Thinking about it

Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
443
Location
Vancouver
Folks,

I am a Canon shooter and might be a Nikon convert soon (won't go into reasons here as I have already posted them in a different thread). I played with D300s and D700 in a camera store. Although they didn't seem to be too different in their looks, both of them felt different in my hand. D300s felt "nicer"/better ergonomically. I have a couple of questions for current D700 owners. At the moment, I can afford D700 so going full frame for an extra $1000 isn't going to be a problem if it is worth it. I am not a pro but a serious enthusiast who likes to shoot birds, bikes, portraits and my kids playing sports.

1: Did you consider D300s before buying D700 especially if you do any fast paced shots (indoor volleyball/hockey; motors ports, etc)? On the sports forum, I see a lot of pros using a D300s.

2: Can D700 do a 7-8fps with Nikon battery grip but without using en-el4 battery. This battery is crazy expensive.

3: Do you get any vignetting with the 70-200 mm 2.8 VRII lens?

4: Did you wish D700 had dual card slots (one of the reasons I am considering Nikon is dual slots).

5: The shutter sounded much louder than the D300s and the sales person said that that's how it is on D700. OUCH! Didn't sound like a modern DSLR.
Many thanks for your suggestions & recommendations.
 
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
745
Location
North Carolina
I did consider a 300s before I bought my 700. What got me is the full frame and the awesome high iso capabilities. I would like to have dual card slots but the iso outweighed that for me. If you use the grip with aa's, you can get 8fps. I use the sanyo eneloops all the time and it is awesome for sports. I use the 70-200 vr2 and while being no pro, I don't notice any vignette. As far as shutter sound, I think it sounds great. I came from a d80 and the 700 sounds more like a real camera to me where the 80 sounded like a toy. I would like to have a 300s as a second body and if I did I would probably use it for sports to get the extra reach provided by the dx crop factor but the 700 would be used for everything else and come out when the lights go down at the field. I usually shoot baseball and softball so I can't say much about indoors but I think the iso ability of the 700 would be a big advantage here as well.
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
4,553
Folks,

0. I am a Canon shooter and might be a Nikon convert soon ...

1: Did you consider D300s before buying D700 especially if you do any fast paced shots (indoor volleyball/hockey; motors ports, etc)? On the sports forum, I see a lot of pros using a D300s.

2: Can D700 do a 7-8fps with Nikon battery grip but without using en-el4 battery. This battery is crazy expensive.

3: Do you get any vignetting with the 70-200 mm 2.8 VRII lens?

4: Did you wish D700 had dual card slots (one of the reasons I am considering Nikon is dual slots).

5: The shutter sounded much louder than the D300s and the sales person said that that's how it is on D700. OUCH! Didn't sound like a modern DSLR.
Many thanks for your suggestions & recommendations.


0. Switching systems can be expensive in the long run and the differences are small overall. Pick one that has the lenses and accessories you need and stick to it. If money doesn't matter, then disregard my opinion. In this case I'd get both systems though. Keeping both is much more economic than selling/buying/selling/buying... :smile:

1. No, never.

2. Yes, 8 FPS with 8x AA batteries.

3. Don't own one. The VR1 vignettes but that doesn't bother me at all. The VR1 has extremely soft corners though which sometimes is disappointing. Closing down the aperture actually worsens this behavior. I got 200VR instead of the 70-200vr2.

4. Not really.

5. This isn't a question, so I'll just reply: 'Ok'.
 
Joined
Feb 28, 2006
Messages
4,216
Location
Belgium - Antwerp
0. I would carefully think this through, as switching is expensive. Have you considered a 1DIV? It might be ideal for you?

1. Yes, I did, but the D700 was more appealing in the end.

2. See Peter's reply

3. Don't own one.

4. No.
 
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
314
Location
Los Angeles, Ca.
I am not a pro but a serious enthusiast who likes to shoot birds, bikes, portraits and my kids playing sports.

I would seriously consider the D300s and spend the extra money on glass. Birds & kids playing sports usually require more reach and I think you would benefit from the 1.5 crop of the D300.

Just a suggestion, but if video is not of any interest I would suggest a D300 and save even more money. Used D300 (not D300s) are going for ~$800 used right now. A great bargain.
 
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
1,814
Location
City of Angels
the mirror is smaller in the d300s (might be obvious!) so expect full frame cameras to be louder in general

kinda true, but the 5DII is FF and has a MUCH quieter shutter. the D700 is very mechanical and deliberate sounding, whereas the 5DII has a more "digital" sound, almost artificial like the entry level nikon DSLR's.
 
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
443
Location
Vancouver
kinda true, but the 5DII is FF and has a MUCH quieter shutter. the D700 is very mechanical and deliberate sounding, whereas the 5DII has a more "digital" sound, almost artificial like the entry level nikon DSLR's.

Yes true, but 5dii doesn't do higher fps which is one of the gripes canon shooters have with it. Canon really dropped the ball on 5dii's focussing system. It shines in it's IQ though.
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
883
Location
St. Louis
Real Name
Mike
1: Did you consider D300s before buying D700 especially if you do any fast paced shots (indoor volleyball/hockey; motors ports, etc)? On the sports forum, I see a lot of pros using a D300s.

2: Can D700 do a 7-8fps with Nikon battery grip but without using en-el4 battery. This battery is crazy expensive.

3: Do you get any vignetting with the 70-200 mm 2.8 VRII lens?

4: Did you wish D700 had dual card slots (one of the reasons I am considering Nikon is dual slots).

5: The shutter sounded much louder than the D300s and the sales person said that that's how it is on D700. OUCH! Didn't sound like a modern DSLR.
Many thanks for your suggestions & recommendations.



1: I've owned both. D700 all the way. D300s was good but only better in the reach department.

2: Answered above

3: I've owned VI and VII. VII does not vignette that I can tell. My VI definitely had vignetting but on FX only. Wasn't that noticeable to be honest and could easily be corrected. It made for nice pictures as it was a very soft and light vignette.

4: Not really although doing events I can see how it has it's advantages on my D3s. If needed it you would know. Backing up to it is nice and so is being able to keep a copy of the pics if you turn your card into runners who take pictures back to a central place for processing, otherwise not needed and is just insurance or extra space without having to switch cards depending on how you set the camera up.

5: D700 and D3 lines have very solid shutter slaps. I like to hear my D3s shutter. It is a pro body and feels like it. The D3s has a quiet mode which calms that somewhat. If you go to FX and try out a DX camera afterwards, the DX cameras sound very toy like and weak. haha :biggrin:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
7,500
Location
Los Angeles, CA
1: Did you consider D300s before buying D700 especially if you do any fast paced shots (indoor volleyball/hockey; motors ports, etc)? On the sports forum, I see a lot of pros using a D300s.

I owned a D300 before the D700, and I would still go with the D700 even if I shoot sports. My D300 had issues above ISO 800, really frustrating at times.


2: Can D700 do a 7-8fps with Nikon battery grip but without using en-el4 battery. This battery is crazy expensive.


Yes, with AA batteries in the MB-D10 tray. Most prefer Eneloops.


3: Do you get any vignetting with the 70-200 mm 2.8 VRII lens?


Yes, but not as bad as VR1. It's fully correctable in LR in one click.


4: Did you wish D700 had dual card slots (one of the reasons I am considering Nikon is dual slots).


Sometimes, but no not a big deal for me.


5: The shutter sounded much louder than the D300s and the sales person said that that's how it is on D700. OUCH! Didn't sound like a modern DSLR.
Many thanks for your suggestions & recommendations.


Besides my Nikon FE's loud "clunk", the D700 has the loudest mirror slap I've ever heard on a DSLR. and I've shot a D3s, 5D2, 60D, D300, etc. It can be embarrasing in a quiet church. :redface:
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
8,415
Location
Maple Bay, Duncan, BC, Canada
Real Name
Andreas Berglund
1. I have had both the D300 and D300s, I currently have a D3 and a D700, IMHO the D3/D700 is 2 stops better then the D300s. That alone makes such a big difference that I sold my D300s and will not waste any more time on DX cameras after this unless the ISO perfomance is as good as the D3/D700. I shoot birds mainly and some indoor low light BTW.
2. Yes it can do 8fps with the regular battery but you do need the grip.
3. The 70-200 VRII doe snot have much of vignetting on a D3-D700, and if it does at some instance it is easy to fix in Photoshop CS5 there is alens profile that does it automatically. If you shoot JPG the camera has built in Vignette correction.
4. I have dual cards on the D3, 16GB Cards in both of the slots, I have never filled the first card. So I dont think it is absolutly necessary with dual slots. If one wants dual slots I think one CF and one SD is a bad combo, I dont want to have two kinds of cards....
5. The D3 has the sweetest shutter sound of them all, so fast so distinctive.
6. D3/D3s instead of D700? No not unless you want 9FPS, AF is the same and the D700 (and D3s) unlike the D3 has sensor cleaning, very useful....

Folks,

I am a Canon shooter and might be a Nikon convert soon (won't go into reasons here as I have already posted them in a different thread). I played with D300s and D700 in a camera store. Although they didn't seem to be too different in their looks, both of them felt different in my hand. D300s felt "nicer"/better ergonomically. I have a couple of questions for current D700 owners. At the moment, I can afford D700 so going full frame for an extra $1000 isn't going to be a problem if it is worth it. I am not a pro but a serious enthusiast who likes to shoot birds, bikes, portraits and my kids playing sports.

1: Did you consider D300s before buying D700 especially if you do any fast paced shots (indoor volleyball/hockey; motors ports, etc)? On the sports forum, I see a lot of pros using a D300s.

2: Can D700 do a 7-8fps with Nikon battery grip but without using en-el4 battery. This battery is crazy expensive.

3: Do you get any vignetting with the 70-200 mm 2.8 VRII lens?

4: Did you wish D700 had dual card slots (one of the reasons I am considering Nikon is dual slots).

5: The shutter sounded much louder than the D300s and the sales person said that that's how it is on D700. OUCH! Didn't sound like a modern DSLR.
Many thanks for your suggestions & recommendations.
 

Rob Zijlstra

A Koffie Drinker
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
999
Location
Netherlands
Besides all the points mentioned, there are two other things in my eyes that would suggest a FF camera (the D700). I own one and came from the D80 (DX)

1) The whole experience of the FF camera is much better. A big view screen which allows me to use my old lenses. I can easily live without automatic focusing and have no trouble at all to use them.

2) The high ISO. It's quite normal for me to use the D700 with ISO 4000 or so. Pictures are good. Sometimes they need a bit of pp'ing, but usually even that is not necessary.

These point are personal opinions:smile:, but if I was in your position, I wouldn't hesitate one second and buy that D700!
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2009
Messages
638
Location
NE OH
For shooting indoor sports like hockey and volleyball, you'll appreciate the high ISO capabilities far more than the added reach of the D300s. Most hockey rinks are dungeons so you'll be bumping up to 5000 to 6400 ISO constantly while trying to maintain adequate shutter speeds to freeze the motion. If anything, you'll start thinking about the merits of a D3S and its even higher ISO capabilities after shooting hockey more than a D300s.

If you were mostly shooting field sports (football, soccer, lacrosse) the added reach of the DX camera might make sense but for hockey you seldom want to go beyond 200 if you're shooting off the bench or 300 from an end zone so the extra DX reach doesn't buy you much given you're sacrificing ISO capabilities...
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
145
Location
Canada
I bought a D300 after my D700 for back up. I never use my D300 and plan to sell it someday.

I have a D300 and the adapters for the en-el4. Not worth it unless you own a D3 and want to share batteries.

I own a 70-200 VRI and I consider the vignetting problem is exaggerated. I do not feel the need to upgrade.

Dual card slots are nice but not necessary. I personally don't find they always suit my needs.

Yeah the D700 is loud but not a deal breaker at all given the awesomeness of it.
 

Latest posts

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
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom