Nikon D300s vs D700

[DirtyDFeckers]

Hey guys, i'm shopping for a new camera, and I'm stuck between the D300s and the D700. I know that the cameras are quite different in the sense that of course the d700 is going to produce smoother and less noisy images due to the full frame, but is it worth the extra 1200 bucks? Do I go for the D300s now, or wait until I get the $ together for the d700? thanks in advance for the advice.

[TPF Sponsor]

[Light Artisan]

D300s is a crop sensor and the D700 is full frame, what do you shoot? I'm currently selling my D300s to help fund a D700 - but I have a D7000 for those times when a crop body would be more beneficial.

[Ub3rdoRK]

The lower light capabilities alone is worth that and the fact like light artisan said. No crop sensor.

I love mine. I would only replace it for a d3 series and that's still a stretch

Sometimes a crop sensor benefits you with telephoto lenses for wild life photography etc. Smaller sensor = dense pixel area. Could be good cooed be bad depending what you're shooting.

[Light Artisan]

Crop sensor isn't necessarily bad, just depends what your main subject is.

[Ub3rdoRK]

I agree. I went from a d90 shooting bands with a 50mm and a fisheye. To a d700 with a 17-35 and shooting with wide apertures and no flash the fx sensor helped out a lot.
Plus I didn't have to stand an extra 10 ft back from the stage.

If you want the better low light with a crop you'll need faster glass or a tripod. General well lit subjects any sensor would be fine. It's been said but it depends what you want to shoot

Glass is always a good benefit over the camera because it goes with any body you choose so if anything. Grab the d300 and get a nice $1200 lens

[kundalini]

Unless you already have top shelf glass in your quiver, the extra $1200 should go there first.

[tirediron]

Unless you already have top shelf glass in your quiver, the extra $1200 should go there first.

Pre-zackly!

[shaunly]

Being able to shoot in just about any kind of lighting alone is worth the extra money for me.

Unless you already have top shelf glass in your quiver, the extra $1200 should go there first.

I totally agree, but not all FX glass of great quality cost a fortune. There are many great sharp lenses out there for FF that are very affordable and some are even a steal.

[Light Artisan]

Being able to shoot in just about any kind of lighting alone is worth the extra money for me.

Eh, I can do that with the D7000 too... nearly as well as the D700.

[shaunly]

Being able to shoot in just about any kind of lighting alone is worth the extra money for me.

Eh, I can do that with the D7000 too... nearly as well as the D700.

"nearly" is subjective.

[ann]

Last year i went through this very question.

I would suggest you take a memory card with you and go to a camera store that has both and make test shots with both . Use the same focal length, etc. then go home and view the results on your monitor, NOT THE BACK OF THE CAMERA.

For myself, if i was going to be using basically jpeg files i would have gone for the d300, as i liked the results better than the d700; however, after a lot of teeth gashing i went with the 700 and love the results and 95% of the time I am using RAW files so my personal preference for jpeg files does not come into play.

Also , be sure your using a lens you own now, not a high cost one that is in the case.

[Ub3rdoRK]

Being able to shoot in just about any kind of lighting alone is worth the extra money for me.

Eh, I can do that with the D7000 too... nearly as well as the D700.

"nearly" is subjective.

agreed, Maybe I havent had much time on the 7000 but I cant imagine ISO 6400+ looks nearly as good as the D700

One thing you do have a smaller pixel density so it may even be sharper on a DX sensor than FX, but you cant sharpen blurs and movement that were not frozen due to less low light capability

[djacobox372]

The D700 will give you about 1.5 stops better iso performance, and about 1 stop narrower dof: less crop allows you to shoot closer to the subject with the same focal length and aperture resulting in a more narrow dof.

It also has a bigger/brighter viewfinder.

[DirtyDFeckers]

Last year i went through this very question.

I would suggest you take a memory card with you and go to a camera store that has both and make test shots with both . Use the same focal length, etc. then go home and view the results on your monitor, NOT THE BACK OF THE CAMERA.

For myself, if i was going to be using basically jpeg files i would have gone for the d300, as i liked the results better than the d700; however, after a lot of teeth gashing i went with the 700 and love the results and 95% of the time I am using RAW files so my personal preference for jpeg files does not come into play.

Also , be sure your using a lens you own now, not a high cost one that is in the case.

I wish I had a store around here that had high end cameras like these... The only thing we have in Savannah is a Wolf Camera, which doesn't carry anything higher than a D90.

As far as subjects go, I do occasionally shoot when light conditions aren't the best, but for the most part, I do shoots in well lit areas.... As of lately, I've been getting a few side jobs doing family portraits and things like that... How would the 300s compare to the 700 in that respect.

I have a nice lens that I have been using with my D5000, a Nikon 24-70mm F/2.8. So with that being said, would the 300s suit me well? Or should I just hold out for the 700?

[shaunly]

Last year i went through this very question.

I would suggest you take a memory card with you and go to a camera store that has both and make test shots with both . Use the same focal length, etc. then go home and view the results on your monitor, NOT THE BACK OF THE CAMERA.

For myself, if i was going to be using basically jpeg files i would have gone for the d300, as i liked the results better than the d700; however, after a lot of teeth gashing i went with the 700 and love the results and 95% of the time I am using RAW files so my personal preference for jpeg files does not come into play.

Also , be sure your using a lens you own now, not a high cost one that is in the case.

I wish I had a store around here that had high end cameras like these... The only thing we have in Savannah is a Wolf Camera, which doesn't carry anything higher than a D90.

As far as subjects go, I do occasionally shoot when light conditions aren't the best, but for the most part, I do shoots in well lit areas.... As of lately, I've been getting a few side jobs doing family portraits and things like that... How would the 300s compare to the 700 in that respect.

I have a nice lens that I have been using with my D5000, a Nikon 24-70mm F/2.8. So with that being said, would the 300s suit me well? Or should I just hold out for the 700?

Unless you really need the extra reach from DX, there's no reason to get the D300 especially when you have a glass like the 24-70/2.8