kept my 12-24mm DX Nikkor and bought a D300s for knocking around.</p>

<p> </p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>The real question is, what kind of lenses do you need? Do you need lenses longer than 100 mm? If so, then some dedicated primes or zoom would be good for that. If not then focus your efforts on improving the shorter range. I don't see any use of the 18-200 for your purpose; you might just as well consider a micro four thirds camera to get even greater coverage with smaller size, image quality won't be a big deal on the tripod anyway provided that you don't buy the worst lenses. With the 18-200 you gain quick zooming but lose in maximum image quality.<br>

For traveling light and photographing with a tripod, I first sacrifice speed of lenses, since typically a large aperture isn't needed on a tripod (there are exceptions though). Given this, f2.8 zooms don't make much sense if traveling light is the goal.</p>

[steven_p]

<p>The D5000/16-85 is a great combo (for me) and is fairly small to lug around. The flip screen is also a godsend for macro and candid stuff.</p>

<p>My D300 has gotten a lot of rest since "downgrading" to the D5000.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Gene,</p>

<p>The D300s (or the lighter, smaller D90) should work fine for your purposes. D700 + fast zooms = HEAVY!</p>

<p>And by the way, there's no such thing as "the ultimate in image quality." IQ improves with each new generation of digital cameras. The D700 is an excellent camera and it can do some extraordinary things, but it's by no means the last word in image quality, even if it does have an edge over the current lineup of DX cameras. Buy what makes sense for your requirements today. Don't chase hype. (Full disclosure: I am a D700 owner.)</p>

 

[polizonte]

<p>Two loosely related and I hope not totally off topic observations:<br>

<strong>DX to FX</strong> I purchased a D700 while still owning a Canon 40D; after seeing how much less noise appeared in low light photos taken with the Nikon, the Canon DX camera & lenses were sold to buy Nikon lenses . Almost a year has passed and although I love the D700 enough to buy a second body if I could afford to, shooting my amateur 1:1 closeups with the DX camera + Canon EFS macro seemed easier. <br>

Your <strong>16-85mm AFS Nikkor</strong> is a nice portable, low distortion lens. I bought my wife a Nikon D60 w/kit lens (nicer monitor than my Canon 40D) during the last days of Circuit City, sold the unused kit lens and bought her this lens before the price increase. This lens + any current Nikon DX should produce nice IQ & fit easily into a knapsack.</p>

[lahuasteca]

<p>Hi everyone. Thanks for the very good informative responses. The main reason I'm considering D300/700 is to be able to meter with the manual focus lenses. As you have indicated, the 16-85 is very good, especially on the tripod, I don't want to sell it or give it up. I'm leaning to the D300 as this suits my current needs, not something down the road a bit. In the DX format, most of my images are between 16-50 mm. If I need longer, I do have primes at 85, 135, and 200 mm. The 18-200 was recommended to me for simplicity/convenience, but I don't see myself going there.</p>

[Albins images]

<p>A D700 would provide me with a <em>more compact</em> set than the Dx00 camera's, because for the kind of shooting you ask about <em>I</em> would bring a set of prime lenses: 24mm + 105mm (macro) + 300mm. And as possible extra's - if weight and volume allow - a 50mm(macro?) and TC's.</p>

<p>Something that with a DX camera doesn't work all that well, in my experience (notably the wide angle solution).</p>

[Two23]

<p>Albin--<br>

The Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 is an outstanding ultrawide lens. Distortion is very well controlled, and the lens is sharper than any of the Nikon so-called prime lenses I'm familiar with.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

[eric friedemann]

<p><em>"... the Nikon so-called prime lenses ..."</em></p>

<p>Kent, are you saying that Nikon's prime lenses aren't really prime lenses; that they are falsely or improperly called prime lenses? :>)</p>

[lahuasteca]

<p>I've got an Appalachian waterfall trip coming up and plan to rent the Tokina 11-16 as the wide angle. I'll have a pretty good idea after that trip which way to go. The Nikon 14-24 is not an option because there is no way to attach a ND or polarizer.</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>The D300 would be a slight improvement with its better signal processing, live view and metering with manual lenses. FX is in my opinion clearly better for wide angle work, but then you can't get a small portable high quality zoom for FX covering your typical focal length range. For the 16-50 range the 16-85 is probably a fairly good choice and you can carry something like an 85 with you to get higher quality at longer focal lengths. Another option is to consider PC Nikkors; they are a bit big and heavy, but offer superb quality for landscape and nature style shooting.</p>

[brooks_lester]

<p>I would say the most important difference between the two cameras is depth of field control. If you're going to be shooting at f/8-11, there won't be a huge difference between the two. I do feel, however, that the D700 has a greater "density" to its images and I prefer its color rendition as well. The D700 images look more like film to me, and apparently to others, as well.<br>

I alway felt that my D300 oversaturated greens. My D700 seems to be more neutral. This is said after shooting about 5000 images with my D300 and 8000 images with my D700. <br>

If you want the lightest weight possible, shoot your film Nikons with primes. Use the lowest ISO film you can, buy a Nikon CoolScan V or better, and scan your stuff into the computer. It takes more time, but an FM2n with a 24mm f/2.8 still looks great shooting chromes or Portra.</p>