D300 vs D700

WennyP

WennyP

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5
Name
Wendy
Edit My Images
No
Hi all.

I've had a D300 since it came out, and am now looking to get a full-frame. I'm seriously looking at the (current model!) D700 and was wondering if anyone on here owns both the D300 AND the D700 and if so, what are the similarities, good/bad points of the D700 against the D300 etc. I guess I'm after an honest opinion as to whether being a D300 owner, I can justify getting a D700.

Thanks in advance, for any help:)
 
Thank you Scott. I shoot mainly wildlife (obviously including birds). I don't really concentrate on much else, other than perhaps architecture. Going to Austria later in the year, so may decide to have a go at landscapes - it would be rude not to :lol:
 
no prob wendy, i sppose it depends then if you wanna loss the 1.5x crop factor for better noise, i know the weather and light is terrible in devon and would be nice to have full frame sometimes but i find the 300 does ok at iso 1600 as long as the exposure is spot on,
wendy whats reasons do you have for wanting to go full frame,

scott
 
I've not owned a D300 but I do have a D700. When I was considering what to buy, I ended up with the D700 purely for it's low light capabilities. If I didn't need that capability, then the D300 (which is still good in low light) would have been fine. Bear in mind that you'll probably want to get new lenses for the D700 (if you currently have DX lenses for the D300), so you may need to factor that into the cost also.

That said, the D700 is an awesome camera! Has to be said though that for when I'm not shooting really high ISO, a D300 would probably have coped just as well.
 
The ISO is loads better, which for me would be a main reason to change.
 
The upgrade from D300 to D700 depends on a lot of factors. If you do lots of shoots in dark area's the 700 is great, if you need crop factor then the 300 is great. IMHO the 700 has the edge in portraits with it better FOV and the 300 for motorsport ( well kinda) for its reach.
I did this upgrade and love my 700 now and cannot imagine not having it. I feel this is a great tool but it has not made my pics any better, so if your looking for better pictures look elsewhere. The camera is just a tool you take the picture.
 
exactly the same apart from better high iso and less "reach" with the d700

biggest annoyance for me was probably loosing the switch that opens the cf card door because i'm lazy :)
 
I have a D200 and D700 plus Mrs Cowasaki has a D300. Basically the D300 is a crop version of the D700 thats about it really! Being full frame you loose the crop factor multiplier but gain a wider angle (not much benefit to you there) plus you gain better ISO and a better view finder. You can get a magnifier view finder for the D300 which just leaves the better ISO...

Just buy a Sigma 10-20mm lens if you need wide angle images. The D700 is a lot to pay if you don't actually need it.
 
I now own both. If you buy a 700 you will lose the crop factor which works against you for nature photgraphy. You will either need to be considerably closer or else you will be buying more expensive lenses e.g. a 300mm f4 on a crop is cheaper than a 450/500m f4 full frame and a lot smaller and lighter. Some people may argue you can raise the ISO on the 700 and buy a cheaper 500 f5.6 or 8 but I know which i would sooner have. For architecture, you would get wider angles on the full frame but maybe you don't need too wide because of distortion.

The 700 leaves the 300 standing after about 1000 ISO. At more typical ISO's, 400 ish, there is little difference in image quality but the 700 is a better camera experience. My advice is don't touch one and you will never know what you are missing!
 
The D700 has loads of advantages, having owned both.

-Much nicer, brighter viewfinder
-Virtual horizon (I find that really useful)
-Around 1 stop better at high ISO (retains much more detail)
-True 14 bit, the D300 fakes it and it offers no IQ difference, and slow it right down in 14-bit mode
-Classic lenses like 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4 give correct field of view and better bokeh if portraits are your thing

If you stick below ISO400 you won't notice much difference in day to day use, if you equalise focal lengths and print.

Personally I think the D700 is the nicest camera Nikon has ever done - it doesn't put a foot wrong.
 
I have a D700 and D300s. I bought the 300 as a back-up and had made the incorrect assumption that the fundamental difference was just the crop factor and that this would be a useful 'asset'. The difference in low light/higher ISO performance is significant. If I had the choice again, I would have just got another D700.
 
One thing that annoyed me when going with the D700 is the 95% viewfinder vs. 100% on the D300!

As has been said, if you're mainly into birds, the D300 is what you need; if you shoot in low light and need higher workable ISO then the D700 is for you.

It is said that the colours from the D700 is supposed to be superior to that of the D300; but I have never seen that in real life usage.

Another thing to keep in mind, the fps :shrug:; I guess that may be important for bird photography? The D300 is a slight bit faster.
 
WennyP said:
Hi all.

I've had a D300 since it came out, and am now looking to get a full-frame. I'm seriously looking at the (current model!) D700 and was wondering if anyone on here owns both the D300 AND the D700 and if so, what are the similarities, good/bad points of the D700 against the D300 etc. I guess I'm after an honest opinion as to whether being a D300 owner, I can justify getting a D700.

Thanks in advance, for any help:)
Click to expand...

The way I read this, you're not talking about replacing the D300, but rather adding a D700 to your kit :shrug:. If that assumption is correct, then it's really only a question of money, IMO, as these two cameras excel in quite different areas (with only some overlap).

So, if you can comfortably visualize spending 3-5,000GBP to get a new camera body and some decent (FX) glass, then I'd say go for it :thumbs:. I did ;).
 
Ok pros of the D700 vs D300:

Less noise
More bokeh
Virtual horizon

Cons of the D700 vs D300:

Less "reach", more cropping
Focus point distribution is all dead centre
Can only use FX compatible lenses

I shoot motorsport (similar to wildlife) and my colleague (Gribbsy) has both bodies. From the experience of working with him, the D700 is a better choice if you subject distance allows for it - or more importantly if your lenses allow for it.

If you have a 400/500/600 lens its probably no issue. If you have something shorter, maybe its an issue. Remember the D3 is popular with the top sport/motorsport/wildlife guys, but they are all using the real long glass with them...

For non-long lens stuff, the place where it really shines is when its coupled to the Nikon "holy trinity". If you don't have these lenses, you probably aren't going to see any difference enough to warrant the expense.

Thats my view and its why I don't own a D700 or D3.
 
WennyP said:
Hi all.

I've had a D300 since it came out, and am now looking to get a full-frame. I'm seriously looking at the (current model!) D700 and was wondering if anyone on here owns both the D300 AND the D700 and if so, what are the similarities, good/bad points of the D700 against the D300 etc. I guess I'm after an honest opinion as to whether being a D300 owner, I can justify getting a D700.

Thanks in advance, for any help:)
Click to expand...

I own both and like you bought the D300 when it came out.

The D700 is alot better for low light shooting with Less Noise at the Higher ISO.

The Full Frame is really nice for Landscape and Portraits, so so good for Sports or wildlife where the 1.5x crop from D300 is useful.

The build quality, menu system is just about identical to the D300 so not much learning needed there.

Since having the D700 I have to say that the D300 never really gets to come out to play anymore as I Love using the D700.

Is it worth the Upgrade ?

In my opinion, Yes it is worth the upgrade if you already own FF Lenses, if you do not own any FF Lenses then you need to work out and Justify the investment because although the D700 will Auto detect DX lenses, you are not gooing to benefit from the FF Sensor
 
Thank you all so much for your comments; everything each of you says, makes sense to me! I LOVE my 70-200m and my 300mm prime (both Nikkor) and would hate to lose the crop factor of the D300. On the other hand, better high ISOs of the D700 seems attractive. Have thought long and hard and, perhaps as I shoot mainly wildlife and birds, I should think on, and save up for a couple more years and get myself a 400 or 500mm prime... by which time, my D300 will probably be knackered and Nikon will have brought out an even better SLR and I'll be back to square one!

Thanks again, everyone :clap:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top