D300 vs. D700 first non-scientific test of ISO 2000

[sonyam]

I'm not getting rid of my D300, it's still amazing, just not quite AS amazing as the D700. I'll use them both I think. Besides, I need something to use my fisheye with, without losing pixels....

 

[keko]

Thanks Sonya!!!

Wow!!! There's a big difference in DOF, color and noise...

I can't wait to see Nute getting his hands on one of these... f1.4 is about to be reinvented...

I'll be visitng the US in September, I was thinking of getting the 85 1.4, but now I'm thinking D700, maybe both? Oh boy I'm in trouble...

 

[Hokum]

The edge preservation and sharpness is much better on the D700

 

[TristanCardew]

Full frame rocks my jocks.

I need a D700/D3. Now.

Enjoy your new toy Sonya!

 

[mycom]

I'm realy blown away by the difference in DOF between DX/FX. I did expect a difference but not that huge. Which could be a blessing or a curse - depending on what you want your pictures to look like.
You cant' get the shallow DOF on the D300, but if you can get increased DOF on the D700 - if you want - you just crank up the ISO and stop down further,, :smile:

 

[sonyam]

I'm realy blown away by the difference in DOF between DX/FX. I did expect a difference but not that huge. Which could be a blessing or a curse - depending on what you want your pictures to look like.
You cant' get the shallow DOF on the D300, but if you can get increased DOF on the D700 - if you want - you just crank up the ISO and stop down further,, :smile:

Or just keep them both and have the best of both worlds.

 

[cotdt]

The D300 is much better, better donate your D700 to me!

 

[watsonD50]

The real question

u have to ask yourself is it $1500 better ? :wink:

 

[Joe Marques]

u have to ask yourself is it $1500 better ? :wink:

Having paid more for a 5D (of course that was about 2 years ago so it's not a completely fair comparision), the D700 is a great value given the build quality, speed and AF. In fairness to the 5D, at the time the 1DsII was the nearest competion @ many thousands more. I think a wedding photographer would be a crazy not to own a D700 - ISO 6400 with available light is a dream.

BUT...there are too many people dumping their D300's IMO for a perceived need and not an actual need. The D300 is very good @ ISO 3200 (especially in print, that is still the goal of photos isn't it?), has great wide angle lens choices (Sigma 10-20, Tokina 11-16, or Nikon 12-24), and is suitable for very large prints. Not sure what the D700 can do for me now. 2 years ago the 5D had the FF appeal AND 50% more pixels vs. the 40D/1DII.

PS - none of this is directed at Sonya who I can see will take advantage of noise free @ 6400 with available light and shallow DOF shots of her children. :smile:

 

[sonyam]

I'm also a candid portrait photographer who prefers to use non-intrusive gear for photographing other families. Flash causes a *cheese* relflex in most people, and that's not what I go for. I will use the ISO capabilities of both cameras for that benefit. BUT the lack of DX zoom is a benefit as well since I shoot in people's homes and the wider angle is often necessary. I actually think these two cameras compliment one another, and yes, I'll make the $3000 back (based on average sales) in 2 or 3 sessions. I didn't get the 700 to replace the 300, I wanted them both. :Wink:

 

[LindaZ]

Both fine cameras, but if that first shot is with a D700, I'm very jealous.

 

[sonyam]

The top one is the D300 (notice the noise is greater).

 

[mood]

In print, these would look the same. .

I agree
I would expect the D700 to offer better at 1600 and up ISO

 

[Joe Marques]

I agree
I would expect the D700 to offer better at 1600 and up ISO

I think 3200 is close but 6400 and up is no contest. The D3/D700 sensor/processor is from another planet.

 

[Nuteshack]

I'm also a candid portrait photographer who prefers to use non-intrusive gear for photographing other families. Flash causes a *cheese* relflex in most people, and that's not what I go for. I will use the ISO capabilities of both cameras for that benefit. BUT the lack of DX zoom is a benefit as well since I shoot in people's homes and the wider angle is often necessary. I actually think these two cameras compliment one another, and yes, I'll make the $3000 back (based on average sales) in 2 or 3 sessions. I didn't get the 700 to replace the 300, I wanted them both. :Wink:

as the d300 gathers dust ..lol
:tongue:

 

[sonyam]

LMBO....I really will use both. Even when I had the D80/D300 combo I carried both around my neck to keep from having to change lenses. I pretty much kept the fisheye on the D80 and 85 on the D300. Probably do something similar now.

 

[watsonD50]

I think 3200 is close but 6400 and up is no contest. The D3/D700 sensor/processor is from another planet.

i agree the ISO performance is better, but from another planet - not quite convinced, i keep looking for that one amazing shot that spells out - 'this is why you need a D700', but i haven't found it yet Still a fantastic camera and i glad to see Nikon uping the ante, but i am not sold - you are paying more for the 'newness' of the technology more so than the actual performance, it' kinda like processors - the latest greatest intel chips are always $400, while the ones right under neath are around $70 - the difference in performance, about 5 %.

Would i like a D700, of course, but only if someone buys me one as a gift :tongue:

 

[LindaZ]

Oh? I liked the colors better in the first image. Oops. But yes I can see the noise difference.

 

[watsonD50]

the second

image is warmer (yellowish ?).

 

[davidzvi]

Thanks for the comparison. The 700 is looking better and better. I really like these non scientific test, I think they show more real world examples.

This was easy to tell which is which, but next time if you really want us to guess make sure you clear the metadata. :wink: