D300s or D700

TheTimeChamber

TheTimeChamber

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,447
Name
Nick / Sectionate
Edit My Images
No
At some point in the next year, I am thinking of raiding the ISA and treating myself to an upgraded camera. I currently sit with a D40, two sigma lenses and the 35mm.

Now, do I go with the D300s and keep all my lenses, or do I got for a D700 and get an FX Nikon lens to go with it? Which one would be best for an amateur who has outgrown their camera? Is FX worth it?

Or do I wait and see how good the D7000 is...

too many questions, argh!
 
Do you shoot lots in low light situations and/or with subjects that are close to you? FX might be for you.

Or do you shoot in normal outdoors daylight with more distant subjects? DX is definitely for you.

Secondly, have you got at least 1000 quid for one decent lens (one of the holy trinity second hand) that will show you the improvements that you have gained? If you can't afford at least one of the holy trinity, don't bother with FX IMHO.

So its quite an easy decision really, one will effectively cost you about 1500 quid more.
 
If you can afford it, D700 - as it works so well at high ISO, and unless you shoot in a studio, we all encounter bad light whether its landscapes, portraits or sports. Issue is you do need good glass. The Tamron 28-75 is not a bad lens, in fact it is not far off the Nikon in terms of IQ and is quite cheap. But really you should be looking at the Nikon 24-70 or 70-200.

The D300s (I have the D300) is a very good camera, and it will be much cheaper than the D700 but again you should get some nice glass to help it along.
 
I think I can afford it, I am just trying to convince myself that it is worth it...

desantnik said:
Do you shoot lots in low light situations and/or with subjects that are close to you? FX might be for you.

Or do you shoot in normal outdoors daylight with more distant subjects? DX is definitely for you.

Secondly, have you got at least 1000 quid for one decent lens (one of the holy trinity second hand) that will show you the improvements that you have gained? If you can't afford at least one of the holy trinity, don't bother with FX IMHO.

So its quite an easy decision really, one will effectively cost you about 1500 quid more.
Click to expand...

This is the problem, I do everything except long range nature stuff (I am plotting to steal my brothers telephoto)...what I do hanker for is some god low light stuff, my D40 is only just usable and ISO800, being able to go higher would have been very help a number of times this year!

hhhmmm....I may just be dreaming that FX will solve everything lol
 
Last edited:
Well, for low light to truly work, you need wide apertures to go with it (for focusing, not necessarily for image capture)... so we're back to decent glass again.

Don't forget that the D300S is pretty good at low light too, ok, not the same as a D700 or D3 in terms of noise, but it will focus and it will capture images. ISO 3200 is top of the shop with 6400 available as expansion.

ISO 3200 is two more stops than you've got at the moment and if you don't have any f2.8or better glass that will also add to your low light capability.

To be honest, the only real time you need high ISO as an option is if your subject is moving and you can't use flash. If you can use flash, use it, its far cheaper than expensive camera bodies! Any other time for static subjects, use a tripod and up the exposure.

You just really need to understand all your technical options rather than blindly throwing money at it.
 
^^I want to see some in depth reviews first..

desantnik said:
Well, for low light to truly work, you need wide apertures to go with it (for focusing, not necessarily for image capture)... so we're back to decent glass again.

Don't forget that the D300S is pretty good at low light too, ok, not the same as a D700 or D3 in terms of noise, but it will focus and it will capture images. ISO 3200 is top of the shop with 6400 available as expansion.

ISO 3200 is two more stops than you've got at the moment and if you don't have any f2.8or better glass that will also add to your low light capability.

To be honest, the only real time you need high ISO as an option is if your subject is moving and you can't use flash. If you can use flash, use it, its far cheaper than expensive camera bodies! Any other time for static subjects, use a tripod and up the exposure.

You just really need to understand all your technical options rather than blindly throwing money at it.
Click to expand...

This is something I have been thinking about, there have been a few places I have been recently where they have frowned on using Tripods (London Open house was a great example) and on ISO800, I was on about 1/40th of a second. I am reading a few reviews and I think I have got it in my head that full frame is the way forward, yet the D300s seems bloody brilliant, and I get to keep my current crop of lenses...

Possibly being woo'd by technology I don't need...
 
as said it all comes down to what you need, like me i have 2 d300 which i use for studio work and my main hobby wildlife so the d300 is great for that, next year i will be doing weddings and will be looking for a d700 for the above iso 1600 shots.
i found the af to be about the same speed, the d700 is apparently better built(felt the same to me) but other than that there both the dogs.
 
I will just add my experience here.

Both cameras are excellent. Will you use the film mode on the D300s? Nikon have produced 2 new excellent lenses the 28-300 VR and the 24-120 F4 VR, i have the 28-300 and it is a cracking walk about lens for everyday shots with a fantastic zoom range.

People will say do you shoot sports, wildlife if so stick with the D300s.
What i did was look back over my shots to see what i take pics of most and realised it was general photography on days out, pics of the kids and dog, the odd Air show, trips to the zoo and the like.

I then brought a D700 and a D300s and within 1 week realised the D700 was for me.

You can look at crop v full frame high ISO and burst rates, video and millions of other things.
For me there is something about full frame which feels right, looks right and when i look at the results makes me feel satisfied.
I do shoot wildlife quiet often and love the way i can crop with full frame far more than i could with a crop camera.

At the end of the day we all like different things, best advice i can give is hire one of each and see what you think is right for you.
 
GRECIAN said:
I do shoot wildlife quiet often and love the way i can crop with full frame far more than i could with a crop camera.
Click to expand...

No you can't.
 
The D300 and the D700 are both ~12mp cameras. From that you can only remove the same amount of pixels.

If the image is 100% sharp, both will produce images croppable to 100%.

Now if you were talking about a D3X, then yes, I'd agree it would crop more.
 
GRECIAN said:
I will just add my experience here.

Both cameras are excellent. Will you use the film mode on the D300s? Nikon have produced 2 new excellent lenses the 28-300 VR and the 24-120 F4 VR, i have the 28-300 and it is a cracking walk about lens for everyday shots with a fantastic zoom range.

People will say do you shoot sports, wildlife if so stick with the D300s.
What i did was look back over my shots to see what i take pics of most and realised it was general photography on days out, pics of the kids and dog, the odd Air show, trips to the zoo and the like.

I then brought a D700 and a D300s and within 1 week realised the D700 was for me.

You can look at crop v full frame high ISO and burst rates, video and millions of other things.
For me there is something about full frame which feels right, looks right and when i look at the results makes me feel satisfied.
I do shoot wildlife quiet often and love the way i can crop with full frame far more than i could with a crop camera.

At the end of the day we all like different things, best advice i can give is hire one of each and see what you think is right for you.
Click to expand...

The only downside I can see to the D700, aside from having to get an FX lens for it, is that I will be going from a camera that weighs 450g, to one that verges on a kilo, slap a high end lens on it and I am lugging around numerous bags of sugar! But that isn't something that I am too worried out, as I would be reducing the amount of lenses I carry about...
 
desantnik said:
The D300 and the D700 are both ~12mp cameras. From that you can only remove the same amount of pixels.

If the image is 100% sharp, both will produce images croppable to 100%.

Now if you were talking about a D3X, then yes, I'd agree it would crop more.
Click to expand...

ah, i thought that as the d300 has a smaller sensor, if you had the same pic on both cameras, and wanted to crop more as the d300 has more mp in a smaller area i should give better results with more detail.:thinking:
 
Last edited:
desantnik said:
The D300 and the D700 are both ~12mp cameras. From that you can only remove the same amount of pixels.

If the image is 100% sharp, both will produce images croppable to 100%.

Now if you were talking about a D3X, then yes, I'd agree it would crop more.
Click to expand...

ok what i should have said was, when i crop a shot on the D700, to me the final image seem's to have better IQ than when i cropped on the D300s.
I am not a pro and dont pixel count, i just find the images to be better for what ever reason.
 
Consider this..the D700 is THE camera along with D3(s) for low light especially. Obviously it's great at everything else. You'll need/want very good/expensive glass.
I guess you need to ask yourself, a, whether you need the low light capabilities. b, whether you can finance the lenses.

I absolutely love mine. For me, it was all about the low light performance for indoor Equestrian. Without that I'd probably still have my old Canon 40D.
 
trevorbray said:
Consider this..the D700 is THE camera along with D3(s) for low light especially. Obviously it's great at everything else. You'll need/want very good/expensive glass.
I guess you need to ask yourself, a, whether you need the low light capabilities. b, whether you can finance the lenses.

I absolutely love mine. For me, it was all about the low light performance for indoor Equestrian. Without that I'd probably still have my old Canon 40D.
Click to expand...

Cheers, this is the question that has been running in my head, I could afford the outlay of a nice lens to go with the body, but later down the line, I wouldn't be able to buy another one. And I am a lens switcher.

From this point of view, I am swaying towards the D300s as I can use my current lenses and maybe get tele...
 
If you are looking to buy at 'some point' in the next year then there will be more options by then (or the ones yu are looknig at now will be even cheaper second hand, which is a bonus). I have a D300 as a backup to a D3 and I can say without any doubt the image quality out of the D3 (same sensor as the D700) is head and shoulders above the D300 shooting in the same situation, good light or bad.

D7000 looks to be a fantastic camera so I'd be looking at that rather than D300 :)
 
I only have 2 lenses.
28-70 2.8 The Beast
70-200 2.8 VR1

For me, I don't need any more. They cover everything I shoot. True, once in a while I'd like to get a shot that's needs more length. But it's probably because I'm too lazy to get close enough. There's a Kingfisher lives near me but I know I'll never get a decent shot of him. I'm not about to invest in birding gear for one picture !!
 
Have to say i was faced with this decision about 3/4 weeks ago, D300s or D700

For me I do mainly sports and airshows, for this the crop is needed really or you are in kidney selling grounds for lenses to get the length

The cost of getting high end FX glass just put me off, I couldnt do with having to spend A) the extra on the body + B) getting an expensive walk around lens

With my D300s i use a 70-200 VR1 with a 1.7x tc for the range and have a 18-70 for a walk around lens with a 50mm 1.8 on backup.

Personally I wouldnt go with the D700 option unless you need mega low light, on the D300s i can use ISO 1600 without worrying too much and 3200 with abit of care, any situation where i may need a high shutter speed at ISO 6400 i will bring a flood light :p
 
PeterCollins said:
Have to say i was faced with this decision about 3/4 weeks ago, D300s or D700

For me I do mainly sports and airshows, for this the crop is needed really or you are in kidney selling grounds for lenses to get the length

The cost of getting high end FX glass just put me off, I couldnt do with having to spend A) the extra on the body + B) getting an expensive walk around lens

With my D300s i use a 70-200 VR1 with a 1.7x tc for the range and have a 18-70 for a walk around lens with a 50mm 1.8 on backup.

Personally I wouldnt go with the D700 option unless you need mega low light, on the D300s i can use ISO 1600 without worrying too much and 3200 with abit of care, any situation where i may need a high shutter speed at ISO 6400 i will bring a flood light :p
Click to expand...

Cheers peter, you have hit the nail on the head of what I have been thinking...
 
Just to put the cat amongst the pigeons, I've had both the D300 (albeit not the S) and the D700 - and I'd rather have a D700 with one lens (24-70) than a D300 with four.
 
I moved from a D40x to a D300s and absolutely love it. Use it with a new Nikon 16-85mm, and a Tokina 50-135mm (great for candids and portraits) I bought second hand, mint, off MPB Photographic.

I just couldn't justify the cost etc of a D700, with the lenses and what not, and it just seemed like such a change considering I only class myself as an enthusiastic amateur.

Personally, given what you've been saying about lenses etc, I would go for the D300s. It sounds like you're tempted by FX, by it's probably because you (like the rest of us) lust after 'the next best thing' to what you actually want/need. I very much doubt you'd be disappointed with the D300s if you got it. I'm not. All I want how is a grip to balance it more with the big 50-135 and I'll be happy

p.s. if anyone out there can recommend some good quality, yet affordable, glass that will help show off the D300s' quality, feel free to post ideas up here. Always on the look out for new toys!
 
Well, I went from a D300 to a D700 then back to a D300S. WHAT?! I hear you cry. My main reason was losing the crop factor as I'm a majority wildlife photographer....however as the D300S arrived and the D700 was just about to go on eBay I did a friend's wedding with both bodies and can confirm that up to 1600ISO it's hard to tell them apart.

Having just seen the D7000 test shots thread on here, if that's an option for you then it's worthy of serious consideration. As for me, I'm hoping for a D300S replacement that'll match that and more!
 
x777 said:
I did a friend's wedding with both bodies and can confirm that up to 1600ISO it's hard to tell them apart.
Click to expand...
Personally I don't agree with that at all. It's clear from ISO 400 with 800 being the limit on the D300 unless there is good light. The difference at ISO 1600 is pretty obvious, unless you mess about with the D300 file in post.
 
Has anyone moved from a D90 to D300(or S) and seen a big improvement in autofocus and low-light performance? In a similar situation here - thinking to 'upgrade' for low-light, but don't really have the funds for FX glass, and wondering if the D300 upgrade would be worthwhile? Or maybe D7000?
 
scottthehat said:
well from what i have seen there is not alot in them up to iso 1600, then the d700 seems to kick in then.
look at the 2 together on here.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
Click to expand...
Yeah perfect light studio shots are fine but in real world useage when you have to use high ISO because the ambient light levels are low, things are not quite so good. Not saying D300(s) is bad though, just that in real world it's not on par with D700 up to 1600 without processing.
 
Richard Peters said:
Yeah perfect light studio shots are fine but in real world useage when you have to use high ISO because the ambient light levels are low, things are not quite so good. Not saying D300(s) is bad though, just that in real world it's not on par with D700 up to 1600 without processing.
Click to expand...
you could well be right, but without and samples,
please feel free to show us some samples.
 
I'd have agreed that you can tell them apart, except that my colleague shoots both D300 and D700 and a set of stuff he had from a recent BSB round I could have sworn was from the D700, but they weren't - I had to check the EXIF to be sure though!

Those were shot with the Nikon 300 2.8 VR...

It just goes to show though, decent glass can make all the difference during normal daylight photography anyway!
 
scottthehat said:
you could well be right, but without and samples,
please feel free to show us some samples.
Click to expand...
I'd have taken some side by side samples but I just sold my D3! Don't have any side by side shots because I only use the D300 in good light.

I'll have a look later when home and see if I can find any shots from both taken in semi same lighting conditions :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top