D300s or the D700????

Insp Gadget · Sep 9, 2009

My wife is looking to buy a new camera for her wedding business. Currently I use a D300 and love it. I looked at the specs for both cameras and all I see is that the D700 has a full frame sensor. Someone told her that the D700 is twice as good as the D300 in low light conditions. Is this true?Is a full frame sensor that much better?

ANY advice is GREATLY appreciated!!

PhotoXopher · Sep 9, 2009

It's known for superb low light performance if you know how to use it.

I think if I were a wedding photographer the D700 would be my first choice, if I could afford it and had the lenses to make it happen.

That said, I'm talking out of my butt with no real world experience - only dreams of 'some day'. :lol:

Here's one cool site to compare cameras:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sidebyside.asp

And another to compare photos from different cameras:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

D300 on the (first) vs D700 (second) at 6400 ISO

Just for giggles, D700 at 24,600 ISO - just WOW!

Dao · Sep 9, 2009

I will agree with N0YZE. If cost is not an issue, I will go with D700 for sure. And D300 as the backup.

itznfb · Sep 9, 2009

D300s = Professional
D700 = Prosumer

If I was a working wedding photographer I would go with the D300s or D3. Period.

PhotoXopher · Sep 9, 2009

Uh oh, there's that can of worms... and it's been opened! :lol:

itznfb · Sep 9, 2009

lol. I knew it would probably cause a ****storm

I realize this technology didn't always exist but if I were shooting a wedding there's no way I would use a camera that didn't have dual cards.
Memory cards are thousands of times more likely to fail than anything else in your bag. People bring backup bodies but write to a single card? Doesn't make sense.

itznfb · Sep 9, 2009

Let me add this on a more serious note. When making money of your gear you have to take into account are you getting out of this camera what you put in? Do you need the expanded ISO capability of the D700? Obviously not. When looking at the the DSLR comparison chart on Nikon's site the D700 looks like it would be more appropriately placed next to the D90. The only thing that keeps it out of that bracket is the full metal body, weather sealing and ISO capabilities. But when looking across the board it's specs don't line up with the rest of the professional lineup. The D3x, D3 and D300s all have basically the same specs. The D700 is a notch down in basically the same categories as the D90.

That being said. I really don't see how someone could plop down almost $3000 when you can get a more functional camera for almost 1/2 the cost. Especially when you're making money off of it. Now, if full frame and expanded ISO is a must for you, then by all means that extra $1000 may make it worth it.

DScience · Sep 9, 2009

itznfb said:
D300s = Professional
D700 = Prosumer

If I was a working wedding photographer I would go with the D300s or D3. Period.

What are you talking about? Your trying to say a full frame camera is not pro, but a cropped sensor camera is? uhhhh.:thumbdown:

PhotoXopher · Sep 9, 2009

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)

RONDAL · Sep 9, 2009

thats a pretty bold statement to make

"d300 = professional
d700 = prosumer"

Many well established photography review websites and professionals would disagree with you and order things the other way.

If the D300s didn't come with dual writing capability would it still be a professional camera?
With rumors of a new D700s on the horizon, with the same capability as that which now comes in the D300s (dual writing and HD video) does that make it professional?

As far as performance goes both the D700 and the D300s are very capable cameras. The d700 however has the same sensor and many of the same characteristics of that found in the pro level D3 camera.

To claim that one camera is more "functional" than the other is also a little misleading. More functional how so? If all you are shooting is low light things is a d300s really more functional?

If you want to shoot HD video then sure the D300s is FAAAAR more capable. My point is dont be so quick to paint everything with the same brush. What sounds like it works for you, may not work for the next guy in line.

TJ K · Sep 9, 2009

d700 definitely.

DWS · Sep 9, 2009

kundalini · Sep 9, 2009

:lmao::lmao::lmao:

:popcorn:

inTempus · Sep 9, 2009

Another vote for the D700.

itznfb · Sep 9, 2009

DScience said:
itznfb said:

D300s = Professional
D700 = Prosumer

If I was a working wedding photographer I would go with the D300s or D3. Period.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Your trying to say a full frame camera is not pro, but a cropped sensor camera is? uhhhh.:thumbdown:

Yea.... as NOYZE said, the sensor size is irrelevant to it's classification as pro/notpro.

RONDAL said:
thats a pretty bold statement to make

"d300 = professional
d700 = prosumer"

Many well established photography review websites and professionals would disagree with you and order things the other way.

It is a bold statement but in reality the specs from the D700 more align with a D90 than they do a D3. However the specs from the D90 and up are so similar it doesn't take much to change from one level to another.

RONDAL said:
If the D300s didn't come with dual writing capability would it still be a professional camera?

In my opinion. No.

RONDAL said:
With rumors of a new D700s on the horizon, with the same capability as that which now comes in the D300s (dual writing and HD video) does that make it professional?

You add dual card slots, 100% viewfinder, 6+ fps out of the box... ehg... there's one or two things I'm forgetting... anyway you add those few things and then yes... you've branched out of the prosumer class. Again, this is by no means set in stone anywhere this is my opinion based on what you get out of a camera for how much it costs.

RONDAL said:
As far as performance goes both the D700 and the D300s are very capable cameras. The d700 however has the same sensor and many of the same characteristics of that found in the pro level D3 camera.

To claim that one camera is more "functional" than the other is also a little misleading. More functional how so? If all you are shooting is low light things is a d300s really more functional?

If you want to shoot HD video then sure the D300s is FAAAAR more capable. My point is dont be so quick to paint everything with the same brush. What sounds like it works for you, may not work for the next guy in line.

Again... if you go by spec for spec the D700 more aligns with the D90 than it does a D3. That is extreme nitpicking so unless you NEED a full frame sensor for some reason I can't fathom how a D700 is worth almost $3000. For an enthusiast with a lot of money... no doubt the D700 is the way to go. But for someone who uses this as an investment and needs to factor ROI... no way. I don't see it.

I don't factor in HD video when comparing Nikons because the video you get out of the Nikon DSLRs is crap.