D300 Or D700

Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
12
Location
MB, South Carolina
Well I am sorry to have to ask this and bother everyone with this questions, but you all were very helpful with my questions on lens choices for the D300 I was set to order this week.

So here it is do I still get the D300 or go for the D700? I preordered it already and am at the top of the list so I will get there first shipment.

Here is what I was going to order this week
D300
Sigma 24-70mm 2.8
Sigma 150mm Macro 2.8
Nikon 85mm 1.8
Nikon sb-800

That was my budget to start with. Now if I did the D700 I could only afford the following
D700
Sigma 24-70mm 2.8

Now I am upgrading from my old Cannon 10D which I bought when it was first released so I keep the camera for a long time. So would it be wise to invest in the DX camera or go with the FX.
I will be shooting mostly shots of my children, landscapes , people shooting, and eventually some Macro stuff as well as in the future working as a backup for weddings for a friend that is a photographer.

Thanks again in advance for your help!
Dan
 
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
184
Location
United States
Hmmmm.... It seems to me that a 24-70 on an FX body would seem pretty short. I think it all really depends upon what you need to shoot. The D300 has excellent low light capabilities, but since the D700 uses the same sensor as the D3 I would expect that it would have outstanding low light capabilities. If your shooting environment often calls for these outstanding capabilities then it would be worth the extra $1200. If not, go with your original D300 order. YMMV.
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
6,062
Location
Upstate SC
If you aren't planning to shoot a lot with telephotos, and can justify the additional cost, I'd think the 700 would be the way to go.

For me, the high ISO ability is nice, but I'm excited about the amazing dynamic range. Assuming all the sensor functionality is there in the 700, the light/shadow work that can be done with this thing will be fantastic (it is with the D3)!
 
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
537
Location
MA
I will be shooting mostly shots of my children, landscapes , people shooting, and eventually some Macro stuff as well as in the future working as a backup for weddings for a friend that is a photographer.
Hi Dan,
Your interests are similar to mine. I can tell you that you would be happier with a full frame and the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8.
This combo is unbeatable for landscape and portrait. 24mm is plenty wide on FX for landscape, and 70mm is plenty long for nondistortion portrait.
I never really like the 24-70mm focal length on DX(36mm-105mm). It's not wide enough for landscape.
Macro on FX is a little tricky because of the narrower dept of field and if you're planning on shooting flying insects, you'll want the longer focal length lens(200mm f/4 micro).
 

Commodorefirst

Admin/Moderator
Administrator
Joined
May 1, 2005
Messages
20,938
Location
Missouri
Based upon what you stated you have shot, and If you can afford it, the 24-70 coupled with the D700 would be an outstanding package. I base this off of thousands of indoor pics with the D3 at the ranges you would have.

You would have a camera for the next 4-5 years that would serve you very well, (without lust for the next newest and baddest) and another many years while lusting after something newer after the initial 4-5 years.

Cheers,

Wade
 
Joined
Feb 11, 2006
Messages
6,446
Location
Riverside, CA
If you go D300, then you need a zoom with at least 17 or 18 on the wide end for landscape work. I would modify your first list: D300, Nikon 17-55, 85mm, SB-800, and either a canon closeup lens or some extension tubes instead of that macro. The 17-55 focuses really close, and add the canon multi element closeup lens and you are going to be as close as you need. If you must have macro, get the Nikon 105 VR instead of the 85. 85 is close to 55, so a 105 would give you more versatility anyway.
 
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
9,393
Location
Hazlet Township, NJ USA
I would go with the D700 and the 24-70mm and you really need to consider the SB800 to your list and you're set for the wedding shoots. Next on your list is 70-200mm Nikkor VR :)

Welcome to the Cafe!
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2007
Messages
452
Location
Los Angeles
I would go with the D700 and the 24-70mm and you really need to consider the SB800 to your list and you're set for the wedding shoots. Next on your list is 70-200mm Nikkor VR :)

Welcome to the Cafe!
I 2nd that and welcome to the Cafe. FX's overall image quality for wide and portrait is going to be better than DX. If you wanted range, DX is better for its 1.5x crop advantage.
 
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
12
Location
MB, South Carolina
Thanks Again everyone for the great help!!!!
I will go with the D700 and keep my name on the list :biggrin:
Hopefully between now and then I can get some extra cash to grab the sb-800
 
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
1,118
Location
England
I would go with the D700 and the 24-70mm... Next on your list is 70-200mm Nikkor VR :)
This is bugging me about the D700 (any FF) - I have the 80-200, and it seems the 24 or 28-70 would also be ideal for the D700, but I'd hate to have to constanly change lens around 70/80mm (which I use a lot - not bothered about missing 10mm, just bothered about changing lenses). I also wouldn't want to carry 2 heavy lenses that often. I'd be much happier with a 24-105 f2.8 if we can get something like that.
 
Joined
Sep 12, 2005
Messages
1,167
Location
Roseville, California
Depends on what your specific needs are. Do you need the greater pixel density offered by the D300 or the better high ISO performance of the D700 (assuming it is as good or better than the D3)? If you are shooting indoors and in low light, weddings ect, the D700 is probably the better choice. Shooting wildlife and I would say the D300 is the better choice with higher pixel density on your subject. As for landscape, I would think that you would want the higher pixel density. Lens wise, there are several superwide DX lenses that should work for you.

read more here...

http://bythom.com/d3ord300.htm

The good news is, these cameras are so darn good you really cannot go wrong either way!
 
R

ruchai

Guest
Get the D700, why buy an obsoleted model while you can get a new one? Ability to shoot at ISO 3,600 will be standard for all dslr from now on. I played with the D3 and was convinced about the fact. D3 is too heavy for me so I skipped D3 and now ready for D700. Thank you Nikon, keep up the good work!
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
3,121
Location
Santa Barbara, California, U.S.A.
Obsolete? The D300??? That's about the silliest thing I've heard recently - the camera is only on the market for 7 months!

There are many reasons why one would prefer DX over FX:

- The crop factor extends telephoto reach - a 300 f/4 on DX is almost as long as a 500 f/4 on FX, and costs over $6000 less!
- Lenses are typically smaller and lighter.
- Cheaper sensor manufacturing keeps the price down.

What are the advantages of FX? High ISO performance, that's about it. I don't shoot in dark concert halls or at night, so I'd rather save big bucks and have more reach.

The one thing I'd want in an FX camera - more resolution - is not available yet in the Nikon system. I may buy an FX body if it has 24 MP and costs under $2000, but not before then.

In the mean time I'll take plenty of great pictures with my "obsolete" D300 :smile:

Cheers

Mike
 
R

ruchai

Guest
What D700 will do is make your F/5.6 lenses behave like F/2.8 lenses. Will save you lots of weight and $$$$!
Big trucks became obsolete even before they were launched because of high gas price and availibity of Honda and Totota small cars. Not how long the products was launch, it usually because of more suitable products are available.
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
4,553
lol, how'd that song go? "In the year, 2510..."
Looking back at the trends and earlier predictions about the computer industry it is very evident that we usually overestimate the speed of technological development in ther short term. At the same time we underestimate it grossly in the long term.

A 12 Mpixel FX camera using the same sensor/electronics came down from $5000 to $3000 in just 8 months. Had the D700 been made of plastic aka D80 without weather sealing the price could be $2500 at the introduction and $2000 by year's end.

If a 24 Mpix Nikon D900/D3X with a Sony sensor will be introduced this year at something like $6500, it is probable that a $3000 "D700ish" version comes in a year and a $2000 "D80ish" version in 2 or 3 years.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom