How to choose between D300 and D700 ?

[cikguyan]

Dear Moderators and friends,
I have read a lot of reviews regarding D300 and D700 from the internet. I am keen to upgrade my cameras but just do not know how to choose between these two models. At present, I am using Nikon D80 and D40x with lenses nikon 18-200 mm VR,nikon 50 mm 1.8D, sigma 18-50 mm f/2.8 EC DX HSM macro, Tokina 11-16 mm f/2.8. I too own Nikon FM 2 and Nikon F80 with lenses like Tamron 28-200 mm and Nikon 36-72 mm.I shoot mostly portrait and landscape. Occasionally,wedding and group photos. My problems are:
(1) If I buy D300, will the quality of the photos improve a lot compare to D80?
(2) If I buy D700, then I'll have to get FX lenses because my old FX lenses wasn't good enough.
Please kindly give me some opinions. I thank you.

[luntut]

Originally Posted by cikguyan Dear Moderators and friends, I have read a lot of reviews regarding D300 and D700 from the internet. I am keen to upgrade my cameras but just do not know how to choose between these two models. At present, I am using Nikon D80 and D40x with lenses nikon 18-200 mm VR,nikon 50 mm 1.8D, sigma 18-50 mm f/2.8 EC DX HSM macro, Tokina 11-16 mm f/2.8. I too own Nikon FM 2 and Nikon F80 with lenses like Tamron 28-200 mm and Nikon 36-72 mm.I shoot mostly portrait and landscape. Occasionally,wedding and group photos. My problems are: (1) If I buy D300, will the quality of the photos improve a lot compare to D80? (2) If I buy D700, then I'll have to get FX lenses because my old FX lenses wasn't good enough. Please kindly give me some opinions. I thank you.

(1) getting a good camera will not improve your quality of photos. The difference in interfaces and controls between D300 and D80 will set u back for a while, before you learn to control the D300 and then, we might actually be talking about improvemnets in photos. However, if you talk about noise control, D700 is VERY much more significant in terms of control then D300, so if you wanna see something, get D700.

(2) yep, so if you change to FX body, you can only fully use D700 with the F80 lens only. However, you can choose to use the DX lens, by activating the DX crop mode, but of course, you will suffer a reduction in total pixels, which might prove to be a chore when you wanna do cropping...

[Leong23]

Originally Posted by cikguyan Dear Moderators and friends, I have read a lot of reviews regarding D300 and D700 from the internet. I am keen to upgrade my cameras but just do not know how to choose between these two models. At present, I am using Nikon D80 and D40x with lenses nikon 18-200 mm VR,nikon 50 mm 1.8D, sigma 18-50 mm f/2.8 EC DX HSM macro, Tokina 11-16 mm f/2.8. I too own Nikon FM 2 and Nikon F80 with lenses like Tamron 28-200 mm and Nikon 36-72 mm.I shoot mostly portrait and landscape. Occasionally,wedding and group photos. My problems are: (1) If I buy D300, will the quality of the photos improve a lot compare to D80? (2) If I buy D700, then I'll have to get FX lenses because my old FX lenses wasn't good enough. Please kindly give me some opinions. I thank you.

D300 will have better noise control, user interface and better AF than D80.

D700 will have better noise control than D300

Depend what you really need for, if you get the D700, you will be left with your 50mmf1.8 and both old lenses to use. Which mean you have to spends thousand or thousands of $$$ more to make full use of your D700.

Ask yourself, do you really need at D700, or just a D300 will do.

For me, i'm bring both D700 and D300 to the field, and D700 is really a amazing camera to use, but in some situation, the crop factor of the D300 is proven to be more useful.

In normal day, the D700 will be always be with me.

[TheChef]

Stay with DX. Wait for the upgrade to D300 (a few years old technology already) to launch and use your D80 for the time being. Money is hard to come by now, unless you are a high roller. I have thought about going FX as well, but shelved the idea for the time being, as I need to shell out about $13,000 on the trinity lenses and the FX body. Can cry man.

The weight of the trinity lenses and D700 body is very burdensome for me. I prefer to move quickly during my shoots and don't want to drag heavy equipment around. Hence, I don't want to spend so much money on a potential white elephant. Moreover, there are much more good DX lenses to choose from than FX lenses and some of these DX lenses from third party manufacturers are absolutely brilliant.

Yes, the 1.5X crop factor on DX format is useful to me. I only need to buy the range of DX lenses to cover until 300-500mm to achieve 450-750mm on FX. E.g. I only need to buy the 150-500mm Sigma lens for $1,600 to cover until 500mm. Most importantly, this lens is light and relatively compact to carry around. Also check out the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 lens. It is an absolutely brilliant performer. Don't take my word for it, try it yourself. This lens can even take formula 1 with great bokeh with minimal CA, distortion and vignetting.

I think to cover such a telescopic focal range on FX, you may need to fork out enough money to buy a small car. I have not factored in the logistics of carrying a standard 400 to 700mm lenses yet. My 2-cent worth.

No offence to those rich guys, high rollers and macho men who swear by FX technology.

[Ryvaleus]

I second the DX suggestions. You don't seem to do much shooting that would require the high ISO of the D700, and considering your lenses, switching to FX would be like starting all over again.

[Big Kahuna]

Very subjective, if you are not sure, why not get a second hand D300 for interim, I saw more and more people willing to let go at good price. You don't loose much if you decided to change to D700 again if it does not satisfy you

[bomby929]

I moved from D300 to D700 primarily due to the fact that I think the iso performance would help me, becos new born coming.. and the last time around, the lights in the hospital just cannot capture nice pics from my D300 without the use of flash and my 50mm is just too long.

Was in fact thinking of getting 35mm prime, but in the end, ended up with a D700.

Good thing is that my lens are mostly FX only two DX lens in my collections. So its quite ok. Sold the lens and got a new 24-70 f2.8.

The other thing I considered is that with this FX sensor, it should be quite a while before something better is out, and 12.1 mpx is enough to last foe the next 3 years.

The other aspect I have considered is that with a FX body, this will get me to consider more FX lens.. which IMHO is a better investment and I pay to use the entire frame of the lens and not a crop section.

In the end, my total investment on the move was around 3k after selling of D300 + lens.

[dccruzjr]

Try doing a google search "DX vs FX" and you will see lots of discussion and debates on other forums about these 2 formats.

Whether you have the money or not to buy either of the 2 formats, it really depends on the requirement you have.

FX= high ISO performance
- Would you be using this high ISO feature all the time?
- Would you be taking pictures in low light most of the time?


DX= 1.5x crop factor
- Would this issue limit your photography?
- Would your picture be less in quality if you where to get FX?

The above questions will give you some room for thought.
Base it on what you NEED and REQUIRE.

Try watching this video, to get you to think some more before investing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UucEfgIzoo4

Again, it all depends on the individuals capacity to either go for DX or FX.

[subzero]

Some sitaution u'll likely use high iso:
- In museum where flash is not allow
- Church where you want natural lighting
- Walking along the street at night when you do not have luxury of time to setup tripod for slow shutter speed or worrying picture will turn blur.
- Cloudy day by setting to auto ISO, reduce the chances to have under-exposed pics
- Taking pics of baby in your house as you do not want strong flash to shine on his/her eyes

But again above could be compensated with big aparture lens to certain extend and with ISO 1600 should be ok with D300.

[cikguyan]

Dear Moderators and friends,
I would like take this opportunity to thank luntut, Leong23, TheChef, Ryvaleus, Big Kahuna, bomby929, dccruzjr and subzero for giving me ideas on how to choose between D300 and D700. I really appreciate you all. Thank you very much.

[twisted illusion]

Originally Posted by cikguyan Dear Moderators and friends, I have read a lot of reviews regarding D300 and D700 from the internet. I am keen to upgrade my cameras but just do not know how to choose between these two models. At present, I am using Nikon D80 and D40x with lenses nikon 18-200 mm VR,nikon 50 mm 1.8D, sigma 18-50 mm f/2.8 EC DX HSM macro, Tokina 11-16 mm f/2.8. I too own Nikon FM 2 and Nikon F80 with lenses like Tamron 28-200 mm and Nikon 36-72 mm.I shoot mostly portrait and landscape. Occasionally,wedding and group photos. My problems are: (1) If I buy D300, will the quality of the photos improve a lot compare to D80? (2) If I buy D700, then I'll have to get FX lenses because my old FX lenses wasn't good enough. Please kindly give me some opinions. I thank you.

why not go and rent one each over 2 wk end, then decide... otherwise borrow if u got lobang...

[edmax]

actually, its very simple. If u are on a budget keep and use ur existing DX...else change to FX.....dun need to think so much one.

[sf_kang]

The 'debate' between DX or FX will never end; each has it pros and cons.
There is no doubt that image quality and details will be better with a FX sensor due to the larger image circle.
A bigger image circle requires 'bigger' lenses as compared to DX lenses, hence they will be heavier.
The bigger sensor also give better high ISO performance as compared with DX sensors.
So, if these points are important to you, go the FX route.
But if compactness, lightweight is important, then stay with DX.
If you choose to go FX, then there is no choice but to use FX lenses.
If you use a DX body, then both DX lenses as well as FX lenses will work, except that the FX lenses will be like 'overkill' - you'd be using only the middle portion of the FX lens' image circle hence image quality should be very good since the DX sensor uses only the centre portion of the FX lens' image circle.
I have owned the D200, D300, and now a D3. There is significant noticeable difference between a picture taken using the D300 and D3 when enlarged to the same sized print.
Hope this helps.
Fred

[cy_j]

Into wildlife and bird photography? DX greatly helps.

Into availalbe light and landscape shoots? I'd go for FX.

[diediealsomustdive]

Originally Posted by bomby929 ... with this FX sensor, it should be quite a while before something better is out, and 12.1 mpx is enough to last foe the next 3 years.

I like this... 12.1Mp FX sensor, friend or foe?

[diediealsomustdive]

Originally Posted by dccruzjr FX= high ISO performance - Would you be using this high ISO feature all the time? - Would you be taking pictures in low light most of the time? DX= 1.5x crop factor - Would this issue limit your photography? - Would your picture be less in quality if you where to get FX?

You forgot the price and weight factors that is in favour of DX.

Smaller, lighter, cheaper bodies and lenses. Compare D300 vs D700, almost half the price. Compare the lenses, you can get 15mm FOV for less than 1k.

You will lose 1-2 stop high ISO performance, when Mp count is the same. If your Mp count is different, like D3x vs D300, high ISO performances are the same.

For now, high ISO noise performance or higher resolution via pixel count, not both.

And the price to pay - D3x can buy like 6 D300.

Factor in the lens and the equation clearly favours DX, at least for now.

Originally Posted by cy_j Into wildlife and bird photography? DX greatly helps. Into availalbe light and landscape shoots? I'd go for FX.

Available light, FX only if it is same Mp count. But you can always try to get around the issue by getting large aperture lenses and a good tripod.

Landscape, I am not so sure. There is always the DX crop of UWA lenses, 10-20, 10-17, 11-16, 12-24, highly affordable, very well regarded, good lenses.

Personally I am sticking with DX until FX drops to $2k, then I will go FX.

Even then I will keep both DX and FX, using both to their strengths - weight and high ISO performance. For me 12.1Mp is good enough.

[garagez]

Originally Posted by Big Kahuna Very subjective, if you are not sure, why not get a second hand D300 for interim, I saw more and more people willing to let go at good price. You don't loose much if you decided to change to D700 again if it does not satisfy you

dis is a good advice,,, i will give the same advice


cheers

[diediealsomustdive]

Thom Hogan advises skipping a generation and I support that view.

E.g. if you have D70 skip D80 get D90, if you have D80, skip D90 and D300 and get the D300 replacement - akan datang very soon if you believe rumours.

I went from D70/S2Pro to D300. Will skip D700 or the akan datang D300 replacement. Probably D800?

[deklan]

i would just wait.
the the d300 just doest have that much stuff for me to want to spend the money and swap it for the existing d80 now.
the poor high-iso performance of the d80 really irks me, but i've waited so far, i would wait a little longer for the d300's replacement and see if Nikon impresses us.

With ur exisiting lens, going FX might be a big fire to ur pocket, think twice esp with the economy now....

[RasikaJ]

Well.. i use both the D300 (mine) and a D700(work)..

1) D700 is a much better at ISO1600+ (there is a difference at 800 compared to the D300).. guess D300 is better at hiISO than the D80..

2)Specially your 11-16 and full frame wides will feel much better..

3)I guess itll be sad to use any DX lens with a D700 with the cropping.. But, i guess as far as the future goes, FX is the way to go...

4)I guess ull need to get used to the controls of the D300 and D700...

5)The feel of the D700 and D300 are much much better that the D80..

6)Why not wait just a bit more and see what the D300 replacement would be.. (the rumored D400).. should have a sony 23+MP sensor with FullHD video capability.. worth a read i think,..