Nikon D300 vs D700?

[tasman]

A Nikon-brand DX lens, at least. No guarantee on other brands.

Yes, we would have to see.

 

[JerryPH]

Why don't you get a D3 and a D300?? The best of both worlds for the same money??

I would not consider spending money on a D300 because I already have a D200. If I go pro, I think 2 X D700s and double up on a couple key lenses for redundancy.

If I stay amateur, just get the single D3 and the 12-24 and 24-70 lenses, since I have the 70-200 and 85mm F/1.4 lenses. All my current DX lenses would work on the D3 (or D700), with the cropped factor. In the case of the D3, I would have fram rates up to 11 FPS. I would also keep the D200 as a backup. BTW, I tested the 105mm and 30mm Sigma lenses... both worked wonderfully on the D3. The 105mm was FF and the 30mm was DX. You have not lived until you have heard 40-50 frames slap off at 11 FPS... lmao!

I'm in no rush... when the time comes for me to make a decision, I'll devote myself to it no matter what it will be.

 

[Joves]

< very happy with D300 and would love the D700 but I think it would be $3k for a bit more resolution. Worth it?

It isnt only the resolution. It is the high ISO performance and wider fields with standard film lenses. If you are invested in DX lenses then it is a waste of money but, if you have film lenses then it isnt. Atleast that is how I see it.

 

[anubis404]

What are you going to be shooting? In most cases a D300 is way more camera than you need, and its price can't be beat. If there is nothing in the D700 that I absolutely need and is not in the D300, I would opt for the D300 with some awesome glass. You can do a lot with $3K as far as lenses go.

Then again, this is coming from the guy with the D40 and Kit Lens.

 

[dhilberg]

@andrew99: What is so painful about linking to Ken Rockwell?

 

[JerryPH]

- He offers a lot of poor or outright incorrect info

- He states himself that his site is a joke (then asks for donations??)

- He gets a free D3 from Nikon... then shoots nothing but BASIC JPG all the time.

He is not a real reliable source of info, to be honest. On the net he is considered more of a joke by anyone with more than 6 months experience.

 

[Tiberius]

@andrew99: What is so painful about linking to Ken Rockwell?

Most equipment junkies get offended because Rockwell is actually a photographer rather than a professional reviewer and as such tends to care more about things like how a lens performs in the field than how much distortion it has when aimed at a brick wall. He points out (rightly so) that photography is 95% talent and 5% equipment, which severely offends a certain class of technophile that's been more and more vocal in the photography community in the last decade, and is good on getting on those kinds of peoples' nerves. Is he perfect? No. But is a good source of info? Yes. He does real-world shooting, which is infinitely more valuable than lab testing.

 

[manaheim]

Oh god the equipment vs. telent thing again.

We need to have a shoot-off. I'll give someone a D300 and a 400mm prime and I'll take a D300 and a Sigma 10-20 and we'll go take some panoramas of Boston. See who wins.

 

[Early]

I do a lot of indoor without flash, so I'd have to assume some debt to go with the D700. No ifs, ands, or buts there. I wondering though. Can you change the crop sensor manually using regular lenses?

 

[epp_b]

^ No idea, but why on earth would you want to?

 

[andrew99]

@andrew99: What is so painful about linking to Ken Rockwell?

That might have been a bit harsh.. I enjoy Ken's writing, but you have to take what he says with a large grain of salt. Half the time I think he says stuff just to get a rise out of people. Plus his site is full of inconsistencies and many of his opinions are stated as indisputable facts, even when most pros will disagree. Anyway, the main problem I have is his over-the-top style which sometimes gets in the way of the truth. Oh, and of course the reviews of equipment he's never had his hands on! Also he bashes Sigma lenses mercilessly, but I've had no problems with mine. But I admit I do read his site from time to time, if just to get a quick opinion on a lens or something.

Anyway, since everyone loves poking fun at Ken, here are the Chuck Norris style facts about Ken Rockwell. I'm just posting this for fun, not to bash him. I don't know where it was originally posted or who wrote it. Just some light-hearted fun, enjoy!

KEN ROCKWELL FACTS
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

* Ken Rockwell is the Chuck Norris of photography

* Ken Rockwell's camera has similar settings to ours, except his are: P[erfect] Av[Awesome Priority Tv[Totally Awesome Priority] M[ajestic]

* Ken Rockwell doesn't color correct. He adjusts your world to match his.

* Sure, Ken Rockwell deletes a bad photo or two. Other people call these Pulitzers.

* Ken Rockwell doesn't adjust his DOF, he changes space-time.

* Circle of confusion? You might be confused. Ken Rockwell never is.

* Ken Rockwell doesn't wait for the light when he shoots a landscape - the light waits for him.

* Ken Rockwell never flips his camera in portrait position, he flips the earth

* Ken Rockwell ordered an L-lens from Nikon, and got one.

* Ken Rockwell is the only person to have photographed Jesus; unfortunately he ran out of film and had to use a piece of cloth instead.

* When Ken Rockwell brackets a shot, the three versions of the photo win first place in three different categories

* Before Nikon or Canon releases a camera they go to Ken and they ask him to test them, the best cameras get a Nikon sticker and the less good get a Canon sticker

* Once Ken tested a camera, he said I cant even put Canon on this one,thats how Pentax was born

* Rockwellian policy isn't doublethink - Ken doesn't even need to think once

* Ken Rockwell doesn't use flash ever since the Nagasaki incident.

* Only Ken Rockwell can take pictures of Ken Rockwell; everyone else would just get their film overexposed by the light of his genius

* Ken Rockwell wanted something to distract the lesser photographers, and lo, there were ducks.

* Ken Rockwell is the only one who can take self-portraits of you

* Ken Rockwell's nudes were fully clothed at the time of exposure

* Ken Rockwell once designed a zoom lens. You know it as the Hubble SpaceTelescope.

* When Ken unpacks his CF card, it already has masterpieces on it.

* Rockwell portraits are so lifelike, they have to pay taxes

* On Ken Rockwell's desktop, the Trash Icon is really a link to National Geographic Magazine

* Ken Rockwell spells point-and-shoot "h-a-s-s-e-l-b-l-a-d"

* When Ken Rockwell went digital, National Geographic nearly went out of business because he was no longer phyically discarding photos

* For every 10 shots that Ken Rockwell takes, 11 are keepers.

* Ken Rockwell's digital files consist of 0's, 1's AND 2's.

* Ken Rockwell never focus, everything moves into his DoF

* Ken Rockwell's shots are so perfect, Adobe redesigned photoshop for him: all it consists of is a close button.

* The term tripod was coined after his silhouette

* Ken Rockwell never produces awful work, only work too advanced for the viewer

* A certain braind of hig-end cameras was named after people noticed the quality was a lot "like a" rockwell

* Ken Rockwell isn't the Chuck Norris of photography; Chuck Norris is the Ken Rockwell of martial arts.

* Ken Rockwell never starts, he continues

 

[epp_b]

If this forum had rep options, you'd get a +1 for that

 

[joecoulsonphotography]

Absolutely hilarious!!! Great stuff.