Even though we ARE Nikon lovers,we are NOT affiliated with Nikon Corp. in any way.

English German French

Sign up Login
Home Forums Articles Galleries Recent Photos Contest Help Search News Workshops Shop Upgrade Membership Recommended
members
All members Wiki Contests Vouchers Apps Newsletter THE NIKONIAN™ Magazines Podcasts Fundraising

D700 v. D300 Test Pictures

philipl

Oxford, US
1784 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author
philipl Gold Member Nikonian since 31st May 2007
Mon 15-Jun-09 12:08 PM | edited Mon 15-Jun-09 12:23 PM by philipl

I've read a number of posts suggesting that the D700 takes "better" pictures than the D300. I decided to test this theory. With the exception of auto ISO all shots were taken with the cameras set with standard factory settings JPEG large optimal image quality, manual, 1/160 sec, F8, Sigma 150 macro lens, tripod, natural light. No processing other than combining and resizing.

Click on image to view larger version



Click on image to view larger version


In each case the top shot is the D300, the middle shot is the D700 with the tripod moved closer to the flower to attempt the same FOV and the bottom shot is the D700 with the tripod in about the same location as picture #1.

To my eye (especially in the full size shots) the D300 has a slight edge in picture quality. Though to be fair I have done some low light tests where the D700 blows the D300 away.

Philip

Click on image to view larger version


Edit to add third picture; D300 on top D700 bottom
Attachment#1 (jpg file)
Attachment#2 (jpg file)
Attachment#3 (jpg file)

Philip

Do not settle for mediocrity. Rather strive for excellence for even in that attempt lies a measure of success.

https://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/139567[br />"]My Gallery

bmunson

San Diego, US
351 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#1. "RE: D700 v. D300 Test Pictures" | In response to Reply # 0

bmunson Registered since 04th Apr 2007
Mon 15-Jun-09 02:08 PM | edited Mon 15-Jun-09 02:11 PM by bmunson

To make this more scinetific, It may help to post the ISO for comparison, since ISO is a big part of why some feel the D700 is "better." Also, a crop may be in order, it is hard to tell much of anything from the picture size on my monitor.

Barry

The pursuit of photography drives me to go places and see things I otherwise would only view through the eyes of others.



Visit my Nikonians Gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

philipl

Oxford, US
1784 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#2. "RE: D700 v. D300 Test Pictures" | In response to Reply # 0

philipl Gold Member Nikonian since 31st May 2007
Mon 15-Jun-09 03:20 PM

D300, ISO 320, F8, 1/160 sec

Click on image to view larger version


D700, ISO 360, F8, 1/160sec
Click on image to view larger version


D700, ISO 500, F8, 1/160
Click on image to view larger version


As i rarely shoot flash i wanted to do this comparison with my most used lens shooting as I usually shoot. I am very pleased with both cameras and will probably keep my D300 as my primary camera because the DX "crop factor" fits better for my style macro and wildlife. Had the D700 produced notably better shots I may have re-thought things but am pleased.

Philip
Attachment#1 (jpg file)
Attachment#2 (jpg file)
Attachment#3 (jpg file)

Philip

Do not settle for mediocrity. Rather strive for excellence for even in that attempt lies a measure of success.

https://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/139567[br />"]My Gallery

bmunson

San Diego, US
351 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#3. "RE: D700 v. D300 Test Pictures" | In response to Reply # 2

bmunson Registered since 04th Apr 2007
Mon 15-Jun-09 06:10 PM

Phillip,


Phillip,

It appears that the focus point for the D700 shot may be closer to the camera than the D300 shot, and the angles are slightly different. I adjusted the color of the D300 shot in Lightroom to match the D700 shot and they both are close in sharpness and contrast, as far as I can tell, after mentally adjusting for different focus points/angle.

I have both cameras as well, and both are always in my bag, which is getting quite heavy. I am trying to learn which to use in certain situations, ignoring the obvious crop factor/ISO differences, because sometimes I notice there is a difference that I do not expect and cannot explain (except for possibly technique). I try not to go through my endless mental loop asking myself whether I have made the “right” choice. I say use the camera that you are confident with, that way you can concentrate on getting the shot.

It is nice to have a choice between some very nice cameras though, isn’t it?

Barry

The pursuit of photography drives me to go places and see things I otherwise would only view through the eyes of others.



Visit my Nikonians Gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

joeholmes

Brooklyn, US
74 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#4. "RE: D700 v. D300 Test Pictures" | In response to Reply # 0

joeholmes Registered since 26th Nov 2004
Mon 15-Jun-09 06:14 PM

As you've put it, this is a straw man argument. Who are these people who say the D700 produces "better" images, and what exactly do they claim?

philipl

Oxford, US
1784 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#5. "RE: D700 v. D300 Test Pictures" | In response to Reply # 4

philipl Gold Member Nikonian since 31st May 2007
Mon 15-Jun-09 06:52 PM | edited Mon 15-Jun-09 06:55 PM by philipl

>As you've put it, this is a straw man argument. Who are these
>people who say the D700 produces "better" images,
>and what exactly do they claim?


"I haven't used the D300 much over the past few months. And, I don't miss the reach..well, if a D3 or D700 performance was available in a Dx sensor I would sell both and go with that, but the D700 is without question the go-to body."

Above is a recent quote but representative of many posts which talk about "better pictures", "faster focus" or "go to body". I bought my D700 primarily for low light situations and planned to primarily shoot my D300 for macro and wildlife. I have read a number of different posts that stated or implied that the D700 takes better pictures, focuses faster, etc (than the D300) so I did a test (not perfect) that applied to the type of shots I take. It shows that (for me) both cameras take very good pictures.

Some time in the past there was a thread comparing the Nikon 70-200 to the Tamron 70-200. There were lots of opinions posted including one that stated that the Tamron was sharper at F2.8. This was after I bought my Nikon and before selling my Tamron so i posted comparison pictures that clearly showed the Nikon was much sharper at 2.8.

I'm not trying to "stir the pot" I just wanted to post my findings.

Philip

Edit: Here is another quote from a post "I had a D300 and now have a D700. The images from the D700 are cleaner and look better cropped"

Philip

Do not settle for mediocrity. Rather strive for excellence for even in that attempt lies a measure of success.

https://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/139567[br />"]My Gallery

RayC

Macungie, US
81 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#6. "RE: D700 v. D300 Test Pictures" | In response to Reply # 5

RayC Silver Member Nikonian since 02nd Dec 2005
Mon 15-Jun-09 08:36 PM

I’m in a mental battle between a new D700 and D300 and your post has me a little confused. It appears your post is meant to show the D300 is every bit as good as the D700 but I’m reading it a different way.

Are your saying that the sharpness of a D700, when cropped, is equal to the full frame sharpness of a D300?

If you are, are you also saying that the same two images will print to the same sharpness at...let’s say 13 x 19?

If that’s the case, I'm afraid I don't understand the DX "reach" advantage over the FX bodies.


Ray

One thing I know is .... I know nothing

philipl

Oxford, US
1784 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#7. "RE: D700 v. D300 Test Pictures" | In response to Reply # 6

philipl Gold Member Nikonian since 31st May 2007
Mon 15-Jun-09 10:10 PM | edited Mon 15-Jun-09 10:10 PM by philipl

The D700, as a full frame camera, has much better low light abilities (excellent shots from mine up to 6400 ISO) whereas the D300 is good to ISO 16000. The D700 also excels at wide angle shots where a 18 mm acts as a 24mm would on DX.

The DX cameras have a smaller sensor than FX which gives "the crop factor". That is to say if you take a picture with a 100 mm lens on a DX camera and you want the same FOV (field of view) from the same location with a FX camera you would need to use a 150 lens.

My Sigma 150 macro is a 150 on any camera but with the crop factor it acts as a 225 on my D300.

I have printed a number of excellent 17 x 25 pictures from 12 mega pixels and less so both cameras can produce large prints.

Both cameras are excellent. If you want more low light abilities or shoot more wide angle shots the D700 may be the best choice. If you want more magnification (400 acts like 600) the D300 may be the best choice. I am fortunate in that I have both.

philip

Philip

Do not settle for mediocrity. Rather strive for excellence for even in that attempt lies a measure of success.

https://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/139567[br />"]My Gallery

RayC

Macungie, US
81 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#8. "RE: D700 v. D300 Test Pictures" | In response to Reply # 7

RayC Silver Member Nikonian since 02nd Dec 2005
Mon 15-Jun-09 10:32 PM

I understand all that.

I just didn't see or misread the part where you moved the tripod with the D700 closer. I thought you were blowing up the D700 crop to make your point. Now it makes sense. Sorry.

Ray

One thing I know is .... I know nothing

lofling

SE
1464 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#9. "RE: D700 v. D300 Test Pictures" | In response to Reply # 5

lofling Registered since 18th Jun 2008
Tue 16-Jun-09 05:45 PM

>Edit: Here is another quote from a post "I had a D300 and
>now have a D700. The images from the D700 are cleaner and look
>better cropped"

I have seen this and similar things posted and questioned it to a certain amount. However, it is dependent on both lens and camera as far as I understand it.

I have also seen post saying some have more keepers with the D700.

The D300 sensor is more pixel dense than the D700 sensor. This will be more demanding on technique and lens sharpness. On the other hand, vignetting and corner softness is most often less a problem.

The thing is, I just can't see that the 1.5x times less pixels you get covering a subject with the same lens will be compensated for the lower pixel density if you nail focus and use good technique.
This is substantiated by Philip's test, even if the test is not technically perfect (no critique).

___________________________________

Visit my Nikonians gallery.


Or have a look at fling.zenfolio.com

hwdx347

Maumelle, US
6273 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#10. "RE: D700 v. D300 Test Pictures" | In response to Reply # 0

hwdx347 Basic Member
Tue 16-Jun-09 06:09 PM

I have a D700 as well as a D200. A friend of mine has a D300. Last week we took the D300 and D700 out for a shoot out. In bright sunlight we decided there was no difference in the pictures. Well they may have been slight diffrerences but not worth fighting about. Without a doubt the D700 will win in low light.

Hedley
Originally from Merthyr Tydfil, Wales -- now in Arkansas

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Ramesses

US
2035 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#11. "RE: D700 v. D300 Test Pictures" | In response to Reply # 0

Ramesses Registered since 29th Mar 2007
Wed 17-Jun-09 04:24 AM

Hi Philip:

I have both the D300 and the D700 and they are basically the same cameras. One has the APS-C sensor (I believe ~ 5.6 µ size photosites) and the other a 35mm sensor (I believe ~ 8.4 µ size photosites.) I would not say that either one takes better photos under the sun, at ISO 800, and bellow. The main advantages of the D700 are:

1. It is a 35mm camera. All my life, except for two years, I have shot with 35mm cameras and that is why I have a tendency to gravitate towards the D700.
2. In low light, the D700 shines, even compared to my film cameras. I was lucky to just get a photo at f/1.4, resting the camera, in low light with ASA 400 film. Now, I expect to get the same quality of photo, in low light, as I do under the sun.
3. The D700 is superior to the D300 if you reproduce large prints or go to 1:1 magnification.

Regardless, I ain’t no foo. My D300 (“Gracie”) is not going anywhere. It was (until the D700) the best camera I ever owned, by far. In addition, I got it the first day it came out. I have stated many times, I do not care if my D300 becomes the “Ford T” of the digital world – it will always be with me. The D700, I do not know.

The D300 has many advantages, imho, over the D300. It is a better handling camera and 100% viewfinder. The D700 is only 95%. This creates some problems, like the picture below at the Huntington Art Library:

Click on image to view larger version


I did not see her in the viewfinder when I took the photo and I’m not about to crop out a very pretty girl from of any of my pictures. However, 100% viewfinder is fantastic.

Best Regards,

Ramesses

A Nikonian in Kemet

My Blog: Hektors Blog
My Photo Album: Hektors Photos

philipl

Oxford, US
1784 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#12. "RE: D700 v. D300 Test Pictures" | In response to Reply # 11

philipl Gold Member Nikonian since 31st May 2007
Wed 17-Jun-09 09:19 AM

Hektor,

In a way this post is your fault. your series of posts from the Huntington are what made me decide to get the D700.

Philip

Philip

Do not settle for mediocrity. Rather strive for excellence for even in that attempt lies a measure of success.

https://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/139567[br />"]My Gallery

pshnikchch

Christchurch, NZ
255 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#13. "RE: D700 v. D300 Test Pictures" | In response to Reply # 0

pshnikchch Silver Member Nikonian since 16th May 2007
Wed 17-Jun-09 09:39 AM

Is it possible that at least some of the differences you see are to do with the relative levels of in-camera sharpening between the d300 and d700.

When I first purchased the d700 I was disappointed with the "soft" JPG images and then realised that the in-camera sharpening was much lower than that of the d200. After resolving this I'm enjoying everything I expected of the d700.

PETER

http://www.pastoralsystems.co.nz/photography/

bijnil

US
28 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#14. "RE: D700 v. D300 Test Pictures" | In response to Reply # 11

bijnil Registered since 11th Feb 2009
Wed 17-Jun-09 09:53 PM

Hi Ramesses,
Just curious. Why didn't you use live-view which has 100% frame coverage? Or is it not 100%?
Best regards,
- Nilanjan.

Ramesses

US
2035 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#15. "RE: D700 v. D300 Test Pictures" | In response to Reply # 12

Ramesses Registered since 29th Mar 2007
Wed 17-Jun-09 10:50 PM

Hi Philip:

You are more than welcome, I think. Please do not tell your wife about me; I’m in enough trouble with Dave’s wife, already (70-200.) On second thoughts, I’m going on vacation to an undisclosed location between here and Pluto.

Ramesses

A Nikonian in Kemet

My Blog: Hektors Blog
My Photo Album: Hektors Photos

Ramesses

US
2035 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#16. "RE: D700 v. D300 Test Pictures" | In response to Reply # 14

Ramesses Registered since 29th Mar 2007
Wed 17-Jun-09 10:59 PM

>Hi Ramesses,
>Just curious. Why didn't you use live-view which has 100%
>frame coverage? Or is it not 100%?
>Best regards,
>- Nilanjan.

Hi Nilanjan:

I do not use live-view at all, especially when hand holding the camera. I'm strictly viewfinder - old habits die hard - very old habits.

Ramesses

A Nikonian in Kemet

My Blog: Hektors Blog
My Photo Album: Hektors Photos

coreyography

US
72 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#17. "RE: D700 v. D300 Test Pictures" | In response to Reply # 0

coreyography Silver Member Nikonian since 24th Jan 2009
Wed 17-Jun-09 11:14 PM

The shots are definitely _different_. The D300 shots appear a little more saturated and biased toward the blue end of the spectrum. The effect is desirable (to me) in the first and second groups, not so much in the third.

I had played a bit with my dad's D80, sitting on the fence about buying a DSLR, until I borrowed a D300 to shoot a friend's graduation. Wow. The only remotely negative thing I noticed was a little noise in the night shots (and it wasn't anything NX2 couldn't take care of). I was waffling between the D300 and D700 and eventually the small software improvements and low-light performance of the D700 won me over.

I still notice that my shots with the D700 and D300 look different. Neither is better in all cases; D700 wins in low light, D300 in longest telephoto where the subject more completely fills the frame. I am able to get the images from either body tweaked exactly to my liking in NX2, but the steps I take with each camera are different.

If I ever do get into wildlife photography, though, and need those extra pixels in the smaller frame, I'll be all over a D300 (or its successor) as well. Damn NAS

Someday I'll have my own Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

philipl

Oxford, US
1784 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#18. "RE: D700 v. D300 Test Pictures" | In response to Reply # 17

philipl Gold Member Nikonian since 31st May 2007
Thu 18-Jun-09 12:07 AM

>The shots are definitely _different_. The D300 shots appear
>a little more saturated and biased toward the blue end of the
>spectrum. The effect is desirable (to me) in the first and
>second groups, not so much in the third.
>
>I had played a bit with my dad's D80, sitting on the fence
>about buying a DSLR, until I borrowed a D300 to shoot a
>friend's graduation. Wow. The only remotely negative thing I
>noticed was a little noise in the night shots (and it wasn't
>anything NX2 couldn't take care of). I was waffling between
>the D300 and D700 and eventually the small software
>improvements and low-light performance of the D700 won me
>over.
>
>I still notice that my shots with the D700 and D300 look
>different. Neither is better in all cases; D700 wins in low
>light, D300 in longest telephoto where the subject more
>completely fills the frame. I am able to get the images from
>either body tweaked exactly to my liking in NX2, but the steps
>I take with each camera are different.
>
>If I ever do get into wildlife photography, though, and need
>those extra pixels in the smaller frame, I'll be all over a
>D300 (or its successor) as well. Damn NAS


Exactly my thoughts and why I made this post in the first place.

Philip

Philip

Do not settle for mediocrity. Rather strive for excellence for even in that attempt lies a measure of success.

https://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/139567[br />"]My Gallery

philipl

Oxford, US
1784 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#19. "RE: D700 v. D300 Test Pictures" | In response to Reply # 15

philipl Gold Member Nikonian since 31st May 2007
Thu 18-Jun-09 12:12 AM

>Hi Philip:
>
>You are more than welcome, I think. Please do not tell your
>wife about me; I’m in enough trouble with Dave’s wife, already
>(70-200.) On second thoughts, I’m going on vacation to an
>undisclosed location between here and Pluto.
>
>Ramesses
>


BTW I also blamed you for the 24-70 I oredered today. My wife would like you address and what time you'll be home on Saturday.

Philip

Philip

Do not settle for mediocrity. Rather strive for excellence for even in that attempt lies a measure of success.

https://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/139567[br />"]My Gallery

Ramesses

US
2035 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#20. "RE: D700 v. D300 Test Pictures" | In response to Reply # 19

Ramesses Registered since 29th Mar 2007
Thu 18-Jun-09 12:34 AM

>BTW I also blamed you for the 24-70 I oredered today. My wife
>would like you address and what time you'll be home on
>Saturday.
>
Congrats on the 24-70, it is a wonderful lens. BTW, it blew away my mid-range primes. Therefore, I'm looking into the Zeiss AI-s compatible lenses - at least 4 at $1,000 per. I'll let you know.

My address is:

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Ask for Bo.

Ramesses (That is not my real name and won't tell you)

A Nikonian in Kemet

My Blog: Hektors Blog
My Photo Album: Hektors Photos

Len Shepherd

Yorkshire, UK
12722 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#21. "RE: What about the third "obvious" option." | In response to Reply # 0

Len Shepherd Gold Member Nikonian since 09th Mar 2003
Thu 18-Jun-09 12:03 PM

I regularly shoot D300/D3 to save carrying more lenses - 14mm is wider on FX and 70-200 f2.8 is effective 300 f2.8 on DX.
Apart from the different depth of field (for the same viewfinder crop) between D300/3 I can detect no difference in sharpness, resolution and colour saturation up to 400 ISO and only very slight difference at 800 ISO.
If I am doing wildlife or macro the extra reach and dof plus the option of 1 shutter speed faster (if not shooting wide open) for the same dof on DX make the D300 my first choice.
If I am shooting above 800 without needing extra reach, want the full benefit of 14mm, or minimal dof the D3 is my first choice.
To me the "obvious" is stop debating and buy one body in each format
Neither is "better" than the other - they are just different.

Photography is a bit like archery. A technically better camera, lens or arrow may not hit the target as often as it could if the photographer or archer does not practice enough.

Len Shepherd

artizen65

Littleton, US
267 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#22. "RE: D700 v. D300 Test Pictures" | In response to Reply # 16

artizen65 Registered since 01st Jan 2008
Sat 20-Jun-09 10:59 AM

As for the 95%.

I appreciate and now work within its confines. I have gotten pretty good at estimating the frame.

Michael P. Meyers

http://www.artizencreations.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

chevysales

US
156 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#23. "RE: D700 v. D300 Test Pictures" | In response to Reply # 0

chevysales Registered since 08th Nov 2008
Sun 21-Jun-09 08:25 PM | edited Sun 21-Jun-09 08:33 PM by chevysales

test is flawed without all settings exact.

how in the world can anyone compare images via the internet and a browser?

enjoy either tool they both exceed at what they were built to do.

Happy Nikon convert from Canon...
D700
24-70 f2.8
70-200vr f2.8

philipl

Oxford, US
1784 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#24. "RE: D700 v. D300 Test Pictures" | In response to Reply # 23

philipl Gold Member Nikonian since 31st May 2007
Mon 22-Jun-09 09:29 AM

>test is flawed without all settings exact.
>
>how in the world can anyone compare images via the internet
>and a browser?
>
>enjoy either tool they both exceed at what they were built to
>do.

No the test is not flawed. This test was to test what I shoot and the way i shoot. It was done for me. i did it because I had read a number of posts that stated or implied that the D700 took much better pictures than the D300 (of course no shots were attached). I

I do agree that the images on the internet browser leave a lot to be desired.

Philip

Do not settle for mediocrity. Rather strive for excellence for even in that attempt lies a measure of success.

https://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/139567[br />"]My Gallery

Max Power

St. Paul, US
434 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#25. "RE: D700 v. D300 Test Pictures" | In response to Reply # 24

Max Power Registered since 13th Jan 2006
Mon 22-Jun-09 02:14 PM

OK, it's not flawed then.

Neither set of images is compelling enough to tell me a darn thing. Both seem soft and the lighting flat. If they work for you, that's great.


It's not an optical illusion. It just looks like one.

lofling

SE
1464 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#26. "RE: D700 v. D300 Test Pictures" | In response to Reply # 25

lofling Registered since 18th Jun 2008
Mon 22-Jun-09 02:32 PM

>Both seem soft and the lighting flat.

Check what settings were used (in the original post).

___________________________________

Visit my Nikonians gallery.


Or have a look at fling.zenfolio.com

fishburn

Spokane, US
4 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#27. "RE: D700 v. D300 Test Pictures" | In response to Reply # 11

fishburn Registered since 29th Aug 2008
Mon 22-Jun-09 04:14 PM

>3. The D700 is superior to the D300 if you reproduce large
>prints or go to 1:1 magnification.

Why would that be? Given good lenses and the same field of view, you end up with two 12+ MP images. What about the D700's pixels would make its 12.1 MP image better than the D300's 12.3 MP image at a large size?

I'm not asking to be contentious. I'm debating switching from D300 to D700, and am often thinking about large-print shots. If there's a solid, technical reason for a D700 shot being better large prints, I'd like to know what it is. - That is, unless that claim is really just addressing higher ISO (800+) images and D700 v. D300 noise.

Oh - and, btw, how large do you consider "large prints" to be?

Thanks -

- Chazzz

MstrBones

AW
8238 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#28. "RE: D700 v. D300 Test Pictures" | In response to Reply # 0

MstrBones Silver Member Nikonian since 06th Dec 2005
Thu 25-Jun-09 10:45 PM

These pics are not the right kind of test.

You won't see any major differences IMO until you shoot very high contrast scenes that cause you to underexpose to hold your highlights and have to use something like D lighting to bring up your shadows. Then shadow noise will be more visible on the D300 and this will be more noticeable as your ISO increases.

""

philipl

Oxford, US
1784 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#29. "RE: D700 v. D300 Test Pictures" | In response to Reply # 28

philipl Gold Member Nikonian since 31st May 2007
Fri 26-Jun-09 01:06 AM

>These pics are not the right kind of test.
>

No disrespect intended but that's not true. I did this test for me and my type of shooting. I did it because there were a number of posts that stated or implied that the pictures from the D700 were significantly better (in general not in specific situations) than the D300.

I was concerned that those statements / implications may be true and did not want to do "lesser" photography because, in some situations, I felt the DX "crop factor" served my purposes.

My test showed that both cameras are equal and good for my macro shooting.

I have done some "correct" comparisons as in the below listed test which showed the Nikon 70-200 is sharper than the Tamron at F2.8 despite some other posts that stated the opposite.

https://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcboard.php?az=set_threaded_mode&forum=157&topic_id=30960&prev_page=show_topic&gid=30960#30965

There is a lot of good information here. There are also situations where people present opinions and imply they are facts. It is important when sharing information with folks who may make financial decisions based on these posts that we be accurate.

Despite many comments in this forum about the superiority of D700 pictures (iso 800 and less) compared to D300 photos I have missed the pictorial proof of that statement.

At high ISO with and without flash the D700 is clearly superior and I have done those tests but not published them as it is "conventional wisdom" and correct (IMO).

I'm off for some visits and some shooting this weekend but when I get back I will post some high contrast 100% crop shots from a tripod level with the target to further elucidate this issue.

Philip

Philip

Do not settle for mediocrity. Rather strive for excellence for even in that attempt lies a measure of success.

https://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/139567[br />"]My Gallery

LuisGonzalezLT

Macedonia, US
969 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#30. "Just to chime in :-)" | In response to Reply # 0

LuisGonzalezLT Silver Member Nikonian since 04th Nov 2005
Fri 26-Jun-09 01:43 AM

Over the years I have shot with: D70S, D200, D40X, D300, D3, D700, Fuji S2, Fuji S3, Fuji S5 ( as far as Nikon mount DSLR's go anyway ).

My quick summary ( from my viewpoint for what it's worth )

D3/D700:


  • I prefer these for ISO 1600+ due to lower noise
  • Have less shadow noise when you bring up the shadows post process. Say you shoot something at ISO 800 - but when you bring up the shadows two stops those shadows were effectively shot at ISO 3200. You will see the difference in shadow noise over the D300.
  • Perform slightly better at smaller apertures ( say F/11 ) due to less diffraction due to the larger photosites over the other Nikons - although the D70S is close because it is 6MP.
  • Have less depth of field over DX.
  • More forgiving of lens resolution. i.e. A lens that exceeds the resolution of the FX sensor may not exceed the resolution of the DX sensor.
  • Less forgiving of lens edge softness and vignetting.
  • Wider angle of view on the wide end. This is not so much a big deal anymore. My Sigma 10-20 on the D300 provides ALMOST the same FOV as my Nikon 14-24 on the D700. However, the results from the D700+14-24 combo are superior to the D300+10-20 combo.


Fuji S3/S5:


  • Have the most dynamic range, by some margin, even over D300/D700. Wedding photographers love these. I used them for a year but eventually the high ISO performance of D3/D700/D300 tipped the balance for me.
  • Best auto white balance I have ever experienced. They were the only camera I was completely comfortable with shooting JPGs (no raw) with Auto WB in uncontrolled, changing lighting. I do miss that.


D300:


  • Tends to win out for telephoto or extreme macro due to crop factor. I won't say it is always the body I use for telephoto as sometimes I will use the D700 on the 800mm versus the D300 on the 800mm. It really depends on how much "magnification" I need. I will always lean toward the D700 if it provides the magnification I need. I really consider the D300 as a "1.5X teleconverter" over the D700 when needed. For instance: shooting an ice skating show from the wall = D700+70-200 for me. Better low light and I prefer the magnification range provided, but trying to get that really tiny bird = D300+800mm and maybe even a 1.4X on top of that.
  • Has more depth of field over FX.
  • Less forgiving of lens resolution. e.g. A lens that exceeds the resolution of the 12MP FX sensor may not exceed the resolution of the 12MP DX sensor.
  • More forgiving of lens edge softness and vignetting. Referred to as the lens "sweet spot", but can be mitigated by previous point on less sharp lenses.



Luis Gonzalez
Everlasting Photography, Inc

MstrBones

AW
8238 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#31. "RE: D700 v. D300 Test Pictures" | In response to Reply # 29

MstrBones Silver Member Nikonian since 06th Dec 2005
Fri 26-Jun-09 12:29 PM | edited Fri 26-Jun-09 12:31 PM by MstrBones

>there were a number of posts that stated or implied that the pictures from the D700 were significantly better (in general not in specific situations) than the D300.

Taking images well within the DR and shadow recovery range of the D300 just shows that it takes great pics.

The issue is that the D300 begins to fade under certain circumstances where a D700/D3 just keep on performing. That is a fact.

I can get D700 quality images out of my D200, (see link), but the operating range of obtaining that quality is narrower due to my camera's sensor design - and obviously a D300 has a bit more margin than my D200 as well.

https://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=175&topic_id=68116&mesg_id=68116&page=

I can still get around that under certain circumstances by applying techniques such as HDRI, (my HDR work is always for a natural look and extending DR, not for crazy tone mapping exercises), to get flawless shadows and complete highlights and great color and contrast. Like I say, though, only under certain circumstances.

The D700/D3 are killer picture taking machines with their sensors and under a lot of crazy lighting conditions, these are THE cameras, (if you got the cash). Nikon knows it and thus the premium price.

""

robsb

San Jose, US
14837 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to send message via AOL IM

#32. "RE: D700 v. D300 Test Pictures" | In response to Reply # 0

robsb Platinum Member Fellow Ribbon awarded for his expertise in CNX2 and his always amicable and continuous efforts to help members Laureate Ribbon awarded for winning in the Best of Nikonians 2013 images Photo Contest Donor Ribbon awarded for his enthusiastic and repeated support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Donor Ribbon awarded for his generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2015 Nikonian since 23rd Aug 2006
Fri 26-Jun-09 04:38 PM

Philip for what you shoot, you may well not see a difference, but the reason you see so many comments that the D700 takes better pictures is the majority of us are shooting under conditions were our other cameras (in my case a D200) are at their extremes of performance while the D700 is just loafing. I bought my D700 for 2 reasons, one for the FX format and two for the High ISO performance. I have found no situation, in my case, where I wanted to use the D200 over the D700. I shoot a variety of subjects from Macro to birds in flight. There have been many detailed studies more scientific than your effort that have proved the performance of the D700. There are some good examples in Thom Hogan's book comparing the D300 to the D700 performance, Ken Rockwell has run tests and the DXO site has an extensive study. From my experience I can only compare to my D200, which under the right conditions can take excellent photos, and since I shoot RAW and post process all my images, I judge my images by what i have to do in post. For my D700 images, post processing is minimal. Graduations in tone seem better. But most importantly, I am not being forced to shoot wide open at 1/8 sec hand held in situations where the D200 forced me into that situation, because ISO 800 and above gave me only fair images unless i did a lot of post.

Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery

"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"

Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!
Old age is a special gift that very few receive. Be thankful if you get it.

MstrBones

AW
8238 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#33. "RE: Just to chime in :-)" | In response to Reply # 30

MstrBones Silver Member Nikonian since 06th Dec 2005
Sat 27-Jun-09 01:50 AM

>Have the most dynamic range, by some margin, even over D300/D700.

1.2 stops, to be exact. After that, it quickly falls into an average or mediocre category below other Nikon DSLRs of its era or newer.

The Fuji S5, even against the now aged D70, has very noisey shadows when attempting to recover them in a shot that is exposed to preserve highlights. The D3/D700 just kills it.

There is nothing out there like the 12 mpix FX sensor, right now. Nothing. I want one, and can't afford it. LOL

""

philipl

Oxford, US
1784 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#34. "RE: D700 v. D300 Test Pictures" | In response to Reply # 32

philipl Gold Member Nikonian since 31st May 2007
Sun 28-Jun-09 07:52 PM

>Philip for what you shoot, you may well not see a difference,
>but the reason you see so many comments that the D700 takes
>better pictures is the majority of us are shooting under
>conditions were our other cameras (in my case a D200) are at
>their extremes of performance while the D700 is just loafing.
>I bought my D700 for 2 reasons, one for the FX format and two
>for the High ISO performance. I have found no situation, in my
>case, where I wanted to use the D200 over the D700.

I do see a difference under certain situations. Just as I pick which lens(es) I'm going to shoot with I also pick my camera. Low light, wide angle or flash the D700 wins. Bright sun, normal light and macro I don't see a difference.

I just did some shots on the porch with the d300 and d700 from a tripod to a high contrast fixed subject which i will publish in the AM.

Philip

Philip

Do not settle for mediocrity. Rather strive for excellence for even in that attempt lies a measure of success.

https://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/139567[br />"]My Gallery

LuisGonzalezLT

Macedonia, US
969 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#35. "RE: Just to chime in :-)" | In response to Reply # 33

LuisGonzalezLT Silver Member Nikonian since 04th Nov 2005
Sun 28-Jun-09 09:32 PM

It was just my observation in my situations having used them both.

I never really had to worry about exposing for the highlights with an S5 and then bringing up the shadows. I generally have to do that with the D700/D300 which is why I always shoot the Nikons in raw. The S5's I practically never shot raw and the post process was much faster due to that and the spot-on white balance.

If you experienced differently with your gear then we probably just have different shooting styles and perhaps even different general subject matter.

Even still, as I said, I converted to the D3/D300s day one that they came out and then added D700 to the mix shortly after they came out. The high ISO performance was the deal-maker for me.

Luis Gonzalez
Everlasting Photography, Inc

G