PDA

View Full Version : D300 vs D700



Visual Reality
07-01-2008, 03:21 PM
For those of you with the D300 that are considering buying a D700, could you list your reasons here?

What does the D700 have that the D300 does not, and what does it do better? How will it make your life easier?

:cool:

Rooz
07-01-2008, 03:28 PM
full frame. no other reason. i could never have just an FX body though. i like the focal length too much.

3 big differences...
viewfinder
FOV
iso performance

K1W1
07-01-2008, 03:32 PM
f
3 big differences...
viewfinder
FOV
iso performance

Four actually.

You forgot the "mine is bigger than yours" reason which is if many are truthful the overriding feeling behind a lot of the "I want one" posts.

swgod98
07-01-2008, 05:18 PM
I'd say ISO performance is #1
FOV might be #1 (depending on your shooting needs), but could also be a negative as well.
Bokeh is supposedly better, given the same FOV, is it not?

I don't think the viewfinder is that big of a deal. But, then again, ignorance is bliss, right? :)

I'm not sure I'm willing to have my 70-300VR lens turn into a true 70-300 :\ You do realize how expensive Nikon's 400mm, 500mm, 600mm lenses are!?!? :eek:

imagesbyjudd
07-01-2008, 07:48 PM
For me the D3 is out of my price range, the 700 is at the outside edge of it. But having just bought the d300 less than a month ago. The 700 will have to wait for a bit. Although it is now on the list. The iso and noise being primary reasons. I still would not give up the 300, I like that my 70-300 gives me the extra reach, on the other side I like that a wide angle is really a wide angle. So I think both have a place in the bag. Full frame sounds interesting although I haven't had any opportunity to do my own testing in a day to day situation, It may have value and may not. I rarely have the need to go beyond an 11x14 and only occasionaly do I want to do a very tight crop. But the 2 grand diff is enough to get my attention and I suspect a lot of other photographers as well. Nikon is basically evil, always thinking up new ways to make me part with my money. LOL

Rooz
07-01-2008, 09:42 PM
I don't think the viewfinder is that big of a deal. But, then again, ignorance is bliss, right? :)

right, never pick one up. trust me. lol

XaiLo
07-02-2008, 05:32 AM
ISO, fifty two plus times a year I have to shoot under a horid mix of lighting conditions which include incandescent chandiliers, a south facing wall that has 8'x4' floor level frosted windows spaced about every five feet for the run of the wall, poor stage lighting and a mixture of fluorescent and sunlight in the other main areas my average shutterspeed is about 1/25 lol. Secondly being able to actually shoot wide it would be nice to get everybody in the picture for one. lol Those two in a nutshell do it for me that's reason enough.

herc182
07-02-2008, 05:58 AM
1 - Noise
2 - Viewfinder
3 - Wideangle
4 - use of my primes.

However I would have to lose three of my lenses (which would fund the sigma 12-24). Imagine 12mm wideangle (not fisheye..).

FF Viewfinders are MUCH better. Much brighter...my brothers 5D has a much better viewfinder than the D80 (and that is saying a lot)

K1W1
07-02-2008, 06:35 AM
my brothers 5D has a much better viewfinder than the D80 (and that is saying a lot)


My nearly 30 year old Pentax has a much better viewfinder than a D80.
Anybody want to pay Aus$5000.00 for it?

LR Max
07-02-2008, 07:30 AM
Full frame images are crisper. I'd consider buying one if I ever end up shooting weddings/portraits or anything like that. The better high ISO characteristics would be welcomed as well.

Only downside would be having to procure the 24-70 lens at the same time because that would probably be the only mid-range zoom that would perform well on the D700 (24-70 and the D700 were probably designed for eachother).

Prospero
07-02-2008, 07:53 AM
You could also get the 28-70 for a lot less. It is also a legendary lens designed for full-frame. It's a bit less wide, but still wide enough for most purposes.
The lens is now discontinued, but can still be had on ebay for a lot less than the 24-70.

Other alternatives are the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 or Tamron 24-70 f/2.8. The focussing is a bit slower, but the lenses are supposed to be quite good optically.

LR Max
07-02-2008, 08:54 AM
I forgot about the 28-70. It is the old school BA on the block. I've got a 35-70 right now which isn't too shabby. It would be better if 1) I had a FX camera and 2) if it wasn't beat all to hades.

I had a Sigma 24-70 and didn't like it. Took it back within a week of getting it. I've had bad luck with Tamron, ain't doing that again.

I reckon I'm just a little biased/picky :rolleyes:

Classic96
07-02-2008, 01:11 PM
I have the 28-70 and I am extremely pleased with it. Picked mine up like new for $900 on ebay. I do miss the wide end, but the extra zoom on my DX body is great for portrait work.

cincyimages
07-03-2008, 12:22 PM
All this talk of the Nikon 24-70mm lens on a D700, I want one for my D300. It would be a 36-105mm on the D300 and would be a perfect walk around lens for me with the Sigma 10-20mm in my bag if I need something wider. The 24-70mm is the next lens I get.

Virgil
07-06-2008, 06:12 PM
I considered it - shortly - for the better ISO-handling i would really need and like. With this switch would have come that i´d had to sell my DX-lenses in favour of FF lenses (14-24, 24-70). Such a investment should be well considered - more so as i doubt that my clients given the usage (90% of my shots are used for internet, small prints etc.) will ever distinguish a D700 shot from a D300 one.

The other reason that holds me back is that this is Nikon´s first FF generation and even if they did well, i want to see at least generation two before i jump for FF.

Cheers
Virgil

Esoterra
07-06-2008, 06:33 PM
right, never pick one up. trust me. lol

Care to elaborate on your first thoughts when looking through the D700 viewfinder? All I am hearing is negative because it doesn't have %100 like the D3, but your experience sounds like it was positive. How did it compare to say the D300?

Rooz
07-06-2008, 09:51 PM
my first thoughts. big, bright, beautiful. much better than the d300.

negative thoughts about the 95% coverage would only come from the morons on DPR. the 5d is 95% also. personally i'll take a pop up flash over 100% coverage any day. i didn;t look thru a D3 at the same time as a d700 on the day, so i dont have a direct comparison side by side. but its 5% man...i mean seriously...its bugger all.

Fiasco
07-07-2008, 12:43 AM
I want it just for the FX sensor, in a more manageable body. A D3 would just be too bulky for me.

TNB
07-07-2008, 12:49 AM
Care to elaborate on your first thoughts when looking through the D700 viewfinder? All I am hearing is negative because it doesn't have %100 like the D3, but your experience sounds like it was positive. How did it compare to say the D300?
Based on your own ownership of several D300s and now the D700, how would you compare the two cameras?

Rooz
07-07-2008, 01:07 AM
I want it just for the FX sensor, in a more manageable body. A D3 would just be too bulky for me.

not sure if you know or not, but if you add the grip to the d700 its actually bigger than a D3.

Fiasco
07-07-2008, 01:29 AM
not sure if you know or not, but if you add the grip to the d700 its actually bigger than a D3.

I know. I wouldn't get the grip. Plus having the onboard flash is a must for me for using CLS with my SB-600s. With the D3 I would have to also buy an SB-800 or SU-800 commander.

camerareviews07
07-08-2008, 06:35 AM
The new D700 digital SLR camera featuring a 12.1-effective megapixel Nikon FX-format sensor that measures 23.9 x 36mm, which is nearly identical to the size of 35mm film. It offers both advanced and professional photographers stunning image quality, accurate color reproduction and revolutionary low light performance.

herc182
07-08-2008, 08:12 AM
The new D700 digital SLR camera featuring a 12.1-effective megapixel Nikon FX-format sensor that measures 23.9 x 36mm, which is nearly identical to the size of 35mm film. It offers both advanced and professional photographers stunning image quality, accurate color reproduction and revolutionary low light performance.

Thats factually corrrect. Thank you :confused:

e_dawg
07-08-2008, 09:18 AM
I think it's spam. I think he's trying to link to his reviews / merchant portal.

TNB
07-08-2008, 06:10 PM
I'm beginning to think the Nikon FX Sensor is just too dang small. After all, why not just go "large".... :D


"Introducing the new H3DII-50, featuring the world’s largest sensor. Featuring the new Kodak 50 Mpixel sensor, measuring 36×48mm, twice the physical size of the largest 35mm DSLR sensors, the H3DII-50 is designed to meet the exacting demands of high-end commercial photographers who require the ultimate in both image quality and performance."

http://www.hasselbladusa.com/promotions/50-promotion.aspx

Visual Reality
07-08-2008, 06:22 PM
Iso 50-400...

TNB
07-08-2008, 07:41 PM
Iso 50-400...
If you really want to "bump" the ISO, "Hasselblad’s Phocus software allows the ISO to be bumped further to ISO 800."

"The H3DII-50 camera will be available from October 2008 at a price of $39,995 excluding tax."
http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1215545796.html

Visual Reality
07-08-2008, 07:54 PM
Body only ;)

So weddings, portraits, some landscapes (though you'd need a pinhole aperture for any decent depth of field)...what else can you do for your $40 grand?

TNB
07-08-2008, 09:36 PM
Body only ;)

So weddings, portraits, some landscapes (though you'd need a pinhole aperture for any decent depth of field)...what else can you do for your $40 grand?
Perhaps, the "Masters Winners" will give you an idea. ;)

http://www.hasselbladusa.com/masters-winners-2008.aspx

e_dawg
07-08-2008, 09:42 PM
For $40 grand, you could buy a car instead, but they just depreciate to nothing within 10 years. Camera bodies, on the other hand, hold their value much long... um, never mind...

herc182
07-09-2008, 01:45 AM
here is a stupid question...if you slap a 50mm lens on there, does it become 25mm?

or are they specifically designed for being the right focal length once put on the body?

Rooz
07-09-2008, 04:47 AM
50mm is 50mm on FX. on an aps-c its 75mm.

herc182
07-09-2008, 04:59 AM
sorry i meant for the hasselblad!

Rooz
07-09-2008, 05:18 AM
woops sorry. :D

e_dawg
07-09-2008, 07:21 AM
here is a stupid question...if you slap a 50mm lens on there, does it become 25mm?

Yes, if you are comparing it back to 35 mm FF equivalents.

Steve82
07-09-2008, 03:10 PM
I have a friend with a D3 and D300 who showed me the difference in shots taken with both cameras with his 70-200VR at f2.8. The vignetting and corner softness was extremely noticeable on the D3 shots.

There are many reasons for getting the D3/D700....but I don't think that those reasons will ever apply to me.

Visual Reality
07-09-2008, 09:13 PM
I have a friend with a D3 and D300 who showed me the difference in shots taken with both cameras with his 70-200VR at f2.8. The vignetting and corner softness was extremely noticeable on the D3 shots.
That's because he's using a DX lens (small image circle) on an FX camera (that needs a larger image circle) so the image isn't even being projected large enough to cover the sensor.

e_dawg
07-09-2008, 09:19 PM
That's because he's using a DX lens (small image circle) on an FX camera (that needs a larger image circle) so the image isn't even being projected large enough to cover the sensor.

Are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure it's an FX lens...

Rooz
07-09-2008, 11:09 PM
That's because he's using a DX lens (small image circle) on an FX camera (that needs a larger image circle) so the image isn't even being projected large enough to cover the sensor.

the 70-200 is not a DX lens.

ssil2000
07-10-2008, 02:54 AM
yup, FX lens, but it didnt get great reviews on the d3... new 70-200 around the corner me suspects.

Visual Reality
07-10-2008, 04:06 AM
the 70-200 is not a DX lens.
Sorry, am I confusing it with something else? It was late...

If it is FX, what's the problem?

XaiLo
07-10-2008, 04:19 AM
The problem is the FX sensor the 70-200mm was not optimized for it, bc it did not exist at the time. But depending on who's review you're reading some say it' a problem others it's not.

Edit: Here's a Flickr link showing test images of the 70-200mm, 24-70mm, & 17-35mm lenses on a D3.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/feke/2074300126/in/set-72157603333027846/

Rooz
07-10-2008, 04:55 AM
as per X's post. "D" series nikkors were optimised for aps-c sensors cos nikons flagships where the d2 series aps-c chips. i spoke about this a while back when the D3 was released that alot of guys i know that went from d2x to d3 have reported some issues of varying degrees with some of the nikkor lens' for this specific reason. its also the reason that the 24-70 and 14-24 have been flying out the door...even at the price they're at.

this is i think why most people believe that there will be quite a significant nikkor lens overhaul within the bext 12-18 months cos the flaws that are appearing now with the D3 are going to be much, much worse with a 24mp d3x.

Visual Reality
07-10-2008, 04:31 PM
So the 70-200 works fine on a D2?

Rooz
07-10-2008, 04:49 PM
yes, on aps-c its perfect

TNB
07-10-2008, 05:53 PM
There are also a few posts on Flickr about the updated firmware 1.11 of D3 having a vignette control, which may change a few bad "pre" reviews about the D3 using the 70-200mm F/2.8 VR lens.

Visual Reality
07-10-2008, 06:48 PM
yes, on aps-c its perfect
Then that's what I was talking about. It produces an APS-C sized image circle which doesn't cover the size of the FX sensor.

So replace what I said earlier with that. Just used the wrong terms :p

achuang
07-10-2008, 07:21 PM
Then that's what I was talking about. It produces an APS-C sized image circle which doesn't cover the size of the FX sensor.

So replace what I said earlier with that. Just used the wrong terms :p

What Rooz is talking about is that the 70-200 is perfect on APS-C because you don't see the bad corner sharpness of the lens. It is a FX lens which covers the full FX frame. It is not a DX lens, it doesn't have DX in the name. And if it was a DX lens it wouldn't be that large.

Visual Reality
07-10-2008, 08:25 PM
I see now, thanks :)

Gintaras
07-13-2008, 05:37 AM
hey Nikon folk, would you tell IF Nikon has enough good lenses for FF to choose from?

Rooz
07-13-2008, 05:54 AM
depends what you want and what your budget is. ie: do you have the $$$ to spend on the top end stuff, what range do you need and do you want primes or zooms.

if you want zooms then the 14-24/2.8 and 24-70/2.8 are the best of their kind. if you want prime tele's they're all there, (200/2, 300/2.8 etc). whats missing ? short primes despererately need an update, (35/50/85), and medium zoom, 70-200/2.8.

what i think will come at photokina, (with the d90)...50/1.4 af-s, 24-105VR. what i think will come by feb next year, (with the d3x)...70-200/2.8, 85/1.4, 80-400VR. what will come by sept next year...300/4VR, 200/4VR micro. i think the problem nikon could have here is a lack of production capacity. alot of new products released or to be released...can they keep up with demand ? hell they have barely been able to keep up demand on the 70-200/2.8 for the last 18mnths.

what i dont think will come in the foreseeable future which i would desperately want...70-200/4 VR.

e_dawg
07-13-2008, 07:38 AM
Wow, how much design and production capacity do you think Nikon has Rooz? ;)

I would add to your list a couple more good wide angle primes like Canon's 24/1.4L and 14/2.8L and a VR version of Sigma's 100-300/4.

And I feel exactly the same way you do about a 70-200/4 VR.

Gintaras
07-15-2008, 03:56 AM
well, it looks like D700 will be selling for around 2700 euros here.

K1W1
07-15-2008, 04:25 AM
what i dont think will come in the foreseeable future which i would desperately want...70-200/4 VR.


I seem to recall you swearing a blood oath against zooms a month or so ago.
What would the 70-200 f4 have that your late departed 70-200 f2.8 didn't (except I assume being a bit smaller and lighter)?

Rooz
07-15-2008, 04:47 AM
smaller and lighter, yes. best zoom i've ever used personally. (in that range).

XaiLo
07-15-2008, 08:17 PM
smaller and lighter, yes. best zoom i've ever used personally. (in that range).

Gotta luv it!