Nikon D300, what next?

Mike-a

Mike-a

Suspended / Banned
Messages
385
Name
^^^^^
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm currently using a Nikon D300 which has been a great camera but I'm finding it lacking in low light situations and a tax rebate has got me pondering on upgrading.
Things I like about the D300 are the high fps using the mb-d10 (for sports/motor sports), button layout and general great build quality.
I'd like to keep all those but have better high ISO performance.
I don't need/want to go to FX but it doesn't put me off (should it??).
So, I'm looking at either D700 or D7100 or if I can scrape a bit more cash together a D3.
Is it even worth considering FX bodies without upgrading all my lenses? I have fairly fast DX glass (17-50 and 70-200 f2.8 and a couple of f1.8 primes amongst others) and can't justify new lenses too.

Thoughts?
:)
 
Isn't the d500 the d300 successor?
 
It is but too expensive unfortunately.
 
D700 is a very good camera, quite cheap used, too... The D3 though is defo worth especially for fps and AF speed
 
D700 is still a great camera but if you heavily invested in dx glass then it's not ideal. I have a d7100 and love it in every way.
 
If you like FPS then do consider that the D7100 buffer was quite poor. If wanting to stay with DX then consider the newer D7200. A better buffer, decent high ISO performance for a DX (the best i believe?) and it works with your current lenses. It's not of the same build quality but it weighs less and has a far better screen.
 
The d700 will use your existing MB-D10 grip. You don't specify which f1.8 lenses you have but they may well work with with a D700 unless they're DX lenses.

That just leaves you with replacing the 17-50, and there's a multitude of options there depending on budget, brand, minimum aperture, etc. I used the Nikon 28-70 F2.8 on my D700 until recently, cracking lens, although it's big and heavy.
 
My current line up is d7200, d700 and d300, i'd go d7200 for now and pick up a d700 thereafter.
I wouldn't sell your d300,you won't get what it's truly worth anywhere, I got mine for £219 from mpb.
 
Right, having looked at my current lenses some will be ok on FX, some not.
70-300 and 70-200 Sigmas and Nikon 50 f/1.8 are ok
Nikon 18-105, Nikon 35mm f/1.8, Sigma 10-20 and Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 are DX only.

Looking at the prices of D700s I'm leaning towards that option and selling my DX lenses, thus keeping all the good things about the D300.

This would free up some cash for additional wide FX compatible lenses.
 
Wait for used D500, don't bother with D7*00 series. I have a D7100 and the difference between it and my new D500 is astonishing. The D7100 is a great camera if you overlook the crappy buffer, but I do prefer the Pentax K-3.

The D3 and D700 are of a similar generation to the D300 so I wouldn't expect much in the way of a significant increase in low light performance to be honest.
 
welshwizard645 said:
Wait for used D500, don't bother with D7*00 series. I have a D7100 and the difference between it and my new D500 is astonishing. The D7100 is a great camera if you overlook the crappy buffer, but I do prefer the Pentax K-3.

The D3 and D700 are of a similar generation to the D300 so I wouldn't expect much in the way of a significant increase in low light performance to be honest.
Click to expand...

That's what I am doing - I have a D300S so just waiting for good low mileage D500's to appear and will probably change then. In the meantime I can wait, my existing camera is no less good just because I want an upgrade!
 
welshwizard645 said:
Wait for used D500, don't bother with D7*00 series. I have a D7100 and the difference between it and my new D500 is astonishing. The D7100 is a great camera if you overlook the crappy buffer, but I do prefer the Pentax K-3.

The D3 and D700 are of a similar generation to the D300 so I wouldn't expect much in the way of a significant increase in low light performance to be honest.
Click to expand...

Would agree with this right up until the last sentence. I do speak from experience here as I had a D300 for a long time before moving to a D700 and currently have a D3. The D3 and D700 are way better in low light compared to a D300. I've never done any kind of side by side but subjectively, the difference is significant. I think you would have to go for one of the current generation FX cameras to see much improvement over either of those two. Could get costly with lenses but probably less costly than going for a D500.

The D7200 is a nice camera but the shape/size and button layout may be hard to adjust to after a D300.
 
gad-westy said:
Would agree with this right up until the last sentence. I do speak from experience here as I had a D300 for a long time before moving to a D700 and currently have a D3. The D3 and D700 are way better in low light compared to a D300. I've never done any kind of side by side but subjectively, the difference is significant. I think you would have to go for one of the current generation FX cameras to see much improvement over either of those two. Could get costly with lenses but probably less costly than going for a D500.

The D7200 is a nice camera but the shape/size and button layout may be hard to adjust to after a D300.
Click to expand...

This.

I recently did a wedding with my D700 and D810, and my mate used his D300. When I looked through the photos in Lightroom, I noticed that while the D810 was better, but not by much than the D700 at higher ISO's, the D700 was way better than the D300. Ok, so this wasn't a comparison carried out with scientific rigour, but while the D700 is outgunned by current generation full frame, it can still hold its own unless you are into shooting black cats in coal sheds.
 
tom24 said:
My current line up is d7200, d700 and d300, i'd go d7200 for now and pick up a d700 thereafter.
I wouldn't sell your d300,you won't get what it's truly worth anywhere, I got mine for £219 from mpb.
Click to expand...
Tom, have you had a D7000?
I've got one, and for the future been wondering if I should go for the 7200 as my sole camera, or stick with the 7000 and pick up a 700 for landscapes and portraits.
Sorry for hijack Mike ;)
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
Tom, have you had a D7000?
I've got one, and for the future been wondering if I should go for the 7200 as my sole camera, or stick with the 7000 and pick up a 700 for landscapes and portraits.
Sorry for hijack Mike ;)
Click to expand...

The reason I went for a d7200 was lack of aa filter, just give images a tad sharper look (birds,insects mainly) and tbh, there isn't a great deal of difference.
I wanted a d700 for family type shots etc and it's a great giver, here's one of my mother in law...after getting her hair done..lol, I think you'd love the d700 and it'll complement the 7000 beautifully


28990232512_36ae9c4f48_k by Thomas Reid, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
This is taken with the d700..not a portrait but I like how it renders an image
24-120mm f4


TOM_0964 by Thomas Reid, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Keep wondering about one of those sigmas..
 
Still have my D300 as it seemed such a shame to sell it for so little. The D700 would be perfect, not much to upgrade and is basically a D300 with better low light performance! From what you say the D500 is out of budget, so that would leave the D750, D600 or D7xxx series. D750 is a cracker I have to admit, and used probably not much more than a d3. Yes, you miss out of FPS and build but its good!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top