Nikon d300 upgrade: imminent?

DoubleT

DoubleT

Messages
1,318
Name
Matt
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm currently mulling over and upgrade to my very much loved d300 , I've had it for nearly 5 years now but I'm now thinking about updating it and using its as a 2nd body .
I am "semi pro" and mainly shoot weddings , products , corporate/business advertising. But I like to attempt all aspects of photography . In most cases I dont have the need to print large , but have on the occasion printed 4 foot wide banners , and to be fair the resolution on the d300 has been just fine for the purpose of the prints .
I'm looking at going full frame as I have noticed images seem to be much sharper.
My budget would be up to around £2k , baring in mind I would need to but a lens to work with the fx on the wider scale .
I currently use a tamron 17-50 f2.8 as my main lens , so would need something similer to come within budget .

Is the d3s considered old now? As these come in second hand with in budget (just)

Other than that the options are d700/d800
Any suggestions guys?

Thanks

Matt

Ive been looking at
 
Does the £2k need to cover body and lens?

The D700 has same res as D300, and you'll immediately feel at home with it.

Lenses would be 24-70 2.8 (or close equivalents) to match the FoV of the 17-50.
 
Thanks grotty, idealy yes, it would need to cover the lens .

Would a d700 keep me going for another few years? It's so hard keeping up with the digital age ,

The d700 also takes the mb d10 grip so I can interchange my grip between the 2
 
DoubleT said:
Is the d3s considered old now? As these come in second hand with in budget (just)
Click to expand...

The D3S is a fantastic pro-spec camera, there have been some advances in AF and mp but the D3S has many advantages over the new models (except possibly the D4 but for much more money).
Unless you are wanting to print huge images the D3S will continue to be a great camera for some time to come... the D800 has 36mp and the resolution is fantastic but a D3S with higher mp it isn't.
 
Of the options you have given I would go for a D700 I have a D800 but only really use it as back up to the D700 which I use for 95% of my work. The D700 prints look much better than prints from the D300 due to the lower levels of noise. The other think to consider is the D300/700 use the same batteries and if you use the D300 as a back up to a D800 or D3 you will need to buy and carry to sets of batteries and possibly 2 chargers.
 
DoubleT said:
Thanks grotty, idealy yes, it would need to cover the lens .

Would a d700 keep me going for another few years? It's so hard keeping up with the digital age ,

The d700 also takes the mb d10 grip so I can interchange my grip between the 2
Click to expand...

As mentioned D3s is phenomenal, but you won't get a decent body and lens for £2k.

Though getting on a bit, the D700 is still very very capable and built like a tank, as mentioned the higher ISO images are streets ahead of the D300. You could get a very nice preowned D700 plus Nikon 24-70 2.8 (if you don't mind it's bulk) for your budget, or get a Sigma or Tamron equivalent and save some pennies - both can be great lenses if you get good copies.
 
Thanks for replies .
If I was to stretch the budget a little . Do you think I would be better off with a d700 with a Nikon 17-55 or a d3s with a sigma/tamron equivalent.... I think I already know the answer is to invest in glass... I already have a Nikon 80-200 2.8 and a 50 1.8 as well as the tamron mentioned before ...
 
DoubleT said:
Thanks for replies .
If I was to stretch the budget a little . Do you think I would be better off with a d700 with a Nikon 17-55 or a d3s with a sigma/tamron equivalent.... I think I already know the answer is to invest in glass... I already have a Nikon 80-200 2.8 and a 50 1.8 as well as the tamron mentioned before ...
Click to expand...

The Nikon 17-55 is a DX lens - do you mean the 24-70?

It's swings and roundabouts really - the D3s will 'age' quicker than the 24-70 and the latest Sigma version of the 24-70 HSM is supposed to be very decent (not used one personally)...

Also, have you used a full size body before? They are heavy beasts if you have to carry it and a heavy lens (the 80-200 for example) around all day.
 
DoubleT said:
Do you think I would be better off with a d700 with a Nikon 17-55 or a d3s with a sigma/tamron equivalent....
Click to expand...

The Nikon 17-55mm is a DX only lens, whereas the D700 is an FX camera - thus the suggestions to get a Nikon 24-70mm (+D700, which I think is a very logical combination considering your requirements and budget).
 
Yes sorry , that was a typo. I did mean the 24-70 (nikon)
I've not used a d3 before but I use a battery grip on my d300 and have carried that around for most of a day with my 80-200 2.8 and sb-800 . So am used to the weight , but it is helped by me being big and strong :)
 
DoubleT said:
Yes sorry , that was a typo. I did mean the 24-70 (nikon)
I've not used a d3 before but I use a battery grip on my d300 and have carried that around for most of a day with my 80-200 2.8 and sb-800 . So am used to the weight , but it is helped by me being big and strong :)
Click to expand...

:lol: I didn't mean to sound patronising, just something else to consider.

Personally unless I needed fast frame rate or stupid high ISO capabilities, I would take the D700 plus Nikon 24-70 route, as you have batteries, grip, knowledge of layout from the D300 - and you will be under/within budget.
 
How about a new D800 and new Tamron 28-75mm without the built in motor

If you dont shoot sports or need the high FPS of the D3S then is by far the better option than a used D3S and used Nikon 24-70mm
 
Hi, If I can chip in on this thread. I see from your post that you shoot products/advertising etc and weddings. Certainly in the studio a D800 will be a better bet than a D700.

The extra resolution offered by the D800 will be much better for your product photography. Up until the early part of this year we were using nothing but medium format and larger for product/advertising shots. The D800 cameras have virtually taken over from the medium format cameras with the resolution approaching medium format. A D700 although an excellent camera will not be anywhere near as good in this situation. Something worth thinking about.

You will of course notice quite an improvement with a D700 over a D300 especially in a low light situation, and I believe batteries and holders etc are the same which is obviously a plus point.

But if it's image quality you want then a D700 is no match for a D800. With everything else being equal ie glass etc.

Only my opinion of course for what little it's worth. Hope this helps.
 
G.K.Jnr. said:
Hi, If I can chip in on this thread. I see from your post that you shoot products/advertising etc and weddings. Certainly in the studio a D800 will be a better bet than a D700.

The extra resolution offered by the D800 will be much better for your product photography. Up until the early part of this year we were using nothing but medium format and larger for product/advertising shots. The D800 cameras have virtually taken over from the medium format cameras with the resolution approaching medium format. A D700 although an excellent camera will not be anywhere near as good in this situation. Something worth thinking about.

You will of course notice quite an improvement with a D700 over a D300 especially in a low light situation, and I believe batteries and holders etc are the same which is obviously a plus point.

But if it's image quality you want then a D700 is no match for a D800. With everything else being equal ie glass etc.

Only my opinion of course for what little it's worth. Hope this helps.
Click to expand...

I agree with this for what the o.p uses his camera for the D800 sounds like a better option and as the o.p has been happy with his Tamron 17-50 I am sure he would be happy enough with the 28-75 Tamron full frame equivalent.

The Nikon 24-70 is a wonderful lens that personally I enjoy using with my D700 a lot. However I would imagine the extra resolution the D800 will offer will make a bigger differnce for what the o.p uses his camera for than the difference between the Tamron and Nikon mid range zooms.
 
A D800 will eat almost all the OP's stated budget which needs to cover an FF "standard" lens as well, so my £2,000 would go on a 2nd hand D700 and 24-70 f/2.8.

As he said, his MB-10 will fit both his bodies, saving another few hundred quid (for a genuine Nikon one) and the batteries are also common to both.

Yes, the D800 is better in terms of resolution but the D700 is more than enough for most uses, even in Proland!
 
Excellent comments guys , taking on board all you are saying . I think with the additional costs/hassle with having a second body that is different might sway me more to the d700 . Such as memory cards,batteries,grip, plus having pictures 20-30 mb in size will also need spend else where . Bigger hard drives, back up discs . Faster processing power for editing pc and also extra space needed in the bag for additional accessories that won't be able to be interchanged between the 2 bodies . But then saying all that. I'll be buying a body that's already been replaced with newer models . So already "old" BUT will take outstanding images and be able to handle all situations very well .
As does my d300 to be fair .the d300 had amazing reviews when it came out so I know it can and will always produce great results, If it would create clarity like a full frame sensor I wouldn't even need to think about another body .
 
Nod said:
A D800 will eat almost all the OP's stated budget which needs to cover an FF "standard" lens as well, so my £2,000 would go on a 2nd hand D700 and 24-70 f/2.8.

As he said, his MB-10 will fit both his bodies, saving another few hundred quid (for a genuine Nikon one) and the batteries are also common to both.

Yes, the D800 is better in terms of resolution but the D700 is more than enough for most uses, even in Proland![/QUOTE]

I dare you to say that in the D800 thread.
Click to expand...
 
I would be happy to but there's little point and it could be seen as trolling. I have both bodies and bought the D800 for the extra pixels - it's a cheaper alternative to fast, long lenses. The 70-300VR or a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 both allow cropping far beyond that that the D700's pixies allow while keeping quality but for MOST uses, the D700 is plenty body enough.
 
My £2k would go on a second hand D700 and a 24-70mm 2.8 as well for what it's worth, no question about it. My 24-70mm 2.8 was second hand for that matter @ £900 and is absolutely mint so in theory, the pair could cost you quite a bit shy of £2k done right.
 
Me²;5544869 said:
My £2k would go on a second hand D700 and a 24-70mm 2.8 as well for what it's worth, no question about it. My 24-70mm 2.8 was second hand for that matter @ £900 and is absolutely mint so in theory, the pair could cost you quite a bit shy of £2k done right.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with this. Had a D300 and went to a D700, same camera in effect but much better performance. Brilliant setup
 
D600? Full frame, not much more than a 2nd hand D700 and plenty of mp's to be getting on with. Different batteries and charger etc but sometimes you gotta take the rough with the smooth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top