D300s or the D700????

[itznfb]

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.

Your entire lengthy retarded post is a bunch of bull****. There are millions of shots from the 70's 80's and 90's that have done exactly what you say couldn't have been done. There are countless indoor sports shot with nothing but ambient light on film. The fact that you say these things can't be done discredits everything you've ever said.

 

[Derrel]

Sorry itznfb (it'z-in-focus,barely, perhaps?), but your lack of experience is evident to me. You clearly are simply incapable of rational,dispassionate judgement about photographic equipment or technique. I think your lack of familiarity with the issues is pretty sad.

You are clearly a D300 fanboy,and obviously a newcomer to serious photography. I think everybody is fully aware of how much you like the D300!

Rotsa ruck!:lmao:

 

[jazzodin]

itznfb,go to Nikon.ca and you will see that the D300s is listed in the advanced section while the D700 is in the pro section.Just so you know Nikon is the company that designed and built these cameras so I'm sure they know what is pro and what isn't. Clearly you are incapable of admitting you made a mistake.You posted on the first page of this thread that the D300s is pro and the D700 is prosumer.I really fail to understand why you feel the need to shove your wrong opinion down everyone throat.

I'm sure your camera does the job you need it to do just fine.The D700 has everything I need in a camera for the line of work I'm in.

I think it's safe to say that nobody really cares about your opinion anymore,although I do find your post very amusing.
I did take a look at some of your shots,I did like some of them,but in all honesty I could have got those shots with my D70.
You remind me of my 8 year old nephew when he stamps his feet and makes a huge fuss if he feels like he's not being heard.

Keep on shooting with that pro camera of yours because you know what they say,it's the camera that makes you a pro not the photographer...lol
GROW UP PAL.

 

[RONDAL]

oh wow look who came back.....and is still mouthing off at the world from his soap box shaped like a d300s.

let it go buddy, you've failed to convince anyone of anything, mainly because NOTHING you have posted has any substance to back up your claims. Unlike the countless posts by others either quoting direct reviews, pieces of literature YOU posted, or years of their own personal experiance.

 

[terri]

Say good-bye to this thread.

Guys, this kind of back-n-forth jabbing is not only pointless, but does little to showcase TPF as a friendly, informative forum. Even the OP, who was satisfied with his responses here and left the thread days ago, stated he was not interested in the "pissing match" going on here. That should have been enough of a clue to DROP this thread. The OP asked, several answered, we had some of the usual disagreement - who cares?

I continue to see the same few posters having their comments reported. You should know who you are. Trust me, there is a limit as to what will be tolerated around here if you continue to violate the TPF guidelines for conduct, as well as Canon v Nikon debates.

Consider this a collective warning to tone it down a notch. Go re-read your Pact. :er: Then make use of the Ignore feature.