A few weeks back, I lost my beloved D200 (left it in the back of a taxicab on the way to the airport in Buenos Aires), and my insurance settlement was more generous than I expected -- about 90% of what I paid for the body, 18-200mm VR lens and accessories 2 years ago. Now, I'm trying to decide if I want to replace it with a D300, or upgrade to the D700. The lens that I lost was the only one that I had, so I'm basically starting from scratch. I mostly use my camera for travel and taking pictures of my daughter.
I don't tend to use the upper range of the zoom that much, so I was thinking that it wouldn't be that big of a deal going down to a 24-120mm Nikkor VR kit lens on the D700. And even though I have a portable studio lighting/background setup in my house, I actually prefer taking pictures with available light. I've heard that the low-light capabilities of the D700 are outstanding. So right now, I'm leaning towards the D700. It looks like at B&H, I can get the D700 kit for about $700 more than the D300.
Anyone here have any additional thoughts that could help me make my decision?
Programs: Almost anything with six to twelve steps...
Posts: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by icedancer
A few weeks back, I lost my beloved D200 (left it in the back of a taxicab on the way to the airport in Buenos Aires), and my insurance settlement was more generous than I expected -- about 90% of what I paid for the body, 18-200mm VR lens and accessories 2 years ago. Now, I'm trying to decide if I want to replace it with a D300, or upgrade to the D700. The lens that I lost was the only one that I had, so I'm basically starting from scratch. I mostly use my camera for travel and taking pictures of my daughter.
I don't tend to use the upper range of the zoom that much, so I was thinking that it wouldn't be that big of a deal going down to a 24-120mm Nikkor VR kit lens on the D700. And even though I have a portable studio lighting/background setup in my house, I actually prefer taking pictures with available light. I've heard that the low-light capabilities of the D700 are outstanding. So right now, I'm leaning towards the D700. It looks like at B&H, I can get the D700 kit for about $700 more than the D300.
Anyone here have any additional thoughts that could help me make my decision?
You really cannot go wrong with either one. One thing to consider, however, is the crop factor. Your D200 and the D300 both have a 1.5 crop factor while the D700 does not. This means that, in effect, your 18-200 lens on the D200 has been equivalent to a 27-300. With the 24-120 on the D700 you'd lose more than half of your long range.
I would personally lean towards the D300 (I am biased, though, I bought one about three months ago) and the best possible glass. For low light I prefer my 50 mm 1.4 lens over going with really high ISO. The D300 does a very good job up to ISO 1600 and with the 1.4 you can take shots in very low light at that ISO.
To throw a further spanner into the wheel, there are persistent (and credible) rumours about an updated D300 with pretty much the same spec but added movie mode. There are also bit more nebulous rumours about a go-betweener model D4000 (between the D300 and D700). It appears likely those cameras will be announced in late July and early August. The cameras won't be available until Q4 most likely but the announcement could affect pricing of older models.
Finally (and I know the Nikon faithful are going to crucify me for this), if you don't have any Nikon lenses or other specific reasons to stick with Nikon at this time, you could also consider the Canon 5D MkII. It offers nearly the low light performance of the D700, over 20 MP resolution, and excellent movie mode. And it is only little more expensive than the D700. Based on everything I've read, it appears to be the best semi-pro body on the market at the moment with a fantastic price/performance ratio. (If I had not had six Nikon lenses when I upgraded my body, I would have made the leap to Canonland).
Cheers,
T.
__________________
Did William of Ockham ever nick himself?
I have the D700. Depending on the situation, sometimes I wish I had the D300 instead. Here are the pros and cons as I see them.
For D700:
No crop allows for wider shots (not considering special DX lens)
Better for landscape shots (but you should really consider the 5D MK2 for landscape)
Beautiful film-like noise. You will find it hard to pick out the differences up to 3200. 6400 is great, 12800 is good, and 24000 is okay when you are in a pinch. This makes it an awesome natural light camera.
Fast continuous shooting
For D300:
Cheaper body + cheaper DX lenses
Crop allows for that extra free zoom for sports, macro, wildlife, etc. (don't underestimate this, I'm buying a second camera just for this)
Nikon 18-200 3.5-5.6 DX VR (the swiss army knife of lenses)
If excellent noise performance is your main criteria, I would suggest getting the D700. I can take great hand held shots inside dark cathedrals by dialing up the ISO and shooting in continuous mode. However, like Thalassa says, since you are not tied down to Nikon, consider the Canon 5D MK2. I am envious of the 20MP and its good (not great) noise handling, but the atrocious handling and build quality keeps me from going back (I came from Canon).
Finally, I would not recommend getting the 24-120 VR. It's widely considered a soft lens, and you can do much better for the price.
Anything under 9 on FM is a decent lens, but under 8 is just bad. You will get much better quality and flexibility buying a 70mm+ telephoto zoom and a wide angle lens. My combo is 70-200mm plus a 17-35mm.
You really cannot go wrong with either one. One thing to consider, however, is the crop factor. Your D200 and the D300 both have a 1.5 crop factor while the D700 does not. This means that, in effect, your 18-200 lens on the D200 has been equivalent to a 27-300. With the 24-120 on the D700 you'd lose more than half of your long range.
I have never understood this point. Cannot the same thing be accomplished by simply cropping the image in post processing? Or am I missing something?
Ugh...I think I'm more undecided now than I was when I asked the question
My thought at the moment is to get the D300 kit with the 18-200mm VR lens, AND the 50mm f/1.4 for low-light indoor stuff. Does this seem redundant? The 50mm would be my at-home lens for pics of the baby, and the 18-200mm would be my go-to for travel. The question in my mind is whether I take enough photos in big, dark places where the need for excellent low-light capability and >50mm zoom is needed to justify the extra expense of the D700.
On a side note, I have no interest whatsoever in video capabilities.
Programs: Almost anything with six to twelve steps...
Posts: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by icedancer
Ugh...I think I'm more undecided now than I was when I asked the question
My thought at the moment is to get the D300 kit with the 18-200mm VR lens, AND the 50mm f/1.4 for low-light indoor stuff. Does this seem redundant? The 50mm would be my at-home lens for pics of the baby, and the 18-200mm would be my go-to for travel. The question in my mind is whether I take enough photos in big, dark places where the need for excellent low-light capability and >50mm zoom is needed to justify the extra expense of the D700.
On a side note, I have no interest whatsoever in video capabilities.
I would tend to think the above setup would be quite good. You'd have an excellent all-around zoom lense and an utterly fantastic prime lense. Having a prime makes all kinds of sense as it is inherently sharper than the zooms and you can take some fantastic shots with it.
The one caveat about that setup is that the 18-200 is a DX lens, i.e. if you later graduate to a FX sensor camera, that lense will not work very well. However, Nikon lens resale prices are quite good.
In any case, the D300 has significantly better low-light performance than the D200. Based on what you are telling about your photography habits, I would think you get more bang for the buck with the D300 than with the D700.
One thing you might want to consider for the D300 is the optional vertical grip. It adds some weight, to be sure, but it makes the camera better to handle, vertical shooting a joy, and gives both more fps (up to 8) and battery life. I just spent 8 hours shooting over 1400 shots (quite a few with the internal flash) without ever having to worry about the batteries using the grip.
Cheers,
T.
__________________
Did William of Ockham ever nick himself?
Programs: UA 1K, HH Diamond, National ExElite, Anti-Apostheid Platinum, PWP CentCom
Posts: 2,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thalassa
One thing you might want to consider for the D300 is the optional vertical grip. It adds some weight, to be sure, but it makes the camera better to handle, vertical shooting a joy, and gives both more fps (up to 8) and battery life. I just spent 8 hours shooting over 1400 shots (quite a few with the internal flash) without ever having to worry about the batteries using the grip.
Agreed. I very rarely take my D300 out without the grip attached. Vertical shooting is so much easier that it makes me not want to use my D70s anymore.
Nikon's grip is $$$, but there's a good quality equivalent on eBay (here's the one I bought).
__________________ Join the FT Flickr group and share your travel photos!
PWP!
Programs: Almost anything with six to twelve steps...
Posts: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by icedancer
Great. Off to B&H I go!
Thanks, nova474 for the link to the Ken Rockwell site. The amount of information he has is mind-boggling.
Ken Rockwell is a good resource but you should take his opinions with a grain of salt -- sometimes his need to be edgy outweighs reason (like the claim that the D40 is the best DSLR for any amount of money)...
Have fun with the new camera; you will love it!
Cheers,
T.
__________________
Did William of Ockham ever nick himself?
The one caveat about that setup is that the 18-200 is a DX lens, i.e. if you later graduate to a FX sensor camera, that lense will not work very well. However, Nikon lens resale prices are quite good. .........
Cheers,
T.
I am thinking of selling my 18-200 and D200 since I now own a D700. Any idea what the D200 + 18-200 would go for? The camera store offered me $650 on a trade in - I said no thanks and just bought the D700.
Join the 
