Nikon D300 to D700 upgrade?

Carbonangel

Carbonangel

Suspended / Banned
Messages
614
Name
Ric
Edit My Images
No
Hi All,

I currently have a Nikon D300 with a wide choice of lenses, I'm thinking about an upgrade to Full Frame.

My photography is usually in low light and I prefer using natural light wherever possible, this is why I'm interested in FF due to better ISO sensitivity etc.

Do people in the know think this would be a suitable upgrade once you consider the cost of buying new lenses to suit the FF body also? or am I think a bit overkill for a learning photographer?

Thanks
 
I have the 300, not the S so I would be looking to put quite a bit of money towards it anyway, cost isn't that much of a problem, its more a question of if it's a waste of the cash for the benefits i'd receive over the 300.

How does the newer 7000 iso sensitivity compare with the 700?
 
If you shoot in low light then there is simply no comparison, the D700 produces cleaner images at iso 5000 than the D300 can manage at 1600. At best a D7000 is a step sideways, if not a step down in terms of waterproofing and build quality.
 
I chose the D7000 as I actually wanted a smaller body with video aswell. D300 size simply discouraged me from taking it out as much as I wanted and the d700 although amazing was bigger and heavier. The d7000 produces much nicer images than my d300 from 800ISO upwards - no comparison. Waterproofing and build quality are defo things you need to consider if the camera is to be a workhorse.

The d7000 is in no way better / equal to the d700 but it is a very very good compromise (ISO). Also, it's a good compromise until this D300s replacement eventually comes out. At which point i'll sell the d7000 and raid the savings.
 
Last edited:
Flash In The Pan said:
if not a step down in terms of waterproofing and build quality.
Click to expand...

This was also my other thought, the d300 was considered a professional body with various quirks like water resistance and build quality's.

the 7000 just looks like a meatier 5000 but still consumer and still has the auto mode, I assume this is how Nikon actually sell it.

With most of my photography been outside in stupid abandoned places with dirt and moisture around etc I think the d700 would be better choice, but i was just looking for other opinions before i jump in.
 
Last edited:
My bank isn't going to be a happy chappy :( lol thanks for the tips guys
 
D700 Everytime. If I was going to upgrade I would not consider the D7000.
 
I too want to go full frame from a D300s luckily i've not gone mad with lenses so the change won't hurt my pocket quite as much as some.
 
To update this, i bought the d700 a few months ago and not looked back since :D
 
Carbonangel said:
To update this, i bought the d700 a few months ago and not looked back since :D
Click to expand...

I'm not surprised, the difference in sensors is amazing. If the D300 had been released in isolation it would have garnered many more plaudits. It was and still is a fantastic camera. The problem is the D3 was launched at the same time and blew everything out of the water.

For the benefit of others coming to this old thread for the first time,
I have a D300 and a D3. I would see both the D7000 and D700 as upgrades from the D300 in regard to low light shooting.

I'm seriously considering changing my D300 for a D7000, not just because of the better high ISO performance, but because of the HD video. If the D700 had that, I'd have jumped for one a long time ago, and now I'm so sick of waiting for Nikon to release a smaller full framed body with it that I'm not far off getting a D7000 to tide me over until they do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top