d300 versus the d700
- Thread starter merv
- Start date
- Messages
- 27,793
- Edit My Images
- Yes
advantage: Full Frame
disadvantage: a £600 hole in your bank account
disadvantage: a £600 hole in your bank account
- Messages
- 6,918
- Name
- Tel
- Edit My Images
- No
Ok i've gone from D300 to D700, advantages Definitely better high ISO, wider angle of view, particularly good if you want to take say studio photos in a confined space, better view finder though not 100% (the D300 has) is full frame all it's cracked up to be ? the jury's still out on that one for me, better image quality ? again not quite sure, but that's more than likely me 
Nod
Tootles
- Messages
- 49,686
- Name
- Nod (UK)
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Advantages of the D700?
W-I-D-E angles!
High ISO performance.
Did I say W-I-D-E angles?
Advantages of the D300
Extra apparent reach (but the D700 can be switched to Dx mode to regain the lost reach, albeit with a reduced pixel count).
Cheaper.
W-I-D-E angles!
High ISO performance.
Did I say W-I-D-E angles?
Advantages of the D300
Extra apparent reach (but the D700 can be switched to Dx mode to regain the lost reach, albeit with a reduced pixel count).
Cheaper.
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
yes.
and don't know, but on current Nikon product lifecycles you've got a year to think about that
Hugh
- Messages
- 9,848
- Name
- Vlad
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Wider angles, brighter viewfinder, better high ISO capabilities, better DOF effects/bokeh and according to a couple of guys who own D300's and D700's the AF accuracy is marginally better too.
The gotcha is that you need FX capable glass and really to be perfectly honest, you need good glass to really see the difference; Nikon 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 300 2.8 etc etc
In real terms its fairly easy to see the difference in bodies just in 800 pixel forum shots even.
Providing you aren't needing the reach and need to crop everything by one third to get the field of view you are used to on a D300, its worth doing.
The gotcha is that you need FX capable glass and really to be perfectly honest, you need good glass to really see the difference; Nikon 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 300 2.8 etc etc
In real terms its fairly easy to see the difference in bodies just in 800 pixel forum shots even.
Providing you aren't needing the reach and need to crop everything by one third to get the field of view you are used to on a D300, its worth doing.
- Messages
- 7,821
- Edit My Images
- Yes
joe - I have 70-200f2.8VR, 70-300VR, 300F4, 85MM PRIME, 35mm PRIME, 50MM f1.4, 17-55 and 24-70 and 105MM MICRO. Which of these cannot be used on full frame?:bang:
The 17-55 is the only DX one there I think, it will still work but in the D700 cropped mode, so you will get 5MP images with it.
There was some talk of some corner light loss with the 70-200, but was not a major issue with everyone.
- Messages
- 1,587
- Name
- dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
joe - I have 70-200f2.8VR, 70-300VR, 300F4, 85MM PRIME, 35mm PRIME, 50MM f1.4, 17-55 and 24-70 and 105MM MICRO. Which of these cannot be used on full frame?
i don't think the 17-55mm will work, pretty sure the rest will.
- Messages
- 674
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- Yes
joe - I have 70-200f2.8VR, 70-300VR, 300F4, 85MM PRIME, 35mm PRIME, 50MM f1.4, 17-55 and 24-70 and 105MM MICRO. Which of these cannot be used on full frame?
All of these can be used on a full frame ,but if your lens has dx on it then it will bring the d700 down to 6mp (does that make sense)?
- Messages
- 3,321
- Name
- Peter Rushworth
- Edit My Images
- No
Is the move from a d300 to a d700 worth it and what are the advantages?
It depends what you want and photograph, it's like saying a want the canon7D but why didn't they make it full frame.... because their designed for different purposes....So if you want full frame, landscapes studio work etc get the D700, if your shooting moving objects, motorsport, aviation, wildlife stick with the D300. The D300s isn't worth the upgrade from D300, so you really got to ask yourself what do I want from the camera.
2 completely different beasts like the 5D MkII and 7D from canon, I wouldn't use the 5D for motorsport $%£" focusing, then again, wouldn't use the 7D for landscapes and ISO shots. Swings and roundabouts
- Messages
- 218
- Name
- Matthew
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The 7D with a 10-22 EF-S should be pretty decent for landscapes no, then you have a good compromise? I was considering this myself lately on whether to go 5Dii or 7D because I like to shoot wildlife and landscapes.
- Messages
- 403
- Name
- jonathan
- Edit My Images
- No
i think this is a good point..
i have the d300, mainly used for motorsports, everyday.
love the d700 for portirats and landscapes but the choice is yours...
depends if you need the reach, so in most cases i do...
love the d700 for the high iso and its FX body too...
- Messages
- 3,321
- Name
- Peter Rushworth
- Edit My Images
- No
I really like the 10-22mm on my 20D, but it's an extreme lens, equivalent to a 16-35mm lens, but unfortunately, the lens produces its best at 10-15mm and for a landscape lens, personally I would be looking at a 30-35mm equivalent as the results at 10mm gives a more fisheye appearance, which is great for certain shots but looks horrendous in others.
Its a compromise you have to make, and if you went for a 1.6 crop, I would prefer the EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 instead or your could use the EF 17-40mm f4 L.
- Messages
- 218
- Name
- Matthew
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thanks pete, I'll have to get hold of the lenses somehow and have a play before I buy, I was previously under the assumption that the 10-22 was *the* lens for landscapes, so that's valuable information to know and could save me a few £££ 