D300 or D700

adrian5127

adrian5127

Suspended / Banned
Messages
794
Name
adrian
Edit My Images
Yes
I am currently using a canon 40D and looking to upgrade, however the two obvious canon choices I have discounted. 7D number of issues ( focussing, ghosting and inconsistent noise ) 5D mkII does not have enough fps. The 1D series are out of my price range so I am very seriously considering going over to the dark side;)

My reasons for wanting to upgrade are better iso performance and more accurate auto focussing.

What I would like to know is the D700 worth the extra money?

I enjoy a bit of everything including wildlife and landscapes and ultimately will be trying to make some money down the stock route.

Any advise would be appreciated

Thanks

Adrian
 
I brought a D300 and now wished I had brought a D700 for the superior ISO performance and the fact that lenses have much greater field of view, which would be beneficial with my photography. People often go on about the benefits of the DX crop factor but few people mention the fact that on a D700 a 12mm lens produces a 12mm scale image and not the 18mm image you get on a D300.
 
I have just gon from the D300 to the D700 and i haven't looked back.
As i painly shoot portraits the extra field of view is great as is the awsom high ISO results
 
Personally, I don't need the extra reach of longer lenses, so really it was a no brainer. It's so nice to be back where focal lengths make senses again :)
 
I would go for a D700 as a second body...
If I had to start from scratch, it's also the camera I'd choose... there are arguments for DX format, but for me FX is the way to go - I've so-ooo missed it for the past 8 years...
 
I have just upgraded to a D700 from a D300 (i still have both for now though as i could still take the D700 back....)

I love the 700, i have not used it to do any full on portrait stuff yet but i love the extra width you get. I have just got back from Florida on holiday and i only went with a D300 a nifty 50 and a 18-200 vr i then got the D700 at the airport on the way out so all i had that would work FX was the nifty.

On the day when we went of "safari" to animal kingdom i took the D300 as i wanted to have the extra reach of the D300 without having to use the D700 in crop mode.

I also took some surfing pictures a while back and i am nervous as i do not know if my now true 200mm will be enough on the D700, so i think i may need a TC.

But it is a great camera, it just depends on if you need the width or the zoom.

Crash
 
martsharm said:
I can think of two advantages straight off (I'm sure you know this really).

Crop factor gives longer effective focal length, good for tele shooters.

Cheaper. 1 x £D700 = 3 x £D90. I use two bodies all the time so this is a major bonus.
Click to expand...

Why not buy an Olympus then - that has a 2x crop factor, imagine how long your lenses become then?!!??!?!!! ;):D

Your 300mm will become a 600mm!!!!!!! ;)
 
adrian5127 said:
I am currently using a canon 40D and looking to upgrade, however the two obvious canon choices I have discounted. 7D number of issues ( focussing, ghosting and inconsistent noise ) 5D mkII does not have enough fps. The 1D series are out of my price range so I am very seriously considering going over to the dark side;)

My reasons for wanting to upgrade are better iso performance and more accurate auto focussing.

What I would like to know is the D700 worth the extra money?

I enjoy a bit of everything including wildlife and landscapes and ultimately will be trying to make some money down the stock route.

Any advise would be appreciated

Thanks

Adrian
Click to expand...

What about the 1D MKIIn, you can pick up a used one for reasonable money and it'll knock socks off most competition, autofocus performance wise. Good compromise as its only a 1.3x crop, so you'll still have advantage of extra reach, but not hit so much when a wide angle lens is used for landscapes and ISO performance is still very good, or a 2nd hand 5D, will get you FF for landscapes, good ISO performance as alternatives.

Depends how much you've invested in glass for your canon already. You say you want better ISO performance, but going upto what? 1600, 3200, What lenses are you using with your 40D? could it be that if you used faster lenses this may solve your problems.
 
Thanks for your replies

So far I have a 100-400, 17-40 f4 and a tamron 90 f2.8 macro.

The lowlight is mainly for wildlife, problem is the fast glass is really expensive and going for better camera is cheaper, that coupled with wanting better autofocus makes me think a new camera is the way forward.. fast glass will be on the cards but no right now.

Although the extra reach would be useful I think the D700 sounds like the better proposistion due to the high iso performance, I can always use a teleconverter. Talking of which is there a maximum aperature you use with a D700 to retain autofocus once you have taken in the extra stop for the teleconverter??
 
adrian5127 said:
Thanks for your replies

So far I have a 100-400, 17-40 f4 and a tamron 90 f2.8 macro.

The lowlight is mainly for wildlife, problem is the fast glass is really expensive and going for better camera is cheaper, that coupled with wanting better autofocus makes me think a new camera is the way forward.. fast glass will be on the cards but no right now.

Although the extra reach would be useful I think the D700 sounds like the better proposistion due to the high iso performance, I can always use a teleconverter. Talking of which is there a maximum aperature you use with a D700 to retain autofocus once you have taken in the extra stop for the teleconverter??
Click to expand...

The problem you have with going to Nikon, is there isn't a replacement for your canon 100-400mm. The nikon 80-400mm is bad, bad, bad and the only alternative are the budget sigma's, (sigma 120-400, 150-500, 50-500) but slow autofocus and poor performance in low light due to being f5.6 / f6.3 won't give you anything better than you have, maybe worse.

Not sure a better body will improve things as much as you might think, especially if you put a poor lens on the camera, unfortunately you've hit the usual barrier, even if you go to nikon, and that is better glass cost more money.

Whether you go to Nikon or stay with canon, your issues are to do with the lens not the camera.

Peter
 
pete.rush said:
The problem you have with going to Nikon, is there isn't a replacement for your canon 100-400mm. The nikon 80-400mm is bad, bad, bad and the only alternative are the budget sigma's, (sigma 120-400, 150-500, 50-500) but slow autofocus and poor performance in low light due to being f5.6 / f6.3 won't give you anything better than you have, maybe worse.
Click to expand...

The 80-400 isn't bad (bad, bad), but the AF is slow. There's a much rumoured 100-500 in the pipeline, but obviously you can't take a rumour to the bank. If you have deep pockets there's always the 200-400 f/4!
 
It will be the new year until I do anything so that will give me some time to see if canon can sort out the issues with the 7D.

If Nikon bring out a 100-500 that sounds like a really good range. I love my 100-400 but you need good light. The 200-400 is a bit too rich for me.

As Pete has said it looks as though it has got to the point where I just need to bite the bullet when I can and get some primes, I know from speaking to others with a 40D they hit a similar ceiling and want to upgrade for the same reasons so I would say it is a combination of glass and camera hence me have a very serious think do I stay with Canon or move to Nikon as now would be the time to do it
 
D300 or D700? Easy - both!

I'm running with a D300 at the moment, but will be adding a D700 to the stable as soon as funds allow. D300 for motorsport, D700 for weddings, portraits and landscapes. And whatever body I'm using, the other is my backup...
 
pete.rush said:
The problem you have with going to Nikon, is there isn't a replacement for your canon 100-400mm.

Peter
Click to expand...

I would suggest the 300 AF-S with 1.7TC, gives you 510mm and quality.

Regarding the OP's question on retaining auto focus, I have no issues with the above 1.7 TC on either the 300 AF S f4 or the 200-400f4. This gives a minimum aperture of f6.7.

The following images were taken at the weekend with the 300f4 + 1.7TC, ISO3200 at f7.1 (click on thumbnails)



 
adrian5127 said:
Martyn thanks, those pictures are very impressive considering you has the teleconverter and high iso
Click to expand...

The birds were close so I would have turned off the range limiter on the lens, that tends to make any lens hunt, but I was impressed with how it found and held focus amongst all the leaves and branches. That was not on a tripod either, just resting the lens on the window cill of the hide.

I have not had the 1.7TC long, so I am still trying to work out its optimum settings. The 300 AF S is an optically first class lens, with a 1.4TC it becomes a 420mm f5.6, which remains sharp wide open, the native 300mm f4 is tack sharp wide open, even though I have the 200-400VR, I would never part with the 300 AF S.

I also owned the 80-400 great optically, but could be a bit slow on initial locking on to the subject, certainly not as bad as people who have not used it make out ;). The main issue I have with it is the asking price, about £300 too much, for around the same outlay you can get the 300 f4 plus a TC.

The shots above were taken using the D300, the D700 is reported to achieve focus lock a tad quicker.

I am toying with a D700 to use when I can get close to the birds, mainly for its better high ISO results, especially as we are approaching the darker winter days, I would still take the D300 with me when I needed the extra reach.
 
Martyn... said:
I would suggest the 300 AF-S with 1.7TC, gives you 510mm and quality.

Regarding the OP's question on retaining auto focus, I have no issues with the above 1.7 TC on either the 300 AF S f4 or the 200-400f4. This gives a minimum aperture of f6.7.
Click to expand...

I have the same for my canon. The 300mm f4 is a fantastic lens, combined with the canon 1.4x Tc, its still very impressed if the lights right, however, light conditions fall off and performance also does the same. (IF you don't have the right light conditions, it doesn't matter what camera or lens you have achieve a decent image)

Yes the Nikon 200-400mm f4 a great lens as well, but @ £4000 - 4400, as adrian said out of his price range new.

Friend say "put a $£^& lens on front of an expensive camera, you'll still get $£^& images"

its does boil down to the quality of the lens at the end of the day.

And that in lies the problem. There is a very large financial jump to the next series of lenses, the primes. With the sigma 120-300mm f2.8 the only lens bridging the gap price wise.
 
The D700 is a bit bigger and heavier but a nicer camera. Having said that I have a D3 and am looking at a second body. Will probably go for a D300s
 
Pete the Tree Sparrow images were shot at ISO3200, it was gloomy to say the least, I was amazed at how well the lens and 1.7TC combination coped.

To be honest you are right about quality glass making a difference, plus lenses hold their value for a lot longer than digital camera bodies.
 
Adrian

These were shot with the 200-400 with 1.7TC, wide open f6.7 at around 600mm, ISO 1600. Again no problem focusing at f6.7, even though the Nikon literature says that this lens and the 300 f4 AF S will only manually focus with the 1.7TC.



 
Well I went from a D300 to a D700 and 'down' to a D300S; the majority of my work is birds so the crop outweighed the D700's high ISO performance, and cash flow/Mrs x777 wouldn't let me keep both. Having said that, you won't notice much between them through ISO1600, it's beyond that where the D700 is truly remarkable.
 
Thanks for everyones input, nipped down to Grays of Westminster and had a play with the D300s and D700 and took some comparison pics but not had a chance to have a look at them yet. Spoke to the staff ( very knowledgible for a change ) and he said why not go down the route of 70-200 with an extender after I asked him how fast the the focussing was on the 80-400. Asked him if the 80-400 was due to be updated...he said lots of talk on various blogs about it but he says there is always talk but he had not heard anything from Nikon and he always believes these things once they have happened.

Martyn thanks again for the posts, went to the wildlife photographer of the year exhibition and see the most used Nikon lenses were the 300 f4 and f2.9 followed by the 200-400. Some cracking pictures and definitely worth it if anyone is in that neck of the woods
 
adrian5127 said:
Spoke to the staff ( very knowledgible for a change ) and he said why not go down the route of 70-200 with an extender after I asked him how fast the the focussing was on the 80-400.
Click to expand...

Obviously not that knowledgeable if he recommended you a 70-200mm and TC's for wildlife. 70-200mm is not a wildlife lens.

98-280mm + 1f-stops (1.4x) Ok performance (slow focus) , 119-340mm + 1 1/2f-stops (1.7x) OK performance (slow focus) and 140-400 + 2f-stops (2x) forget!!!, better off getting 80-400mm.

The TC wasn't really designed for zooms, primarily the faster prime lenses.
 
Hi martyn - some great bird shots there. Better than my ducks!! merv:thumbs:
 
pete.rush said:
Obviously not that knowledgeable if he recommended you a 70-200mm and TC's for wildlife. 70-200mm is not a wildlife lens.

.
Click to expand...

:agree:

Too short on the long end, 300 f4 (or f2.8 if you have the dosh) plus TC 1.4 or 1.7 far more use for bird photography.

The 300 f4 is great for butterfly and dragonfly shots as it has a close focus of 5 ft.
 
Martyn -forgot to say, i note that you would not dispose of the 300f4 even with the 200-400. I am toying with the 300f2.8 or 200-400 but I already have the 300f4 so dont know what to do. Suppose I could sell the f4.Interests are wildlife and bikes and sometimes planes when available. Go on help me decide - i know there is a price difference. merv:bonk:
 
merv said:
Martyn -forgot to say, i note that you would not dispose of the 300f4 even with the 200-400. I am toying with the 300f2.8 or 200-400 but I already have the 300f4 so dont know what to do. Suppose I could sell the f4.Interests are wildlife and bikes and sometimes planes when available. Go on help me decide - i know there is a price difference. merv:bonk:
Click to expand...

The 300f4 is a light compact option when I do not want to lug the 200-400.

If the 300f4 is long enough for your bike shots, the 300f2.8 would give you an extra stop, faster focusing and VR. It takes TC's really well, so add a 1.7TC and you have a compact 510mm f5.6 (I think :thinking:).
 
I don`t get this argument. One is Dx and one is FX, comparing the two isn`t relevant. The D300 has its place,as does the D700,depending on what your photographing,where,when and how far it is away.

For wildlife,300 all the way, for low light stuff the 700.
 
merv said:
Martyn -forgot to say, i note that you would not dispose of the 300f4 even with the 200-400. I am toying with the 300f2.8 or 200-400 but I already have the 300f4 so dont know what to do. Suppose I could sell the f4.Interests are wildlife and bikes and sometimes planes when available. Go on help me decide - i know there is a price difference. merv:bonk:
Click to expand...

Like Martyn said, similar position to him but with a canon 300mm f4 and 300mm f2.8

Both great lenses, but would never get rid of the 300mm f4, its such a useful lens and less than 1/2 the weight. Prime example, when to Portugal via Easyjet, couldn't take the 300mm f2.8 as hand luggage, not for the weight but for its size, as don't have storm case for hold and hand luggage restrictions of size 55x25x20cm, instead of standard 55x40x30, so 300mm f4 went instead.
 
i would like to have both,

looking at buying the D700
 
fracster said:
I don`t get this argument. One is Dx and one is FX, comparing the two isn`t relevant. The D300 has its place,as does the D700,depending on what your photographing,where,when and how far it is away.

For wildlife,300 all the way, for low light stuff the 700.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately that is my problem as I like a bit of everything, I have been to Richmond earlier and where my 40D really let me down was the high iso performance as a lot of the rutting took place in the wooded areas, I also enjoy landscape so it is a bit of a toss up. In the end it may come down to funds;)
 
adrian5127 said:
Unfortunately that is my problem as I like a bit of everything, I have been to Richmond earlier and where my 40D really let me down was the high iso performance as a lot of the rutting took place in the wooded areas, I also enjoy landscape so it is a bit of a toss up. In the end it may come down to funds;)
Click to expand...

Adrian, nothing wrong with the D300 with regards to high ISO, nail the exposure and you will be fine, however the D700 is a tad better.

I have been deliberating adding a D700 to my collection, for several of its benefits, not a least a couple of older Nikkors I have that would work a treat on a full frame.

I doubt that you would be disappointed with either, if it is to be just the one I would look back through some recent images and see how many would have benefited from a crop sensor (long tele range) and which would have benefited from a full frame (almost everything else), this would give a clear indication which you should go for.
 
The D700 is worth the extra money. The only question is whether you have a spare £5K to spend on FX lenses...
 
SLRist said:
The D700 is worth the extra money. The only question is whether you have a spare £5K to spend on FX lenses...
Click to expand...


Spare 5k for lenses? Please Enlighten me..........:shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top