D700 or D300

momji1971 · #1 (**permalink**) 30-07-2009, 09:44 AM

In a bit of a pickle. Can't decide whether to change over from the nikon D300 to the D700.

I like the fact that I get more 'reach' from the d300 but can't help wondering whether its worth the sacrifice to get more shutter speed with the D700.

I'm remembering Autumn/Winter last year and the light was dire to say the least. Especially for birds in flight. Had to really crank up iso to get a shutter speed fast enough to freeze wing movement. Then if I crop the noise is just to noticeable for me with the D300.

Any thoughts? Any wildlife shooters with experience of the D700?

All help/thoughts gratefully accepted!

regards.
Stu.

Fourwings · #2 (**permalink**) 30-07-2009, 10:50 AM

I've no experience personally with Nikon DSLR's, I use that other well known make begining with C.

I know of several people that use a Nikon D300 and their results are awesome, especially in bad light conditions, the D300 seems to be practically noiseless at over 1000 ISO which is a massive benefit for shooting in the UK where we quite or maybe I should say too often have to put up with poor light

pressld2 · #3 (**permalink**) 30-07-2009, 10:59 AM

I think you've already homed in on where the real difference lies between the two...

D300: DX size sensor means your 400mm lens behaves like 600mm and gets you nice and close.

D700: Full frame sensor means you can push the ISO higher and still get acceptable results.

I didn't have this problem when I bought my D300 as the D700 hadn't yet been released and the D3 was way out of my price range. So for me there was no choice.

If I were buying now I think I would still go for the D300 because the reach is more important to me than the high ISO performance. I regularly find myself wishing I could get a bit closer but only occasionally wish I could use a higher ISO.

I don't want to start a fight with Steve (

) but I still don't like using my D300 above ISO 400 as I think the noise levels start to get intrusive. The D700 (and D3) can safely be pushed up to ISO 1600 and even beyond.

Dave P.

momji1971 · #4 (**permalink**) 30-07-2009, 12:06 PM

Canon shooters eh!

Thanks for the replies chaps. I'll push the iso to about 640 but the exposure has to be spot on to avoid excess noise. I've seen images at Grigin from a D3 shooter at 1600 iso and they really looked like 200 on the D300.

Will spend the next couple of weeks giving this some serious thought. I think not a day goes by when I don't wish I had more reach so you have a point.

You've given me something to think about.

Thanks again chaps.

regards.
Stu.

Tobyh · #5 (**permalink**) 30-07-2009, 12:07 PM

Personally I rarely want for higher ISO, reach is more important. I often shoot at ISO of 800 and find the D300 handles it really well - and you always have the option of post processing to reduce it a bit if need be.

Personally I'd rather put that money towards faster glass :O but maybe you are sorted in that area.

TobyH

momji1971 · #6 (**permalink**) 30-07-2009, 01:12 PM

Thanks Toby. Last purchase was a 500 f.5 so sorted in that department.

Guess I'm overly critical.

Got a couple of good shots of Marsh Harrier recently at 800iso but after reviewing the images later found there was still wing movement. The D700 could have handled the same shot at 1600 and double the shutter speed with better quality. BUT would have meant a crop going from fx 500mm to dx 750mm.

Gonna shoot lots over the coming weeks and decide.

Thanks for the reply. Wanted to hear what everyone thought. Don't really trust reviews. Much prefer to speak to photographers using the gear.

regards.
Stu.

pressld2 · #7 (**permalink**) 30-07-2009, 08:05 PM

Hey Stu, you now have a third option...

Nikon UK - Products - Catalogue - Digital Cameras - SLR - Professional - D300S - Overview

I'm really not that bothered about the HD Movie mode myself and can't understand why this seems to be such a popular feature in DSLRs. To me, stills and video are very different beasts and trying to do both in the same piece of kit means too many compromises.

The thing that interests me the most about this model is:

Quiet shooting mode: perfect for discrete photography, the sound of the camera’s mechanisms are noticeably reduced.

Other than that it's not very different from the current D300. You get one more frame per second in burst mode and an SD card slot as well as the CF slot but that seems to be it.

Dave P.

sidewalkdoctor · #8 (**permalink**) 30-07-2009, 09:52 PM

Re Nikon D300s

Quote:

Dual card slots Either card can be used as the primary card; secondary card can be used for overflow or backup storage, or for separate storage of NEF (RAW) and JPEG images; images can be copied between cards

Sounds like a good idea............

momji1971 · #9 (**permalink**) 30-07-2009, 10:40 PM

Thanks chaps. Well spent most of today thinking hard about it. Yep, heard about the 'new' 300s. Hate the idea of video being in my dslr! It's just gonna bump up the price for something I don't need. I'd buy a decent video camera for that! lol.

Anways Dave. Think your right with the reach versus iso thing. Can't afford to get the D700 and then spend £5,000+ on a 600 f4!!

So, tonight I've ordered the grip for the D300 which will take my fps to 8 and thom hogans book.

Then lots and lots of time in the field with it! Thanks for taking the time to reply.

kind regards.
Stu.

pressld2 · #10 (**permalink**) 30-07-2009, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by momji1971

Yep, heard about the 'new' 300s. Hate the idea of video being in my dslr! It's just gonna bump up the price for something I don't need. I'd buy a decent video camera for that! lol.

My thoughts excactly Stu!

Quote:

Originally Posted by momji1971

So, tonight I've ordered the grip for the D300 which will take my fps to 8 and thom hogans book.

Good plan! I got the battery grip a few days before I got the camera (ordered from a different website) and I wouldn't be without it.

Dave P.