D300s or the D700????

[itznfb]

dont worry, he shut up pretty quickly a half page back

Maybe because it's pointless arguing with delusional people. If you want to ignore factual numbers and pretend a camera is better just because it's 2 stops better in ISO then go right ahead. ISO performance isn't the only factor in taking photos. And the D700 is inferior in every other way. The D700 is an inferior camera to the D300s. Period. Nikon's own documentation proves that fact and you're unwilling to or unintelligent enough to comprehend it then that's your own problem and I'm unable to help you with that.

 

[DScience]

dont worry, he shut up pretty quickly a half page back

Maybe because it's pointless arguing with delusional people. If you want to ignore factual numbers and pretend a camera is better just because it's 2 stops better in ISO then go right ahead. ISO performance isn't the only factor in taking photos. And the D700 is inferior in every other way. The D700 is an inferior camera to the D300s. Period. Nikon's own documentation proves that fact and you're unwilling to or unintelligent enough to comprehend it then that's your own problem and I'm unable to help you with that.

:hail:

Well, Nikon hired Ashton kutcher to advertise the D90. So in reality it's probably better than the D300s, and a pro camera. Sorry man you made the wrong choice! :lmao:

 

[Montana]

So let me get this straight......you Nikon guys not only fight with the Canon guys, but also amongst yourselves? LOL

 

[DWS]

yes, Montana......BUT, we are
"Faster than a speeding bullet.
More powerful than a locomotive.
Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.
Look! Up in the sky!
It's a bird. It's a plane. It's...

 

[jazzodin]

I've been reading this thread off and on and I have to say thanks for the entertainment.I'm not sure why itznfb is pushing the D300s so much.Maybe Nikon should get him as a salesman I'm sure he'd rocket the sales of the D300s through the roof...lol.I'm sure it's a great camera, it's a nikon.I'm a wedding photographer and the D700 is the PERFECT camera for me.I don't need the D3. I don't give a flying monkey butt what itznfd says, the D700 has the exact same sensor and image quality as the D3.Here in Canada the D3 is over $2000 more the the D700.I certanly don't need to spend that for the dual card or any of the other extras the D3 has.Itznfd has probably never shot a wedding before so let me tell him this. I would recomend this camera for wedding photographers because of the high iso.Ever shot in a church....they can be very dark and you are not allowed to use a flash and the extra iso is a great piece of mind.Of course you can still get great wedding pictures with other cameras but lets face it if you can make your job easier why wouldn't you.Itznfb has no need for a D700.I just can't figure out why he is goes on and on about his camera.Nobody cares.All of the articales and reveiws I've ever read the D700 has been refered to as a pro camera.If you look at the Nikon Canada its listed in the pro section.I don't understand why your disagreeing with Nikon. I have to be honest I don't know that much about the D300s so I'm not going to make any comments about it,all I konw is I love the D700 and unless I could afford the D3x I wouldn't change my camera for anything else.

 

[itznfb]

I've been reading this thread off and on and I have to say thanks for the entertainment.I'm not sure why itznfb is pushing the D300s so much.Maybe Nikon should get him as a salesman I'm sure he'd rocket the sales of the D300s through the roof...lol.I'm sure it's a great camera, it's a nikon.I'm a wedding photographer and the D700 is the PERFECT camera for me.I don't need the D3. I don't give a flying monkey butt what itznfd says, the D700 has the exact same sensor and image quality as the D3.Here in Canada the D3 is over $2000 more the the D700.I certanly don't need to spend that for the dual card or any of the other extras the D3 has.Itznfd has probably never shot a wedding before so let me tell him this. I would recomend this camera for wedding photographers because of the high iso.Ever shot in a church....they can be very dark and you are not allowed to use a flash and the extra iso is a great piece of mind.Of course you can still get great wedding pictures with other cameras but lets face it if you can make your job easier why wouldn't you.Itznfb has no need for a D700.I just can't figure out why he is goes on and on about his camera.Nobody cares.All of the articales and reveiws I've ever read the D700 has been refered to as a pro camera.If you look at the Nikon Canada its listed in the pro section.I don't understand why your disagreeing with Nikon. I have to be honest I don't know that much about the D300s so I'm not going to make any comments about it,all I konw is I love the D700 and unless I could afford the D3x I wouldn't change my camera for anything else.

I'm not disagreeing with Nikon, 3 or 4 people in this thread are. It's not me however. Nikon is the one that lists their specs. Not me. I'm not pushing any camera and I agree the D700 has better ISO. By two measly stops. And other than that two stop performance the D700 has absolutely 0 performance improvements and 0 functionality improvements over the D300s. It doesn't touch the D3 in any way shape or form. Anyone that disagrees, has obviously never shot a wedding with both. If you want to use weddings as an example. And yes, I've shot weddings with both.

I love that you guys refuse to believe a camera that's $1000 dollars less can perform better and have more functionality and then in the same post whine and cry that the D700 is just as good as the D3 that's $2000 more. Every pro on the planet disagrees with you.

This can go on for years.... so why don't you show me on Nikons specs where the D700 is so vastly superior to every other camera on the market.... k. I'll be waiting.

 

[fiveoboy01]

Not that I'm a huge expert on the rest of all this, but I'd argue that two stops in ISO performance is hardly measly. Especially if there's low light shooting involved.

 

[itznfb]

There are times when 2 stops can make a difference. But if that's your reason for spending $600-1000 more on a camera then you're using it as a crutch and need to work on other areas of technique.

 

[fiveoboy01]

I don't agree. There are times where the high-ISO performance is a necessity rather than a band-aid for poor skills. And well, that's just what it happens to cost if you want(need) to go FX.

 

[Derrel]

The D700's ,"A measly two stops," better high-ISO performance can mean the difference between GETTING SHOTS that are crisp and clear, and getting adequately exposed but motion-blurred shots. Two stops better performance means your 400 watt-second lights are more like 1600-watt seconds. Two stops better performance is not measly, it is a HUGE difference: it turns an f/5.6 lens into the functional equivalent of an f/2.8 lens, and it turns an f/2.8 lens into the equivalent of an f/1.4 lens. Two stops better means that instead of f/2.8 at 1/500 second, inadequate for minor league baseball at night under the lights with a D300 will yield f/2.8 at 1/2000--fast enough of a shutter speed to adequately stop most baseball action, to keep the ball round-looking, and not the elongated, 6-inch-long "blob" it is at 1/500 second when coming off the bat. I seriously do not understand itznfb's repeated defending and elevating of the D300 over the D700, except that his signature prominently displays and proclaims he's a D300 owner. The two bodies are not even comparable--one's a full-frame, the other's a crop-body.They are different animals, entirely. Neither is intrinsically better than the other; BOTH have stronger points and weaker areas. For some gigs, the D700 would be vastly preferrable, on others, the D300 would win out.

The D700 also has about a 2.3x larger capture area than a D300 has, meaning a MUCH, much larger area one can crop from, and also makes longer lenses like our 300/2.8 more-useful indoors for volleyball,basketball court far-end from other baseline, sideline football,etc,etc. Many,many times the 50% field of view reduction of a 1.5x body limits the usefulness of high-speed lenses like 70-200/2.8 and 300/2.8 when you are shooting indoors....cropping off the field of view of a 70mm setting and making it into that of a 105mm lens is NOT helpful indoors, or even outdoors on smaller field events like high jump, pole vault,etc.

Here's noted Nikon expert Thom Hogan's take on the D700, mostly vis a vis the D300, but also vis a vis the Nikon D3. Just a few excerpts.

Nikon D700 Review by Thom Hogan

"the AF and imaging capabilities of the D700 are the same as the D3."

"The D700 includes an internal flash ala the D300, as well. So one way to think about the D700 is to think of it as a full-frame D300."

"The imaging chain is exactly that of the D3: same sensor, same microlenses, same digitizing circuit, same processing. Likewise, the D700 seems to have the autofocus processing speed of the D3 (most visible in Auto Area AF), though it does seem to have a slight lag in acquisition I don't always see in my D3 (could be slight changes to AF algorithms)."

"That pretty much wraps the big picture up: D300 body, D3 image quality."

"here's the way I see it: the D3 is squarely targeted at the photo journalist and sports shooter who needs absolute performance, the D700 is more targeted to the serious amateur and pro backup market. If I were shooting all day for a newspaper, that second slot and the voice annotation alone would be the clincher for the D3. If I were shooting sports, the faster frame rates make the D3 the choice (yes, you can get close with the D700 and MB-D10 grip, but you end up with a larger combination that isn't quite as robust)."

"On the D300, the new CAM3500 sensor covers a very large portion of the frame, which means that the system is very good at following subject motion and managing highly off-center autofocus. On the D700, the same sensor covers a smaller portion of the frame, meaning that autofocus capabilities are restricted to a smaller portion of the frame. For some subjects, this is a problem, for others it usually isn't (hint: subjects with skin tones fare better outside the autofocus sensing area with Auto Area AF than others).Coupled with the scene recognition that is being done by the metering CCD in the viewfinder, the new focus system is sometimes so uncanny in 51 point 3D or Auto Area focus mode that it boggles the mind. This happens most often when there are faces or other skin tone in the area covered by the autofocus sensors. As it turns out, while various skin tones can look fairly different to us humans, to an RGB metering system they all are in the same narrow range and thus easily detectable."

"White balance, curiously, seems better on the D700 than on the D300, especially in mixed lighting. The direct Kelvin settings once again didn't match my Minolta Color Meter and my Imatest measurements, but they're closer than the D300 was"

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I've been reading this thread off and on and I have to say thanks for the entertainment.I'm not sure why itznfb is pushing the D300s so much.Maybe Nikon should get him as a salesman I'm sure he'd rocket the sales of the D300s through the roof...lol.I'm sure it's a great camera, it's a nikon.I'm a wedding photographer and the D700 is the PERFECT camera for me.I don't need the D3. I don't give a flying monkey butt what itznfd says, the D700 has the exact same sensor and image quality as the D3.Here in Canada the D3 is over $2000 more the the D700.I certanly don't need to spend that for the dual card or any of the other extras the D3 has.Itznfd has probably never shot a wedding before so let me tell him this. I would recomend this camera for wedding photographers because of the high iso.Ever shot in a church....they can be very dark and you are not allowed to use a flash and the extra iso is a great piece of mind.Of course you can still get great wedding pictures with other cameras but lets face it if you can make your job easier why wouldn't you.Itznfb has no need for a D700.I just can't figure out why he is goes on and on about his camera.Nobody cares.All of the articales and reveiws I've ever read the D700 has been refered to as a pro camera.If you look at the Nikon Canada its listed in the pro section.I don't understand why your disagreeing with Nikon. I have to be honest I don't know that much about the D300s so I'm not going to make any comments about it,all I konw is I love the D700 and unless I could afford the D3x I wouldn't change my camera for anything else.

I'm not disagreeing with Nikon, 3 or 4 people in this thread are. It's not me however. Nikon is the one that lists their specs. Not me. I'm not pushing any camera and I agree the D700 has better ISO. By two measly stops. And other than that two stop performance the D700 has absolutely 0 performance improvements and 0 functionality improvements over the D300s. It doesn't touch the D3 in any way shape or form. Anyone that disagrees, has obviously never shot a wedding with both. If you want to use weddings as an example. And yes, I've shot weddings with both.

I love that you guys refuse to believe a camera that's $1000 dollars less can perform better and have more functionality and then in the same post whine and cry that the D700 is just as good as the D3 that's $2000 more. Every pro on the planet disagrees with you.

This can go on for years.... so why don't you show me on Nikons specs where the D700 is so vastly superior to every other camera on the market.... k. I'll be waiting.

Two stops is not measly, especially when you consider the DR and color depth at those higher ISO's.

And think about it, churches are dungeons, you'll want the best low-light capability you can get, something the D300 doesn't deliver in comparison to a D3,700, or 5DII. Any wedding shooter would rather have full frame-better-high-iso then 7 fps and dual card slots on a partial frame camera. It just doesn't make sense to shoot yourself in the foot shooting a D300 if you can afford the 700 and you're making a living off of it shooting in dark places 75% of the time.

And the video, really doesnt count. On the Nikons, it sucks big fat donkey dick, no matter how you look at it. 720p motion jpeg with no manual control.. Might as well use your aunts sony handycam.

If anyone is serious about shooting video on their SLR, they own a 5D mark II because it's a poor mans RED. Full manual control over the video, 1080, and it's not motion jpeg.

 

[itznfb]

The D700's ,"A measly two stops," better high-ISO performance can mean the difference between GETTING SHOTS that are crisp and clear, and getting adequately exposed but motion-blurred shots.

So you're telling me that for years up until now these shots were not possible? The high levels of ISO performance found on even the D90 are higher than anything you could get on film. I'm sorry, it may be more convenient and I'm all for harnessing technology but it is no way a difference maker between getting the shot an not getting the shot. That is just a load of bull.

 

[itznfb]

I seriously do not understand itznfb's repeated defending and elevating of the D300 over the D700, except that his signature prominently displays and proclaims he's a D300 owner.

Because I gave my valid opinion (which barely anyone else here has done) on which is the better choice. And no one on this forum apparently can comprehend that statistically the D300s is more advanced and more functional.

Everyone keeps bitching and moaning but refuses to answer two simple questions that I've asked multiple times.

Other than ISO, what makes the D700 a better camera?
Why would a pro still spend $5000 on a camera that is clearly the exact same as a $2500 camera?

 

[Derrel]

Dear itznfb,

I was shooting Pac-10 basketball in the mid-1980's using manual focus Nikons (FM,FE-2,F3-HP) using Kodak HC-110 push processed to Exposure Index 3,200, souped in HC-110, developed for around 17 minutes at 76 degrees Farenheit, to get basically salt-and-pepper, high-contrast, shadows-are-awfully-dark-but-highlights-will-print on-newsprint shots. back then "high-speed color" for publication was 3M's ASA 640 color slide film. I grew up shooting Kodachrome 64 or Ektachrome 100 Profesional for high-quality color. So, yeah, it;s possible to shoot color at night sports events now--it never used to be possible to get the results we can get today...

So YEAH, for YEARS, literally YEARS, low-light,high-quality color shots were simply NOT possible. I don't think you have been involved in photography long enough to truly grasp the fundamentals of either full-frame digital, high-ISO, or available light sports/PJ shooting. As a Nikon shooter shooting sports for publication in the mid-2000's I envied Canon guys; now there are shots that were formerly impossible to make without strobes, which can be made on the D3 and D700 Nikons using ambient light, only four years later, simply because the high-ISO performance of the D3 and D700 are so,so,so much better than what the earlier Nikons could do.

Have you ever shot indoor basketball or volleyball with balcony-mounted strobes and remote triggers, simply because your color film was ISO 400, or your d-slr sensor could not give adequate color quality for 4-color publication? That was the early-to mid-2000's for many sports shooters. I shot basketball and volleyball indoors using two,balcony-mounted strobes in 2005 and 2006 because my Nikons were not up to the task of shooting ambient light in any of the main venues I shot at. That was 2005 and 2006; the D3 hit the streets in 2007,and started a landslide of available light shooters away from Nikon crop-body and Canon 1.3x because of 1) full-frame and 2) High-ISO that is and was better than every other camera on the market in 2007.

Anybody who FAILS (and you clearly fail) to understand that a high tide floats all boats is sadly mistaken in understanding what low-light shooting means when your sensor tops out t ISO 1600 versus ISO 6,400 or ISO 12,800,with acceptable quality at 25,600 if the images is converted to B&W and de-noised. Dude--the benefits of two full stops more of low-noise, high-detail, color-rich actual ISO performance is positively HUGE for low-light shooting, whether it be wedding, news, documentary,or sports shooting. The newer full-frame Nikon bodies with their ISO 3,200 and even ISO 6,400 performance now make it possible to shoot for 4-color reproduction images that were simply *not* possible--for decades. Same goes for Canon bodies with new high ISO performance that was *IMPOSSIBLE* to get in the 1970's, 80's,or 90's, or even the early- to mid-2000's.

I recall when the top E-6 color film was ISO 640. Do you? probably not. The idea that a D300 or D300s is statistically "better" than a D700 for wedding work, the original premise of this thread, if you recall, is ludicrous. For low light,high-ISO work, or just wedding and portraiture work, the benefits of a FX Nikon or a FF Canon are very,very well-known. A FF body gives a larger image area by a factor of 2.3 to 2.6x (Nikon vs Canon) and just makes it easier to get a good all-in-one lens that will truly work from wide-angle to short telephoto,with optimal image quality. The main pluses the D3 has over the D700 is faster firing rate,bling or cachet, better weather sealing due to inbuilt battery grip, and dual card slots and the number one reason--voice annotation, which allows for on-the-spot captioning,right in the field; simply press the button and do a voice caption,and you can speak the caption info right into the built-in microphone--who,what,when,where,why...something a news or sports shooter wants to have to make his images more useful.

The advantage of the FF Nikons over the 1.5x Nikon bodies is that the 300/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 lenses are more easily-used on FF cameras when you have credentials and are shooting from right where things are happening. For the person hired to shoot an event, the FF bodies are very hard tools to beat, and are markedly better than what Nikon had just a couple of years ago. Compare the D2x's sensor performance to that of the D3; no comparison on which outputs the cleaner, better files.

 

[fiveoboy01]

Other than ISO, what makes the D700 a better camera?

Other than the dual card slots and the video capability of the 300S, I don't know.

I would say that the high ISO performance is what makes the D700 a better camera by a mile... For those who need the capability.

You seem to think that the performance advantage of the FX sensor is a mostly insignificant advantage... I, and many others, don't.

Why would a pro still spend $5000 on a camera that is clearly the exact same as a $2500 camera?

Don't know, don't care. The main guts of the D700 appear to be very, very similar, if not mostly identical to the D3, and you have yet to refute that fact with anything other than your own opinion(unless I missed it).

I just don't think that dual card slots and video capability make the 300s a better camera than the D700. As was said by someone else, if I had to choose between dual card slots and an FX sensor, I'll take the FX sensor.