D300s or the D700????

[unnecessary]

poor guy^ he is in the wrong business. LOLOL

 

[Dao]

Because they can.

 

[RONDAL]

we get it.....you're right......the rest of the world is wrong. you purchased the faaaar superior camera when you bought your D300s, we will all now bow down to you and proclaim your greatness and the fact you are indeed a PRO.



ITS ME AGAINST THE WORLD AND DAMMIT IM GONNA WIN WHETHER OR NOT I LOOK STUPID DOING SO!

lol. You're a joke dude. You know nothing. It's not me against the world. It's me and the millions that agree with me. The D3 costs twice as much yet its sales are still twice as high. The D700 is just about the only camera Nikon has ever sold that has had almost a $1000 price drop in the first year. Why is that? Because it's not worth anywhere near $3000. Yet the D3 is clearly worth $5000. Please. Explain why people continue to pay $5000 for a D3 but won't pay $3000 for a D700 when they are the same camera according to you. Stop your bitching and answer the question.

the questions been answered, multiple times in this thread in fact. I can't help it if your reading comprehension isn't up to par.

I have a question for you, seeing as how you are throwing around professional all over this thread. Have YOU ever shot a wedding? Have you ever been hired by a client do produce work?

I mean I dont know what your gig with the zoo is, but I wouldn't think its "professional".
And then I look at your pictures and I see nothing that you would even need a D700 for. Most of your shots are outdoor, at long range, with MORE than adequete lighting.

You don't have the need for dual writing capability, the gorilla isn't going to sue you cause all her wedding photos are distorted and full of noise.

I've come to the conclusion you dont NEED a D700, and you're trying your hardest to justify that to the rest of the world while still maintaining you own the superior camera.

Trying to have any kind of discussion with you has proved fruitless by everyone thats tried.

So hey, throw another personal remark about how I'm an idiot and keep digging. If you dig a little deeper you might come out the other side.

 

[unnecessary]

I looked at his work as well. Just basic shots of animals with extreme DOF. Thats PRO STYLE!


In Fact, after reading more on this D300s, its actually more compared to the D90 LOL. Same crappy video recording DX camera. Nothing more.

No where near the D700/D3.


The D700/D3 hence is even in the same Nikon link he posted earlier. He Fails at reading comp.

 

[PhotoXopher]

In Fact, after reading more on this D300s, its actually more compared to the D90 LOL. Same crappy video recording DX camera. Nothing more.

So out of nowhere the D90 and D300s are crappy cameras because they have video capability?

Wow, the things you learn on forums.

D90, D300, D300s, D700 - in reality, all of these cameras could shoot a wedding and help a capable photographer produce very fine photographs. Photographers have worked with much worse over the years and somehow have had happy clients.

Amazing.

 

[unnecessary]

In Fact, after reading more on this D300s, its actually more compared to the D90 LOL. Same crappy video recording DX camera. Nothing more.

So out of nowhere the D90 and D300s are crappy cameras because they have video capability?

Wow, the things you learn on forums.

D90, D300, D300s, D700 - in reality, all of these cameras could shoot a wedding and help a capable photographer produce very fine photographs. Photographers have worked with much worse over the years and somehow have had happy clients.

Amazing.

No, i was referring to the "video recording". Not the camera itsself.

 

[Big Mike]

Lets all take a breath and tone things down a little bit.

 

[PhotoXopher]

No, i was referring to the "video recording". Not the camera itsself.

Gotcha... FWIW I haven't had any issues with mine, looks great to me.

Some excellent short movie examples of video from the D90 on YouTube as well.

 

[unnecessary]

Yea you're right N0YZE. I retract my previous statement. It does look good.

 

[PhotoXopher]

Not that I could do that, but at least the camera has the ability

 

[Joves]

Thanks for the informative replies guys. Not interested in the pissing match though. Any popcorn left?

Another question. (God forbid! LOL)

The wife is also interested in a new lens. Has anyone any experience with the 85 1.8 and the 85 1.4? Huge difference in price, but is it really worth it? Would these lenses create any differences in the pictures with either camera listed above? (or would one be better than the other?)

You might want to wander over to the NikonCafes lens lust section. There is a thread on the 85 1.4 just search the section for Cream Machine. And I would go for the D700. I own a D300 and love it but, Im still saving for a D700 because as I see it both have their uses.
Here is the link for the 85 1.4 lots of pics it is an appreciation thread. NikonCafe.com

 

[fiveoboy01]

If you think those are the only differences between the D3 and D700 then you're obviously high on something.

You seem(or claim to be) knowledgeable, then what exactly are the "other" differences you speak of?

 

[RONDAL]

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

 

[kundalini]

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

Do you think it's because he/she actually read and comprehended his/her own links?

Even if all his/her opinions were factual and correct, the message was lost due to ego. The slew of insults was becoming a bit tiresome. :er:

 

[Nicholas James Photo]

From a practical point of view I would recommend the 300, assuming that your wife is not going to buy two new cameras.
At weddings it would be fool hardy not to have a backup camera. With this in mind, if she gets to know a 300 like the back of her hand - she could (borrow) use yours as a backup. Only a thought.