D300 or D700?

K

Kalph

Suspended / Banned
Messages
154
Edit My Images
No
(Did a search for a similar thread but turned up nothing, apologies if it's been asked before.)

Bit of a dilemma on my hands... can't decide between the D300 and the D700. Been to the store a few times and had a play with both of them and I still can't decide! Can't fault the build quality, they both feel great in my hands lol.

Seeing as I mostly shoot motorsport, I'll be throwing the battery grip on either one regardless, so the extra FPS on the D300 isn't a factor since they'll both fire at max :p I guess what I need help is justifying whether full frame is for me? I know I can't use any DX format lenses... but that's all the downsides I can think of at the moment.

Money isn't an issue here, so I pass the gauntlet to you TP members. D300 or D700? Convince me! :D
 
Well I'll be of no use to you then. I still can't decide whether to get a D3 to go alongside my D300.:bonk::bonk:
I shoot at 200-400mm most of the time just lately. I haven't tried a FF so dont really know what my lenses would be like on the D3. :shrug:
I'll sit back and whtch this and see what you decide..... :D


Kev.
 
If your shooting motorsport then you'll be using zoom/telephoto lenses. A 300mm lens will be 300mm on the D700 but 420mm on the D300. I considered the D700 but because I always use a 300mm for most of my shots (sometimes with a x1.4tc) I'd be losing out and would have to splash out big bucks and go for a 500mm instead. There is no difference in picture quality between the D3 and D300 so I'd imagine it would be the same with the D700. I'd only consider a full frame sensor if I were using a wide angle most of the time.

Mark:)
 
markjayne said:
If your shooting motorsport then you'll be using zoom/telephoto lenses. A 300mm lens will be 300mm on the D700 but 420mm on the D300. I considered the D700 but because I always use a 300mm for most of my shots (sometimes with a x1.4tc) I'd be losing out ......
Mark:)
Click to expand...

This isn't the case at all.

The full frame captures the image from the whole lens, whereas the crop sensor captures the image from the central portion. If you crop the full frame image, you will end up with exactly the same image as you would with the cropped sensor. It will be just as sharp, and have the same IQ, because it will be using the SAME CENTRAL PORTION of the lens.

The full frame shot is EXACTLY the same as the cropped sensor shot, it just doesn't look like it. Your 300mm lens isn't actually any longer on a DX camera than it is on an FX camera - it's still 300mm, you are just using it more efficiently.

Given the fact that most FX cameras have a larger pixel count than DX cameras, you'll probably not notice any appreciable difference at all, that is, unless you are a pixel peeper:p
 
What lenses do you have, and what range to you use most?

That aside, if it's a head-to-head between the D300 vs. the D700 I'd say go with the D700 .. if you can stretch a bit .. why not go for the D3?

If you think about it, the D700 is £1,600, add to that the price of the power grip at £160 (I may be out a bit on prices), add to that the price of the bigger battery at £80, and the £40 for the battery case, and a further £100 for the battery charger ... you see how things add up and the end-price is very close to the D3. With the D3 you get more featuers, better fps, twin memory slot, artificial horizon (don't know how to use that :shrug:).
 
dougdarter said:
This isn't the case at all.

The full frame captures the image from the whole lens, whereas the crop sensor captures the image from the central portion. If you crop the full frame image, you will end up with exactly the same image as you would with the cropped sensor. It will be just as sharp, and have the same IQ, because it will be using the SAME CENTRAL PORTION of the lens.

The full frame shot is EXACTLY the same as the cropped sensor shot, it just doesn't look like it. Your 300mm lens isn't actually any longer on a DX camera than it is on an FX camera - it's still 300mm, you are just using it more efficiently.

Given the fact that most FX cameras have a larger pixel count than DX cameras, you'll probably not notice any appreciable difference at all, that is, unless you are a pixel peeper:p
Click to expand...


Yes but your cropping a lot of pixels from the final shot so I'm affraid that what your saying don't make much sense. If what your saying is true, why do nearly all guy's who use their 300mm lenses on a full frame sensor use a 1.4tc.

If you think your getting the same quality from a full frame sensor thats cropped that much you haven't done your homework :D

Mark
 
markjayne said:
If your shooting motorsport then you'll be using zoom/telephoto lenses. A 300mm lens will be 300mm on the D700 but 420mm on the D300.
Click to expand...


No, that's a common misconception -on the D300 a 300mm lens will have an equivalent focal length of 420mm due to the narrower fov caused by the smaller sensor, it will still be a 300mm lens.
 
markjayne said:
No its the equivelant to a 420mm lens on a 35mm sensor is what I'm saying :cuckoo:
Click to expand...

No, it's a cropped sensor, not a magnified one. The equivalent field of view of a 420mm lens on a 35mm sensor it doesn't give you any extra magnification, it just gives you a restricted fov....
 
markjayne said:
Read here http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/full-frame-sensor-vs-crop-sensor-which-is-right-for-you/

Mark
Click to expand...

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying

full-frame-crop-factor.jpg


If you look at the picture above you can clearly see that what you are getting with a crop sensor is a cropped part of a full frame image, you are not getting greater magnification.

A 420mm lens on a ff sensor (which is what you are saying the 300mm on a cropped one is the same as) would have the same area of detail as the 1.3x one shown above, but it would fill the entire black framed box....
 
markjayne said:
Yes but your cropping a lot of pixels from the final shot so I'm affraid that what your saying don't make much sense. If what your saying is true, why do nearly all guy's who use their 300mm lenses on a full frame sensor use a 1.4tc.

If you think your getting the same quality from a full frame sensor thats cropped that much you haven't done your homework :D

Mark
Click to expand...

I don't need to do any homework. I use a 1.4 converter on my 300mm too, why?? I want to get closer.

Incidentally, how many 'guy's with 300mm lenses, 1:1X4 TC's and FX cameras' do you know??, and how do you know that they always use teleconvereters??

I actually think I was making a lot of sense, and I think that you are confused, and not a little impertinent!!

http://www.naturfotograf.com/D2X_rev06.html#top_page

http://www.planetnikon.com/Article-DXVersesFF.asp
 
none the less the d300 will get more detail out the center of the image. its easy enough to see what hes getting at.
 
wow! that is interesting!

would be nice to see the comparison with a d300 and d700, but yeah - deffo food for thought.

actually i was a bit quick to reply, if you look at teh d2x vs 1ds2 crops then it looks like cropped *does* pull out much more detail from the distance. still very interesting though - i think i should revisit that site tomorrow when I'm a bit more awake. I've used that site for lens reviews before and never seen that page before. top stuff.
 
dougdarter said:
I don't need to do any homework. I use a 1.4 converter on my 300mm too, why?? I want to get closer.

Incidentally, how many 'guy's with 300mm lenses, 1:1X4 TC's and FX cameras' do you know??, and how do you know that they always use teleconvereters??

I actually think I was making a lot of sense, and I think that you are confused, and not a little impertinent!!

http://www.naturfotograf.com/D2X_rev06.html#top_page

http://www.planetnikon.com/Article-DXVersesFF.asp
Click to expand...

Well quite a few. Where I shoot a lot of low level aircraft (The Mach Loop) a 300mm is the chosen lens on a cropped sensor dSLR. All the guy's I know (2 have D3's and 4 have D1's 1 has a 5D) always use their 1.4tc converters on their 300mm to get the same sort of results. You DO NOT get the same quality results by just cropping the full frame sensors image (its been tested many times) and the whole reason why TC's are used. Why do you think their willing to drop a whole f stop, oh and some of these guy's are pro's.

Very sorry you think I'm being impertinent, I just don't agree with you and have only been putting my point across (like yourself).

Mark:)
 
I use the D3 and D300 all the time, the D3 sensor is a truly amazing leap forward, it's low light ability is staggering! the D300 is good but not as good. as for the crop factor flash has it right, a 200mm lens on the D3 is a 200mm, on the D300 it's roughly the equivilent of a 300mm (yes I know it doesn't alter the focal lenght)
Given the choice of a D700 (with it's claimed D3 sensor) or the d300 I'd go for the D700. That said for not much more you can get the D3 (especially if you add the battery grip to the D700 price)

For what it's worth I also have a D2x and it's rubbish to be honest. Wayne
 
As much as it pains me to say, Flash in the pan is correct,in my opinion.
 
fracster said:
As much as it pains me to say, Flash in the pan is correct,in my opinion.
Click to expand...

he's definitely correct, but it's also true that a cropped sensor will resolve more detail for things that are futher away. even if it's not as much as you'd expect (as doug's link above alludes toward).

I know I'd rather have the d700 and a TC though, not only is it a better camera with cracking high iso performance but there's more options available to you this way. Plus you'll be able to freeze the action of the skies more easily if you want etc.. More money though. kerching!
 
Guys stop being so pedantic, it was quite obvious what mark was saying.

The D300 has a higher resolution than the D700, and obviously a 1.5x crop vs the FF sensor. For the D700 to match the D300's FOV you would need to quite heavily crop the photo, which as far as i can see (i haven't calculated the exact figures) will result in quite a low resolution image. Which begs the question, why not just get the D300 if you might be cropping all the time.
They both use multicam3500 so no difference there.

Im slightly confused by your kitbag at the moment Kalph? It says you own all canon? Remember that FF will show up imperfections in a lens far more than the cropped sensor, so using budget optics (like the ones in your kitbag from canon) will give you fairly unimpressive results.

The nikon D700/D3 is normally only considered for journalism and portraiture, due to the nature of the sensor (although of course it can be used for anything). The high ISO capabilitys, better tones, and better bokeh/DOF are all very suited for the two type of photography above.

IMO, save the money, go for the D300, pay for some track events with the money left over :thumbs:
 
The one thing that nobody has bothered to mention with regard to the cropped sensor is that you also get a drop in available light.

I used D2x alongside D3 before deciding to swap - i wanted to see what the difference was, so I had the chance to borrow a D3 from the NPS stock.

Shooting the same subject with the same lens (actually swapping it from one body to the other) the shutter speed was a stop and a bit higher in the D3 and the viewfinder is also MUCH brighter.

I can only conclude that the cropped sensor also acts a bit like a tele converter, in that you get a drop in exposure value. Maybe that isn't why - but it was certainly what happened in practise.
 
Lensflare said:
The one thing that nobody has bothered to mention with regard to the cropped sensor is that you also get a drop in available light.

I used D2x alongside D3 before deciding to swap - i wanted to see what the difference was, so I had the chance to borrow a D3 from the NPS stock.

Shooting the same subject with the same lens (actually swapping it from one body to the other) the shutter speed was a stop and a bit higher in the D3 and the viewfinder is also MUCH brighter.

I can only conclude that the cropped sensor also acts a bit like a tele converter, in that you get a drop in exposure value. Maybe that isn't why - but it was certainly what happened in practise.
Click to expand...


Having used both the D3 and D300 I can honestly say I never noticed a whole stop difference between the two, thats an awful lot :thinking: Maybe thats just the D2X for you. Are you sure there wasn't any difference in light conditions between the two tests. The viewfinder on the D3 is slightly brighter than the D300 but there's very little in it.

Mark:)
 
You guys need to stop the techno stuff and go do some photography, is that not the reason behind it all?

Buy what you like, use what you like, but don`t forget to enjoy it at the same time............:thumbs:
 
fracster said:
You guys need to stop the techno stuff and go do some photography, is that not the reason behind it all?

Buy what you like, use what you like, but don`t forget to enjoy it at the same time............:thumbs:
Click to expand...

:agree:
 
markjayne said:
Agreed, but then this is a discussion forum, isn't it nice to hear everybody's point of view ;)

Mark
Click to expand...

It is indeed Mark, but I sometimes feel that we all get too bogged down with technical stuff and forget what we bought the camera to do, enjoy ourselves taking photographs....:)

JMO.
 
alexisonfire said:
The nikon D700/D3 is normally only considered for journalism and portraiture,
Click to expand...

That's nonesense! The D3 has become a sports tog's dream thanks to the low noise at higher ISOs. Did you not see the number of D3's in Beijing?

As for the OP's original question, I'd say that as he's going to be getting the grip the choice should be betweent he D3 and the D300. I can't see the point in getting a D700 and grip + the extra battery, charger, etc when a D3 is not that much more. As to which is more suitable to motorsport, how much reach do you need? If I had the money a D3 would win out every time.
 
If you're considering a D700 + grip and battery etc I'd say go for a D3 as NorthernNikon says. It's actually smaller and lighter than the D700+ all the bits.

Pete
 
The benefit of a DX sensor body over the D3 series is that for the same shot you can carry lighter lenses and you only have to buy a 12-24 to cover the wide end. This is what I did when I swapped from film to digital first off.

No longer did I need to tote a 500 f4, 300 f2.8 and the more usual range of lenses about - which was doing my back no good at all! I could cover the same range of shots with the 300f2.8 and 1.4x conv, 70-200, 28-70 and a 12-24. Job done.

The totally techno freaks will say that there is a difference between the lenses and sensors. Technically they are right but not on the final outcome on the page there isn't. The picture that gets churned out is the same when shot using the 200 on the DX format as that churned out by a 300 on the FX - the resolution will be different, but when you have more than enough, it just means more gets thrown away at the repro house.

Having said all that. I have swapped to the FX D3 and dug out my old lenses again, mainly because I don't fight it out on the crash barrier any more and so don't need to use the 500 f4 with its associated weight. To be honest, most of my work now I can get away with the 70-200 as max (and stick the 1.4 on it if I really need to reach out) occassionally I have to carrry the 300 again, but not very often.

The difference between the two sensors isn't only pixels and size......it is also several years of imaging processor improvements. I have no doubt that if the DX sensor was developed today it would be better than the one developed in 2005 or whenever it was. Likewise the new D3 sensor is going to be a forward step on the older knowledge, as technology, understanding and capabilities improve.

I hoe the same will be true of the new canon sensor for the G10 over the G9. As customer feedback provides the makers with "what the client wants" info, so, hopefully they go about their business of developing bettwr chips, and more customer suitable features - hence the return of RAW to compacts and the angle of lens coverage to suit. There is little point n producing an inferior sensor. Forget the numbers (pixels etc) what are the resulting pictures like - if they are better then it is an improvement and they will have done their job. If they have just crammed more pixels in to try and trap the punters in a "magnum type" camera shootout - mine has more so it must be better type thing. Then the market will point out the error of their ways as the demand for G9s goes up and the G10 bombs.

Sorry to go off at a tangent - but it is the same subject really.

Which camera body to go for? I personally think that there is very little in it -other factors like how much weight in lenses do you want to carry to get your shots would be my way of looking at it. BOTH will churn out perfectly usable pictures to A3 and beyond.....you plan on doing billboard campaigns? Well they will both do them aswell, they are only printed at about 80dpi.

I think the camera body is the least of your worries - think about the lenses you will need to do what you want, and plan around that. The bigger sensor will require bigger glass to achieve the same result, unless you crop heavily (by 30%) to get the same picture within the frame lines of the final image. The DX sensor is more than capable of producing stunning A3s at 300dpi. More than enough for anyone unless you do BIG blow ups.
 
dougdarter said:
This isn't the case at all.

The full frame captures the image from the whole lens, whereas the crop sensor captures the image from the central portion. If you crop the full frame image, you will end up with exactly the same image as you would with the cropped sensor. It will be just as sharp, and have the same IQ, because it will be using the SAME CENTRAL PORTION of the lens.

The full frame shot is EXACTLY the same as the cropped sensor shot, it just doesn't look like it. Your 300mm lens isn't actually any longer on a DX camera than it is on an FX camera - it's still 300mm, you are just using it more efficiently.

Given the fact that most FX cameras have a larger pixel count than DX cameras, you'll probably not notice any appreciable difference at all, that is, unless you are a pixel peeper:p
Click to expand...


Sorry if im being ignorant but how can a fx with 12 mp have a higher pixel count than a dx with 12 mp they both have 12 million pixels. The density is lessened on the fx than the dx but isnt that it.
 
rdh said:
I was looking into D700 with grip - I wasn't aware you needed an additional charger and battery as well - how much do these cost?
Click to expand...

You don't *have* to get the battery and charger, but you'll get loads more life out of the D3 battery, and you then get the higher frame rate too. The battery is £89 and the charger is about £150 iirc

Pete
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top