D700 or D300 for bird photography

heapeywildlife

heapeywildlife

Messages
522
Name
Len
Edit My Images
Yes
I have a Nikon D80 which I am looking to upgrade in the near future.
Which would be better for bird photography (with a Nikon F4 300 lens), a D700 or a D300. Or do I wait for the rumoured D400?

Len
 
A better answer to the OP would be:

A D300 or D400 will give you greater reach, due to the 1.5x crop factor...
So for birding, get a dx body! A 300 f4 will be 400 f4, and a 1.4 teleconverter will be ideal!
 
How do they compare for focus acquisition speed, low light performance and the resolution of a small bird.
 
Forget the D300, go for the D7000!

For birding you want a high ISO performing, fast FPS, high resolution for cropping and good autofocus system...that's the D7k.

If anyone can come up with a valid reason the D300 would be a better option I'd like to hear it ;)

Seriously, have a think about it.

But definitely a DX over FF for wildlife, I concur with that.
 
Having used a D80/D300S/D700/D7000 combination, the D700 and D7000 have amazing ISO performance, while the D300 series has decent ISO.
A chronology of the Nikon bodies allows us insight into the fact that the D7000, launched after the D300S, is known to have ISO as good as the D700.

Here are some shots with my D700 and a 400mm 2.8:

6113472565_11680e875b_z.jpg


6114017858_34ecaef536_z.jpg


6113473325_6ee1e9183c_z.jpg


6113472565_11680e875b_z.jpg


6114015338_cb90caed50_z.jpg


As you can see, had I had a dx body instead, I would have had the 1.5X edge, allowing me more zoom into the birds. This is why most wildlife photographers armed with FX bodies always keep a good DX body like a D300/D300S with them.

Focus acquisition depends alot on the lens as well. If your 300mm f4 is an AFS lens, it will focus pretty well on both the D300 and D700. Slower lenses like the AF will disappoint you. Reminds of the time I had the AF 80-200 2.8 on a D80, and a wildlife photographer said that my combo was only good for dead animals! :p

FX bodies have unmatched resolution, but in order to do justice to a D700, a 300mm f4 won't give you enough reach, and teleconverters will slow you down with some slight, at times barely noticable loss in IQ. Most of the wildlife photogs I know shoot with 500/600f4 lenses.
 
Phil Young said:
Forget the D300, go for the D7000!

For birding you want a high ISO performing, fast FPS, high resolution for cropping and good autofocus system...that's the D7k.

If anyone can come up with a valid reason the D300 would be a better option I'd like to hear it ;)

Seriously, have a think about it.

But definitely a DX over FF for wildlife, I concur with that.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The OP asked for options between D300 and D700 for wildlife, and I said D300, due to the DX factor. A D7000, known as the D300S buster, will be great, and it has better ISO than the D300S. I cannot comment about the focussing speeds and buffer of the two, but the D7000 should be the best option for you right now.
 
Thanks guys, I take your points about the use of a crop factor camera. I bought the F4 300 as a reasonably hand holdable quality lens, but I find that I use it more often on a tripod to get better sharpness as the D80 is not brilliant in terms of iso and i often find the shutter speed suffers and hence I use a tripod. I tried out a colleagues D800 today (1 day old) the comparison in equivalent shutter speed and also speed of acquisition of focus was amazing. I had considered a D7000 but it has had one or two reported issues (focus problems and poor buffer/transfer rate) and also the D300 is cheaper at the moment (2nd hand), perhaps I should reconsider. The D300 has a good reputation amongst bird togs. I had been offered a D700 but always thought a D300 would be better for my type of photography.

Len
 
@Len:
You see, different cameras are built for different applications. The D800 you tried out is indeed amazing, but it has slow FPS as it is more of a studio camera. Obv Nikon wants you to buy the D4, which is built for speed. Similarly, the D7000, technically a D90 upgrade, is not entirely built for wildlife photography, hence the slow buffer/transfer rate. That is why most wildlife togs didn't bother when the D7000 came out, as they new it would be somewhat 'weak' to drive their huge teles. I would recommend the D300S, powered by an MBD10 grip, allowing you faster FPS and better feel.
 
sssheikh said:
A better answer to the OP would be:

A D300 or D400 will give you greater reach, due to the 1.5x crop factor...
So for birding, get a dx body! A 300 f4 will be 400 f4, and a 1.4 teleconverter will be ideal!
Click to expand...
Wrong, a 300f/4 on a DX body will be 450mm effective not 400mm (y)
 
sssheikh said:
A chronology of the Nikon bodies allows us insight into the fact that the D7000, launched after the D300S, is known to have ISO as good as the D700.
Click to expand...

Known by who, certainally not me and im using both side by side, the D700 is a stop better in low light than the D7000, certainally in real world usage, i dont give a flying fart about lab and DXO results, out in the filed the D700 is just better.
 
Gary Coyle said:
Wrong, a 300f/4 on a DX body will be 450mm effective not 400mm (y)
Click to expand...

Sorry for my bad maths! I guess an arsenal of teleconverters do improve maths! ;-)
 
Gary Coyle said:
Known by who, certainally not me and im using both side by side, the D700 is a stop better in low light than the D7000, certainally in real world usage, i dont give a flying fart about lab and DXO results, out in the filed the D700 is just better.
Click to expand...

Dear Gary,
I've been using a D700 since it came out, and I don't think its good for wildlife photography, as its not supposed to be for it in the first place. The D7000 is merely a D90 upgrade, and cannot be compared with the D700. But considering the OP's budget and plans, it seems to be a good option.
Known by who? Ken Rockwell and many others whom we read for reviews on equipment. You may not, but I do, and seem to find some sense and some logic. He also says that the D7000 may have good ISO, but at higher ISOs, the D700 will always rule with its prints...
 
sssheikh said:
Dear Gary,
I've been using a D700 since it came out, and I don't think its good for wildlife photography, as its not supposed to be for it in the first place. The D7000 is merely a D90 upgrade, and cannot be compared with the D700. But considering the OP's budget and plans, it seems to be a good option.
Known by who? Ken Rockwell and many others whom we read for reviews on equipment. You may not, but I do, and seem to find some sense and some logic. He also says that the D7000 may have good ISO, but at higher ISOs, the D700 will always rule with its prints...
Click to expand...
In the context of what the OP was asking then any crop body from D300 onwards is a better oprion than any FF camera (within certain budgert constraints, but i was talking specifically about the noise comp between the D7000 and D700

How about switching camps and opting for 1 Canon 1D series with the 1.3x crop
 
Phil Young said:
Forget the D300, go for the D7000!

For birding you want a high ISO performing, fast FPS, high resolution for cropping and good autofocus system...that's the D7k.

If anyone can come up with a valid reason the D300 would be a better option I'd like to hear it ;)

Seriously, have a think about it.

But definitely a DX over FF for wildlife, I concur with that.
Click to expand...

Okay, I will. The D7000 has a worse af system, is much smaller so back button focus is harder and the buffer is terrible.
 
Gary Coyle said:
Known by who, certainally not me and im using both side by side, the D700 is a stop better in low light than the D7000, certainally in real world usage, i dont give a flying fart about lab and DXO results, out in the filed the D700 is just better.
Click to expand...

Agreed. People spout so much without owning a camera.
 
sssheikh said:
Dear Gary,
I've been using a D700 since it came out, and I don't think its good for wildlife photography, as its not supposed to be for it in the first place. The D7000 is merely a D90 upgrade, and cannot be compared with the D700. But considering the OP's budget and plans, it seems to be a good option.
Known by who? Ken Rockwell and many others whom we read for reviews on equipment. You may not, but I do, and seem to find some sense and some logic. He also says that the D7000 may have good ISO, but at higher ISOs, the D700 will always rule with its prints...
Click to expand...

Seriously, take everything Ken says with a pinch of salt and everything else you read as dubious. The only way to test out a camera properly is to own one. :)
 
The23rdman said:
Okay, I will. The D7000 has a worse af system, is much smaller so back button focus is harder and the buffer is terrible.
Click to expand...
Got to admit im of the same thinking as well re the AF and buffer, then theres the build quality, the D7000 is just a tiny toy in comparisson to the D300/300S, ive got a D7000 and im scared to take it out of the house in case a gust of wind blows it away. :LOL:
 
I wasn't worried about the build, tbh. It's the other issues that bother me!
 
Phil Young said:
Forget the D300, go for the D7000!

For birding you want a high ISO performing, fast FPS, high resolution for cropping and good autofocus system...that's the D7k.

If anyone can come up with a valid reason the D300 would be a better option I'd like to hear it ;)

Seriously, have a think about it.

But definitely a DX over FF for wildlife, I concur with that.
Click to expand...

Better built, better Auto focus (particularly in terms of cross focus points which is damn useful for moving targets), higher frame rate with grip and better buffer for contiuous shooting, more direct access controls... I'd also be tempted to throw in that it's a better size but that one is a bit subjective.

I'm not saying the D7000 wouldn't be a better choice, we all weigh up the pros and cons and make our choice but always better to know the full story.
 
Last edited:
Actually having owned the D300, D700, D3 and the D7000, for birding, if reach was paramount, I would have no issues in taking my old D300. I sold it a while ago as I purchased a D7000. Whilst it's true the D7000 has a little better image quality at high ISO, and a small amount of extra resolution, it always seems a harder camera to get consistant results from. As such I really missed my D300. It was the mass and build quality of the 300 along with it's richer feature set that is just missing from the D7000, as well as little things like one click 100% zoom, that still frustrates me today on the 7000. Aside from reach (and obviously the sensor) there's not a lot of difference in the D300 vs D700 from a functionality and handling point of view, indeed they even take the same Grips and batteries. Also remember that whilst the D700 does have a DX crop mode, it's only at approx 5mp (athough still plenty big enough for an A3 sized print.

With proper technique, good exposure and half decent PP skills, the D300 is pretty useable upto ISO3200 in my opinion. To be honest, you can't really go wrong with either. They are both a joy to use. He's a couple from my old camera (D300).

ISO 3200

Long Tailed Tit by Sootchucker, on Flickr

ISO 1250

Blue Tit by Sootchucker, on Flickr

ISO 3200

Great Tit by Sootchucker, on Flickr

ISO 2200 (not a bird this time)

Grey Squirrel - ISO 2200 by Sootchucker, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
I own both the D700 and the D300, I mainly shoot wildlife stuff.

I always use the D700, images are cleaner and crisper with more detail, focusing is far superior (which is better for in flight stuff), the viewfinder is bigger and brighter, and the D700 high ISO stuff is much cleaner.

However I do have a 500mm f4 (and TC's), so reach is less of a concern, although there are times when you never have enough, so if you only have the 300/4 the crop body makes more sense.

The D300 is a fine camera, however the image quality from the full frame D700 is noticeably better, with a greater dynamic range.

In your position it may be worth looking at the D7000 rather than the D300, it is newer technology and with the higher number of megapixels which will give you a little more scope when cropping, but I prefer the D300.

I would also add the Nikkor 1.4 teleconverter to your 300/4, a combination that I have used on my D300 many times.

Most of the images in my gallery on here were taken using the D300

This was taken with a D300, 300/4 and 1.7TC ISO 3200 @f7.1.

161_120.jpg
 
Last edited:
Martyn... said:
I own both the D700 and the D300, I mainly shoot wildlife stuff.

I always use the D700, images are cleaner and crisper with more detail, focusing is far superior (which is better for in flight stuff), the viewfinder is bigger and brighter, and the D700 high ISO stuff is much cleaner.

However I do have a 500mm f4 (and TC's), so reach is less of a concern, although there are times when you never have enough, so if you only have the 300/4 the crop body makes more sense.

The D300 is a fine camera, however the image quality from the full frame D700 is noticeably better, with a greater dynamic range.

In your position it may be worth looking at the D7000 rather than the D300, it is newer technology and with the higher number of megapixels which will give you a little more scope when cropping, but I prefer the D300.

I would also add the Nikkor 1.4 teleconverter to your 300/4, a combination that I have used on my D300 many times.

Most of the images in my gallery on here were taken using the D300

This was taken with a D300, 300/4 and 1.7TC ISO 3200 @f7.1.
Click to expand...

That recommendation is based on owning a D7000? As we've all said the D300 is superior in all the important issues.
 
sssheikh said:
You see, different cameras are built for different applications. The D800 you tried out is indeed amazing, but it has slow FPS as it is more of a studio camera.
Click to expand...


I would use a D800 in a heartbeat for wildlife, and will probably get one when the price drops and the wife isn't looking. All those pixels to crop with make it ideal, FPS is irrelevant when you only use single shot, but I have never adopted the spray and pray technique.
 
The23rdman said:
That recommendation is based on owning a D7000? As we've all said the D300 is superior in all the important issues.
Click to expand...

I have never owned the D7000 I just suggested that it may be worth considering as the OP is limited by reach, I have seen a couple in use in the hides, and tried them, the quiet shutter is nice, however I finished the sentence with "I prefer the D300".

The D300 is solid and reliable, but the extra pixels of the D7000 may be an advantage to the OP.
 
Martyn... said:
I have never owned the D7000 I just suggested that it may be worth considering as the OP is limited by reach, I have seen a couple in use in the hides, and tried them, the quiet shutter is nice, however I finished the sentence with "I prefer the D300".

The D300 is solid and reliable, but the extra pixels of the D7000 may be an advantage to the OP.
Click to expand...

I never found them that much of an advantage. I'm actually with you that the D700 is superior on all counts if you can afford the lenses necessary.
 
The23rdman said:
I never found them that much of an advantage. I'm actually with you that the D700 is superior on all counts if you can afford the lenses necessary.
Click to expand...

It is a balancing act of criteria and budget, if reach was the only criteria, and budget was minimal then the Nikon 1 and an adapter could be the answer.

In fact I had considered it but a pink J1 hanging off the back of my 500/4 would not only look a bit silly, but would make balancing the set up on my gimbal head a challenge ... but a 1350mm f4 is not to be sniffed at :D
 
Gary Coyle said:
Known by who, certainally not me and im using both side by side, the D700 is a stop better in low light than the D7000, certainally in real world usage, i dont give a flying fart about lab and DXO results, out in the filed the D700 is just better.
Click to expand...

This is true. The D700 is 1 stop better.
 
The right answer is,if you can afford it, both.The 700 for the high ISO ability and the 300 for the reach.

If I had to sell one of mine, the D300 would stay.That extra reach of the 1.5 crop is more beneficial, more of the time ,than the high ISO ability of the 700.

Just my opinion I hasten to add.
 
fracster said:
The right answer is,if you can afford it, both.The 700 for the high ISO ability and the 300 for the reach.

If I had to sell one of mine, the D300 would stay.That extra reach of the 1.5 crop is more beneficial, more of the time ,than the high ISO ability of the 700.

Just my opinion I hasten to add.
Click to expand...

True enough. You could buy both used for the price of a D700 used a few months ago.
 
Thank you all, you have given me much to ponder on. If only they would hurry up with the rumoured holy grail (D400). I am strongly tempted to go for a D300 or D300s until the D400 appears or the D800 drops down to a sensible level.

Len
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top