I'm updating some gear during the next few weeks. I currently have a D300, 17-55DX, 12-24DX, and 70-200. I was considering a D300 as a second body, but the low light capabilities (noise, color accuracy, etc) of the D700 have me seriously considering a D700 purchase, with the D300 as my backup. I shoot primarily events and travel; the vast majority of my requirements are in the "normal zoom" range. I've had some issues with high ISO noise on the D300, and was wondering if the D700 would outperform (in terms of low light color accuracy, white balance and noise) a D300 with Noise Ninja or Nik Dfine? In addition to the body, I am definitely getting a 24-70 f/2.8, SB900, and contemplating a 14-24mm f/2.8 or 17-35mm f/2.8 for wide angle requirements (I tend to use polarizers quite a bit, so it's either 17-35mm f/2.8 or 14-24mm f/2.8 and adjust to working without filters.
Is there something coming from Nikon this week? Hmmmm. If I go with the D700 for now I'd be stretching the budget (more than) a bit thin to add a replacement 70-200. Is there an adjustment that can be made by Nikon to correct the existing 70-200 lenses? If so, are they charging for it?
Mon 25-Aug-08 10:07 AM | edited Mon 25-Aug-08 10:11 AM by kindervb
I am not sure if this will help you any but I have a D300 and posted some images in the sports forum that I shot with my D300 at ISO 3200 & 4500. I am sure the D700 like the D3 is better than the D300 at high ISO, but I find the results of the D300 perfectly acceptable for my use.
You can pull up full-size (and smaller) images shot under identical conditions with different cameras, like, e.g. the D300 at 1600 and the D700 at 1600. This site has already done a review of the D700 and posted a complete set of images so you can get a good comparison of these cameras in several different settings.
Dave Harris Life is short, death is long, there is no perfection in life, only in death; perfect stillness. Enjoy life!
While the D300 can produce great images at high ISOs, the D700 can produce better images. With the full-sized sensor, you will get much better detail, especially in the shadows and a higher dynamic range in color.
I traded my D300 for the D700 to improve my low light performance. If you can afford it, buy it.
Thom Hogan has a good article on comparing the D300 to the D700, and why he will use both bodies. I have seen similar reviews from other Pros. D300 for telephoto; D700 for wide angle and low light performance.
D800 I still own an F100; do you think film will make a comeback?
Thanks to everyone for your replies and honest opinions. Though my retailer is very competent (best I've worked with), I still rely on feedback from other owners in making my decisions. I have ordered the D700, and will combine it with the D300 to round out my digital SLR bodies. I am trying to find out if a fix is available for the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR lens, and if so, is Nikon charging for the update. I'll also be adding a 24-70mm f/2.8 immediately. Still on the fence regarding the 14-24 vs. 17-35mm f/2.8, but I'll try to test both lenses this weekend and make a decision. Beyond that, adding an SB-900, WT-4, some CF cards, Think Tank rolling case and a few other smaller items. On the back side, adding a new laptop, more capable desktop devoted strictly to digital imaging, and new monitors. That should keep me happy until Nikon announces their latest and greatest (knowing my luck, it'll be next week - but I'll still have a very capable camera system.
Mark, there have been reports of soft edges (with earlier 70-200mm VR lenses on the D700. I received a note from a good friend noting that there may be a fix for the problem - perhaps in the form of an adjustment to the lens. Was hoping to get more information on that (if it exists!). The lens performs well on my D300. Yes, it's been broken before (more than once!), but Nikon repair has been fantastic.
This weekend I shot a wedding at St. Thomas' Church in NYC. No flash allowed a very low light. I brought both my D300 and D700. Here are roughly the same shot. The D300 has the 85/1.4 lens attached and is at 3200ISO. The D700 has the 24-70/2.8 attached and is at 6400ISO. Look at them in full/original size.
There is no comparison. I was VERY glad that I had the D700.
Sorry but your example is a bit apple & orange because the FOV is not the same, D700 is shot @ 1/50 sec & the white of the priest's robe is blown-off while there is camera shake on the D300 shot @ 1/15 sec & it's a bit underexposed compared to the other one (Exposure Bias -1/3). Also, what was the focus point, white balance, color profile, NR, post-processing settings, etc.