D700 vs. D300s ?? what??

[shaunly]

If you can only afford one body then you really should go with a D700. It's truly a body that "does it all" and it does it extremely well.

The D7000 is just over-hyped improved D90.

wow really? Looks like you haven't done your homework on the new D7k.

 

[mjhoward]

If you can only afford one body then you really should go with a D700. It's truly a body that "does it all" and it does it extremely well.

Unless you can't afford the extra 50% focal length on the expensive telephoto lenses that you might need for sports.

Ex. A Nikkor 600mm f/4 is ~10,300... A Nikkor 200-400mm f/4 zoom runs ~6,300. That is $4,000 LESS for the same equiv focal length on the crop body at the same max aperture... not to mention the added zoom capability. For some types of sports photography you just NEED the extra focal length and if the cost of the body is a concern, then the much more expensive super tele's and high power zooms that might be needed on a FF should be an even bigger concern.

 

[Tami]

Thank you for all your input....

Yep took the D300 out yesterday with the Tamron lens.... something is going back.... there is just exact when you put it to the computer and zoom into a small part the detail was lacking.... (really zoom in)

these are all good arguments for all the camera... The D7k clearly has a place and there are pro's that love how light and easy this one is.

The D700 I was told has better detail when you zoom in on your computer however you will have to purchase now glass and wow the price on that glass
2 lens would be more then my RX-8

the D300 is almost 1 lbs lighter, more lens aval. as well as the time fact....

I am clearly not alone, it would be great if I had all the money I needed and could just buy both with all the lens I want and need .... Santa I have been very good.... hint hint :blushing:

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Go back to Pro Photo and get a D700.

I've very recently been shooting pretty much exactly what you've described you'll be doing, and i'd hate to be doing it on a D300.

For example, here's a portrait i shot at ISO 3200 and f/2.8 on the 50mm f/1.4G:

and it's pretty damn clean. Not to mention, the D700 at the high ISO's keeps quite a bit of dynamic range. So the combination of low noise, and high DR, means you can post-process into oblivion.

For sports, you need reach and high ISO. Sacrifice the reach, take the high ISO. when i shoot triathlons, i'll just keep the camera at ISO 1600 by default. The pictures never get printed bigger than 8x10, and at 1600 you can barely see noise on an 8x10, if it's matte paper, you can't see the grain. As far as FPS, the D700 if you're in single shot, will go 8fps without the grip if your finger is fast enough...in 14 bit RAW. how fast is the D300 in 14 bit raw? 1.5 fps or something like that?

Weddings are the same. Imagine shooting receptions, rent a 24mm f/1.4, and you've got night vision in color.

Even though the D700 is the oldest camera in Nikon's current line up, it's damn near perfect for sports/event/location portrait if you don't need video.

 

[shaunly]

Go back to Pro Photo and get a D700.

I've very recently been shooting pretty much exactly what you've described you'll be doing, and i'd hate to be doing it on a D300.

For example, here's a portrait i shot at ISO 3200 and f/2.8 on the 50mm f/1.4G:

and it's pretty damn clean. Not to mention, the D700 at the high ISO's keeps quite a bit of dynamic range. So the combination of low noise, and high DR, means you can post-process into oblivion.

For sports, you need reach and high ISO. Sacrifice the reach, take the high ISO. when i shoot triathlons, i'll just keep the camera at ISO 1600 by default. The pictures never get printed bigger than 8x10, and at 1600 you can barely see noise on an 8x10, if it's matte paper, you can't see the grain. As far as FPS, the D700 if you're in single shot, will go 8fps without the grip if your finger is fast enough...in 14 bit RAW. how fast is the D300 in 14 bit raw? 1.5 fps or something like that?

Weddings are the same. Imagine shooting receptions, rent a 24mm f/1.4, and you've got night vision in color.

Even though the D700 is the oldest camera in Nikon's current line up, it's damn near perfect for sports/event/location portrait if you don't need video.

well said :thumbup:

 

[shaunly]

The d700 is the oldest camera (3 years) currently on Nikon line up but yet nothing about it is really outdated and it's still one of the best compact body DSLR on the market today. Just bit the bullet and pick one. You'll be glad you did later.

 

[flea77]

I was just in a similar situation and from my reading here is what I found:

The new D7000 pretty well replaces the D300s in virtually every area. The only lacking area I found was that it is not quite as well weather sealed. Of course no matter what body I picked I am not shooting in pouring down rain unless I have the correct rain gear for the camera anyway, so a moot point. I did not see any other practical difference between the two that would really matter.

The D7000 also has almost as good of IQ as the D700, at least up to ISO 6400 and it does it for over $1000 less. With the fast glass I already own I do not really see the need to go over 6400 so that really didn't mean much to me. The fact that the D7000 has a 1.5x crop is actually a bonus to me as I tend to go long way more than I need extreme wide angle.

So for ME, and for MY USES, I determined that the D7000 was a much better bang for the buck than either the D300s or D700. YMMV since everyone shoots a little different. I will say this though, the D7000 sure feels nice in the hand!

Allan