search the site
Nikon D700 against Nikon D300, Full Frame matters
{ Nikon D300 crop @ ISO 6400 w/ED 17-55mm F2.8 }
{ Nikon D700 @ ISO 6400 w/ 24-70mm F2.8 G ED }
If you’ve been trying to convince yourself that full frame isn’t that big of a deal, well you’ve been lying to yourself. As I said before, that bigger sensor makes a difference and most of that is evident in a little something called “image quality” (imporant to quite a few photograhers I hear). Full frame provides better, crisper, clearer, cleaner images. There’s a terrific example of this advantage at Japanese site DC Watch with excellent comparison shots of the D700, D3, and D300. As expected the D700 and D3 look quite similar. And while removed from this context the D300 looks very good, it just can’t compete with its siblings in overall IQ. When the ISO gets cranked up it falls even further behind. This has been repeated ad nauseum, but the D3 (and D700) have just utterly ridiculous noise management at high ISO. This amazes me because 6400 ISO looks like 400 ISO on my D80. True, the D300 is infinitely better performing than the D80, but the D700 gives even more detail, and even less noise, at a $2000 discount to the D3 (for right now).
In short full frame matters.
Continue the Discussion
|
Join us on Facebook! Become a fan of Neutralday today! Become a fan of Neutralday on Facebook. Interact with us and stay updated on what's coming next at Neutralday, photography news, and other fans' insights.
Follow us on Twitter! Grab our tweets right here. Follow Neutralday on Twitter. Insights on the cameras we're reviewing, and frequent photography related news, thoughts, and links.
Support Neutralday by shopping at our preferred retailer, B&H Photo |
Explore Similar Posts
- Canon EOS 1D Mark IV In Depth Review
- Nikon Coolpix P100 In Depth Review
- Olympus E-PL1 ISO and Image Samples
- Olympus E-PL1 In Depth Review
- Samsung TL500 (EX1) Image and ISO Samples
Leave a Reply
About Neutralday.com
Established in 2007 by photographer Patrick Dean, Neutralday.com brings you the latest in photography news and reviews. With insights on photographers, equipment, and how to's, Neutralday.com is focused on and intended for the photography community.
Support Neutralday.com
Our Most Recent Reviews
Apple 15″ Macbook Pro 2.66GHZ (Core i7) Review
Canon 10×42 L IS WP Binoculars In Depth Review
Canon 18×50 IS All Weather Binoculars In Depth Review
Canon EOS 1D Mark IV In Depth Review
Canon EOS 7D In Depth Review
Canon EOS Rebel T2i (550D) In Depth Review
Canon PowerShot G11 In Depth Review
Canon PowerShot S90 In Depth Review
Fujifilm FinePix Z700EXR In Depth Review
Nikon Coolpix P100 In Depth Review
Nikon D3000 In Depth Review
Nikon D300s In Depth Review
Nikon D3s In Depth Review
Olympus E-P2 In Depth Review
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FP3 In Depth Review
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ35 In Depth Review
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 In Depth Review
Pentax K-x In Depth Review
Pentax Optio I-10 Digital Compact Camera In Depth Review
Samsung NX10 In Depth Review
Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX APO DG HSM Macro Review
Sigma DP2s In Depth Review
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX5V In Depth Review
Swarovski EL 10×42 SwaroVision Binoculars In Depth Review
Get The Hottest Cameras
Latest Tweets
resources
Best Sellers at Amazon
flickr
Better at 6400 iso, but not sure under 1600. Normal amateurs photographers take most of their pics under 1600 isos, so the difference is not so valuable than what your article let think…
Nevertheless the difference is quite huge on these pics, night shooters would appreciate that.
arnolf,
Regardless of iso, the D700 is bringing home more detail than the D300. Edges are crisper, textures more detailed, etc. That’s a nice thing to have.
And as an amateur, many times I would like to crank to 1600, just to stop motion in a low-light situation, not night time per se. With the D80, there’s no point, because to my eye the noise isn’t usable , so I end up not taking shots, which is the worst case scenario.
A relatively small camera like the Nikon D40 with 18-200 lens will always be a handy for travel, but there is no doubt, with the advent of consumer full frame cameras, that one should be hesitant in spending any more money on DX lenses.
The Nikon D700 is illustrated using a $1,700 lens and performs fantastically against the D300 with its $1,400 lens. Full frame is clearly the winner.
However, how would these two cameras compare using non-professional lenses such as the Nikon 70-300 VR on the D700 and the Nikon 18-200 DX lens on the Nikon D300?
You’re right, that does even things out a bit. Given budget constraints, clearly the D300 is the obvious smart choice, until you think about the good possibility of the D300x being a full frame camera, and your DX lens collection (that 18-200 vr ain’t cheap for non-pro) starts to make you feel a little sad.
OK, FX is better than DX…and Medium Format is better than FX…or maybe,
Halle Berry is better than your wife…does that mean you ditch your wife or everyone must cart around a Hassle-Blad?
Try taking a photo on top of Lake Louise on a ski trip at -20deg with your D700/D3…just maybe, your humble Fuji E900 will do the job perfectly well and will also fit into your ski jacket!
The point?
You can’t have everything or you might not want everything. Between ISO 100-800, Most cameras are good enough for Most photographers. Bigger is not better. “Better” is not better in every sense. Just live within your means. For my money and usage, none of the above is better than the beloved FM2, FA, F3, or even the superseded D200(by just months)…
Maybe start worrying about the fact that something bought (new) 6 months ago can now be on the top of the trash heap.
Why not use the same lens for both the D700 and D300 comparison and crop.
Also what about the pixel density advantage of the D300 in telephoto?
Jeff,
I had posted before a same lens comparison, but here’s the link to it:
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_D700/noise.shtml. Starting at 800 ISO I see a difference. But you’re right that pixel density will be an advantage to some photographers wanting the most from their zooms, everyone is obviously going to have different needs, and budgets.
Sorry to say that, but that is simply ‘BULLSHIT!’.
The performance between D300 and D700 is not significantly in terms of image quality. That is proven by several experts (see e.g. verdict of Ken Rockwell with comparison of D300, D700 and D3.).
Till ISO 1600 you won’t be able to say the difference and now ask yourself how often you’re shooting with ISO 6400 and above. So, actually the full frame doesn’t matter at all, unless someone shoots all the time high iso.
And is this worth the difference in costs??? I’m not sure about this. For most people who are having a D300, no point at all to upgrade to D700. Waste of money!
Hmmmm…. I’m inclined to disagree with you Herman, but you’ve made your case–quite strongly.
Patrick,
This is an old post and you’ve likely made your decision, but I’d like to give you my opinion about Hermann’s comment.
I had a D300 and now I have a D700. I use to shoot in performances with ISO 800 and ISO1600. I don’t want acceptable but excellent quality, and can assure the D700 delivers at ISO1600 the same quality or better than the D300 at ISO800. That is, with ISO1600, the D700 outweights the D300; the difference is noticeable.
Cheers,
Javier
Javier,
I definitely believe you, that’s my feeling on it too. It’s not a huge difference, but it is a noticeable difference, too much to pass up for some.
Low light, “true” lens focal lengths, ie 24 mm is 24mm on a Full frame (my new D700), vs my old trusty D200 is worth my upgrade price by far.. It is a much more versatile camera allowing lighting which is just off the charts…
I love my D700.. yes to me.. the upgrade from the D200 was worth the investment.. Full Frame is the way to go!!
Hey,
I’m with you on this one Shawn!
Herman,
Your rudimentary, over simplified evaluation of the differences between a DX and FX sensor are pretty entertaining. The fact that you list Ken Rockwell as your headline “expert” is even more entertaining. You seem to be a loyal DX person which is fine. You do seem to be ignoring some of the advantages of the FX sensor. For instance, take a tripod mounted shot with a DX camera and then mount an FX camera on the same tripod and take the same shot. Compare them and see how much you are missing on the DX version. Also, sensor density is an important thing but people often make the mistake of discounting this below a certain ISO as you have (and as Ken Rockwell has). Both cameras have 12 megapixel sensor (differing by .2 to be specific). The pixels on the DX sensor are more tightly crammed together which gives the potential for more noise. The pixels on the FX sensor are not so crammed so the sensor in the FX format has better low noise performance. Most people will say that the better performance is at high ISOs. This is in fact a flawed statement. The sensor layout has an exponential effect on the performance of the sensor, not a linear effect as you seem to be suggesting. The quality of the images is not magically the same under 1600 ISO. It is actually better. Your criteria for the amount of noise below 1600 is less stringent than above 1600 so the FX sensor’s better performance at ISOs 1600 and below is mistakenly passed of as being equal to the DX sensor version when it is not. Can we as humans percieve this quality difference below 1600 ISO? Probably not. Like I said before, reduced expectations, less effort put into actually evaluating the images make saying that the images are the same quality below 1600 ISO the easy way out. Most people would be inclined to believe that statement but it is not true in the real world.
Patrick,
Excellent analysis, and thanks for taking the time to leave it in the lowly comments.
Hi Patrick.
Having just upgraded from a D200 and some very good lenes (17-55 f2.8) for example to a D700 and 24-70 f2.8 lens, I have to rienforce Shawns opinion that the upgrade was well worth the money. It’s just so easy to use.
Trevor,
I was sold on the D700. Now I’m on the fence for getting the Canon 5D mark II.
I will need a serious talking down to not get one. Either way, I’m convinced about full frame.
Actually, I don’t see how people can say the quality is the same between the D700 and D300 at ANY iso… The FX format allows greater resolving of finer details, and the greater possibility for post-processing enhancements. Also, the viewfinder is so much bigger and brighter than the D300s, and to me this is a big selling point because I spend a lot of time looking through the viewfinder.
Lou,
I don’t really get it either, it is noticeably better, across the board. The biggest advantage I see for the Nikon D300 is the crop factor for those who need the “reach”. Oh the price too.
Hi Patrick.
Iv’e always been a Nikon fan but if you go to a Canon 5D mk 11 I would be
interested to hear how the two compare. I have a good collection of lenses
so I guess i’ll stay where I am for now.
Trevor.
Trevor,
I’m also a big Nikon fan. I really don’t want to change, but the 5d mark II seems like the smartest choice ( for my purposes…)
As ever a lot of subjectivist bullsh*t!! Why show an example at 6400asa..a rating that is not even recommended for the D300!! I am not knocking the D700, it is a superb piece of kit with peerless high iso performance which is the reason for having one. It will however have more problems with vignetting and lenses that are not sharp into the corners.
Also the pixel density is greater on the D300 and in some professional reviews it is claimed therefore that the D300 can actually capture more fine detail than the D700.
I accept the FF may have a more MF “smoother tonality”..but detail & sharpness?
Only a RAW test will show..equivalent lenses and sharpening appropriate to output size? Even Nikon UK have said you will be hard pushed to tell the difference up to 400 asa and probably higher unless you are printing very large!
Its a different freaking lens ? If you where going to do this wouldn’t you make everything as consistent as you could ?
So at this high ISO setting the larger pixel that is letting in more light will naturally win, But at a low ISO setting I would dare say that the smaller pixel would indeed win ( as long as the zoom was constant ) naturally you would loose the edges of the photo and everything would appear a little more zoomed in ( advantage or disadvantage ?)
What if one wants to take a normal picture enlarged to say 18×24 cms using 200-400 asa without any cropping factor would the picture taken with the D700 better than the D300 in the same conditions,same field of view ,same lens,same speed and same aperture? This is what the normal photography amateur would really want to know before anything else.
What if one wants to take a normal picture enlarged to say 18×24 cms using 200-400 asa without any cropping factor would the picture taken with the D700 be better than the picture taken with the D300 in the same conditions,same field of view ,same lens,same speed and same aperture? This is what the normal photography amateur would really want to know before anything else.
Alsharif,
Would there be a difference? Given your conditions, I’d say no. The differences wouldn’t be as obvious until the sensitivity was increased. Then you’d start to see more texture in the D300.
In theory we could expect to see the same level of noise if shooting a camera with a 4/3″ (Four Thirds) sensor at ISO 100 as with an APS-C sensor at ISO 172 (x=0.79) and a 35mm sensor (full frame) at ISO 356 (x=1.83). Note: This is assuming the image sensor technologies and pixel density are equal and sensor sizes are: 4/3″ 18×13.5mm, APS-C 25.1×16.7mm, FF 36×24mm.
BTW: Why have Nikon chosen to make stupid compromises with their currrent range of premium D-SLR cameras… See examples below:
D3X:
- Base ISO = 200.
- No auto sensor cleaning mechanism.
- Continuous shooting rate drops to 1.8 fps for 14-bit NEFs
D3:
- Base ISO = 200.
- No auto sensor cleaning mechanism.
D700:
- Base ISO = 200.
- Only 95% OVF coverage.
- No exposure preview, live histogram, or self-timer in live view mode.
D300:
- Base ISO = 200.
- Only 97% OVF coverage
- Continuous shooting rate drops to 2.5 fps for 14-bit NEFs.
- No exposure preview, live histogram, or self-timer in live view mode.
- Flimsy / plastic door over memory card slot.
- Remote capture software not included as standard.
And why do they all reproduce red as orange?
Tony, aren’t there compromises to be found on the cameras by other makers too?
Hi Patrick. Thanks for the reply.
I agree that other manufacturer’s may also have similar compromises.
For example the OVF coverage of some Canon semi-professional models is < 100%, such as the 40D / 50D (95%) and 5D MkII (98%).
However the Canon DSLRs can shoot 14-bit RAWs at their native fps (even the 450D can out perform a D300 and even a D3X in this regard!) And so too the Sony Alpha 900 (OVF 100%, but no LV).
I think that it’s pretty rich that many DSLRs are marketed as professional tools, can cost a small fortune and then they don’t provide basic functions such as 100% OVFs, live exposure diagnostics, articulating LCD screens, native fps for 14-bit RAWs and faithful colour reproduction!
It might not matter so much to a media or sports photographer. But if you shoot details. I.e. Macros, fashion, portriats, landscapes, wildlife, architectures then these functions certainly help a lot (at least from my experiences).
My point being there are more serious flaws in DLSRs that people appear to be accepting over minor image noise issues that for most intended purposes cannot been seen in prints of A4 size or less and can at least be controlled to some level in camera or removed via post processing software.
Tony,
Your point is a good one, people (myself included) do tend to get hung up on details, that in the end may not matter at all.
I also agree that noise control can be important for low light / hand held assignments. A popular use is when I wish to freeze motion in early morning or evening shots.
And more recently as I discovered on my travels for those situations when I’m forced to shoot hand held. For example on a recent visit to Japan. I was constantly met with heavy resistance by security guards at a number of famous temple and shrine sights when armed with a camera mounted to either a monopod or tripod!
On the topic of noise… I particularly dislike chroma blotching and can at least accept some luminance noise at higher ISOs as it tends to have a grainy / film look. The current crop of Nikon DSLRs handle noise very well in this regard. Whereas Sony and Pentax have some catching up to do in this regard. And Canon and Olympus less so.
A point that was made earlier in this blog is that noise control matters even at lowers ISOs. As I have found when processing HDR images. With crop format (APS-C) and particularly 4/3rds cameras, pushing the shadows beyond one stop (even with raw files) and the noise starts to creep into the shadows. A 14-bit raw file may help to improve the tonal graduations, but it’s no substitute for a better light gathering (larger) sensor. Shooting with a FF 35mm sensor at lower ISOs would allow you to push the shadows up to at least two stops before noise would become evident.
I find FF and crop factored sensor camera’s are useful for different assignments.
When I travel or venture into the bushland and shoot birds, I like the extra FOV that a crop sensor camera can provide.
That said, the latest crop of FF cameras such s the Nikon D3X, Canon 5D MkII and Sony Aplha 900 can produce crop factored images when mounted to cropped lenses of at least 10MP resolution.
So I wouldn’t trade in all your crop factored lens, as they could still serve a purpose when greater FOV is a priority.
I understand that we all dislike compromises. Particularly when we spend our hard earnt cash camera equipment which become obsolete in less than 5 years.
I also think that with the advent of computers and digital cameras we have become more critical at scrutinizing our image quality.
Back in the 80s and 90s, I don’t recall this level of scrutiny with film based 35mm or APS camera images. And back then we rarely shot above ISO 800 and still managed to produce great shots.
Most of us didn’t have dark rooms or film scanners and would drop our rolls of unprocessed film at a photo lab.
When we got our prints back they were usually 6X4s in size and the colour levels and contrast would have mostly likely been tweaked and the images may have even been cropped or touched up to remove dust by the lab tech.
These days we do all of this with a PC and software. We can magnify our images to 100% or 200% and scrutinise every image sensor fault and lens distortion.
By adopting digital as our format we have had to accept certain image sensor constraints such as chroma blotching noise. But we gained some useful functions such as image previewing, real time diagnostics and even live view functions!
Happy snapping.
For the past several months I have been debating the D300 over the D700, including spending far too much time trying to get the best deal on Ebay. For whatever it’s worth, the average used price for a 300 is $1216 and for a D700 $2255, so for $1000 difference there should be a lot more to choose from. I have pretty well decided to wait until I unload enough old camera gear to get the 700 specifically due to the enormous range of low light performance. I am planning a trip out west this summer and intend to do some low light photography at some national monuments such as Arches national park, Yellowstone, etc. – sunrises and sunsets. First, I need the 12mgp resolution: Second, I want real quality in the shadows, where the real mystery/beauty of the shots come, as far as I am concerned: Third, if I am going to spend the money on the trip itself it seems something of a waste to go cheap on the camera. Let’s spend billions to send someone to the moon, and then use a throwaway camera, right? I am also looking at the reality of the apparent fabulous resale value of the D700, and I can actually justify buying a good used D700, taking it on the vacation for two weeks, then reselling it on Ebay for pretty much exactly what I paid for it, the prices have been that stable. Beats renting one for $175/day.
I think you’ll be pretty happy with the D700, can’t imagine not liking it, especially if you’re invested in Nikon glass already.
What a BS example. You used two very different lenses on the cameras. While I agree the full frame sensor is a big advantage, the noise reduction in the D700 is the same as the D300. In fact the D700 is essentially the D300 with a new sensor fitted.
Kevin,
Same lens comparisons will show an improvement in IQ, the differences aren’t monumental, but they are there. I stand by cleaner, clearer, crisper.
Hi everyone
regarding fx/dx which is better, I must say I am not a pro I am just a normal photo enthusiast who just takes normal pictures and as i read all revues and tests everyone is extractiing tiny crops and compare these crops. my question is will a day light taken picture printed to A4 dimensions, will be better if taken by an fx sensor camera than the same picture taken by a dx sensor camera supposing same conditions,lens,aperture etc. ?. So far I have not yet any review about that. Can someone give a point of view about this? thnks
Sharif
Patrick
thnks yr reply which I did not see before second comment.Sorry for that
Now according yr reply if I plan to use a dslr for landscapes,family pictures,daylight portraits then there is really no need to pay extra money to get an fx dslr. Better spend money for a very good lens and get a dx dslr which in any case will be obsolete after 2/3 years
Alsharif
Sharif,
You’ll be more than fine with the DX, just pick your lenses wisely, keeping in mind most likely you’ll end up with full frame. There are no bad reviews for the D300, it’s a great camera.
On the other hand, I went with a full frame camera, because I wanted bigger prints, I frequently make significant crops on my images, wanted to take really wide angle landscapes, and shoot low light without a flash. With the 5D2 I know I bought the best tool I could get, which equals no regrets.
Alot of people don’t know this but the D700 has L37 module integration and the D300 does not. I used to work for a company that manufactures prototype sensors for Sony and am currently researching my own sensor that I anticipate will put the D700 to shame. There is no quality difference in theory between the two cameras. So I will say “el degrada dan husse” that we cannot form these conclusions.
Patrick hi
ref. you got a 5d mk11 for large prints and crops.
Ok for that purpose but what about noise? My point of view is that above 12-14 mp in a a full frame will lead to noise. “therefore in my opinion sticking with less pixels (12mp) in a full frame sensor would be wiser.
On the other hand I regret film era as you could have high results with either a brand new F5 or an old nikon F.
Now you pay a lot of money to buy the latest highest full frame dslr and within months the market comes out with a totally new model with more pixels,less noise and your new expensive high end dslr becomes an old one! this why I am a film camera collector and enjoy very much using my collection.
Sharif
Sharif,
I can tell you I’m having no issues with noise whatsoever. Noise is just not an issue all the way up to ISO3200 on most of my prints. And I don’t see how I don’t get at least a couple of years with this camera. So don’t let noise be an issue for you in your purchase (unless you’re considering the Sony A900, which does get noisy north of ISO 800).
You can spend the same amount of money and get:
Canon 5D mark II: full frame, high resolution, excellent ISO
Nikon D700: full frame, “only” 12 megapixels, excellent ISO, and much better AF system—-but due to be replaced or updated sooner than the Canon 5D mark II.
Hi Patrick i have read all the comments and they are so useful but i have some questions regarding comparison between D700 and D300, i am amateur photographer that turning to be professional, i have begun to take photo shoots especially food photography… i am thinking to upgrade to either D700 or D300 but i cant take the discussion.. i like so much the quality of the full frame cameras but i have DX lenses except 50mm 1.4D Nikkor… so i dont know it is worthy to get D700 and then upgrade my lenses from DX format or get D300 to be full compatible with my DX lenses??… DX lenses are professional??! or by time i have to stop using DX lenses for more prof. images?… How bad is using DX format lenses with D700?
thanks very much and i appreciate your reply ….
I don’t think you’ll want to use DX lenses with the D700 as this results in cropped/smaller files of 5 megapixels. Honestly with food/studio type shots, given I assume generally well lit scenes, you probably won’t see big differences in image quality between the two. The difference would come from how you output these files (final print sizes). For example if your final destination is the web, then a D300 is more than enough. Going forward though, as you become more and more professional, and in your own personal shooting, I suspect that a D700 and gradually filtering your lenses to the FX variety will have made you a happier photographer.
One more thing, the D300 is due for an update, so you might consider holding out, or
pick up a used D300 which could be relatively cheap, make a point of getting fx lenses from here on out, and wait for the next nikon, then sell the D300.
Thank you for different advices regarding D700 and D300. I will follow the advice to wait for new releases of Nikon and instead of bying a used D300 for the timebeing I will continue using my good old Zeiss Ikon Contarex cyclops with the wonderful 50mm Planar with which I obtain superb results
Sharif Ali
sounds like a real smart plan
Hi, I’m new to posting here, but I used to own a D300 and now currently own a D700. I shoot weddings and event photography. Many things on paper look the same with the D300 and D700, but there is a quality the difference, not just in the low light capabilities. I found that my d300 sometimes would get confused with auto white balanced. In the same lighting my D700 works flawlessly and effortlessly. I even had a better lens on my d300 (17-55mm 2.8 AFS) I thought this was perfect until I moved up to the D700, which I have been frequently shooting with a tamron 28-75mm 2.8. It was going to be a transition lens until I could buy a 24-70mm nikon 2.8. It ends up I will still get the 24-70mm to compare it with the 28-75mm tamron, but the tamron will stay in the bag regardless, its that good and cheap!. Anyways the d700 with a lesser lens gave me nicer images than my d300 ever did with the $1400 dollar lens. It just seems to nail exposures and wb better and more consistently. I do far less post processing now. There is a quality that FX gives to images also, they seem to pop a little more. Don’t get me wrong get the D300 if you aren’t shooting in lighting that changes alot or if you are on a budget, is more than a capable camera. Look up Kate Mcelwee, she is a great photographer and she shoots on a d300. Why I bought a D700, because the controls are just like a D300 so no real learning curve, it is the low light king of cameras, I can shoot safely to 6400 with no worries, I can still mount my 11-16mm tokina 2.8 in FX mode and use it at 16mm for a nice cheap, fast wide lens. The viewfinder is gorgeous, but I do miss how the AF sensors cover more of the screen on the d300. What I also miss on the d300 is 1.5 multiplier. I don’t miss it so much though because I prefer to be closer to my subjects anyways, but it is nice when shooting from afar, guess its why I also kept a D80. In a perfect world it would have been nice to have been able to keep both. The d700 fits my style, as I prefer to shoot with natural light and up close to the action. I honestly would have went back to a d300 if I didn’t see a difference. But with a d700 I’m able to shoot with a 2.8 lens with no worries, where on the d300 I would need to use fast prime lenses for the same situations, and still worry if I was going to get the shot still.
Hi Charles
Question remains to be asked
If you had the choice would you prefer to get the D700 with a cheaper lens or buy the D300 with one of the best lenses Nikon ever made which is the 24-70 f2.8 with about the same price?
I think this is an important issue to decide if you are an enthusiast photographer not a professional one and if you do not need more than 3200 Asa taking in consideration the continuous new cameras entering the market every day.
Alsharif
Alsharif Ali I apologize I didn’t realize you asked this question until now. I would honestly go with the d700 and a cheaper lens. A cheaper lens doesn’t always equal less quality. Depending on what you shoot, some of the cheaper lenses become more useful and are just as sharp. I know with my D700, my 50mm 1.8/1.4 is more useful to me. I get that shallow depth of field with a bigger field of view. In my opinion the 50mm was to long on a cropped sensor. It works decently on a cropped sensor as a portrait, but you don’t get as shallow of a depth of field with the same point of view as a full sensor camera. My 90mm 2.8 Tamron Macro now doubles up as a great portrait lens, where it used to be too long on a cropped camera (D300 / D90 / D80 etc) I would only be able to get tight headshots. I shoot weddings mostly so, this advise may not be true in your situation, you may welcome the extra depth of field and reach you get with a cropped sensor if you shoot sports or wildlife. For weddings, having the D700’s low light, high ISO ability, and the Shallower depth of field / at the same field of view helps me take better photographs. Having the D700 allows me some flexibly with what lenses I can use and gives me more leeway in low light conditions. I’ve been experimenting with a great low budget lens combo with the D700. Its common knowledge that Nikon lacks wide fast AF primes like Canon. There are some, but they are either too expensive or lack AF. I’ve actually put on a DX lens on my D700, and this one works excellent in my opinion (This is in FX mode). The 35mm 1.8G is super sharp wide open, and focuses very accurately. I haven’t been brave enough to use it at a wedding yet, as I want to test it some more (my bread and butter is the 24-70mm 2.8). I did recently use it at a birthday party, and I think the images look great (especially for a $200 lens!), the extra stop I get helps with getting more shutter speed! There is a little vignetting in some situations, but not really that bad, it actually fits my style of shooting. Many times I find myself adding vignetting on some images. This won’t fly with a landscape photographer, but I’d imagine wedding photographers could find it useful.
You are dreaming or you have a wild imagination if you think Nikon will come out with a “D300X”. There was no such thing as a D200X. Also, except for noise at higher ISOs (400+), the professional D2X/D2Xs outperforms the D300.
I feel most of the comments have overlooked the obvious question. What kind of shooting are you doing?
Besides the little ISO issue, the real issue comes down to the glass and what the user will be shooting. The DX format has caused problems in wide angle lens design and why the DX lenses came into being. Making a good very wide angle lens is difficult and if a user of a DX format camera wants a 180 degree FOV it’s nearly impossible. Thus, the best part about FX format is the lens base for wide angle photography. If that is what you are shooting, then the D700 is the best choice.
On the other side of the zoom world are the telephoto shooters. The great thing about the 12 Mpixel DX d300 is that you get an effective 300 mm lens from a 200mm lens compared to the D700. Suddenly, since the pixels are spread out on a bigger chip, the D700 has the same usable pixels as the old D100 at full zoom. So now if you want to do lots of telephoto work, you have to spend the cash long focal length lenses in addition to the cash already spent on the body. I think this choice doesn’t make sense. Of course one can argue that 6 Mpixels are plenty–and in many cases they are but if the noise is kept low on the large pixel density chips, that cropping ability allows even more effective zoom.
I’m guessing Nikon will have a dumbed down D3x at some point so having 24 MPixels in a “D800″ body will make it do-it-all body. But until then, I think the choice should depend on whether you shoot wide angle or telephoto I see no reason to spend the extra cash on the D700 over the D300.
rich,
thanks for stopping by and leaving some wise points. On you’re larger point, “what are you shooting”, this is something I say pretty frequently. The most important thing to do is honestly assess what you shoot/will shoot. As you said if you’re doing wide-angle landscape work, by all means full frame’s going to be a huge benefit. Telephoto obviously has benefits with DX, there’s also the issue of speed, etc. Lot’s of things to consider before buying a camera. If money’s no object though….I’d still say full frame.
We still have to point out that when using a telephoto, the magnification on a dx will be the same as on the fx frame. Only the frame will change. Please correwct me if I am wrong. Thnks.
Alsharif Ali
I would think there should be a performance difference and an image quality difference at 1000.00 difference. I use a Sony CbershotW300. It takes pretty good “pictures” and i have fun uing photoshop. I d plan on a DSLR someday, the next generation 300 or 700 may be my compromise point. Thank you all for your advise.
If I look at the sample above I do notice more distortion in the FX frame but not sure if the differences amount to anything significant and that’s at ISO 6400 an ISO the D300 was not designed to operate at except by amplification. I still don’t rate FX as good as DX but that could all change in the future. For now DX works like a charm for a lot less cost.
Mike, nothing wrong with DX, but I suspect if you’d get FX, you’d be disinclined to go back to DX. I could be wrong though.
if we start calculation from pixel size, we obtain, that ISO 200 of D700 is equal to ISO450 on D300 with same apreture and shutter speed.
Thanks to large pixel size we can see more half/tones of gray (excuse my bad English, i studied it 32 years ago in aviation institute). For me, it is all advantages of D700 (not FX at all). But where your find 18-200VR for D700?
Alex,
I agree the D700 has a nice advantage, and I don’t think you can put the 18-200vr on the D700 (without cropping)
I mean that you cannot buy FX lens with zoom 18-200, and for me, for example, if I get D300, I must change park of lens, which may be more expensive than changing camera body.
Alex,
Right, now I get you.