Nikon d300 and d700

Golfer_Cody · Jul 3, 2008

Ok so I just have a couple questions to get everything straight, If you have something dumb or negative to say like some of you in the last things I have ask dont reply. So the d300 is dx format and with the 18-200 mm lens will use all 12.3 megapixels right? and the d700 is both dx and fx, but will only use about 5mp with that same lens correct? Is fx a way better picture quality? I was looking at some examples and it looked a little better I thought but what do you think? I have more but Ill leave it to that for awhile.

tirediron · Jul 3, 2008

Yes, the D300, or any other DX formatted camera will use the whole sensor when fitted with either a DX of FX lens. When you put a DX lens on an FX body however, it automatically reduces the number of pixels used to that which is in the DX-size sensor area.

With respect to your question of picture quality, you will be very hard-pressed to tell the difference between an image shot on a D300 and one on a D700. You will see some difference at high ISOs, but for regular shooting, it will be indistinguishable.

TamiyaGuy · Jul 3, 2008

With an FX sensor being used to its full potential, yes, the FX sensor will give you a much better image quality, as the pixels are more spaced out. Noise at high ISOs will improve, as will the viewfinder brightness (if a 35mm film camera is anything to go by). However, the 18-200mm lens is a superzoom, and because of that lens quality will take a back seat. To be honest, it seems to me that it's a bit of a waste using that kind of a lens on a D700 (no offence). I'd get the D300 if you're using the 18-200mm mainly. However, if you think you will get some really nice, full-frame glass for your body and find yourself shooting mainly landscapes, then the 700 would be a great choice.

Golfer_Cody · Jul 3, 2008

well again this goes back to me wanting the single lens solution for awhile cause Ill be taking picture os everything from sunsets to just random buildings and a lot of pictures at night on the beach. Whats a good single lens for all that with the d700 that I can get most out of the fx and dx formats? I dont want any 5MP stuff. is higher iso good at night? or bad?

TamiyaGuy · Jul 3, 2008

I don't think there currently is an all-in-one lens for FX format sensors at the moment. Sigma and Tamron alternatives to the Nikon are, I'm nearly certain, all for crop bodies. I'd suggest getting 2-3 lenses for photographing everything rather than one superzoom. An 18-55 or the equivalent FX format (28-70, I think) lens is good for landscapes, cars and portraits where there is little room, a longer telephoto (think 55-200 for DX or 70-300 for FX) for wildlife and further distance portraits, and possibly a 12-24 (I know Sigma does an FX version of this, and it's been getting fantastic reviews) for extreme landscapes. However, if you to get the D700, make abolutely sure the lenses you're getting are FX format; try them at a camera store if you're not sure.

To answer your final question, a higher ISO at night is usually not that useful, so long as you have a tripod. Simply set the camera on the 'pod, choose a 2-second self timer, and shoot. Higher ISOs are only helpful for indoor shots where you need a faster shutter speed, like 6 year old kids running around like maniacs, but where you don't want to use the flash.

Basically, I'd recommend the D300 for the kind of photography you're talking about. It's a perfectly capable camera, and the high-ISO performance is already stunning. Or you could get a D80 and spend your cash on some REALLY nice glass.

Whatever choice you make, I hope it's the right one for you. :biggrin:

Golfer_Cody · Jul 3, 2008

well i am between the d700 and the d300, if i gett he 300 i will get the 18-200 lends for now but i almost wanna get the d700 cause then i wont have to upgrade for a long time. so if i get the d700 i will make sure and get fx lenses only and ill be able to shoot in all 12MP right? So you think that the d300 has plenty of iso? i will be shooting some sports as well and motorsports so i think the higher iso will be ok the only thing i am still confused about is lenses for the most part. I know you gave some but would you be willing to PM me the lenses and what I would use each one for? for now just the beach sunsets and night shot of me and the girlfriend and stuff like that, random barns and building like that

Rogan · Jul 3, 2008

D300 or D700 is a very big price to pay for what sounds like your first dSLR

i think you should maybe reconsider hw much your spending, remmeber lenses are more important than the body in many ways

theres not a photo a D300 can take that a D80 cant

Jeff Canes · Jul 3, 2008

Golfer_Cody said:
-- is higher iso good at night? or bad?

Its helpful for hand held shots at night, The Nikon 300D & 3D plus Canon D40, D1m3 & D1sm3 all have very low noise at higher iso setings, Im sure it will be the same with the D700

Sports wise the higher ISO mostly help with get a sharper image at night events with stadium lights or poor indoor lights, you may still need a monopod

kundalini · Jul 3, 2008

There is another rumor floating out there that perhaps by the end of August, Nikon will introduce the D900 with 24MP. Price in the $3-4K range.

Mav · Jul 3, 2008

From what I've seen, the D700/FX isn't any sharper and won't deliver any better image quality than the D300/DX will. The biggest difference is in the high ISO performance where the FX will just blow any Nikon DX away. The FX Nikons aren't like the Canon 5D in that they're amazingly sharp above and beyond the crop body DSLRs. I'm not too particular about needing insane high ISO performance but am pretty particular about sharpness, which is why the FX Nikons are a bit of a disappointment to me, since they don't seem to offer better sharpness than the DX's.

For a good all-in-one lens for a D700, you'll be hard-pressed to find any because Nikon discontinued all of their good consumer grade FX mid-zoom type lenses in 2006 and before. The 28-200G might be worth trying to find used, which is equivalent to the 18-135DX. Tamron has a 28-300 VC (same as VR) lens which from what I've seen is a half decent lens. That'd be 18-200mm equivalent and has stabilization. I personally just picked up a Nikon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 lens for $140 USD used, which is equivalent to the 18-70DX lens. I like the range on this too, but would like something a bit longer. No problem - I've got a 70-300VR for that, but gotta switch lenses. I'm using the 28-105 on my F100 film camera and am going to give it a try on my D80 too when I get a chance.

Mav · Jul 3, 2008

For sports higher ISO will definitely come in handy. But if you can't get very close, FX will actually work against you since it lacks a crop factor. You need a 300mm lens on FX to get the same field of view that 200mm gives you on DX.

Golfer_Cody · Jul 3, 2008

ok I have noticed that there are not many more huge features over the d300 that the d700 has other than iso. Do you think that the amount of iso that the d300 has is plenty for the handheld picturtes? and well enough for everything else? I dont mind the DX but it sounds like fx has its advantages but also wont look any better unless you have been doing this for awhile.

djacobox372 · Jul 3, 2008

TamiyaGuy said:
I don't think there currently is an all-in-one lens for FX format sensors at the moment. Sigma and Tamron alternatives to the Nikon are, I'm nearly certain, all for crop bodies. I'd suggest getting 2-3 lenses for photographing everything rather than one superzoom. An 18-55 or the equivalent FX format (28-70, I think) lens is good for landscapes, cars and portraits where there is little room, a longer telephoto (think 55-200 for DX or 70-300 for FX) for wildlife and further distance portraits, and possibly a 12-24 (I know Sigma does an FX version of this, and it's been getting fantastic reviews) for extreme landscapes. However, if you to get the D700, make abolutely sure the lenses you're getting are FX format; try them at a camera store if you're not sure.

To answer your final question, a higher ISO at night is usually not that useful, so long as you have a tripod. Simply set the camera on the 'pod, choose a 2-second self timer, and shoot. Higher ISOs are only helpful for indoor shots where you need a faster shutter speed, like 6 year old kids running around like maniacs, but where you don't want to use the flash.

Basically, I'd recommend the D300 for the kind of photography you're talking about. It's a perfectly capable camera, and the high-ISO performance is already stunning. Or you could get a D80 and spend your cash on some REALLY nice glass.

Whatever choice you make, I hope it's the right one for you.

I have a tamron 28-300 zoom that works perfectly on a non-crop body--I use it on my film slrs all the time.

Mav · Jul 3, 2008

As long as you're not shooting poorly lit indoor sports like basketball or gymnastics I think the D300 is going to be more than adequate. For night shots on the beach of people, use a flash. And for sunsets, base ISO and a tripod, or a stabilized lens will work perfectly fine.

I took this handheld with my D80 at iso100, 1/80s, f/8, and the 18-55VR and didn't even need VR for this shot

And this is a photo with the same D80 and the 70-300VR lens at 300mm. That's 450mm equivalent in FX terms, so you're not getting anywhere close to this on FX unless you spend three times as much on the 80-400VR, and you still won't get as close.

Another night time beach shot. This one on a tripod for 15 seconds at f/2.8 and 11mm with my Tokina 11-16mm ultra-wide lens. ISO 100.

You could have done this handheld on a D3 at iso6400 if you could manage a steady 1/4s handheld shot, which isn't impossible at ultra-wide (or iso 12,600 at 1/8s), but this photo at iso 100 would still look better. For the best night shots you'll always want to be on a tripod anyways with a very long exposure and base ISO.

If you're not sure, get the cheaper body and put the extra money into some nice lenses instead. A great lens you buy today will still be a great lens 10 years from now and worth something, whereas the body you buy will be ancient history in 10 years and worthless.

peterbj7 · Jul 3, 2008

The OP is going through the same thought process that I did when I chose my Canon 5D. I wanted a camera that would be especially good in low available light, and from my research the 5D was easily the best around at an affordable price from any manufacturer (I would have loved the Canon 1Ds III).

This camera has a FF sensor ("fx") so the lenses I use are relatively heavy and bulky and yet don't give the reach of smaller lenses on a crop body. I realised that the first decision I needed to make was sensor size, as that would determine choice of lenses.

Given that the OP is clearly uncertain between the D300 and D700, I think that if he gets the D300 he will regret not having bought the D700. If he has the extra money I'd suggest he goes for it.

If I were choosing today between the 5D and D700 I'm not sure what I'd get. Probably the 5D, as it still has the edge in low light performance (or so I've been told). It really is a shame these manufacturers have incompatible lens mounts, as if they were the same I'd have components from each manufacturer. I'm Canon now, but that needn't be for life.