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

[keko]

Different WB?

image is warmer (yellowish ?).

Going by the exif the two shots were taken a few hours apart and in AWB, which could mean that the difference in color may have been affected by a different WB also...

 

[sonyam]

They weren't taken a few hours apart, the D300 is still on CA time, LOL! So add 2 hours to the D300 time. They were taken a few minutes apart, however. Thanks for the reminder, I'll go set the clock now, :biggrin:

 

[feathermm]

Dumping D300s

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.
:

I keep looking for a good reason to dump a D300 and buy a D700. Can't find it with what my business has been like. Sure, I get the crummy low-light ceremonies that really stretch the limits of the D300 -- ISO 2000 is about the top useable number in my experience. But is 6400 worth $3K when I rarely sell a ceremony print and if I do it's never bigger than 4X6 inches.

I'd also like to replace my 28-70 with a 24-70, but that's $900 premium for 4mm and nano coating the customer is not going to give a hoot about.

The money in digital gear is absolutely mind boggling. I'd be looking at a $700-800 loss on the D300 if I sold it (it has more than 10K clicks because I'm forced to use it for work, as well as my business). Sure, I can depreciate it, but it would be nice if giving up all my weekends and evenings resulted in some money in the bank or a nice vacation at the end of the year rather than one more piece of rapidly depreciating gear.

Sorry this has gotten off track. I find the comps between the D300 and D700 very interesting, but the final question for someone who is trying to make money with this gear is "Will the customer be willing to pay an extra $10 per print for that look?"

Nope.

 

[LindaZ]

sorry, it's off topic, but have can I see exif with Safari?

 

[jonlee]

Sonyam - Thanks for the comparison. Slightly off-topic, but now that you have a full-frame digital body, will you be replacing your Sigma 30 1.4? If so, with what??

 

[Joe Marques]

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:

While I generally agree with your chip analogy, if you spend a great deal of your time shooting in that 5% range (ISO 6400) then the D700/D3 is worth it (probably wedding photogs are the biggest market).

I left Nikon initially bc of D2H noise above ISO 400. The 5D was an amazing camera and brought me to Canon (the D300 brought me back to Nikon). I think the D3/D700 noise performance has been that next big leap in noise performance as the 5D was to prior models. Still don't need either the D3/D700 so I'm with you - the D300 gets me 95% of the performance for 60% of the price.

 

[Nancy Elwood]

Just out of interest I took the first one and ran it through Nik Define 2.0. What do you think?

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Nancy

 

[watsonD50]

While I generally agree with your chip analogy, if you spend a great deal of your time shooting in that 5% range (ISO 6400) then the D700/D3 is worth it (probably wedding photogs are the biggest market).

I left Nikon initially bc of D2H noise above ISO 400. The 5D was an amazing camera and brought me to Canon (the D300 brought me back to Nikon). I think the D3/D700 noise performance has been that next big leap in noise performance as the 5D was to prior models. Still don't need either the D3/D700 so I'm with you - the D300 gets me 95% of the performance for 60% of the price.

Joe, I agree, if you are a high ISO shooter, than this is your camera and I am not sure if if anything on the market it better. I am just jealous I don't own one :tongue: thought call me 'out dated', but i am still honeymoning with my D200, but it's the body more than anything else that makes the D200/D300/D700 great if you ask me...


The D700 is pretty amazing when you look at the entire package: a fairly compact D200/D300 sized body with a full frame sensor for $3000, pretty good all things considered. I am happy to see Nikon is 'listening' to it's customers and I think it's going to be hard to predict what Nikon does next as they seem to be full of suprises these days....

 

[Nuteshack]

I keep looking for a good reason to dump a D300 and buy a D700. Can't find it with what my business has been like. Sure, I get the crummy low-light ceremonies that really stretch the limits of the D300 -- ISO 2000 is about the top useable number in my experience. But is 6400 worth $3K when I rarely sell a ceremony print and if I do it's never bigger than 4X6 inches.

I'd also like to replace my 28-70 with a 24-70, but that's $900 premium for 4mm and nano coating the customer is not going to give a hoot about.

The money in digital gear is absolutely mind boggling. I'd be looking at a $700-800 loss on the D300 if I sold it (it has more than 10K clicks because I'm forced to use it for work, as well as my business). Sure, I can depreciate it, but it would be nice if giving up all my weekends and evenings resulted in some money in the bank or a nice vacation at the end of the year rather than one more piece of rapidly depreciating gear.

Sorry this has gotten off track. I find the comps between the D300 and D700 very interesting, but the final question for someone who is trying to make money with this gear is "Will the customer be willing to pay an extra $10 per print for that look?"

Nope.

and i doubt u would lose any biz shooting a d4o and kits lens. quick, sell the 300's, replace them with d40's and book yourself a vacation...lol
:tongue:

 

[Kemnik]

While the full frame sensor is seemingly AWESOME!!!!, this thread actually is a good example of just how good the D300 is as well. I mean the D300 has perfectly usable images at 3200. Love these new bodies!!!

 

[tfenne]

OT Response - exif in safari

sorry, it's off topic, but have can I see exif with Safari?

If you're running Safari on a mac I can tell you what I do. I have a little program called "EXIF Viewer" sitting permanently in my dock. I just drag images out of Safari onto the icon in the dock and it pops up a window with a thumbnail view and all the exit info.

-t

 

[scooptdoo]

pa leeeeeeese.the focus is diff on the leaf in lower right image area for starters.different apertures at the very least.

 

[LindaZ]

If you're running Safari on a mac I can tell you what I do. I have a little program called "EXIF Viewer" sitting permanently in my dock. I just drag images out of Safari onto the icon in the dock and it pops up a window with a thumbnail view and all the exit info.

-t

Thanks!