Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here

Nikon People

Peter23 9 23 2
16 Jul 2011 5:27PM
I see allot of people argue how Lenses are far more important than an upgrade of body, but I asked my friend about the D700 and he can't recommend it highly enough, so those of you with a D700 is it a worthy upgrade from a D300? I am considering the D700 partnered with the Nikkor 24-70 f2.8 lens. I want to get some evidence here for peoples opinions and not just opinions! It's a huge decision Smile.

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Railcam 11 670 2 Scotland
16 Jul 2011 5:40PM
I upgraded from a D200 to a D700 earlier this year. The D200 was an excellent camera but there had been so much development in the sensor and A/F areas that the D700 is a revelation. I can now get pictures in conditions that I would not even try with the D200.

A slightly smaller step up from a D300 but I think you will be impressed.

The 24-70/f2.8 comes with an excellent reputaion. I am using an old 35-70/f2.8 with my D700 and that performs well.
Daffy1 10 367 Ireland
16 Jul 2011 7:20PM
D700 + 24 -70 lens = brillGrin. Damian
cameracat 14 8.6k 61 Norfolk Island
16 Jul 2011 7:30PM
Pete, Your right to make sure first, Its a great deal of money to lay out and we are not all rich......Smile

The lens as mentioned is pure class, Also a good investment as it will hold its price depreciation wise.

Trouble is I am a tad biased regarding the D700 upgrade option, Because as you know I have a D700, I have had the camera for over 2 years now, I never tire of using the D700, I am always amazed with the output from it, Despite my attempts to create some ghastly images.....Grin

How does it stack up versus the D300...? I can't honestly say because I have never compared them " Head to Head.....Though on paper alone the D700 looks better.....!!!

Here is a link to DXO rankings, Its a slightly " Geeky " way of checking specs, But it will give you an idea on where the D300 is placed compared to the D700.

My next piece of advise is to take a CF card to a good camera shop, Then ask them to allow you to test shoot the D700......Grin

Next go home and look at the results, See if you can justify the upgrade expense.....Wink

Personally I would not swop 2 X D300/D300s models for my 1 X D700.......LOL....But then I am a little biased....Grin
BigRick 12 2.1k 3 United Kingdom
16 Jul 2011 7:42PM
imo there is a difference in upgrading from a D300 to a D300s, but, to upgrade from a crop to a full frame makes sense, if you would like extra ISO performance. Personally, i am waiting for the D700 replacement before i get another.... as it doesnt have all the features i would like, that i feel the upgrade would have.
tomcat606 8 108
16 Jul 2011 7:48PM
I did exactly what you are describing I went from a D300 which I thought was the bees knees and pondered over going full frame; but made the jump for the D700 and never looked back ... I would as you suggested get the 24-70mm f2.8 as this camera deserves the right lens

All the best Steve
16 Jul 2011 10:51PM
I wouldn't buy a D700 just now as it is due to be replaced later this year.
Peter23 9 23 2
16 Jul 2011 11:44PM
Guys thank you all for your comments! All valid points and reasons.

One last thing maybe you who mention the new model could discuss with me is that I believe the replacement will be at least 500 more than the D700 is now and my budget is exactly to the price the D700 is, so that is why I will go for the D700. I mean the D300s wasn't such a huge upgrade from the D300. I think I will take the risk, I'm not being funny but the D700 even when replaced is from what I hear a fantastic camera....

Many thanks again people!
scottishphototours 14 2.6k 2
17 Jul 2011 1:22AM
The 700 is a considerable jump from the 300. The 700 also needs the fx optics to make it sing, but have no doubt, iys a far better performer than the 300 interms of high iso performance and image quality. We have 3 700's and a 300 that we use daily and have done for 3 years now so can vouch for both.
LenShepherd 10 3.6k United Kingdom
17 Jul 2011 11:12AM

Quote:The 700 is a considerable jump from the 300. The 700 also needs the fx optics to make it sing, but have no doubt, iys a far better performer than the 300 in terms of high iso performance and image quality.

"Far better" is a huge exaggeration.
I have D3, D3s, D300s (going up for sale) and D7000.
Sorry - using good lenses in a 20 inch wide print I cannot detect differences other than occasional nit picking in resolution, dynamic range, colour gamut or noise to 1600 between D3 and D300s.
As regards "nit picking" with some fine detail subjects the finer pixel pitch of the D300s produces slightly more resolution - and Nikon do not claim the D700 is better than the D3.
Digressing Grays of Westminster one of the worlds top Nikon specialist take the same view in their Gazette.
From about 3200 noise is in favour of the D700. On the other hand at 3200 noise is hardly in front compared to the D7000, and the D7000 records usefully more resolution at any ISO it has than 12 MP.
Nikon should launch a "D400, D4s, and D4x" before next years Olympics - and the playing field (ignoring price) will change.
Right now better noise than a d300 and better resolution than a D700 is available going from a D300 to a D7000 for much less money.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.