Is the D700 a Worthwhile Upgrade from a D300

rpsmith79

rpsmith79

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,796
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi, i'm in a bit of a dilemma at the moment, i currently have a D300 that i use for many types of photography, (wildlife, landscape, bands/gigs, urbex), but i am finding the noise to be an issue, especially in low light for things like my band/gig photography and some wildlife, so i am seriously thinking of upgrading to FF as i understand this is probably the best way to go in terms of lower noise at high ISO

This brings me onto my main question, is the D700 a worthwhile upgrade from the D300, the main reason i ask is that they are both "only" 12MP, the reason i sat "only" is that most modern cameras these days (especially FF) are upwards of 16MP, and i just feel moving from a 12MP crop to a 12MP FF is not really an upgrade, especially if i decide to crop images as using my Tamron 70-300 VC i will actually be getting lower resolution for the available reach, or does the low light/high ISO capability of a FF camera far outweigh the "relatively" low MP count

The other reason i am unsure is that the D700 is also a pretty old camera now (released in 2008 i believe), so i wondering if the D700 can still cut the mustard against the newer breed of FF bodies from Nikon

The other option is to look at the D600 as a relatively cheap FF camera, but it's another several hundred pound jump from a used D700 to a used D600
 
Last edited:
The D700 is a very capable camera. However its sensor is now 7 years old & the newer FF options from Nikon are more capable. If you can afford to I'd go for a d600/d610 over it now (assuming you can live with the small body). Else I'd take a d800. Failing that I doubt you'll be disappointed with the d700
 
I recently shot a wedding with a friend using 2 D700's and a D800 in appalling indoor light at times. Both cameras rendered beautiful images that were indistinguishable from one another. The high iso performance of the D700 is excellent, never having used a D300 it wouldn't be fair to say by how much better. I certainly get useable images at iso3200 and on this occasion used images at 6400 iso which had obviously been tidied up with post processing. Again we printed images to A3 size off both sets of files unable to tell which was taken with which camera. I have no doubt that if you crop shots a lot as you may do practicing wildlife photography with a full frame camera then the D800 will have a clear advantage in this respect, as I'm sure will the D600 at 24mp. Personally I'd use the money saved getting a D700 on getting better glass, I've used a variety of nikon DSLR's these past 4 years and its the images taken with good glass that shine regardless of the body its on.
 
I moved from a D300 to the D700 and the difference was well worth the upgrade.

However as another poster said if money can stretch the D610 is even better.
 
For low light the D700 would be better than the D300. Personally I would not go for a D800 if use in low light was my main concern. The D3s will be even better than the D700. With regard to MP bear in mind the flagship D4 only has 16MP.
 
Cheers, some interesting points raised there

Boyfalldown, that is the main thing putting me off, the 7 year old sensor design, and i think that will always be at the back of my mind, but then the D600 is not a Pro spec Nikon (which i am now used to the feel of with the D300)

I think the D800 is a stretch too far in terms of budget, otherwise it would be a simple decision

Looks like i might have to have play with a D600 in my local shop to see how it 'handles' compared to the D300, i believe the D700 is very similar in size/weight to the D300 anyway, just slightly bigger and heavier, so i'm sure it would feel at home in my palm
 
Whilst the D700 does have an old sensor design, it's still newer than your D300.

D700 will cost you £800-900 but will be second hand (just like your D300 technical is). The D610 will be £1,300 but brand new. It's a very good camera and whilst I have not used one in anger, I wouldn't worry too much but it not being a pro model.
 
True Inkiboo, a used D600 on MPB can be had for just over £1000

I'm still unsure what the difference between the D600 and D610 is, is it just the issue with the over oiled shutter that was resolved?
 
minnnt said:
What about a d610 from somewhere like Panamoz or hdew? Yeah it'll be an import but at least you get some kind of warranty and a spanking new camera compared to a dated second hand 'uk' model.
Click to expand...

It's something i will have to look into, but it's certainly an option
 
Hi Rich - just my 2c.........
The D700 will do everything that you want from a full frame camera other than give you the reach that your D300 has.
It'll beat it regarding noise, dynamic range etc
However, I went from a D300 to a 24mp ff and although you're not putting as many m-ps over the dx part of the frame as the D300, you still get some reach, some "cropability".
So I think long-term you'll get more bang for your buck from a D600/610.
cheers, cw
 
I went from a d300 to a d700 and its a big jump in terms of iso perf. 3200 iso is perfectly useable and better than 1600 was on the 300. Its still a very good camera and a bargain. The 600/610 would be better in some ways, but its not a pro body, and af is not as good so it depends as to whats important.
 
Very good point Chris, i think i will just have to save that little bit harder and go for the D600/610, at least then i'll not be thinking 'what if' all the time
 
Or save even harder/longer for a D800. The D800 is one of very few bodies that is a genuine upgrade from a D700 and the 700 can outperform it in a couple of ways (fps springs to mind).
 
I went from a D300 to a D700, I am delighted with it. There is a big difference, good glass is the best option though. D600 has constant oil issues, so I would give it a miss, get a D700 or d610, you can save on a D600 but why be sending it back or cleaning constantly.
 
I'm sure the D600 will take fabulous images with the 24mp sensor, but, if the AF performance is as poor as my D7000 was, I'd be dubious about its abilities as a credible wildlife camera for things such as birds in flight. If you've dismissed the D700 sit on your hands and save for the D800, some mention its slower frame rate etc, I'd rather have 4 per second in focus than 6 that aren't!
 
At near on £2k for a D800, i don't think i could justify that sort of money on a body, it's got to be either a D600/610 or D700

On the point about constant cleaning of the D600, i thought the issue was only occuring due to over oiling of the shutter/mirror mechanism, and that after x thousand shots the problem all but disappears (as the oil has already escaped), or am i mistaken
 
I think constant oil is an over exaggeration tbh. Alot of people have had no issues with it at all and plenty are over the moon with their 600's. I think it's the usual case of the internet making the problem 10 times the size it really is. A little like the back focusing d7000 issues.
 
So a used D600 with a modest shutter count, say 14,118 should have passed the problem stage and could set you back say £1059.
Just so you know where I'm coming from that's a third of what I paid for my used 24mp ff.............
I still think that's a lot of bang etc but I think you need to try and get some advice from a wildlife buff using one.
Again, just my 2c Rich!

cheers, cw
 
rpsmith79 said:
At near on £2k for a D800, i don't think i could justify that sort of money on a body, it's got to be either a D600/610 or D700
Click to expand...

It came up in another thread that panamoz do them for sub £1,400 now. If grey imports are no issue for you
 
i'd say the D700 would be a logical & worthwhile upgrade.
of course you would need to buy some suitable lenses but thats a given for any camera.
my Mrs photography has come on loads since she moved from her D90 to her D700 & she mainly uses the very cheap to buy used Tamron 28-75mm most of the time plus my old 85mm f/1.8d that i donated.
tbh for her it was a gamechanger.

personally i wouldn't like the D600/610 as i don't really like the way the smaller bodys handle (even my D800 feels toy like after my D3), which i think they may also be a slight disappointment for you coming from a D300 but the D600/610 is a very good capable camera & it is the latest tech, if thats important to you?
yes the D700 is considered "old tech" now but its still as good as it ever was. try one, you might like it :)
 
Think i might have to source out some second hand D700's and D600's nearby to have a play with them, see how they handle

That is a bloody good price for a D800, but it's still about 50% over budget from where i want to be unfortunately
 
The D700 is still a fantastic camera, and a considerable upgrade from the D300.

My d700 does everything I could ever want it to do and I have no intention of moving to a d600/d800.

Don't write it off just because of its age.
 
Yeah, I've looked into upgrading my D700 a number of times and have never been able to convince myself it's worthwhile. AF is important to me so that rules out the D6X0 and I simply don't want 36mp and monstrously huge raw files so there's no point in getting a D800. Don't get me wrong, if I were given one I'd keep it but as for spending money on one, no. Frankly the D700 is more camera than 99.9% of people need, myself included.

I have also owned a D90 which has the same sensor as the D300 and I would say the jump in image quality to the D700 is significant to say the least
 
Jango said:
I went from a D300 to a D700, I am delighted with it. There is a big difference, good glass is the best option though. D600 has constant oil issues, so I would give it a miss, get a D700 or d610, you can save on a D600 but why be sending it back or cleaning constantly.
Click to expand...

Same here. D300s to d700. Delighted no downsides. All my batteries, mbd10 etc still worked. 8fps when I need it too.
What is not to like?

D600/610. Not owned one, but have used one. Not in my opinion an upgrade from a d300. Focus points too close and the look/ feel is not a match for the d400/700. Bit of a toy, albeit with 24Mp. You will end up with opinions based on what people own. A bit like LCD vs plasma TV's.
A D800 I'm sure is nice but it's not perfect.
The d700's ISO is way better than the d300. No issues using ISO 3200. Like all cameras the better the light the better.
Buy a d700. You will not be disappointed. And, good vfm at the moment. Yes the sensor is 7 years old. So what. Judge it by the image, and how easy it is to get them.
 
rpsmith79 said:
Hi, i'm in a bit of a dilemma at the moment, i currently have a D300 that i use for many types of photography, (wildlife, landscape, bands/gigs, urbex), but i am finding the noise to be an issue, especially in low light for things like my band/gig photography and some wildlife, so i am seriously thinking of upgrading to FF as i understand this is probably the best way to go in terms of lower noise at high ISO

This brings me onto my main question, is the D700 a worthwhile upgrade from the D300, the main reason i ask is that they are both "only" 12MP, the reason i sat "only" is that most modern cameras these days (especially FF) are upwards of 16MP, and i just feel moving from a 12MP crop to a 12MP FF is not really an upgrade, especially if i decide to crop images as using my Tamron 70-300 VC i will actually be getting lower resolution for the available reach, or does the low light/high ISO capability of a FF camera far outweigh the "relatively" low MP count

The other reason i am unsure is that the D700 is also a pretty old camera now (released in 2008 i believe), so i wondering if the D700 can still cut the mustard against the newer breed of FF bodies from Nikon

The other option is to look at the D600 as a relatively cheap FF camera, but it's another several hundred pound jump from a used D700 to a used D600
Click to expand...
The difference between 12mp on a crop sensor and 12mp on a ff sensor is massive the pixels on a crop are bunched together and cause more noise at higher iso's whereas the full frame sensor has more room to spread the pixels out ...the difference is amazing. i didn't really class my d300 as a pro body,but my d700 is definately one (y) never had a problem with it and performs great i won't be upgrading any time soon, cheers mike. possibly slightly biased ;)
 
In my limited recent digital experience, I have gone the way you are wanting to go. The only thing I have done first is to upgrade my glass, with the view to going full frame, this I have done over a few years to spread the cost. I have moved from a D90, which my son has now started using, through a D300s and onto the D700. I have only had the D700 less than a month, bought off the forum, and wow what a difference. With the D300s I saw a big improvement over the D90, and that is a very capable camera, but the move to a D700 is fantastic. Any photos I have taken with the D700 so far though have been in poor light, but here are some similar shots one with the 300s and the other with the 700.





I hope this may be of some use.
Cheers Andrew.
 
I've gone through exactly the same dilemma, had to decide on upgrading from my D300 either to the D600/D610 or the 'classic' D700. I was not at all happy with the size/handling or overall quality of the D600/610 compared to either my D300 or the D700, in the end I managed to buy a virtually new condition D700 with the shutter count standing at less than 800 :love: I've had it for about three months and have not had a single regret :nikon: for low light you won't be at all disappointed with the 'classic' D700...decisions decisions :rolleyes:

Bill :)

PS. MPB have a mint used D700 for sale at £1029 it has less than 7000 on the shutter count!!!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top