# Nikon D300 vs D700 which one?



## blythe (Jun 1, 2009)

Hi,

I currently have a D60 and want to upgrade to either a D300 or D700.  What are the major difference between the 2?  I was using the comparison sheet from another site and they seem to be almost similar.  I am trying to justify if the price is worth going to the D700

thanks for all the help


----------



## SpeedTrap (Jun 1, 2009)

The D700 is a Full Frame Sensor.
What that means for you is you will need to buy new lesnses if you currently own only DX lenses.

The D700 has a fantastic ISO range, this is only important if you do alot of work in low light enviroments.

As well the D300 is still classed as a Consumer level Camera while the D700 is in the pro class.
If you can have both go for it,  the D300 is a great backup to the D700


----------



## DScience (Jun 1, 2009)

SpeedTrap said:


> The D700 is a Full Frame Sensor.
> What that means for you is you will need to buy new lesnses if you currently own only DX lenses.
> 
> The D700 has a fantastic ISO range, this is only important if you do alot of work in low light enviroments.
> ...




Both? Why your at it, just get the whole Nikon line up! Grab a D90, D300, D700, and then just splurge for a D3x.... lol maybe even throw in a D60 for fun!


----------



## SrBiscuit (Jun 1, 2009)

DScience said:


> SpeedTrap said:
> 
> 
> > The D700 is a Full Frame Sensor.
> ...


 

OP already has the D60...but you're right...2 of a good thing is...what...2 good things?:lmao:


----------



## SpeedTrap (Jun 1, 2009)

DScience said:


> Both? Why your at it, just get the whole Nikon line up! Grab a D90, D300, D700, and then just splurge for a D3x.... lol maybe even throw in a D60 for fun!


 
I know this may sound silly to some, but the reason is that if the OP is looking at these camers it is most likely for more than just a hobby,

If they are thinking of going pro at any level a good backup is equaly important as you main body.
You need to have at least 2 bodies and you need to be able to switch back and forth easily. Swiching from a D700 to a D60 as a backup would be a pain, the menus are different the shooting controls are not the same.

I do use a D700/D300 setup and am very happy with it, the accessories work with both cameras as well do all my lenses.


----------



## AlexColeman (Jun 1, 2009)

Well, I love my D700, but stepping up to FF is a big commitment w/ regards to lenses. The nikon trifecta, is easily many k in lenses, but you won't be disappointed if you can throw the money at it.


----------



## kundalini (Jun 1, 2009)

I've got a D80 / D300 / D700 setup. I'll probably sell the D80 sooner or later. One thing I did when I only had the D80 was to buy only *FX lenses* (I've added one more to the arsenal) with the intention of _possibly_ go full frame at some point. The two exceptions are the 12-24mm f/4 & 55-200mm VR. I will keep the D300 because I like using it with long glass.

My suggestion is to get either, but the lenses would be a priority. Unfortunately you will have to get one of the bodies first to utilize AF and metering of any FX lens. 

Chicken or Egg?


----------



## PhotoXopher (Jun 1, 2009)

D300 and D700 are both 'prosumer' bodies, which one just depends on your needs. D700 has the best high ISO performance, but the D90 and D300 are both excellent as well.


----------



## AlexColeman (Jun 1, 2009)

N0YZE said:


> D300 and D700 are both 'prosumer' bodies, which one just depends on your needs. D700 has the best high ISO performance, but the D90 and D300 are both excellent as well.



I would definitely say the D700 is a pro body. W/ weather sealing and cost as determinate factors, its the second best in the lineup, and a true pro body.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Jun 1, 2009)

Not to sidetrack but the D100, D200 and D300 are weather sealed as well.

Traditionally Nikon has used this format:

DX Pro
DXX & DXXXX Consumer
DXXX Prosumer


----------



## AlexColeman (Jun 1, 2009)

I don't know. I find it tough to consider the D700 a Prosumer body.


----------



## SpeedTrap (Jun 1, 2009)

Even Nikon calls the D700 a Pro body, the deciding factor is that the beep is off as a default


----------



## PhotoXopher (Jun 1, 2009)

Hahahaha

But no built in grip!


----------



## TUX424 (Jun 1, 2009)

AlexColeman said:


> I don't know. I find it tough to consider the D700 a Prosumer body.


But that is what it is, you will be able to find pros that use it is portrait shoots beacause the want all of the power of the D3 but at the price of the D700 and the weight of the D700. But it would be hard to find a SI shooter with a D700 instead of a D3.


----------



## kundalini (Jun 1, 2009)

You guys can label 'em as you like, but the D300 / D700 combo is a great pairing.


----------



## kundalini (Jun 1, 2009)

N0YZE said:


> But no built in grip!


 Is that a prerequisite for a "pro" body?


----------



## PhotoXopher (Jun 1, 2009)

Seems to be, look at previous DX bodies.


----------



## bhop (Jun 1, 2009)

N0YZE said:


> Seems to be, look at previous DX bodies.



F4 was a pro camera.  The grip was removeable.  F6 is a pro camera.  Yes, they're both film cameras, but still..

honestly though, who cares what label it falls under?  It's still got pro-level specs...


----------



## PhotoXopher (Jun 1, 2009)

I was actually arguing more in favor of the D300 not being a consumer grade, but you're right - whatever


----------



## MelodySoul (Jun 1, 2009)

Nikon Canada

According to the Canadian Nikon website the D300 is prosumer and the D700 is pro.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jun 1, 2009)

I just got back from shooting a gig at a local theater almost entirely at ISO 6400 with my 50mm f/1.4 and 80-200 f/2.8. 

They were both wide open all the time, the 50mm at f/2 for sharpness a couple times, and I used the 24-120 for the group shot, but that was ISO400 and I had profoto's on me, so it was easy. My shutter speeds were around 1/40th-90th of a second all day. 


It was impossible to have gotten away with that on anything less then a 5DII, D3 or D700. A D300 or 50D would have failed. 

My 80-200 was too slow much of the time it was so dark.


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 1, 2009)

Did anybody bother to find out what the OP wanted to shoot mainly?

If it's birds/wildlife or cheating spouses then the D300's crop sensor and it's 1.5X on zoom lenses is likely what the Dr. ordered.  The reverse if a wide angle is wanted.  With good technique the images will be great either way.


----------



## kundalini (Jun 1, 2009)

Mike_E said:


> Did anybody bother to find out what the OP wanted to shoot mainly?
> 
> If it's birds/wildlife or cheating spouses then the D300's crop sensor and it's 1.5X on zoom lenses is likely what the Dr. ordered. The reverse if a wide angle is wanted. With good technique the images will be great either way.


 Precisely why I keep both at hand.  Well noted Mike.


----------



## blythe (Jun 1, 2009)

Wow thanks for all the help guys, so many responses from only a couple of hours.  Basically I am trying to shoot clothes for a fashion store.  Nothing will be worn on models, just clothes hanging from a rack or wall.  The place has terrible lighting... Ive tried using flashes, Hanging lights, almost everything.  I'm not really sure how to get the effect but I want to upgrade either way.  Lenses isnt really a problem for me since I only have one which is the 50mm 1.8.  I tried using the lens that came with the kit but it was terrible.... I couldnt get the sharp looking effect under any ISO or lighting.  I am not very skilled at all and im trying to learn it as I go but It just seems that the D60 isnt cutting it.  I am basically trying to get this effect but he was using a D3 with a 50mm 1.4.  Any help would be great thanks!!!


----------



## Defy (Jun 1, 2009)

You don't need a D300/D700 for that.  The Exif says f1.4 @ ISO200 with a shutter speed of 1/25th. All speeds you can get with your D60 and a good lens.  

For that point of view you would need 35mm 1.8D (gives you more of the 50mm view on a DX) but it would't be as fast, still would work great.  

OR if you wanted the faster one get a 50mm 1.4.


----------



## DScience (Jun 1, 2009)

blythe said:


> Wow thanks for all the help guys, so many responses from only a couple of hours.  Basically I am trying to shoot clothes for a fashion store.  Nothing will be worn on models, just clothes hanging from a rack or wall.  The place has terrible lighting... Ive tried using flashes, Hanging lights, almost everything.  I'm not really sure how to get the effect but I want to upgrade either way.  Lenses isnt really a problem for me since I only have one which is the 50mm 1.8.  I tried using the lens that came with the kit but it was terrible.... I couldnt get the sharp looking effect under any ISO or lighting.  I am not very skilled at all and im trying to learn it as I go but It just seems that the D60 isnt cutting it.  I am basically trying to get this effect but he was using a D3 with a 50mm 1.4.  Any help would be great thanks!!!




I'm sorry but this just made me laugh. I am a noob, but if you are shooting clothes invest more on lighting, and glass rather then a D700. I would say your D60, or maybe a D90, great glass, and the rest on flashes and a lighting set up.


----------



## blythe (Jun 1, 2009)

So im taking that a 50mm 1.4 should do the trick for me? what kind of lighting suggestions do you guys have?


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 2, 2009)

What you really need is a book called Light: Science and Magic.  You already have all the camera and lens you need.

Photoshop would help but elements should do just fine.

And hey, it's much cheaper than a D300 or a D700!!


----------



## JerryPH (Jun 2, 2009)

N0YZE said:


> Hahahaha
> But no built in grip!



Which is an advantage to some to not need to carry all that extra weight.  

I own the D700 as well and its not only a pro camera in designation but in results and feel as well as features and abilities.

It' has been raining here for several weeks.  I lasted about a week then took the 24-70 and 70-200 out for a couple E-sessions.  I would not want to see the results of the damage to a camera/lens combo that was not completely weather sealed.  I was soaked to the bone as were my clients, but the camera never even slowed down nor missed a beat.

BTW, I do own the battery grip and the EN-EL4a batteries that come in a D3/D3x as well.  Optically, a D3 and D700 are 100% identical.


----------



## bhop (Jun 2, 2009)

Clothing product photography?  That just made this thread kind of funny.. 

Lighting is the key.  You can save money and just use regular lamps, maybe take two and point them at the shirt at different angles to get the lighting you want.  Experiment.  Stop the lens down to at least f/4 (if not more, but I assume you want to background out of focus) and you'll get more detail because more of the wrinkles will be in the focus zone.  Your pic looks underexposed too.  And unless you're going to be using a strobe, *Get a solid tripod.*  That should help.


----------



## itznfb (Jun 2, 2009)

Mike_E said:


> And hey, it's much cheaper than a D300 or a D700!!


 
yea but with a Gripped D700 he could shoot that shirt at 8fps.


----------



## JerryPH (Jun 2, 2009)

bhop said:


> Clothing product photography?
> Stop the lens down to at least f/4 (if not more, but I assume you want to background out of focus)



Clothing backgrounds are 95% the same colour (ie: black or white backdrops)... look in most catalogs.  You want maximum sharpness to show off the clothing details.  So not F/4, but likely something between F/8 to F/16.  Ideally you will be knowledgeable enough to find the sweet spot of your lens and shoot at that one aperture all day.  Most lenses are between F/7.1 to F/13.

I am not a big fan of the constant on lighting... they are HOT, uncomfortable and dangerous.  Halogens are weak, inconsistent WB and you get your money's worth... ie: cheap lights = less than ideal results. For a few bucks more one could get a speedlight that is portable, better quality light, safer and cooler for the models... plus the results will always be better.


----------



## JerryPH (Jun 2, 2009)

itznfb said:


> Mike_E said:
> 
> 
> > And hey, it's much cheaper than a D300 or a D700!!
> ...



And with the Evelyn Wood speed reading course, he could also hit 8 pages per minute and save even more over using a D700... lol


----------



## bhop (Jun 2, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> bhop said:
> 
> 
> > Clothing product photography?
> ...



True, which is why I said "at least".. I just mentioned a more shallow dof because of his hanging setup, assuming he'd still be showing the shirts that way.  OOF background would be better there... but I agree with everything you said.  I was just thinking of the cheap way out.  Flash would be better for sure.  I actually work in the fashion industry.  Our in-house clothing photo guy initially bought a hot light setup, but uses strobes most of the time since I helped him set up the umbrellas..


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jun 2, 2009)

blythe said:


>


That looks like a really ugly shirt and that photo really doesn't make me want to wear it. If this is what you want for product shots, this is not good photography.

The photographer made the shirt really ugly.

What's all that crap in the background?

Professional product photography ain't cheap, especially apparel. Stylists are worth their weight in gold, and it's clean and nice when the clothes are clipped out, not to mention you can use them for other applications, and to do that quickly and consistently, you need to have a space to shoot in for the lights, and graphic designers do the post for you, unless you can do it really quick and do it well. But if you have say..100 shirts, and if you spend an average of 10 minutes per shirt, that's 1000 minutes, that's 16 hours of doing nothing but clipping paths, nonstop. That's a waste of not only your time, but the clients time because it will take forever to get done. split it between 2 people, and you'll have them all done in a day or two, between three, easily a day.


----------



## KmH (Jun 2, 2009)

AlexColeman said:


> I don't know. I find it tough to consider the D700 a Prosumer body.


Alex you can certainly consider it what ever you wish.:thumbup:

However, Nikon markets the D700 as a prosumer camera body, not a Pro body, and that's why it gave it a Dxxx designation and didn't include a built-in vertical grip like it does with the Pro bodies, D3 and D3X.


----------



## JerryPH (Jun 2, 2009)

Personally, the words PRO or PROSUMER mean absolutely nothing to me though we just saw a link on Nikon.ca's website that lumped the D700 in the SAME classification as the D3 and D3x, the professional line). All that matters is that the camera does what I want.

Optically, the D700 is 100% identical to the D3. So it lacks an integrated grip (that I can purchase separately), but there are very VERY few things that differentiate between a D3 and a D700... and NONE of those that will make any kind of difference in the final output.

Let's talk reality for a moment...

We have someone here that wants to take a photo of clothing in a controlled environment. Really, even a D300 is major overkill for something like this. In a studio, I can control the light 100%. The subject is not moving, so I have 100% control over them.  Place the camera on a tripod and change the shirts as fast as you can from shot to shot consistency, and I do not even need to set up the lighting, camera or setup more than ONCE.

Heck, give me an etch-a-sketch and I can almost give you what your client needs!

That was a joke, but I was being pretty serious about one point. On a D100, D200, D300 or D3x, or even a D40, *any and all* of these cameras under these conditions can take good quality photos of a static object in a studio controlled environment. Any of these will get the job done to the client's satisfaction. What is the justification for even a D300, much less a D700? The *lens and lighting*, for this "assignment" is more important than the camera by itself.


----------



## blythe (Jun 2, 2009)

Thanks for all the help from everyone

Right now I have a SB600 and I already have a good tripod.  As far as the lighting goes I have trouble knowing where to place them.  The image still looks pretty bad...... I will upload the image soon.  

thanks again everyone


----------



## bhop (Jun 3, 2009)

blythe said:


> Thanks for all the help from everyone
> 
> Right now I have a SB600 and I already have a good tripod.  As far as the lighting goes I have trouble knowing where to place them.  The image still looks pretty bad...... I will upload the image soon.
> 
> thanks again everyone



I found this link that might help

Clothing photography - how to take pictures of clothing


----------



## blythe (Jun 3, 2009)

thanks !!! It seems that I have everything except those 2 huge softboxes.

I really dont want to spend another 300$ is there any substitutions?


----------



## manaheim (Jun 3, 2009)

itznfb said:


> Mike_E said:
> 
> 
> > And hey, it's much cheaper than a D300 or a D700!!
> ...


 
OMFG that just made the ENTIRE thread worth reading.

:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

HUMOR 4tW!!!


----------



## JerryPH (Jun 3, 2009)

blythe said:


> As far as the lighting goes I have trouble knowing where to place them.



Strobist

Read, study and PRACTICE Lighting 101 and Lighting 102.

And a little something obvious... there are 360 degrees in a circle, obviously some angles are just wrong (like placing the single flash behind the shirt).  30 minutes of practice shooting from different angles and you will know exactly which angle looks good or bad.  Just compare it to something from a sears catalog, thats basically all you are trying to do anyways.  This stuff is not that hard, all you need to do is take a little time to use the right tools (like a proper garment holder and a clear background) and practice.


----------



## mrodgers (Jun 3, 2009)

blythe said:


> thanks !!! It seems that I have everything except those 2 huge softboxes.
> 
> I really dont want to spend another 300$ is there any substitutions?


DIY.  Just google DIY softbox, there's plenty of info out there.



			
				manaheim said:
			
		

> OMFG that just made the ENTIRE thread worth reading.


Completely agree.  Nearly spit coffee all over the keyboard.


----------



## Moe (Jun 3, 2009)

blythe said:


> thanks !!! It seems that I have everything except those 2 huge softboxes.
> 
> I really dont want to spend another 300$ is there any substitutions?


 

I'm not trying to be rude, but please tell me others find it humorous that blythe was going to drop almost ten times this on a D700?


----------



## RONDAL (Jun 3, 2009)

i caught that one as well.

$3000 body.....no problem (not to mention the full frame lenses he would have to buy),

$300 softboxes (can be had for MUCH cheaper) and HOLD THE PHONE THAT'S TOO EXPENSIVE.



this thread is full of entertainment.


----------



## blythe (Jun 3, 2009)

Well the camera has a set price and I doubt I could get much off that set price.  However I figured the boxes could range from $50 to $300.  I don't want to spend more money on things that I could possibly get for a cheaper price.


----------

