D300s v D700 - comments
Discussion
Okay. I am going from being 100% certain its the D700 I need, to the next moment being 100% sure the D300s will suffice. I currently have a D300 with 17-55 2.8 and the 70-200vr 2.8. Lovely bits of kit. I need a second pro body. Now, I had sold myself the D700 saying that it' low level light performance and it simply being FX which will in the future be the standard (IMHO) is the way to go. However, this is quite an expensive option. As I would need to really buy a replacement for the 17-55 as I plan to leave the 70-200 on the current D300. Suddenly, I have to buy a D700, plus fx lens, plus vertical grip plus sb900 leading to a big bill. While for almost the same money as just the body of the d700 i can buy a new d300s, vert grip and flash and already know what I have in my hands.
In summary, is the D700 low light and FX format worth the extra cash. I mainly do wedding photography.
All thoughts welcomed. Cheers.
In summary, is the D700 low light and FX format worth the extra cash. I mainly do wedding photography.
All thoughts welcomed. Cheers.
cliff123 said:
Okay. I am going from being 100% certain its the D700 I need, to the next moment being 100% sure the D300s will suffice. I currently have a D300 with 17-55 2.8 and the 70-200vr 2.8. Lovely bits of kit. I need a second pro body. Now, I had sold myself the D700 saying that it' low level light performance and it simply being FX which will in the future be the standard (IMHO) is the way to go. However, this is quite an expensive option. As I would need to really buy a replacement for the 17-55 as I plan to leave the 70-200 on the current D300. Suddenly, I have to buy a D700, plus fx lens, plus vertical grip plus sb900 leading to a big bill. While for almost the same money as just the body of the d700 i can buy a new d300s, vert grip and flash and already know what I have in my hands.
In summary, is the D700 low light and FX format worth the extra cash. I mainly do wedding photography.
All thoughts welcomed. Cheers.
Well... as you already know the D700 will have a bit of an edge in low-light photography. At weddings & in churches that could matter, but I've seen ISO3200 pictures of the D300 that are close to ISO6400 on the D700. So is that 1 stop worth the trouble of new lenses etc... probably not. Also, your 70-200vr I is not as good on a D700 as on a D300 (reason for me to get an old 80-200AFS, which is somewhat better on FF but still vignettes significantly).In summary, is the D700 low light and FX format worth the extra cash. I mainly do wedding photography.
All thoughts welcomed. Cheers.
One thing that can be of importance is the somewhat shallower DOF achievable with a D700 with the same aperture, and the fact that famed portrait lenses like the 85 1.4, 105 2.0 and 135 2.0 work "as they should" (without the perhaps unwanted extra "zoom" from the D300 crop factor). How important this is for your wedding photography you only can decide.
I sold my D200+nice collection of DX lenses 2 years ago for a D700 and haven't looked back... but it was (and still is) a hefty investment in new lenses. I love the D700 and surely there is a quite different quality to the pictures than with the D200. But the D300s is way ahead of the D200 as well. Having said that, I'm nowhere near a pro so it might also be me justifying my gear/lens lust...
In all, I think if I were in your situation I'd get the D300s and use the leftover money for some nice extra glass.
Edited by mmertens on Tuesday 2nd March 12:54
It really is the low light quality that seems to be the factor, which in Churches I would appreciate. Ideally would like to test the D700 alongside the D300 taking the same pics and compare, but obviously this is not really possible. Images from the D300 are super, and they are of course from the D700. Does anyone have both cameras who would care to do this test for me?
Head is again telling me D300s. Wallet is telling me D300s. Hmmm.
Head is again telling me D300s. Wallet is telling me D300s. Hmmm.
Cliff, I use a D3 as my primary body and I honestly believe that FF is worth it. My current backup is a D200 and although this is not as new as a D300s the difference is very clear.
could you wait and add a grip later on? If it were my decision i'd probably have a spare battery and make do for a while. add a Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 to the mix and i'm sure you'll be very very impressed.
One of my weddings last year in October was set in a function room at Aston Villa FC, the ceiling was painted black and it was pretty dim come the evening and the speeches, I relied heavily on the high ISO performance and got useable results from ISO 5000 files.
If you'd like to see any specific files please do let me know, or if you're at focus on imaging next week i'd be happy to let you rattle off a few images for yourself.
Regards,
Matt.
could you wait and add a grip later on? If it were my decision i'd probably have a spare battery and make do for a while. add a Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 to the mix and i'm sure you'll be very very impressed.
One of my weddings last year in October was set in a function room at Aston Villa FC, the ceiling was painted black and it was pretty dim come the evening and the speeches, I relied heavily on the high ISO performance and got useable results from ISO 5000 files.
If you'd like to see any specific files please do let me know, or if you're at focus on imaging next week i'd be happy to let you rattle off a few images for yourself.
Regards,
Matt.
Yes, will be at Focus Monday and possibly Tuesday as well. Was planning to bring a CF card along with me so that I could do the test on the Nikon stand. Hopefully a decision can be made up then.
Matt, would love to see a pic taken at ISO 5000 if you'd be willing to set up a link to a high res file. Thanks. I'll PM you with my contact details if you fancy meeting for a coffee at the show. Cheers, Cliff.
Matt, would love to see a pic taken at ISO 5000 if you'd be willing to set up a link to a high res file. Thanks. I'll PM you with my contact details if you fancy meeting for a coffee at the show. Cheers, Cliff.
Just don't go near the D3s because that is in another league entirely! I'll just export a full size file and email it over to you if you like? I have my flickR setup to restrict larger sizes so i'm not sure how I would do it that way.
I'll be going focus tuesday and wednesday, meeting for a coffee would be great. I'll send you the file over now.
I'll be going focus tuesday and wednesday, meeting for a coffee would be great. I'll send you the file over now.
I was in a similar position to the OP in 2008. I thought the D700 was going to be perfect for weddings. However the dealbreaker was the altered FOV with both 17-55 and 70-200 lenses. The 24-70 is bulky and doesn't have the same FOV range as the 17-55; to replace a 200mm lens needs a 300mm lens - way too big and heavy to cart about all day. So I sent the D700 back and work quite happily with a brace of D200s and SB800s.
Edited by Simpo Two on Tuesday 2nd March 19:51
I say go for the D700.
What I've seen of D3 and D700 wedding shots with the 24-70 is amazing. DoF and low light ability are killer.
Ok you have to buy another lens but hey as a professional having 2 bodies and a backup lens should one stop working has to be an advantage.
Nikons 24-70 is a stunning workhorse.
What I've seen of D3 and D700 wedding shots with the 24-70 is amazing. DoF and low light ability are killer.
Ok you have to buy another lens but hey as a professional having 2 bodies and a backup lens should one stop working has to be an advantage.
Nikons 24-70 is a stunning workhorse.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff