Why go back D700 to D300?

B

BlackCloud

Messages
1,795
Edit My Images
No
I've been contemplating a D700 for a while which would be a move from a D300. However, I've noticed a number of people sell their D700 to move BACK to a D300?! Why?
 
Can't answer for anyone else, but my move from D700 to D300 was purely financial. Got made redundant - something had to go. Now working self employed and happy as larry with my second hand D300. Do I miss my D700? Yes I do. 90% of the time I'm constantly amazed about the similarities between the two and I constantly wonder why there's nearly £1000 worth of difference between them. But that other 10% of the time - that low light/high ISO/low noise thing - my God, but that was astonishing. In some near future time all cameras will have that, but right now only a few have it and the D700 has it in abundance. And in the D700 it's affordable. Do I miss it - you betcha. Is it worth an extra £1000 - hmmmm, dunno.
 
Famous last words, but I cannot see a need for anything more than a D700 for a VERY, VERY LONG TIME :love:

IMO, don't require video, don't need any more pixels and the low light ability is stellar.
Film cameras used to go on for years and there should be no reason the D700 can't either (as long as you can get replacement batteries! :bang:
 
It comes down to the fact that I am never going to be allowed to spend that kind of money again on a camera :nono: - just need to buy expensive lenses now! :wave:
 
aberal said:
I know what you mean, but I'm willing to bet that the D700 will stand as a bench mark for many years to come.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I get the feeling it'll be looking very old in a few years time, but at least it won't be crammed with the same pointless "features" the D500/900 will....built in kettle anyone? :shake:
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Hmm, I get the feeling it'll be looking very old in a few years time, but at least it won't be crammed with the same pointless "features" the D500/900 will....built in kettle anyone? :shake:
Click to expand...

The Canon 5D was released in 2005 and that still isn't looking too shoddy!
 
i could never go back the D700 is something very special
 
Most times the difference isn't huge so I guess the only reason would be money. I agree with most here that the D700 is a benchmark, like the original 5D was. best combo is D700 and D300 as you get the advantages of both. I miss my D300.
 
personal preferance, i want to go back for the crop facter the smaller pixels on the same size sensor seem clearer to me greater depth of field. the only thing the d700 is better for is low light more vivid colours not to mention there seem to be more dx lenses than full frame around.
 
SimonTALM said:
I think one of the main photographic reasons for moving from a D700 to a D300 is that the D300 is a crop factor and therefore is slightly better for things like sports and wildlife.
Click to expand...

:plusone: Exactly why I went back and bought one


ditchdigger said:
i could never go back the D700 is something very special
Click to expand...

I would never think of moving from one body to the other as "stepping back".

At one stage I exchanged one of my D70 for a D40; to me that was a step-up .. simply because I would be able to carry a D40 more often and hence it becoming a P&S for me. Much smaller than a D70 and more compact, meant it gave me better opportunity to shoot.

Going from the D300 to D700 was a shift, not a step-up .. there are very few differences between the two, and the high ISO capabilities is the prime difference. Bar that, the D300 is a very good camera; and as it's a cropped sensor, it has that advantage (built-in teleconverter, if you care to think of it, in a way).

So, it's not really a step back, if anything the two complement one another.

It's an endless discussion that I have with friends; why buy a D700 if it's going to hinder your shooting ability .. a D700 may be a very fine camera, but if you're not going to carry it and bark at its' weight and complexity then its' extra features are of no value to you ... something "lesser" would be more beneficial.
 
SimonTALM said:
I think one of the main photographic reasons for moving from a D700 to a D300 is that the D300 is a crop factor and therefore is slightly better for things like sports and wildlife.
Click to expand...

I don't really understand this logic. Surely if you owned a D700 and shot sports and wildlife it would make more sense to buy a longer lens than a D300 body?
 
i changed from a d300 to a d700....never looked back.

low light handling, image quailty in studio, tonal range...to me all massive improvement and add to the fact d700 shots look nicer to me.

i cant imagine why anybody would go back appart from financial reasons and possible long focal length shooters who like the 1.6X crop.
 
I don't understand the crop argument for going back to DX format. I thought if you shot in FX then cropped by x 1.3 the image would be the same as if taken on DX format? Or in my lack of digital knowledge, simplifying things a bit?:shrug:
 
look through the viewfinder its MUCH clearer

i needed a real 50mm for concerts

that ment finding a 28mm f1.4 on the d300.it was cheaper to buy a d700

and the lens are real size its much better
 
treeman said:
I don't understand the crop argument for going back to DX format. I thought if you shot in FX then cropped by x 1.3 the image would be the same as if taken on DX format? Or in my lack of digital knowledge, simplifying things a bit?:shrug:
Click to expand...
That only gives you 5 megapixel pictures as against 12 on the D300.
 
I still find that a 50mm hits the sweet spot way better on a crop camera than on a FF. So some may like this option as the geometry is often much better on crop.
 
aberal said:
:thinking: Are you sure about this? Not arguing - just curious. What's the technical reason for that?
Click to expand...

You really have to look at two things..

The pixel count of the sensor and the maximum image size which the camera outputs.

The image of the subject recorded on the sensor will be the same size from a crop sensor as a FF sensor, but the FF sensor will record a wider field of view just showing more of the surrounding landscape. Crop away the surrounding landscape so both images are identical, and the FF image has already lost a lot of pixels.

Now crop both images to get a frame filling crop of your subject and the crop sensor ends up retaining more pixels under the actual subject, so you have a far more usable image.

The crop advantage for wildlife photography with long lens is very real and significant.
 
The other thing is - if you shoot a D3 in DX mode, you get a 5mp image. If you shoot a D3x in DX mode you get a 10mp image.

All you're doing is taking the centre part of the FF image, thereby just cropping it in camera.
 
The D700 would be all the camera I need, but I'd miss the extra reach you get from non full frame sensors.
 
PauloWanClift said:
The D700 would be all the camera I need, but I'd miss the extra reach you get from non full frame sensors.
Click to expand...

That's why, whenever you decide to move to FX keep one of your DX bodies .. always handy to have a 2nd body as spare and the crop factor is a Godsend.
 
CT said:
The image of the subject recorded on the sensor will be the same size from a crop sensor as a FF sensor, but the FF sensor will record a wider field of view just showing more of the surrounding landscape. Crop away the surrounding landscape so both images are identical, and the FF image has already lost a lot of pixels.
Click to expand...

Sure, but the FF has greater quality on those pixels. Seems to me though that this is an argument for not cropping in PP. It's not an argument against using a longer lens on a FF body.
 
The only time that I get jealous of D300 owners is when I see the weight and the prices of DX lenses, compared to the FX ones :naughty:.

Far too often I leave my D700 at home and take out my D40 instead, just because it's much smaller and lighter to carry - that's mostly down to the lenses that I use for each :|.

So, I can see why anyone with a good supply of DX lenses might favour the D300 :).
 
aberal said:
Sorry mate - but that link refers to using DX lenses on the D700 body. I don't think that's the same argument.
Click to expand...
I agree, I know the OP was asking about cropping afterwards, but I thought the principal would be comparable.
When using a DX lens on a D700 body the camera is effectively just cropping out in advance by only using the centre 5 megapixels to produce the shot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top