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 with adequate light

sharpsorensen

US
528 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author
sharpsorensen Registered since 10th Feb 2008
Wed 23-Feb-11 03:44 PM

My question is whether I will notice a difference in image quality between my D300 and a D700 when shooting in adequate outdoor light.

To tell you more than you want to know: I presently own a D300 that I have been using for a couple years--I have found the noise at high ISOs sometimes intolerable but am otherwise delighted with the results. I have a nice complement of lenses--14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 200-400.

I'm an obsessed enthusiast (I have a real job to pay for all this), shooting outdoor sports (rugby, rowing), indoor sports (indoor rowing, wrestling), travel (indoor and outdoor shots), landscape, astrology (moon, star trails)and family and other general photos (indoor and outdoor). The D300 crop factor and fps have been useful, particularly for sports, but I would really enjoy better high-ISO/low-noise pictures and a wider angle would be useful.

So, I am planning on getting a D700 for those reasons. As I noted above, my question is whether I will notice any difference between my D300 and a D700 when shooting in good outdoor light. I'd appreciate your thoughts on that (and the D700 generally given what I shoot.)

Sharp Sorensen
"I love digital photography. It allows you to reminisce immediately." Demetri Martin

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

briantilley

Paignton, UK
30235 posts

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

#1. "RE: D700 v. D300 with adequate light" | In response to Reply # 0

briantilley Gold Member Deep knowledge of bodies and lens; high level photography skills Donor Ribbon awarded for his support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003
Wed 23-Feb-11 02:55 PM

This comes up quite frequently, so I'm sure you'll get differeing views in response

Shooting with a D300 and D700, I can't tell which shots came from which camera up to around 800 ISO. At 1600 and above, the D700 has a clear edge.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian

adcam

Portland, US
598 posts

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

#2. "RE: D700 v. D300 with adequate light" | In response to Reply # 0

adcam Gold Member Nikonian since 31st Dec 2007
Wed 23-Feb-11 03:05 PM

And with all your lenses being FX, I think you would enjoy the D700 more.

sharpsorensen

US
528 posts

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

#3. "RE: D700 v. D300 with adequate light" | In response to Reply # 2

sharpsorensen Registered since 10th Feb 2008
Wed 23-Feb-11 03:28 PM

Thanks. confirm what I thought, although I saw one review saying that with FX you get a sharper images and better dynamic range. Not sure if those points are valid or not.

Sharp Sorensen
"I love digital photography. It allows you to reminisce immediately." Demetri Martin

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Len Shepherd

Yorkshire, UK
12722 posts

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

#4. "RE: D700 v. D300 with adequate light" | In response to Reply # 0

Len Shepherd Gold Member Nikonian since 09th Mar 2003
Wed 23-Feb-11 04:02 PM

If you shoot any of your lenses except the 200-400 at 400mm wide open and you are critical the lower edge quality in the corners of your FX lenses on FX is not difficult to detect.
Apart from landscape most of what you shoot does not require critical corner quality.
The D300 viewfinder is about a stop brighter but about 15% smaller in apparent size than the D700 - I prefer the look of the D300 viewfinder.
The the D700 viewfinder is not 100%.
The D700 AF points cover a smaller percentage of the screen area - perhaps important in your sports work. You loose the 600mm equivalent angle of view with FX. If you are not shooting wide open you get 1 shutter slower for the same viewfinder crop and depth of field on FX - likely to be important for your sports work.
My suggestion is buy a second hand D700 for your low light work, and keep your D300 for the things you photograph where DX is the wiser choice.

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

sharpsorensen

US
528 posts

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

#5. "RE: D700 v. D300 with adequate light" | In response to Reply # 4

sharpsorensen Registered since 10th Feb 2008
Wed 23-Feb-11 06:11 PM

Thanks. Would you please elaborate on your observation that "If you are not shooting wide open you get 1 shutter slower for the same viewfinder crop and depth of field on FX - likely to be important for your sports work."?

In light of the points you make, then, who (other than one who does significant low-light work)would be the ideal candidate for a D700 rather than D300? (one shooting landscapes, architecture, others?)

Sharp Sorensen
"I love digital photography. It allows you to reminisce immediately." Demetri Martin

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Wingman

Kimberley, CA
1651 posts

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

#6. "RE: D700 v. D300 with adequate light" | In response to Reply # 5

Wingman Silver Member Awarded for sharing his excellent work and continued contribution to the forums, most notably at the Aviation forum. Donor Ribbon awarded for his generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 02nd Dec 2002
Wed 23-Feb-11 08:08 PM

Good questions, and interesting answers so far.

It's worth pointing out that most all the "serious pros" that I know, and whose blogs I follow, use FX cameras. In many conversations with those I do know personally, such as Moose Peterson to name a well known example, they all seem to feel that there is "something" about the FX image that is different and that makes the extra weight and expense worthwhile.

Before I got my D3 I had been shooting extensively with a D2Xs and a D300, and loving the results (and I still use these cameras and love the results still). The day I received my used D3 a year ago, I popped on an old 28-105 and went out shooting in good light and at moderate ISOs. When I got home and printed the results I could only go "Wow".

I don't know what this "Wow" factor is -- certainly according to Len and others it cannot be quantified. In my experience, though, (and I know others here feel it too) there is something subjectively different about D3 and D700 images, and I for one am deeply addicted to the FX experience...

Neal Nurmi

---Wingman Photo---

sharpsorensen

US
528 posts

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

#7. "RE: D700 v. D300 with adequate light" | In response to Reply # 6

sharpsorensen Registered since 10th Feb 2008
Wed 23-Feb-11 09:58 PM

Thanks for the thoughts. I had gotten a similar sense from this forum and other sites I have been poking around on.

The D700 is probably a bit of an indulgence for me (not critical to my enjoyment of photography), but I suppose for the likes of me this is all an indulgence. Why stop now.

Thanks.

Sharp Sorensen
"I love digital photography. It allows you to reminisce immediately." Demetri Martin

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

visionguru

Chicago, US
227 posts

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

#8. "RE: D700 v. D300 with adequate light" | In response to Reply # 0

visionguru Registered since 03rd Nov 2008
Wed 23-Feb-11 10:02 PM

"My question is whether I will notice a difference in image quality between my D300 and a D700 when shooting in adequate outdoor light.
"


Yes, you will, especially when shooting people.

Also, your 14-24 and 24-70 are perfect on D700.

robsb

San Jose, US
14828 posts

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

#9. "RE: D700 v. D300 with adequate light" | In response to Reply # 5

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
Wed 23-Feb-11 11:31 PM | edited Wed 23-Feb-11 11:33 PM by robsb

Yeah but you qualified your issue at adequate light. As others have pointed out here you will start to see a difference at 1600 ISO and above, so 1 shutter speed slower to get DOF (with the same viewfinder crop as DX)because FX inherently has less DOF, can easily be recovered by going up an ISO notch so you can stop down and not have to change shutter speed, with no apparent loss in quality, but you cannot say the same for the D300. While many sports and wildlife shooters shoot DX for the crop factor on long lenses, those who also own D700's will tell you there are many shots (early morning or late evening) that they would not have gotten with their D300 but did get with the D700. Bottom line is we did not buy D700's to shoot in adequate light, if that were the caseI would still be using my D200 which is a fine camera in adequate light as long as you didn't go above ISO 800. We bought D700's because we wanted to shoot in the dark.

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.

davidjon_99

Central, US
1438 posts

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

#10. "RE: D700 v. D300 with adequate light" | In response to Reply # 0

davidjon_99 Registered since 07th Nov 2005
Thu 24-Feb-11 12:28 AM

I shoot both the D700 and D300s. I bought the D700 first and was blown away by the image quality. When I got the D300s I was a bit less blown away. There was just something about the images from the D700 that just looked amazing. The D700 not only has less noise than the D300s, but it also has better dynamic range. DXO shows that the D700 has about 1/2 EV more dynamic range at ISO 200 then 1 Ev more at ISO 400 and then about 1 1/2 Ev more starting at around ISO 640 and above. So, if you're just comparing image noise, I think your missing other aspects where the D700 performs better.

To me, there is a noticeable difference in image quality. So much so that the D700 is my go-to camera. I use the D300s for a backup and in situations where the DX crop is usefull.

Cheers,
David


Visit my Nikonians Gallery

GiantTristan

Stamford, US
2670 posts

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

#11. "RE: D700 v. D300 with adequate light" | In response to Reply # 0

GiantTristan Silver Member Nikonian since 08th Jan 2006
Thu 24-Feb-11 01:19 AM

There are definitely noticeable differences at low iso, especially when you are using excellent lenses. The dynamic range is between 1 and 1.5 EV better for the D700 and so are tonal range and color sensitivity. These are my subjective observations using the same lenses that you have on both a D200 and a D700. You can look up the corresponding data for the D300 and D700 in www.dxomark.com.

Tristan

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

sharpsorensen

US
528 posts

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

#12. "RE: D700 v. D300 with adequate light" | In response to Reply # 8

sharpsorensen Registered since 10th Feb 2008
Thu 24-Feb-11 02:19 AM

Thanks. Notice you are in Chicago -- we're on the north shore

Sharp Sorensen
"I love digital photography. It allows you to reminisce immediately." Demetri Martin

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

sharpsorensen

US
528 posts

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

#14. "RE: D700 v. D300 with adequate light" | In response to Reply # 9

sharpsorensen Registered since 10th Feb 2008
Thu 24-Feb-11 02:24 AM

Interesting and really helpful. Thanks!

Sharp Sorensen
"I love digital photography. It allows you to reminisce immediately." Demetri Martin

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

ajdooley

Waterloo, US
3321 posts

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

#15. "RE: D700 v. D300 with adequate light" | In response to Reply # 0

ajdooley Gold Member Nikonian since 25th May 2006
Thu 24-Feb-11 11:52 AM | edited Thu 24-Feb-11 11:56 AM by ajdooley

I didn't make the transition from the D300 to the D700. Instead, I went from the D200 to the D700. I was fortunate that all of my lenses sort of covered the FX sensor, except for critically speaking, the pervious 24-120 VR. I replaced that with the 24-70 f2.8. My first D700 images elicited that same "WOW!" from me that so many report. The D700 definitely was NOT an evolutionary change. Rather, it was revolutionary. While I use the gamut of available ISOs from 200-12,800 depending on what I am shooting and the light, I am always thankful for the flexibility to do so. That same flexibility simply does not exist in the D300 -- I believe: again, I don't own one.

I am not into photographing brick walls or scanning DxO data. But I agree with those who say there is just an added element to the D700 images -- and they appear to me, to be better than anything I had heretofor observed. I don't know anyone who has added a D700 to his equipment who wishes he or she hadn't. Again -- not degrading the D300, epspecially if you have DX lenses -- I can't find a good reason not to add or substitute the D700. I note Brian's sense that up to a point, the D300 is as good as the D700. I sure don't argue with him on this point -- he's a smart, considering fellow -- but mark me down as 110% satisfied with the D700 and not in any way desiring to add or substitute the D300.

Alan
Waterloo, IL, USA
www.proimagingmidamerica.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

visionguru

Chicago, US
227 posts

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

#16. "RE: D700 v. D300 with adequate light" | In response to Reply # 12

visionguru Registered since 03rd Nov 2008
Thu 24-Feb-11 12:48 PM

>Thanks. Notice you are in Chicago -- we're on the north
>shore

So nice to meet a fellow Chicagoian. We are in Lakeview, used to live in Evanston.

Jay

shutterpunk

Waianae, US
55 posts

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

#17. "RE: D700 v. D300 with adequate light" | In response to Reply # 0

shutterpunk Registered since 04th Jul 2006
Thu 24-Feb-11 01:37 PM

If you like the crop factor, maybe a D7000 is worth a look. From what I hear, high ISO noise is excellent (but a step below the D700), but it maintains the crop factor. You're giving up a few AF points, but it sounds like you wouldn't give up much of anything else.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

sharpsorensen

US
528 posts

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

#18. "RE: D700 v. D300 with adequate light" | In response to Reply # 16

sharpsorensen Registered since 10th Feb 2008
Thu 24-Feb-11 01:55 PM

Likewise. We're in Winnetka.

Sharp Sorensen
"I love digital photography. It allows you to reminisce immediately." Demetri Martin

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

sharpsorensen

US
528 posts

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

#19. "RE: D700 v. D300 with adequate light" | In response to Reply # 17

sharpsorensen Registered since 10th Feb 2008
Thu 24-Feb-11 02:07 PM

I actually thought about the D7000, but I thought for the incremental cost between the D7000 and the D700 I might as well get something a bit better, and with less overlap with what I have. the video would be handy on the D7000 but in the end I doubt I'd use it that much. But thanks--a good thought.

Sharp Sorensen
"I love digital photography. It allows you to reminisce immediately." Demetri Martin

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Len Shepherd

Yorkshire, UK
12722 posts

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

#20. "RE: D700 v. D300 with adequate light" | In response to Reply # 11

Len Shepherd Gold Member Nikonian since 09th Mar 2003
Thu 24-Feb-11 06:28 PM

>There are definitely noticeable differences at low iso, especially when you are using excellent lenses. The dynamic
>range is between 1 and 1.5 EV better for the D700 and so are tonal range and color sensitivity.
The UK sources, who generally use step wedges, report DR as equal at low ISO's.
I agree they are equal to 800, with a slight often theoretical gain at 1600 - the gain often being theoretical as most subjects do not have enough DR to require the extra half stop at 1600.
When the tonal range and colour sensitivity is different between my D300s and D3 it is because I have ser picture control different or 1 camera to 12 bit and 1 to 14 bit.

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

tamrokin

Fremantle, AU
359 posts

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

#21. "RE: D700 v. D300 with adequate light" | In response to Reply # 19

tamrokin Registered since 09th Feb 2006
Fri 25-Feb-11 03:05 AM

When I bought my D700, my D300 had taken about 58,000 images. Now the D700 is over 40,000 and the D300 has just gone 60,000 ..... Consistently I prefer the D700 results. Love Auto ISO on the D700.

DX/FX issue solved if you have good selection of lenses and a 1.4TX

The D300 is a great camera - just that the D700 is a class above in most instances. No doubt a new model is on the way as the prices are tending downwards - so good buying for a great camera. No doubt the D800 (or such) will take it to another level - but the differences are incremental and often hard to pick.


Rob


Black camera, Black lenses, Black bag ...... & NAS Black hole .....

briantilley

Paignton, UK
30235 posts

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

#22. "RE: D700 v. D300 with adequate light" | In response to Reply # 21

briantilley Gold Member Deep knowledge of bodies and lens; high level photography skills Donor Ribbon awarded for his support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003
Fri 25-Feb-11 07:38 AM

>Love Auto ISO on the D700.

The ISO Auto feature works in exactly the same way on the D300 - except that the D700 has a higher maximum ISO setting, obviously.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian

Len Shepherd

Yorkshire, UK
12722 posts

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

#23. "RE:Trying to sum up" | In response to Reply # 22

Len Shepherd Gold Member Nikonian since 09th Mar 2003
Fri 25-Feb-11 08:19 AM

>The ISO Auto feature works in exactly the same way on the D300 - except that the D700 has a higher maximum ISO setting,obviously.
Trying to sum up - and perhaps upsetting some D700 owners - almost all claims for superior D700 performance turn out to be "owner hype".
Sure the D700 can perform better above about 1600 ISO which is important for the perhaps 5% who mainly shoot at high ISO's.
Sure the D700 can be used for minimal dept of field - of importance to the less than 5% owning an f1.4 lens and the probably less than 5% of shooting situations where minimal dof is the best option.
Sure the D300 gives either the same dof for 1 shutter speed faster, or more dof for the same shutter speed - of importance in wildlife and sports.
Sure the D300 gives more photo options for less bulk and money - but not 14mm at f2.8 from Nikon.
Sure lenses like the 24mm, 35mm, 50mm and to a lesser extent the 85mm f1.4 used at 1.4 are not good in the corners of FX - and better in the corners of DX.
Put another way I shoot DX and FX 12 MP alongside each other most days - and for the majority of shots cannot tell the difference. I think Brian has similar experience.
To me the "no brainer" for most photographers is to aspire to own both formats to be able to have the best format body available for more shooting situations

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

Pouncer

Memphis, US
1230 posts

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

#24. "RE:Trying to sum up" | In response to Reply # 23

Pouncer Silver Member Nikonian since 22nd Jan 2009
Fri 25-Feb-11 12:21 PM

>Put another way I shoot DX and FX 12 MP alongside each other
>most days - and for the majority of shots cannot tell the
>difference. I think Brian has similar experience.

I have both and this is my experience, too.

>To me the "no brainer" for most photographers is to
>aspire to own both formats to be able to have the best format
>body available for more shooting situations

Amen. Indulge your inner NAS.

Garrett

stuff: D700, D300, AF-S 17-35 f/2.8, AF 35-70 f/2.8, AF-S 80-200 f/2.8, AF 85 f/1.8 D

and: Ai 28 f/2, Nikkor-O 35 f/2 AI'd, Ai-S 50 f/1.8, Nikkor-K 105 f/2.5 Ai'd

This is my Nikonians gallery.

sharpsorensen

US
528 posts

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

#25. "RE:Trying to sum up" | In response to Reply # 23

sharpsorensen Registered since 10th Feb 2008
Fri 25-Feb-11 01:29 PM

Can you elaborate on "owner hype?" I'm not a D700 owner, of course, but to others can't be a compliment.

Sharp Sorensen
"I love digital photography. It allows you to reminisce immediately." Demetri Martin

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Len Shepherd

Yorkshire, UK
12722 posts

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

#26. "RE:Trying to sum up" | In response to Reply # 25

Len Shepherd Gold Member Nikonian since 09th Mar 2003
Fri 25-Feb-11 08:47 PM

>Can you elaborate on "owner hype?"
The point I am making is that some D700 owners make claims about "miraculous" colour, dynamic range, "quality" and noise at lower ISO's that in reality do not exist in 20 inch wide prints.
The reason for choosing a 20 inch wide print is it equals the maximum definition achievable from 12 MP printed at a reasonable 200 dpi.
The claimed "miraculous" FX improvements do not show up in my 20 inch wide prints up to about 1600 ISO when I shoot my D300 alongside my D3.
I am not aware anybody claims the D700 is a "miraculously" better camera than the D3.
Just to clarify I am not comparing jpeg prints.
There are occasions when either format can be best, and many occasions when there is no practicable difference between the 2 formats at the limit of 12 MP resolution.

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

dirtysand

US
60 posts

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

#27. "RE:Trying to sum up" | In response to Reply # 23

dirtysand Registered since 10th May 2010
Sat 26-Feb-11 10:21 AM

and i always thought that dof was mathematically related to the length and aperture of the lens.

briantilley

Paignton, UK
30235 posts

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

#28. "RE:Trying to sum up" | In response to Reply # 27

briantilley Gold Member Deep knowledge of bodies and lens; high level photography skills Donor Ribbon awarded for his support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003
Sat 26-Feb-11 11:25 AM

Depth of Field formulae are based on the focal length of the lens, the aperture setting, the subject distance and the camera format.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian

dirtysand

US
60 posts

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

#29. "RE:Trying to sum up" | In response to Reply # 28

dirtysand Registered since 10th May 2010
Sat 26-Feb-11 11:32 AM

i see tables with focal length, aperture and circle of confusion but not format. can you point me to some?

briantilley

Paignton, UK
30235 posts

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

#30. "RE:Trying to sum up" | In response to Reply # 29

briantilley Gold Member Deep knowledge of bodies and lens; high level photography skills Donor Ribbon awarded for his support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003
Sat 26-Feb-11 11:56 AM

Yes, the Circle of Confusion value varies with the size of the sensor (or film).

You'll find some good DoF tables here (the same site also has a useful online DoF calculator).

Brian
Welsh Nikonian

dirtysand

US
60 posts

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

#31. "RE:Trying to sum up" | In response to Reply # 30

dirtysand Registered since 10th May 2010
Sat 26-Feb-11 12:26 PM

familiar with all that. see
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm and
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm, specifically
As sensor size increases, the depth of field will decrease for a given aperture (when filling the frame with a subject of the same size and distance). This is because larger sensors require one to get closer to their subject, or to use a longer focal length in order to fill the frame with that subject. This means that one has to use progressively smaller aperture sizes in order to maintain the same depth of field on larger sensors. The following calculator predicts the required aperture and focal length in order to achieve the same depth of field (while maintaining perspective).
also
http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/tips/037d_dof_sensor_size.htm
and all you have to do is google depth of field as relates to format size.

briantilley

Paignton, UK
30235 posts

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

#32. "RE:Trying to sum up" | In response to Reply # 31

briantilley Gold Member Deep knowledge of bodies and lens; high level photography skills Donor Ribbon awarded for his support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003
Sat 26-Feb-11 01:25 PM

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

As already stated, it is a fact that Depth of Field formulae depend on the focal length of the lens, the aperture setting, the subject distance and the Circle of Confusion value (which itself depends on camera format / sensor size).

Perspective depends only on subject distance, not focal length and not camera format.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian

dirtysand

US
60 posts

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

#33. "RE:Trying to sum up" | In response to Reply # 32

dirtysand Registered since 10th May 2010
Sat 26-Feb-11 01:33 PM

goes back to statement about differences in depth of field between d700 and d300 which are negligible

briantilley

Paignton, UK
30235 posts

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

#34. "RE:Trying to sum up" | In response to Reply # 33

briantilley Gold Member Deep knowledge of bodies and lens; high level photography skills Donor Ribbon awarded for his support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003
Sat 26-Feb-11 02:27 PM

As can be seen from the tables linked to above, the difference in DoF between the D300 with a 50mm lens and a D700 with a 75mm lens (i.e. the same angle of view), at the same distance and aperture, is approximately equivalent to one stop. That's an unarguable fact.

Whether this difference is "negligible" is down to individual interpretation, but it does exist.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian

tamrokin

Fremantle, AU
359 posts

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

#35. "RE: D700 v. D300 with adequate light" | In response to Reply # 22

tamrokin Registered since 09th Feb 2006
Mon 28-Feb-11 01:15 PM

I love AutoISO on the D700 because it gives surprisingly good results - I don't on the D300 because it often is disappointing ... albeit same process it has a different result.

To me one of the greatest advantages of the D700 is low light performance.


Rob


Black camera, Black lenses, Black bag ...... & NAS Black hole .....

briantilley

Paignton, UK
30235 posts

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

#36. "RE: D700 v. D300 with adequate light" | In response to Reply # 35

briantilley Gold Member Deep knowledge of bodies and lens; high level photography skills Donor Ribbon awarded for his support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003
Mon 28-Feb-11 03:42 PM

ISO Auto itself works in exactly the same way on both D300 and D700. The only difference is the higher maximum ISO setting on the D700.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian

G