D300s or the D700????

[Parkerman]

Thanks for the informative replies guys. Not interested in the pissing match though. Any popcorn left?

Another question. (God forbid! LOL)

The wife is also interested in a new lens. Has anyone any experience with the 85 1.8 and the 85 1.4? Huge difference in price, but is it really worth it? Would these lenses create any differences in the pictures with either camera listed above? (or would one be better than the other?)

The difference is in the quality of the glass.

And there would also be a big difference between the D300 and the D700, with the 700 it wouldn't crop in on the image.. For instance.. The 85mm is a FX [full frame] lens. When you put it on a DX body.. it will make things appear closer... because the camera is not taking full advantage of the lens.

In otherwords... To fit things in the frame, you wouldn't have to be as far back with the D700 as you would with the D300.



*edit*

It can be like this picture... the green is Full frame sensor.. the Red would be a Crop sensor.



From Ken Rockwell

[Ads]

[unnecessary]

[. . .]
It is a bold statement but in reality the specs from the D700 more align with a D90 than they do a D3.
[. . .]

The D700 is basically a D3 stuffed into a prosumer body. The D700 has the same sensor, AF system, image processing system, monitor (LCD screen), startup and shutter lag speed--among other things--as the D3.

There's a nice review of the D700 over at dpreview.com which outlines all the similarities between it and the D3. I won't bother to repeat them here, but there are only a handful of differences, mostly physical (size, weight, viewfinder coverage, etc.)--none of which affect image quality.

If I were in the market for a new body, and I had the money for the D300s, I'd spend the extra $633 and get the D700. You don't need dual CF slots to shoot a wedding. Pros shot weddings for decades with only one roll of film in the camera at a time. Dual CF slots would be nice, but it's not a necessity.

The D700 is NOT a D3 in a different body.

You are the first and ONLY person i've ever heard say that.


The D700 has exactly the same image quality, and handles just a little bit better. I can't say anything better about the D700 than that. The D700 is a D3 with a smaller battery (unless you add the grip) and a cheaper finder screen system, and that's it. The D700 even has the superior rear thumb control of the D3, not the crappy single-piece thing from the D300.

Nikon D700

The introduction of Nikon's new D700 may have been one of the worst kept secrets in an industry with more leaks than the Titanic, but it was still something of a surprise coming so hot on the heels of the D3 and D300. Essentially a D3 shrunk down and squeezed into a body roughly the same size as a D300, the D700 is Nikon's first 'compact' professional SLR,

The D700 joins the D3 as a fully-fledged 'professional' model; it has the same tank-like build quality (though we're sure the pop-up flash will cause a few raised eyebrows), and gets you the full pro service from Nikon. And the pricing (around $2999) reflects this; anyone hoping for an 'affordable' semi-pro full frame Nikon SLR will have to wait until the cost of producing such large sensors falls considerably.

Nikon D700 Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

Like its big brother Nikon D3, D700 has incredible clean image at high ISO setting, 51 AF points with several tracking modes include 3D tracking. It shoots 5 fps but can be boost to 8 fps with battery grip attached. Unlike D3, it has compact size but it is not light

Nikon D700 Review

The D700 is Nikon’s second full-frame DSLR. Announced on July 1st 2008, the D700 essentially takes the D3’s large ‘FX’ format sensor and squeezes it into a D300-sized body. Along with being smaller and lighter than the flagship D3, it’s also comfortably cheaper, making the D700 Nikon’s first ‘affordable’ full-frame DSLR

Nikon D700 review Cameralabs introduction

[jcblitz]

Full frame vs crop has nothing to do with rating a camera pro, prosumer, or beginner.

I always believed Nikon's methodology on this was:

DX = Pro (D1, D2, D3)
DXXX = Prosumer (D100, D200, D300)
DXX = Consumer (D70, D80, D90)

Now we have to add:
DXXXX = Entry Level (D3000, D5000)

Sweet, never realized that.

[Kcc]

I don't wanna be sued !!! But I love the full frame body.
Now I am thinking of getting a D300s and a D700, when I have the money...than I will get the D3x too. But I will stick with my D60 for now, coz I am still trying to get enough flash to start a studio!

Kcc

[itznfb]

The D700 is basically a D3 stuffed into a prosumer body. The D700 has the same sensor, AF system, image processing system, monitor (LCD screen), startup and shutter lag speed--among other things--as the D3.

There's a nice review of the D700 over at dpreview.com which outlines all the similarities between it and the D3. I won't bother to repeat them here, but there are only a handful of differences, mostly physical (size, weight, viewfinder coverage, etc.)--none of which affect image quality.

If I were in the market for a new body, and I had the money for the D300s, I'd spend the extra $633 and get the D700. You don't need dual CF slots to shoot a wedding. Pros shot weddings for decades with only one roll of film in the camera at a time. Dual CF slots would be nice, but it's not a necessity.

The D700 is NOT a D3 in a different body.

You are the first and ONLY person i've ever heard say that.

You are kidding right?

If you think those are the only differences between the D3 and D700 then you're obviously high on something. And you've obviously never seen a D3 in person because it has the exact same 8 way directional pad with OK button in the center as the D300s and D700.

[itznfb]

Thanks for the informative replies guys. Not interested in the pissing match though. Any popcorn left?

Another question. (God forbid! LOL)

The wife is also interested in a new lens. Has anyone any experience with the 85 1.8 and the 85 1.4? Huge difference in price, but is it really worth it? Would these lenses create any differences in the pictures with either camera listed above? (or would one be better than the other?)

You/She would be perfectly satisfied with the 1.8... until you get the 1.4.

[unnecessary]

The D700 is NOT a D3 in a different body.

You are the first and ONLY person i've ever heard say that.

You are kidding right?

You are highly uneducated about cameras. You should give up photography as a whole and find a new hobby. It isn't for you

Sit there and ignore all the links from the highly credible websites I posted. There are even youtube videos where Nikon Representatives said the D700 takes most features from the D3 and fits it in a smaller body.
You are hilarious and a waste of time.

You are highly uneducated about cameras. You should give up photography as a whole and find a new hobby. It isn't for you

[itznfb]

You are the first and ONLY person i've ever heard say that.

You are kidding right?

You are highly uneducated about cameras. You should give up photography as a whole and find a new hobby. It isn't for you

Sit there and ignore all the links from the highly credible websites I posted. There are even youtube videos where Nikon Representatives said the D700 takes most features from the D3 and fits it in a smaller body.
You are hilarious and a waste of time.

You are highly uneducated about cameras. You should give up photography as a whole and find a new hobby. It isn't for you

Yep. I'm the one uneducated. Then tell me why every single pro out there is still buying a D3 when they can get the same thing for 1/2 the cost?

[PhotoXopher]

[kundalini]

[Guido44]

D300s has one CF and one SD card slot, correct?

correct

I'm missing something. My D300 only has a CF slot. What am I missing?

Pardon my dumbness or blindness .......?

[RONDAL]

d300 and d300s are two different models.

The D300s is the newly released and upgraded version of the D300 that incorporates both SD and CF card writers

[RONDAL]

You are kidding right?

You are highly uneducated about cameras. You should give up photography as a whole and find a new hobby. It isn't for you

Sit there and ignore all the links from the highly credible websites I posted. There are even youtube videos where Nikon Representatives said the D700 takes most features from the D3 and fits it in a smaller body.
You are hilarious and a waste of time.

You are highly uneducated about cameras. You should give up photography as a whole and find a new hobby. It isn't for you

Yep. I'm the one uneducated. Then tell me why every single pro out there is still buying a D3 when they can get the same thing for 1/2 the cost?

we get it.....you're right......the rest of the world is wrong. you purchased the faaaar superior camera when you bought your D300s, we will all now bow down to you and proclaim your greatness and the fact you are indeed a PRO.



ITS ME AGAINST THE WORLD AND DAMMIT IM GONNA WIN WHETHER OR NOT I LOOK STUPID DOING SO!

[Montana]

In reality, I cannot believe a wedding photographer has to ask this question on a forum.

If it were me, and I had a great camera like the D300, I would pair it with a D700. D700 for lowlight and wide to normal work. D300 for telephoto work. Possibly never haing to remove a single lens during the whole ordeal. If I had to choose just one of those bodies, it would be the D700....no question.

Not sure I really care if a camera is labeled as "pro" or not. But..............IMHO, if it has a pop-up flash its not pro.......pass the popcorn!

[itznfb]

we get it.....you're right......the rest of the world is wrong. you purchased the faaaar superior camera when you bought your D300s, we will all now bow down to you and proclaim your greatness and the fact you are indeed a PRO.



ITS ME AGAINST THE WORLD AND DAMMIT IM GONNA WIN WHETHER OR NOT I LOOK STUPID DOING SO!

lol. You're a joke dude. You know nothing. It's not me against the world. It's me and the millions that agree with me. The D3 costs twice as much yet its sales are still twice as high. The D700 is just about the only camera Nikon has ever sold that has had almost a $1000 price drop in the first year. Why is that? Because it's not worth anywhere near $3000. Yet the D3 is clearly worth $5000. Please. Explain why people continue to pay $5000 for a D3 but won't pay $3000 for a D700 when they are the same camera according to you. Stop your bitching and answer the question.