Talk to me about the D300/s and D700

L

Lazgoat

Messages
63
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
I've got a D200 and I'm seriously considering an upgrade to something with better ISO and AF. I've got a few lenses, Nikon 18-200VR, 50mm f1.8, Sigma 10-20 and Nikon 70-300VR to consider in the upgrade.

Firstly, am I right in thinking that the nikon 50mm f1.8 and 70-300VR will work fine on an FX body?

A D300 or D300s seems like the logical progression as all my lenses would work, however the D700 looks to be perfect in all aspects. Is the AF and high ISO performace of the D700 significantly better than the D300 that I should should ditch DX for FX?

I tend to shoot landscapes, portraites, wildlife and a bit of motorsport. The extra reach afforded by the DX body is useful.

Any thoughts on this dilemma?
 
high iso is amazing, if you're shooting wildlife and motorsport though i think you'll miss the extra reach of the crop factor

if i didn't need higher isos for the weddings i'd still be on the d300 and happy as pie.
 
I have a D300 and like it, BUT I would love a D700. I use mine for baby/family pics and sometimes need to work in lowish light. The D700 would be perfect. I would miss the reach on the occasional trip to Duxford and the like, but overall the D700 would be my choice as the ISO would be great plus the full frame niceness!

That said the D300 is not a bad piece of kit. I tend not to go above 800iso and never above 1600. I think it depends on the split between motorsport, wildlife as opposed to landscapes and portraits.
 
just as a consideration and not wanting to infer that i'm insulting the above poster but don't get caught up in the "full frame niceness" malarky, there might be some kudos/coolness/whatever with having full frame but honestly i've had both the d300 and d700 the only difference for me is crop factor and high iso apart from that there is no "niceness" they do their jobs :)

if you need smoothness at 3200-6400 go d700
if you're fine without then go with the d300 for the reach :)
 
As a great all round camera it has to be the D700. It does it ALL. For me the low light capability is really beneficial. I shoot a lot of indoor equestrian stuff were light is often poor. But for this I probably would still be using Canon. No going back now.
I'm really pleased with mine, never tried D300 though.
 
The more I think about it the D700 seems to tick all the right boxes. All the D300 and D300s' I've seen second hand seem to be selling for £850+, and a few fleabay sellers have new D300s' for under £1000.

The D700 would be about £13-1400 for a mint second hand one. I could stomach the extra £3-400 for the D700, but I've read on these forums that typical prices for the D300 is £650'ish. I've yet to see one at that price. Do these things tend to sell in cycles and is it just a dry patch now hence the high S/H prices? At half the price of the D700 I'd go for it but at the moment the D700 seems like a no-brainer.

Or am I missing something?
 
I believe you're correct, both of the lens you mentioned will work fine on the D700. As mentioned, the only difference you really got to think of is ISO vs Reach. Which is most important to you. The D300 is pretty good ISO wise, but once you get into the thousands it's gets quite noticable. On the other hand, how often do you need high ISO? That's the question you need to ask. If you shoot a lot of low light then yeah, it's a no-brainer. If not, then D300 is the way to go.
 
I have both and the iso on the D300 is not a patch on the D700, also you could always put a x1.4TC to get the reach back
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top