Tue 29-Jul-08 05:16 AM | edited Tue 29-Jul-08 05:36 AM by johno
I believe it is much better in low light, and I believe the images are more-easily sharper than what I got from the D300. But I was VERY happy with the D300.
The best thing for me is that I feel at home with a 35 mm camera again. I got scared before I did this from all of the venom or ambivalance that I saw here and from respected reviwers. Now there is no hesitation. At all.
I'm very happy to own the D700. It is not "the same" as a D300. There is value in the additional $1300 spent.
However, there are a few minor nits. The glass? (I hope it's not plastic) in the eyepiece now lays nearly right against the bottom of my camera bag, and I liked having that recessed a bit more on the D300. Most bothersome on a $3000 camera is the plastic door that covers the HDMI/other ports on the left side is a compromise, quality wise. It is just plain cheap, and not firmly planted like on the D300. It has a fingernail catch that is positioned just so on the corner of the body so it will catch on anything that touches it, and the cover is inserted too loosly to resist much accidential lateral force. (It looks poised to open by accident) The hinge that holds this cover to the camera seems like it will not last. Same goes for the even flimsier straps that hold the covers on the 10-pin terminal. They will not last. I MUCH prefered the screw cap on the D200. If I shot for a living I would get a D3 just for those reasons. The D300 has a slight edge in build quality, I believe. That doesn't feel so good, but this is the worst criticism I can find right now. Other than those covers, it is clearly the best camera I have owned.