1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

why do I want a D700 ???....

Discussion in 'Nikon FX DSLR Forum' started by mood, Jul 28, 2008.

  1. mood


    Jun 27, 2007
    So Fla
    been planning on a D300 all along after the inevitable price drop and initial surge of orders

    now I find myself wanting the D700 instead..

    do I need iso 6400.......probably not
    a clean 1600 is all I desire...the D300 shoiuld be fine here
    both are 12 mp

    isn't 24mm on FF the same as 16mm on DX , roughly ?

    then there is the small issue of 2xs the price...

    guess too many choices is better than too few....
  2. rlacy


    Apr 22, 2007
    San Diego
    Deja Vu

    Wow. I could have written this thread. I feel exactly the same way. I have had my D2X for 3+ year now, loved it, but now feel that NAS coming on strong. I have been watching prices for good D300's drop to the $1300 level and they will probably go lower. That is in my price range.

    However, now I keep reading the ads and reviews of the D700 and I want that!! I do landscapes so super high ISO performance is not that big of a deal to me and 5 fps is plenty. I can shoot wide with DX since I have the 14-24 (a super lens by the way), so why do I keep reading the D700 ads and lusting?

    Let me know what you figure out. It may help me too!

  3. mood


    Jun 27, 2007
    So Fla
    Im not much of a wide shooter
    16-18 on DX is plenty for me

    so with that logic, 24 is probably good for me on FX

    if the D700 was $2000-2500
    would be easier
    $3k is alot of cash

    at some point my commom (CFO) sense will kick in and I'll grab a D300

    maybe 2 years or so...the FX will be $2k or less,,,,

    good luck to you too !!
  4. jfenton


    Jan 26, 2005
    Haverhill, MA
    Define "Clean ISO 1600"

    All depends on your needs, but the D300 1600 is a different animal than the D300 1600.

    Personally, I won't shoot the D300 above 1000 and prefereably not above 800.
  5. Nuteshack

    Nuteshack Guest

    in light of the recent global economic melt-down u might very well see the d700 about $2500 by xmas, maybe less .....;-)
  6. Eye Spy

    Eye Spy Guest

    The D300 at ISO 1600 is clean ONLY if you haven't seen the D700 at 1600! There really is no comparison....
  7. mood


    Jun 27, 2007
    So Fla
    really Jim?.
    I have seen some pretty good ISO 1600 from the D300 ( on the web anyway)
    and I'm sure you meant D3 1600 is cleaner than D300 1600

    seems to me the D80 I had, and the D200 pretty much were good until 800
    so the D300 offers no better ?

    hope I can wait until then
  8. mood


    Jun 27, 2007
    So Fla
    is that so........
    I assumed the FX advantage really kicked in above 1600
  9. I shot this at iso 1250. Now, I do not normally go that high on the D300, but I was pretty pleased with the results. It is really alot to do with the exposure. Also, most of the photography is outside so really if I needed more iso on a shot it probably is not worth taking, for there really is not enough light. PP in NX2

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

    All the best
  10. mood


    Jun 27, 2007
    So Fla
    thanks Nancy
    and I agree
    the exposure is important all the time, even more at the higher ISOs
  11. Both seem to offer remarkable dynamic range. From what I've seen, the 700 has a slight edge, but whether or not it's worth the loss of apparent magnification for wildlife should play a part in the equation. I'm picking up my 700 in the next day or so, but will keep a dx body for the foreseeable future. I plan to try to budget for a 300 sometime next year. Meanwhile, I'm in an architectural/landscape sort of mode right now, so the 700 seems to fit better with my current needs. The 200 will serve me well in the short term when I need that extra reach for the birdies with the 500...
  12. avyoung


    Dec 17, 2007
    I the relative darkness of winter...

    I was regularly using ISO 1600-3200 and really impressed at what the D300 could do.

    Now that I have been using ISO100-800 mainly during summer, I have a hardtime exceeding ISO1000 as my eyes can see the difference in color saturation and noise at ISO 1600 above much easier now.

    I would love the improved ISO of the D700, but the D300 is sufficient for my needs. Cost and size (of the lenses) would be too large for me at the moment to move to a D700, but I can feel your NAS pain!

    Good luck deciding!
  13. mood


    Jun 27, 2007
    So Fla
    thanks for input everyone

    I'm not into wildlife above the local deer,zoo etc offers, my 70-300 will suffice at this time
    I only have 2 DX lenses, so thats not much of a problem
    I might sell them and my D50, and get a film body for kicks
  14. Tosh


    May 6, 2005

    It's tough to fight the desire for the latest techno marvel.
    It's hard to believe, but a year ago, the D2HS was the high iso king of the Nikon world.
    Now the D300, which bests the D2HS in that regard, is being found wanting by some shooters and cast aside.
    I'm almost hoping that high iso technology hits a brick wall so that I can stop chasing cleaner images.
    Left to my own willpower, I'm not all that optimistic on stemming my own lustful pursuit.
  15. mood


    Jun 27, 2007
    So Fla
    exactly Glenn

    I was all set for the D300, and heard nothing but praises for its high ISO, relative to the D3 anyway

    now of course, its old news, so to speak, with the D700 out..

    it never ends I guess
  16. Donzo98


    Nov 10, 2005
    Merrick, NY

    It never ends...

    I wound up with a D3.... and love it. The high ISO images are great. If you are happy with the build quality the D700 is your gateway to that same IQ.

    Go for it...:eek: :eek: :eek: 
  17. mood


    Jun 27, 2007
    So Fla
    thanks Don
    I just might....:Shocked:
  18. Frank, along the same lines, the D700 and D300 really appear to be designed to be the perfect compliment to one another. Since you don't have a fortune tied up in DX glass, and you don't have a big need for big glass, the simple solution would be start with one (presumably the 700), then add the other as the budget allows. That's my long term plan, though I think with a perfectly nice D200, I'll pick up a couple of lenses I need first.
  19. mood


    Jun 27, 2007
    So Fla
    thats what I was thinking vinman

    sell off my 18-70 and 30 1.4

    pick up a 24-85 or 28-105 for walk around and landscapes, as stopped down they are pretty good

    at some point upgrade to 24-70..

    etc :eek: 
  20. Triggaaar


    Jun 15, 2008
    I respect your work Jim, but you're wrong here :wink: :biggrin: :tongue:

    As all have said though, it's not simply that all images from 200 to 1600 are perfect, then they're unacceptable, so while the D300s images at 1600 are very good, the D700s are better.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.