Hi Everyone. I am new to Nikonians and also new to Nikon. I am very, very happy to be here. I love this place and my fellow Nikonians. I came from Canon film cameras from many years past. Always wanted a Nikon body and lenses
Currently, I own a D700 (for few nonths) shooting with Nikon lenses: 24-70 2.8 / 70-200 2.8 / 80-400 VR / 105 2.8 Macro / 50mm 1.4 / Sigma 18- 200 (I was talked into buying this lens; good salesman I guess).
Heres my question .... I'm thinking of picking up an extra body. Less lens changing, etc. I really don't want to spring for another D700. What are the advantages / disadvantages to picking up a D300 other than the real obvious ones. My gut tells me this could be a great combo? My gut instinct has deceived me in the past though. All you (smarter than me) guys and gals out there; can you give me the pros and cons? What will I gain, what will I lose? Or should I spring for another D700 or just keep the one D700 I have?
I would very much appreciate as much input, from as many smart people whom are willing to help. If you can answer these questions I'll be one happy Nikonian.
Thank you (in advance) very much. I appreciate help and interest.
A month ago my D700 showed an "Err" message on the small LCD on top and I was obliged to send it in for service. A Gentleman here at Nikonians suggested me to get a second body, like an used D200 or similar. It appened that my Grandson was in London that very day and I asked him to bring me to Rome a new D90 instead, and so he did, at a very good price, due to the Euro/Pound rate of exchange. I decided for the D90 being a newer model and really smaller, lighter and cheaper. I like it a lot, it takes good shots but still, Its a "consumer" camera, nothing to compare to the solid feel you get from a D300 which, in my opinion, is a D700 with a smaller sensor. The D90 fits in a corner of my bag as a spare body should do.
By the way, my D700 was back in 30 days; after a complete check-up (nothing serious) and working perfectly.
I consider a very good suggestion the one I received from our Nikonians friends.
The advantages are 1/ near identical handling between the 2 bodies, plus the same battery and grip 2/ more reach with any lens, and more depth of field (or the option of 1 shutter speed faster) for the same viewfinder crop with the D300 giving you the option of the best of other formats i.e. both reach and high ISO performance. 3/ same sharpness and resolution and up to 800 ISO near equal noise and dynamic range 4/ For moving targets "better" AF on the D300 in the sense the AF points cover more of the screen area 5/ a more compact body for less money.
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.
Recently I traveled to South America with two camera bodies, a D700 and a D200 and just two lenses, 24-70 and 70-200 plus a 1.7 TC. The 24-70 was kept on the D700, while the 70-200, sometimes with TC, was kept on the D200. This covered a wide focal range with excellent IQ, minimal need for lens changes and an acceptable weight of < 10 lbs.
You are both right but you see I never travel alone because of my age and I would'nt lend my D700 to anybody. This way I snap a Nikkor 35mm f:2D on the D90 and I make one of my grandsons happy for the day, well prepared to see it smashed somewhere (I mean the camera not the grandson!)
Bob, my plan is to pick up a D300 hopefully after my income tax return shows up as a backup to my D700. The similarities and the sharing of the MB-D10 make it the perfect backup camera. Mark Stephan USN, retired ...GO Navy!
Bob, I shoot, D700 and D300 with D200 as back-up. Len has already given the reasons. I shoot two cameras 95% of the time. I had the D300 and when D700 was introduced I planned all along to shoot both. Cheer, Tom
D700, D300 & D200 are very similar in weight, size and setups and I entirely agree with you gentlemen, taking into consideration the way you use them. But, if one needs only a backup body and willing to carry a lighter and smaller bag, then, I prefer to walk around with a lighter, smaller and cheaper body to solve an emergency situation when traveling. Finding yourself with no camera, like it happened to me, it's a disaster also for a non-pro. The D90 takes beautiful shots (forget the movie), very easy to set-up, do it once and forget it, put it on Auto and you are ok for the rest of your trip. Price? Lgs650,00 in London, same price of a used D200 (BTW I would never buy a second hand camera).
I have both the D300 and the D700. I view it as a system, because they are almost identical cameras, sharing the same accessories (CF Cards, Batteries, Chargers, etc) and they handle the same – one is DX and the other one FX. I strongly believe that both formats are here to stay with unique advantages for each format. In other words, I do not have a primary camera with a back-up; they are both main cameras. If you look at my profile, you’ll understand better what I’m saying.
I use both. I agree with the posters above that it's a nice choice because you can share batteries, grip, and memory - plus the functions and image quality are the same. If I'm just walking around, I grab the D300 with the 18-200. I like the extra reach you get with the smaller sensor. If I'm shooting commercially, I use the both cameras interchangeably with pro glass. I use the D700 more if the situation is dark, or I need to get really wide (with the 14-24 - great combination).
The thing that surprised me a little was that I didn't just stop using the D300 when I bought the newer camera. In the past I'd upgrade, and the previous camera would just sit in my bag. I still use them both. The D700 is better in some situations and the D300 in others.