Nikon D300s or D700?

S

stuartm1

Messages
165
Edit My Images
No
I currently have a D90 which I'm more than happy with but there's been times when I've needed a 2nd body and missed the odd shot having to exchange lenses.

I have the AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II which will work perfectly on an FX whereas all my other lenses are DX. My very next purchase will be the Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8 which leaves me with a dilemna on what 2nd body to purchase. I normally do street shooting, landscapes and sports which sort of covers both FX & DX. I do like the advantage of a cropped sensor with DX and extra magnification, however I already have this with the D90 which leans me slightly towards the D700.

Ignoring the crop factor does the D700 produce better quality shots over the D300s?

Do you think I should go for the D300s or try full frame with the D700?

To throw a spanner in my decision I read that Nikon is withdrawing the D300s and D700 from the Japanese market http://www.digitalversus.com/nikon-cancels-d300s-d700-japan-news-21983.html

Also when I buy a new Nikon DSLR, a new version always appears within months which kinda puts me off although I don't need the body right now but probably will by spring time.

Appreciate any feedback:)
 
Tough decisions all around. The D700 is brilliant, everyone says. I have not had the pleasure of using one, however, so cannot comment. My D300 does very well, though, and I get nicer shots than one might expect. The D300s is a step up with video, of course, but the same sensor.

The difference in cost, though, between a D300s and D700 would go a long way to paying for the 24-70 that you want.

I've debated this with myself for six months...and not come to a conclusion. If money is no issue, buy the D700, but you'll want more glass right away than just the 70-200, so you'd better figure in the cost of that, too.
 
D700 all the way, i use one as a second body with a MKI 70-200mm shooting professional Rugby League and its great, AF is or course a bit slower than a D3/D3S but it does the job and very well under some terrible lighting conditions.
 
D700 all the way, as you have the D90for DX if you need it. Nikon are announcing something in Dec so if its not urgent wait till then as you can either look at D800 (or whatever its called) or get a cheaper D700 as prices are very high right now and will drop when people move to new model.
 
If you can afford it then the D700 is the way to go.
 
You seem to have a clear idea of how you can use both DX and FX in your photography and on-paper, having both formats (D90/D300s + D700) does make sense if you want to cover a bit of this and that, using the DX's 'magnification' to give your long lenses more reach.

However, it's hard to compare cameras like-for-like when there are massive differences in age and technology. If there is a Nikon DX body round the corner that has similar high ISO handling to the D700 then that would be a fairer comparison. However, until we see the D400(?) it's all supposition.

The D300s has video if that's something that interests you, albeit video that's not been as well received as many would have liked. The next generation of Nikons will (I hope) have brilliant video functionality.

Between the two I'd go for the D700 if I had the D90 already, just to mix systems. However, I do believe that some of the DX-oriented lenses like the 17-55mm are as good as the FX lenses and take the high ISO factor out of the equation, they make DX a very good format to stick with.
 
Last edited:
Since you'll have the 24-70 and 70-200, I would definitely get the D700, seeing as both of those lenses work brilliantly on fullframe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top