D300 & 200mm f:2 v D700 & 70-200 f:2.8

NorthernNikon

NorthernNikon

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,032
Name
Barney
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm thinking about flogging my Nikkor 200mm f:2 and using the cash to part fund a D700 and Nikkor 70-200mm f:2.8. My thinking is that I would get far more use out of a 70-200 and the superior low light capability of the D700 would better suit my shoots at comedy & music gigs. I could then retain the D300 as a second body, so,ething I also need.

My question then is has anyone got both the D700 and D300? How do they compare at high ISO and is the D700 really that much better?

I'm not so concerned about the corner issues of the 70-200 on an FX sensor, as most of my shots won't be that affected however will the drop in 'reach' be an issue or will the crop on an FX sensor be be of higher quality than the full DX sensor shot?

TIA
NN
 
I have both the D300 and D700 and the 70-200 and you do lose a fair amount of "zoom" but the low light performance is much better. I'd put the D700's performance at an ISO setting of 3200 on a par with the D300 at 800, there is a thread here that compares them

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=96739

The 70-200 also performs fantastically on the D700 so there are no problems there. Personally I would go for it, the D700 is a big step up, the only downside is you'll find yourself wanting more FX lenses and some of your existing DX ones will only work in crop mode (depending on what lenses you have).
 
The D700 is a lot better than the D300. It suffers less from colour noise than the D300.

Make sure you let me know how much you want for the 200 though. ;)

Pete
 
I have a D700/300 and shot a friends wedding for a favour .. I gave up with the 300 in the church . No flash allowed , it was dark and rainy outside , at iso800 I still could not get a decent speed to shoot with .

The D700 was fantastic 60 - 90th sec speed at iso3200-4000 .. no noise on the shots at all .. I was using the 24-70 at F2.8 - 4 .. and a Tamron 70-200 F2.8

Can't answer the crop sensor question but for low light you cannot beat the D700 :clap:

Simon
 
Thanks all. I am leaning towards doing it. Though the thought of losing my 200 f:2 sends a shiver to the very core of me, the plain truth is that I haven't had chance to use it since August and though it would be great if I were to start shooting sports again, I'd get far far far more use out of a 70-200.

But the question still remains, does cropping an FX image to the same size as a DX one, still give you a superior image than if you shot it on DX to start with?
 
icecavern said:
Make sure you let me know how much you want for the 200 though. ;)
Click to expand...

Don't worry, I will! Although if I do sell it to someone here, the thought of seeing images posted from it on these here boards will probably feel like seeing an ex-girlfriend you dumped in the arms of another man.
 
My word, so many of you so keen to have my beauty away from me!

Don't get your hopes up just yet though, there's a bit of maths to be done first on my part given the recent Nikon price hikes. It could be that I'd not be able to afford to get the D700 & 70-200 without having to ask for far more than I'd get.

To give you a rough idea though, I'd be looking for 70-80% of the new price given the rarity of this beauty on the 2nd hand market.

Rest assured that if I do decide to sell I'll advertise here first.
 
NorthernNikon said:
My word, so many of you so keen to have my beauty away from me!

Don't get your hopes up just yet though, there's a bit of maths to be done first on my part given the recent Nikon price hikes. It could be that I'd not be able to afford to get the D700 & 70-200 without having to ask for far more than I'd get.

To give you a rough idea though, I'd be looking for 70-80% of the new price given the rarity of this beauty on the 2nd hand market.

Rest assured that if I do decide to sell I'll advertise here first.
Click to expand...

I would consider paying 70% of the price. But DO not get hopes up, I have a mountain to climb in terms of permission ;)

Gary.
 
EdinburghGary said:
I would consider paying 70% of the price. But DO not get hopes up, I have a mountain to climb in terms of permission ;)
Click to expand...

lol. Hopes are nowhere near up, I'm watching the prices carefully but I think that I'd have to top up the sale price too much to be able to do it. I'll spend the next few days mulling over some figures to see whether I can find a way for it to work.
 
NorthernNikon said:
But the question still remains, does cropping an FX image to the same size as a DX one, still give you a superior image than if you shot it on DX to start with?
Click to expand...

And the answer is...

It depends... ;)

IF you are only showing it on the web at say 800x500 then nope they'll both be the same.

If you are printing them at the same size, and smallish, then the FX will probably be a bit better. Remember cropping an FX 12MP image to DX format gives you 5MP.

If your printing big, then remember you're only printing from 5MP. Then again people have been shooting D2h's for years and printing big photos and they've been working fine.

I sold my D300 because it wasn't as good as my D3, and replaced it with a D700. But you have to be sooting in really low light or pixel peeping to see much difference in a normal size print.

Pete
 
Thanks Pete.

I'm still mulling this one over. Current thinking is to look at the D700 with a 24-70 f:2.8 and use the D300 with the Sigma 50-150 f:2.8. Not only is this a cheaper option, but it would also make the best use of both bodies at music gigs. My only concern is the lack of reach at comedy gigs but I'm not doing so many of those these days and I can always hire a 70-200 for Edinburgh if I haven't got one by then.

Dales in Leeds have the best offer I've found so far so I think I'll pop into town on Monday and see what they have to say.

Now all I have to do is work out what else I can flog to make up the difference! :lol:
 
Oh decisions, decisions.

Well, I've come to one, I'm keeping the 200mm f:2. I got as far as starting to write the advert, but after reading review after review after review praising the 200mm f:2 I had secnond thoughts. I then dug around looking for comparisons between the D300 and the D700 and it was Thom Hogan's review whcih was the realisty check I needed. Basically, the D300 is better than the D2xs, a camera I had lusted after for so long. Sure a D700 and 24-70mm f:2.8 combo will give me a great pairing for shooting gigs, but I have fast 20mm and 50mm primes and I would miss the reach of the 200mm far more than I originally thought.

I'm going to start shooting live music and if I'm able to start seeing some revenue coming through then I'll put that towards a D700. Until then, the 200mm f:2 is staying with me. :love::love::love:
 
NN, I've recently upgraded from a D200 to a D700 and have been shooting at high ISOs mainly to test the camera out at them. An A4 print of a heavy crop from the D700 at 3200 ISO shows almost no noise at all - far less than the D200 at 400. You lose a tiny bit of fine detail but that could be down to the crop as much as to the high ISO. To keep the reach, I've kept the D70 as a "backup" but flogged the D200 on to finance faster glass than I had previously - a combination of the D700 and f/2.8 (or faster) lenses would really suit the sort of work you do IMO. Of course, if you're waiting a while, the D700 may well (read "probably will") drop a fair bit if/when the D800 is announced. As for those extreme wide angles... ;)
 
I was horrified when I first read this thread, seeing that a 200/2 may be coming up for sale and I would have missed the chance to be the first on this.

That is one lens, I would rather sell my liver than get rid of it ... I can always find better liver on the market :p

As for the D2Xs, I got rid of that once I got the D300 .. which I got rid off once I got the D700. As you, NN, it was lowlight shoots that pulled me to the D700.

Funny as it is, I am now moving towards using primes more and more, so much so that I may be putting my 24-70AF-S up for sale :eek: .. not too sure about this yet, but I may just get rid of this in favor of some good primes that I have.

Your 200/2 is a beauty, and well done for deciding to keep it.
 
Nod said:
NN, I've recently upgraded from a D200 to a D700 and have been shooting at high ISOs mainly to test the camera out at them. An A4 print of a heavy crop from the D700 at 3200 ISO shows almost no noise at all - far less than the D200 at 400. You lose a tiny bit of fine detail but that could be down to the crop as much as to the high ISO. To keep the reach, I've kept the D70 as a "backup" but flogged the D200 on to finance faster glass than I had previously - a combination of the D700 and f/2.8 (or faster) lenses would really suit the sort of work you do IMO. Of course, if you're waiting a while, the D700 may well (read "probably will") drop a fair bit if/when the D800 is announced. As for those extreme wide angles... ;)
Click to expand...

You're not wrong, I know a D700 would really suit a lot of my work, but the issue is that, at the moment, the sale of the 200mm alone would not finance a D700 + 70-200 f:2.8 and I haven't the cash to make up the difference. On top of the low light performance of the D700, I am drawn to having two bodies for live music where only having three songs to shoot in means that time is at a premium and lens changing should be kept to a minimum.

I am still coveting a D700 and will look to earn the cash to get one. As time goes by more will come on to the 2nd hand market and new prices will drop eventually, but I think we're more liekly to see a D700x (Same sensor as the D3x as a direct competitor for the 5DII) rather than a D800, and much as the D3x hasn't affected the price of the D3, I think that the D700x won't affect the D700 price.

Funnily enough, I've kept my D70s too, not so much for back up, but more for two specific purposes - IR and Street.
 
Oh how glad am I that I didn't flog the 200mm f:2 ?!?!?!

I've come into some money, and after some long and hard deliberation (2 seconds at least) I've ordered a D3 and 24-70 f:2.8. :naughty:

I can't wait to try the 200mm on the D3 :love::love:
 
NorthernNikon said:
Oh how glad am I that I didn't flog the 200mm f:2 ?!?!?!

I've come into some money, and after some long and hard deliberation (2 seconds at least) I've ordered a D3 and 24-70 f:2.8. :naughty:

I can't wait to try the 200mm on the D3 :love::love:
Click to expand...


No half measures then :clap:
 
I regularly use my D300 at up to 3,200 and perhaps just because they go through DxO's software they are perfectly fine at that

I printed an A4 portrait from it at 200 & 3,200 ISO and the parent would have been happy with either - nuff said for me

DD
 
DiddyDave said:
I regularly use my D300 at up to 3,200 and perhaps just because they go through DxO's software they are perfectly fine at that

I printed an A4 portrait from it at 200 & 3,200 ISO and the parent would have been happy with either - nuff said for me
Click to expand...

At the Edinburgh Fringe last year I found the D300's noise to be too intrusive, mainly due to the quality of light which makes a huge difference to noise. I don't use post production noise reduction software, maybe I should, but I want to limit the time in front of a computer as much as possible.
 
Radiohead said:
Never sell that 200/2. Ever.
Click to expand...

They'll have to prise it out of my cold dead hands! :D

Considering selling was just a fleeting abhoration. Now I've the D3 on order and have bought a 2x Telecon from Puddleduck I've a 200mm f:2, 280mm f:2.8 or 400mm f:4 combo which should cover all my shooting requirements. :woot:
 
NorthernNikon said:
At the Edinburgh Fringe last year I found the D300's noise to be too intrusive, mainly due to the quality of light which makes a huge difference to noise. I don't use post production noise reduction software, maybe I should, but I want to limit the time in front of a computer as much as possible.
Click to expand...

The D3 sensor is clearly way better (in the D700 too), but my problem wasn't just a swap to FX bodies (needing 2) but 5 lenses too :eek:

I find the D300 perfectly good enough at high ISO once it's gone through DxO, and I have no more time in front of the comp to do it either as I simply batch process the lot anyway

If I 'fell over' £10,000 though, I'd switch to D3s

Nice purchase

DD
 
NorthernNikon said:
They'll have to prise it out of my cold dead hands! :D

Considering selling was just a fleeting abhoration. Now I've the D3 on order and have bought a 2x Telecon from Puddleduck I've a 200mm f:2, 280mm f:2.8 or 400mm f:4 combo which should cover all my shooting requirements. :woot:
Click to expand...


Now, that's a set-up to lust for ... well done holding on to it.
 
Lovely with the D3.

The 200/2 is a lens I've almost bought many times but I don't use the 70-200 enough to really warrant it. The size and weight would make it hard to use for weddings. It's stunning though.

Recent price rises have put paid to any idea of buying it now!
 
nice work, You know you're playing with proper kit when a D700 gets put to the side in favour of something better!

I think ill start saving for a D300 and see if those 700s ever start to fall in price, i can dream...
 
fontmoss said:
nice work, You know you're playing with proper kit when a D700 gets put to the side in favour of something better!
I'd have happily settled for a D700 but there are certain features on the D3 which make it worth the extra. Firstly, it's actually smaller than a D700 with grip, then there's the 100% viewfinder, the voice memo recording, the extra lcd screen on the grip, the added weatherproofing, the toughened glass on the screen, to name but a few. The price of a D700 + grip + EN4-ELA + BI-3 is too close to that of a D3 for me not to spend the extra.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top