D300 or D700

merv

merv

Messages
1,118
Name
Mervyn
Edit My Images
Yes
What would your preference be for sport - D300 with 70-200/2.8 or D700 with 300/2.8 prime? Both have the same effective focal length, 300mm at full zoom on the 70-200. merv:thinking::thinking:
 
d300. I am guessing the the wider focal length of the full frame is not an issue but that the fps will be. With the pennies saved you could get a fabulous tripod or a grip, or both!
 
Well you can get 8fps on the D700 with grip and the low light capabilities are simply fantastic (If shooting in poor lighting conditions), but I don't believe it's really considered to be much of a sports camera, not sure how the AF would hold up in those fast moving situations.
 
The AF systems are identical between the two aren't they?
 
For the reach you'll be hard pushed to beat the D300 to be honest. But it depends on the sport I suppose! If you needed more than 200 (on crop) you can always get a 300 and end up with yet again more reach than the D700. And it's a cracking camera too, have one myself.

On the other hand... if money was not a factor... I'd say pick the D700 with whatever lens meets your reach needs :LOL:
 
Decide on the lens you want first then work back from there.
 
D700 murders the 300 on everything other than that all important 1.5 crop sensor.

Use both by the way.
 
Have you thought of putting the 70-200 on the D700 with a TC?
 
I have a D300 and had a D700 as well along with a 300 prime and the 70-200. I have sold the D700 and those two beautiful lenses.(Sorry i'm off to cry for a little bit)................... The D700 is a superb machine and performs very well on motorsport and cricket(when I did it) The low light on the D700 was superb and hence the extra reach if needed could come from a 1.4tc. I had too much money and too little talent.

If money is not an issue get a D700 what you want otherwise stick with the D300 and "use the crop Luke"

Going for another cry now:crying:
 
The AF on the D700 and the D300 are the same, but the coverage of the AF points is larger on the scene on the D300 because of the cropped sensor. Depending on the types of sport you're planning on doing it may be a factor in your choice.

Also decide which camera/lens combo is going to give you frame filling images negating the need to crop much.
 
Hid - why sell the D700 for a D300 :shrug: Just curious really...:thinking:
 
Depends if you need the flexibility of a zoom and what the light is like in whatever sport you're shooting. Of course the D700 trumps the D300 in low light with high ISO, and the 300 2.8 trumps the 70-200 2.8.
 
i have a d300 and a very good mate of mine has the d700 but he has more expensive glass than me, he has the 200-400 and i use a 70-200 plus a 1.4 tc, he get beter results all day long
 
Trig's said:
Hid - why sell the D700 for a D300 :shrug: Just curious really...:thinking:
Click to expand...

Can't speak for anyone else, but I also sold my D700 for a D300 for the simplest of simple reasons - money. I got credit crunched. And have to say as much as I love my D300, it gets beaten hands down on just about everything by the D700. :crying:
 
aberal said:
Can't speak for anyone else, but I also sold my D700 for a D300 for the simplest of simple reasons - money. I got credit crunched. And have to say as much as I love my D300, it gets beaten hands down on just about everything by the D700. :crying:
Click to expand...

Cheers for that - Was wondering as he got shot of the D700 & kept the D300 that was all.... Not that I wanted to delve into anything personal if you get my meaning....
 
I have two D300's and work them sport with 80-200 f2.8 TBH for indoor and more general work I would preobably use D700 but for sport the D300 combo works fine, fast enough and not too expensive!
 
fracster said:
D700 murders the 300 on everything other than that all important 1.5 crop sensor.

Use both by the way.
Click to expand...

I don't agree! The D700 isn't that much better than the 300s. The tonal quality of the D700 is better, sharpness/fine detail better in the D300s and has a 1.5 crop sensor.

I also use both extensively; D700 for portrait work (50mm, 85mm & 70-200mm) and landscape (24-70mm) and the D300s for walk about, travel (18-105mm) and sport (70-200mm & 70-300mm). Both have their sweet spot, not better or worse, just different.
 
Ok.
 
In short...

D700 for tonal quality, wide angle and that full frame feeling. Heavier and more, much more expensive glass. Fantastic in the studio!

D300 for detail and telephoto and action (faster Motordrive). Lighter and affordable DX lenses. Fantastic in the field!

Not as simple as that though - there's a huge overlap in capability. That's why having upgraded to a D700 I'm not for selling the D300s.
 
I have a D300 and have hummed and hahhed about moving to the D700 ....The low light / f2.8 shots from the 24-70 on the D700 look fantastic. If you fancy doing wedding photography I would say go for it. If like me you shoot at f8 and above in good light most of the time..I personally wouldn't bother and get a D300 / D90.
 
Thanks guys for all that. I would shoot rallying/motor bikes and the odd airshow. With cars it is normally possible to get pretty close so the D700 with the 70-200 would fill the frame normally. Often further away with bikes so maybe the D300. Airshows I think need the D300 for reach. Did one recently with the d700 with the 300/2.8 and the new 2TCIII converter and even it was pushed for reach with the planes well offshore. In hindsight the D300 would have been better. merv
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top