# D300s or the D700????



## Insp Gadget

My wife is looking to buy a new camera for her wedding business. Currently I use a D300 and love it. I looked at the specs for both cameras and all I see is that the D700 has a full frame sensor. Someone told her that the D700 is twice as good as the D300 in low light conditions. Is this true?Is a full frame sensor that much better?

ANY advice is GREATLY appreciated!!


----------



## PhotoXopher

It's known for superb low light performance if you know how to use it.

I think if I were a wedding photographer the D700 would be my first choice, if I could afford it and had the lenses to make it happen.

That said, I'm talking out of my butt with no real world experience - only dreams of 'some day'. 

Here's one cool site to compare cameras:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sidebyside.asp

And another to compare photos from different cameras:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

D300 on the (first) vs D700 (second) at 6400 ISO











Just for giggles, D700 at 24,600 ISO - just WOW!


----------



## Dao

I will agree with N0YZE.  If cost is not an issue, I will go with D700 for sure.  And D300 as the backup.


----------



## itznfb

D300s = Professional
D700 = Prosumer

If I was a working wedding photographer I would go with the D300s or D3. Period.


----------



## PhotoXopher

Uh oh, there's that can of worms... and it's been opened!


----------



## itznfb

lol. I knew it would probably cause a ****storm

I realize this technology didn't always exist but if I were shooting a wedding there's no way I would use a camera that didn't have dual cards.
Memory cards are thousands of times more likely to fail than anything else in your bag. People bring backup bodies but write to a single card? Doesn't make sense.


----------



## itznfb

Let me add this on a more serious note. When making money of your gear you have to take into account are you getting out of this camera what you put in? Do you need the expanded ISO capability of the D700? Obviously not. When looking at the the DSLR comparison chart on Nikon's site the D700 looks like it would be more appropriately placed next to the D90. The only thing that keeps it out of that bracket is the full metal body, weather sealing and ISO capabilities. But when looking across the board it's specs don't line up with the rest of the professional lineup. The D3x, D3 and D300s all have basically the same specs. The D700 is a notch down in basically the same categories as the D90.

That being said. I really don't see how someone could plop down almost $3000 when you can get a more functional camera for almost 1/2 the cost. Especially when you're making money off of it. Now, if full frame and expanded ISO is a must for you, then by all means that extra $1000 may make it worth it.


----------



## DScience

itznfb said:


> D300s = Professional
> D700 = Prosumer
> 
> If I was a working wedding photographer I would go with the D300s or D3. Period.




What are you talking about? Your trying to say a full frame camera is not pro, but a cropped sensor camera is? uhhhh.:thumbdown:


----------



## PhotoXopher

Full frame vs crop has nothing to do with rating a camera pro, prosumer, or beginner.

I always believed Nikon's methodology on this was:

DX = Pro (D1, D2, D3)
DXXX = Prosumer (D100, D200, D300)
DXX = Consumer (D70, D80, D90)

Now we have to add:
DXXXX = Entry Level (D3000, D5000)


----------



## RONDAL

thats a pretty bold statement to make

"d300 = professional
d700 = prosumer"

Many well established photography review websites and professionals would disagree with you and order things the other way.

If the D300s didn't come with dual writing capability would it still be a professional camera?
With rumors of a new D700s on the horizon, with the same capability as that which now comes in the D300s (dual writing and HD video) does that make it professional?

As far as performance goes both the D700 and the D300s are very capable cameras.  The d700 however has the same sensor and many of the same characteristics of that found in the pro level D3 camera.

To claim that one camera is more "functional" than the other is also a little misleading.  More functional how so?  If all you are shooting is low light things is a d300s really more functional?  

If you want to shoot HD video then sure the D300s is FAAAAR more capable.   My point is dont be so quick to paint everything with the same brush.  What sounds like it works for you, may not work for the next guy in line.


----------



## TJ K

d700 definitely.


----------



## DWS




----------



## kundalini

:lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## inTempus

Another vote for the D700.


----------



## itznfb

DScience said:


> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> 
> D300s = Professional
> D700 = Prosumer
> 
> If I was a working wedding photographer I would go with the D300s or D3. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about? Your trying to say a full frame camera is not pro, but a cropped sensor camera is? uhhhh.:thumbdown:
Click to expand...


Yea.... as NOYZE said, the sensor size is irrelevant to it's classification as pro/notpro.



RONDAL said:


> thats a pretty bold statement to make
> 
> "d300 = professional
> d700 = prosumer"
> 
> Many well established photography review websites and professionals would disagree with you and order things the other way.



It is a bold statement but in reality the specs from the D700 more align with a D90 than they do a D3. However the specs from the D90 and up are so similar it doesn't take much to change from one level to another.



RONDAL said:


> If the D300s didn't come with dual writing capability would it still be a professional camera?



In my opinion. No.



RONDAL said:


> With rumors of a new D700s on the horizon, with the same capability as that which now comes in the D300s (dual writing and HD video) does that make it professional?



You add dual card slots, 100% viewfinder, 6+ fps out of the box... ehg... there's one or two things I'm forgetting... anyway you add those few things and then yes... you've branched out of the prosumer class. Again, this is by no means set in stone anywhere this is my opinion based on what you get out of a camera for how much it costs.



RONDAL said:


> As far as performance goes both the D700 and the D300s are very capable cameras.  The d700 however has the same sensor and many of the same characteristics of that found in the pro level D3 camera.
> 
> To claim that one camera is more "functional" than the other is also a little misleading.  More functional how so?  If all you are shooting is low light things is a d300s really more functional?
> 
> If you want to shoot HD video then sure the D300s is FAAAAR more capable.   My point is dont be so quick to paint everything with the same brush.  What sounds like it works for you, may not work for the next guy in line.



Again... if you go by spec for spec the D700 more aligns with the D90 than it does a D3. That is extreme nitpicking so unless you NEED a full frame sensor for some reason I can't fathom how a D700 is worth almost $3000. For an enthusiast with a lot of money... no doubt the D700 is the way to go. But for someone who uses this as an investment and needs to factor ROI... no way. I don't see it.

I don't factor in HD video when comparing Nikons because the video you get out of the Nikon DSLRs is crap.


----------



## Dao

From the Nikon link provided by Jerry and one of the Nikon press release I read, I assume D700 is a professional camera.  At least that is what Nikon target it for. :er:


----------



## itznfb

Dao said:


> From the Nikon link provided by Jerry and one of the Nikon press release I read, I assume D700 is a professional camera.  At least that is what Nikon target it for. :er:



I believe different branches of Nikon, being Nikon USA, Nikon Canada, Nikon Japan classify their cameras differently. According to this press release Nikon Press Center - THE AGILE NEW NIKON D700 FX-FORMAT D-SLR CAMERA DELIVERS PERFORMANCE INSPIRED BY THE NIKON D3 IN A SMALLER, LIGHTER DESIGN it seems to imply that the D700 is prosumer and the D3x, D3, and D300 are pro. In the DSLR comparison they only lump the cameras into two categories pro and non-pro. http://www.nikonusa.com/Assets/Common-Assets/PDF/DSLR_Compare.pdf

Going back to a more relevant point to the OP though... does it matter if the camera is branded as "pro" if it doesn't provide some key features that a current gen professional would look for in a new body?


----------



## Derrel

A full-frame body will allow you to have a lot more flexibility in terms of high ISO,as well as cropping decisions post-capture. A full-frame body will allow a lot better background defocusing at typical flash exposures which use a small lens opening like f/8 to f/11 or even f/13 in the sunlight.

The problem with APS-C cameras and people photography is that to get a full-length photo in a normal indoor environment, the photog needs to drop focal lengths down into the 19 to 33 mm range ALL THE TIME. With a small sensor, that focal length range causes deep depth of field, so you end up shooting outdoor flash exposures at exposures like 1/200 second at ISO 200 at f/13 with a crop-body camera. That gives you group and couples photos that have the couple in-focus, as well as the ugly wall 35 feet away in recognizable focus.

The high-ISO, non-flash capabilities of a 864 square millimeter, Nikon FF D700 sensor are indisputably better than with a smaller Nikon APS-C camera that has a sensor 2.33 times smaller. With a FF Nikon, an 85mm 1.8 lens is a wonderful,useful tool indoors or outdoors at the reception. On a crop-body, an 85mm prime combined with the FOV crop-off factor forces you to shoot many pictures from 34 to 60 feet away--too far in many reception areas.

A D700 will last for many years. A beginner deserves every chance to succeed. Buy good tools, and they will work with you on every shoot. Buy tools never designed for wedding work, and they will hinder you on every shoot. I saw a chart last night--the D300 accounted for about 3 percent of Nikon's 2008 sales, the D700 only 1 percent of sales, while the D40 and D60 were about 10 percent each of Nikon's sales.


----------



## PhotoXopher

While I usually agree with a lot of what you say, you make it sound like wedding photography was not possible before the almighty D700


----------



## RONDAL

itznfb said:


> Dao said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the Nikon link provided by Jerry and one of the Nikon press release I read, I assume D700 is a professional camera. At least that is what Nikon target it for. :er:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe different branches of Nikon, being Nikon USA, Nikon Canada, Nikon Japan classify their cameras differently. According to this press release Nikon Press Center - THE AGILE NEW NIKON D700 FX-FORMAT D-SLR CAMERA DELIVERS PERFORMANCE INSPIRED BY THE NIKON D3 IN A SMALLER, LIGHTER DESIGN it seems to imply that the D700 is prosumer and the D3x, D3, and D300 are pro. In the DSLR comparison they only lump the cameras into two categories pro and non-pro. http://www.nikonusa.com/Assets/Common-Assets/PDF/DSLR_Compare.pdf
> 
> Going back to a more relevant point to the OP though... does it matter if the camera is branded as "pro" if it doesn't provide some key features that a current gen professional would look for in a new body?
Click to expand...

 


am i missing the place that it calls the D300s PRO?  I see the D3 and D3x....but not the D300s


----------



## itznfb

Derrel said:


> A full-frame body will allow you to have a lot more flexibility in terms of high ISO,as well as cropping decisions post-capture. A full-frame body will allow a lot better background defocusing at typical flash exposures which use a small lens opening like f/8 to f/11 or even f/13 in the sunlight.
> 
> The problem with APS-C cameras and people photography is that to get a full-length photo in a normal indoor environment, the photog needs to drop focal lengths down into the 19 to 33 mm range ALL THE TIME. With a small sensor, that focal length range causes deep depth of field, so you end up shooting outdoor flash exposures at exposures like 1/200 second at ISO 200 at f/13 with a crop-body camera. That gives you group and couples photos that have the couple in-focus, as well as the ugly wall 35 feet away in recognizable focus.
> 
> The high-ISO, non-flash capabilities of a 864 square millimeter, Nikon FF D700 sensor are indisputably better than with a smaller Nikon APS-C camera that has a sensor 2.33 times smaller. With a FF Nikon, an 85mm 1.8 lens is a wonderful,useful tool indoors or outdoors at the reception. On a crop-body, an 85mm prime combined with the FOV crop-off factor forces you to shoot many pictures from 34 to 60 feet away--too far in many reception areas.
> 
> A D700 will last for many years. A beginner deserves every chance to succeed. Buy good tools, and they will work with you on every shoot. Buy tools never designed for wedding work, and they will hinder you on every shoot. I saw a chart last night--the D300 accounted for about 3 percent of Nikon's 2008 sales, the D700 only 1 percent of sales, while the D40 and D60 were about 10 percent each of Nikon's sales.



Wow, it's a good thing the D1 through D2h were all full frame or else all those wedding photos from earlier generations would have been ruined.

The out of focus distance issues you describe are ridiculously exaggerated. Use a dof calculator and you'll see that for a infinite number of focal lengths and distance to subject the difference between crop and full is generally 1 step forward/back or less.


----------



## kundalini

So itzfnb, do you own a D700? 

Oh wait, I see in your signature you obviously don't. Hmmm, you do seem to have a D300s though. Good on ya.












































Can't seem to find that "talking out of his ass" smilie. Anyone got a spare?


----------



## itznfb

RONDAL said:


> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dao said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the Nikon link provided by Jerry and one of the Nikon press release I read, I assume D700 is a professional camera. At least that is what Nikon target it for. :er:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe different branches of Nikon, being Nikon USA, Nikon Canada, Nikon Japan classify their cameras differently. According to this press release Nikon Press Center - THE AGILE NEW NIKON D700 FX-FORMAT D-SLR CAMERA DELIVERS PERFORMANCE INSPIRED BY THE NIKON D3 IN A SMALLER, LIGHTER DESIGN it seems to imply that the D700 is prosumer and the D3x, D3, and D300 are pro. In the DSLR comparison they only lump the cameras into two categories pro and non-pro. http://www.nikonusa.com/Assets/Common-Assets/PDF/DSLR_Compare.pdf
> 
> Going back to a more relevant point to the OP though... does it matter if the camera is branded as "pro" if it doesn't provide some key features that a current gen professional would look for in a new body?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> am i missing the place that it calls the D300s PRO?  I see the D3 and D3x....but not the D300s
Click to expand...


I said the article "seems to imply"... so don't say I said it used the words pro or professional... this is the quote I was referring to though:


			
				NikonUSA said:
			
		

> Nikons flagship FX and DX-format cameras, the D3 and D300 respectively, established new benchmarks for digital image quality, speed, and unmatched ISO performance.



And here is the D300 press release directly labeling it professional.
Nikon Press Center - NIKON INTRODUCES THE NEW D300 PROFESSIONAL DIGITAL SLR CAMERA


----------



## Parkerman

itznfb said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> A full-frame body will allow you to have a lot more flexibility in terms of high ISO,as well as cropping decisions post-capture. A full-frame body will allow a lot better background defocusing at typical flash exposures which use a small lens opening like f/8 to f/11 or even f/13 in the sunlight.
> 
> The problem with APS-C cameras and people photography is that to get a full-length photo in a normal indoor environment, the photog needs to drop focal lengths down into the 19 to 33 mm range ALL THE TIME. With a small sensor, that focal length range causes deep depth of field, so you end up shooting outdoor flash exposures at exposures like 1/200 second at ISO 200 at f/13 with a crop-body camera. That gives you group and couples photos that have the couple in-focus, as well as the ugly wall 35 feet away in recognizable focus.
> 
> The high-ISO, non-flash capabilities of a 864 square millimeter, Nikon FF D700 sensor are indisputably better than with a smaller Nikon APS-C camera that has a sensor 2.33 times smaller. With a FF Nikon, an 85mm 1.8 lens is a wonderful,useful tool indoors or outdoors at the reception. On a crop-body, an 85mm prime combined with the FOV crop-off factor forces you to shoot many pictures from 34 to 60 feet away--too far in many reception areas.
> 
> A D700 will last for many years. A beginner deserves every chance to succeed. Buy good tools, and they will work with you on every shoot. Buy tools never designed for wedding work, and they will hinder you on every shoot. I saw a chart last night--the D300 accounted for about 3 percent of Nikon's 2008 sales, the D700 only 1 percent of sales, while the D40 and D60 were about 10 percent each of Nikon's sales.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, it's a good thing the D1 through D2h were all full frame or else all those wedding photos from earlier generations would have been ruined.
> 
> The out of focus distance issues you describe are ridiculously exaggerated. Use a dof calculator and you'll see that for a infinite number of focal lengths and distance to subject the difference between crop and full is generally 1 step forward/back or less.
Click to expand...



According to you.. the D2x wouldn't even be a pro camera.. as it lacks Dual CF cards.



The D300s is not a Pro camera.. neither is the D700. If you have a problem with memory cards taking a dump on you.. I suggest you buy better ones. I worked in a senior portrait studio all summer long, working from 8-5... taking pictures all day long.. 5 days a week, Never once did a memory card just die on us and we lose the images.


----------



## itznfb

kundalini said:


> So itzfnb, do you own a D700?
> 
> Oh wait, I see in your signature you obviously don't. Hmmm, you do seem to have a D300s though. Good on ya.
> 
> Can't seem to find that "talking out of his ass" smilie. Anyone got a spare?



I owned them both for a week and returned the D700. I shoot with a D3 and D3x quite often. So yes I'm able to speak from experience and direct comparison. And what's your point? I've made statements based on paper specs and never implied otherwise.

Where's the clueless I didn't understand any of the thread smilie?


----------



## itznfb

Parkerman said:


> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> A full-frame body will allow you to have a lot more flexibility in terms of high ISO,as well as cropping decisions post-capture. A full-frame body will allow a lot better background defocusing at typical flash exposures which use a small lens opening like f/8 to f/11 or even f/13 in the sunlight.
> 
> The problem with APS-C cameras and people photography is that to get a full-length photo in a normal indoor environment, the photog needs to drop focal lengths down into the 19 to 33 mm range ALL THE TIME. With a small sensor, that focal length range causes deep depth of field, so you end up shooting outdoor flash exposures at exposures like 1/200 second at ISO 200 at f/13 with a crop-body camera. That gives you group and couples photos that have the couple in-focus, as well as the ugly wall 35 feet away in recognizable focus.
> 
> The high-ISO, non-flash capabilities of a 864 square millimeter, Nikon FF D700 sensor are indisputably better than with a smaller Nikon APS-C camera that has a sensor 2.33 times smaller. With a FF Nikon, an 85mm 1.8 lens is a wonderful,useful tool indoors or outdoors at the reception. On a crop-body, an 85mm prime combined with the FOV crop-off factor forces you to shoot many pictures from 34 to 60 feet away--too far in many reception areas.
> 
> A D700 will last for many years. A beginner deserves every chance to succeed. Buy good tools, and they will work with you on every shoot. Buy tools never designed for wedding work, and they will hinder you on every shoot. I saw a chart last night--the D300 accounted for about 3 percent of Nikon's 2008 sales, the D700 only 1 percent of sales, while the D40 and D60 were about 10 percent each of Nikon's sales.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, it's a good thing the D1 through D2h were all full frame or else all those wedding photos from earlier generations would have been ruined.
> 
> The out of focus distance issues you describe are ridiculously exaggerated. Use a dof calculator and you'll see that for a infinite number of focal lengths and distance to subject the difference between crop and full is generally 1 step forward/back or less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> According to you.. the D2x wouldn't even be a pro camera.. as it lacks Dual CF cards.
> 
> 
> 
> The D300s is not a Pro camera.. neither is the D700. If you have a problem with memory cards taking a dump on you.. I suggest you buy better ones. I worked in a senior portrait studio all summer long, working from 8-5... taking pictures all day long.. 5 days a week, Never once did a memory card just die on us and we lose the images.
Click to expand...


Did I not specify current gen? Yep, I'm pretty sure I did. Another moron who loves to join a thread without reading any of it. Congrats on never having a card die on you. You clearly have no technical understanding on the weakest link in your system. Again I specified,,,,, pros bring backup bodies but don't think twice about writing to a single card? That does not make sense.

And if you don't think the D300/s is a pro camera then argue with Nikon. Because they think it is.


----------



## Parkerman

itznfb said:


> Parkerman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, it's a good thing the D1 through D2h were all full frame or else all those wedding photos from earlier generations would have been ruined.
> 
> The out of focus distance issues you describe are ridiculously exaggerated. Use a dof calculator and you'll see that for a infinite number of focal lengths and distance to subject the difference between crop and full is generally 1 step forward/back or less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to you.. the D2x wouldn't even be a pro camera.. as it lacks Dual CF cards.
> 
> 
> 
> The D300s is not a Pro camera.. neither is the D700. If you have a problem with memory cards taking a dump on you.. I suggest you buy better ones. I worked in a senior portrait studio all summer long, working from 8-5... taking pictures all day long.. 5 days a week, Never once did a memory card just die on us and we lose the images.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I not specify current gen? Yep, I'm pretty sure I did. Another moron who loves to join a thread without reading any of it. Congrats on never having a card die on you. You clearly have no technical understanding on the weakest link in your system. Again I specified,,,,, pros bring backup bodies but don't think twice about writing to a single card? That does not make sense.
Click to expand...



Sounds to me like you are honestly just trying to justify your purchase. Congratulations on resorting to name calling btw... thats real uhh.. professional of you...


----------



## itznfb

Parkerman said:


> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Parkerman said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to you.. the D2x wouldn't even be a pro camera.. as it lacks Dual CF cards.
> 
> 
> 
> The D300s is not a Pro camera.. neither is the D700. If you have a problem with memory cards taking a dump on you.. I suggest you buy better ones. I worked in a senior portrait studio all summer long, working from 8-5... taking pictures all day long.. 5 days a week, Never once did a memory card just die on us and we lose the images.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I not specify current gen? Yep, I'm pretty sure I did. Another moron who loves to join a thread without reading any of it. Congrats on never having a card die on you. You clearly have no technical understanding on the weakest link in your system. Again I specified,,,,, pros bring backup bodies but don't think twice about writing to a single card? That does not make sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like you are honestly just trying to justify your purchase. Congratulations on resorting to name calling btw... thats real uhh.. professional of you...
Click to expand...


If I felt the need to justify anything or felt that my purchase was inferior then I'd just put D3 in my signature and edit all my exif data to show D3. I purchased both the D700 and the D300s and found the D300s to suite my needs where the D700 did not. I would have purchased a D3 but I've heard rumors that the D4 could appear end of this year beginning of next.

And yes. You're a moron. You attack me without even reading the posts. That's moronic behavior. I'm not a professional nor do I care about maintaining a professional persona on the internet.


----------



## Parkerman

itznfb said:


> Parkerman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I not specify current gen? Yep, I'm pretty sure I did. Another moron who loves to join a thread without reading any of it. Congrats on never having a card die on you. You clearly have no technical understanding on the weakest link in your system. Again I specified,,,,, pros bring backup bodies but don't think twice about writing to a single card? That does not make sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like you are honestly just trying to justify your purchase. Congratulations on resorting to name calling btw... thats real uhh.. professional of you...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I felt the need to justify anything or felt that my purchase was inferior then I'd just put D3 in my signature and edit all my exif data to show D3. I purchased both the D700 and the D300s and found the D300s to suite my needs where the D700 did not. I would have purchased a D3 but I've heard rumors that the D4 could appear end of this year beginning of next.
> 
> And yes. You're a moron. You attack me without even reading the posts. That's moronic behavior. I'm not a professional nor do I care about maintaining a professional persona on the internet.
Click to expand...



If you honestly think that post was an attack... You need thicker skin.


----------



## itznfb

Parkerman said:


> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Parkerman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like you are honestly just trying to justify your purchase. Congratulations on resorting to name calling btw... thats real uhh.. professional of you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I felt the need to justify anything or felt that my purchase was inferior then I'd just put D3 in my signature and edit all my exif data to show D3. I purchased both the D700 and the D300s and found the D300s to suite my needs where the D700 did not. I would have purchased a D3 but I've heard rumors that the D4 could appear end of this year beginning of next.
> 
> And yes. You're a moron. You attack me without even reading the posts. That's moronic behavior. I'm not a professional nor do I care about maintaining a professional persona on the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you honestly think that post was an attack... You need thicker skin.
Click to expand...


Saying "According to you..." and then saying something ridiculous is an attack. I'm not saying it hurt me in any way. But it's an attack none the less. And the fact that you didn't even read the previous posts to know why that was brought up makes your post even more ridiculous.

Have you posted anything useful?

I've provided my opinion to the OP and a technical reason for having such an opinion. I haven't seen much from others aside from bashing my opinion. Maybe you should stop worrying about how thick my skin is, stop worrying about my opinion that was directed to the OP not you, and provide something useful instead of sitting there like a moron posting useless garbage.


----------



## PhotoXopher

Christ, I'm running out of popcorn!


----------



## Parkerman

itznfb, In the Nikon D700 Press release you posted, It says

*"Nikons Second FX-Format Camera Delivers Peak Pro Performance in a Versatile Form-Factor"*
*
"Building on the immense success of the Nikon D3 professional D-SLR camera, the D700 offers pro-level performance and an extensive array of features and innovations in a comfortably nimble platform"*

It also says what you quoted.. but more... 

*"Nikons flagship FX and DX-format cameras, the D3 and D300 respectively, established new benchmarks for digital image quality, speed, and unmatched ISO performance. The D700 maintains this new measure with exceptional overall image quality, broad tonal range and depth, and extremely low noise throughout its native ISO range of 200 to 6400."*


At the time of the article... You had the 

D60, D80, D300, and D3... The D700 had JUST been release.. and not available to the public until late July... Also.. quoted from the article..

*"The new FX-format Nikon D700 D-SLR camera will be available late July 2008, and will have an estimated selling price of $2,999.95 (body only).*"*


So.. at the time of the article.. the D3.. and D300 WERE the flagship models... Because the D700 was NOT on the market. 



Also, from the D300 Press release from 2007 that you posted.

*"Nikon today introduced its most advanced DX-format digital SLR camera, the D300. Engineered with pro-level features and performance, the 12.3 effective megapixel D300 combines brand new technologies with advanced features inherited from Nikon's newly announced D3 professional digital SLR camera to offer serious photographers remarkable performance combined with agility."*


In the D300, D300s, and D700 articles, they are say Pro like, except for in the title of the D300 press release, that is the only spot to say Professional except for when it is talking about the D3..

Now compare that to the D3x Press release... the first paragraph of it..
*
"Nikon Inc. today announced the D3X, an FX-format digital SLR featuring extreme 24.5-megapixel resolution and superb low-noise capabilities, which provides professional photographers with commercial-quality image performance in a familiar and extraordinarily versatile D-SLR form factor. In conjunction with the groundbreaking Nikon FX-format D3, the D3X tops off a collection of flagship level, rugged, professional caliber digital single lens reflex cameras engineered to excel in all types of professional photographic disciplines from photojournalism and sideline sports, to commercial in-studio applications."*




If you honestly think that the D300 is more of a Pro camera than the D700... you sir are terribly mistaken. Now the D300s does have the dual cards over the D700, but that's just about the only thing it has... FPS doesn't matter.. If you have the battery grip like any Pro should.... then they even out at 8fps anyways.




*To the OP, *

To answer your original question... Yes, the D700 IS twice as good in low light situations than the D300. I would pick the D700 over the D300 any day of the week.. It is honestly just a better camera, if it wasn't... then why would nikon even bother making it?


----------



## kundalini

Parkerman said:


> Congratulations on resorting to name calling btw... thats real uhh.. professional of you...


 Uhmm....errr... I may have been the culprit for the onslaught with my smilie comment.  I was out of order and would like to apologize to you, itznfb, all that read this thread and to the community at large.  Sorry folks.  Bad day at work.


----------



## DWS

Parkerman said:


> *To the OP, *
> 
> To answer your original question... Yes, the D700 IS twice as good in low light situations than the D300. I would pick the D700 over the D300 any day of the week..


:thumbup:
that's why my D300 is a backup to my D700 eacesign:


----------



## Derrel

This is an amusing thread, as those totally unfamiliar with either medium format or 35mm full-frame or digital full-frame step up to the plate and try to extoll the virtue of crop-body cameras for wedding photography,and make ridiculous misinterpretations of simple facts about optics,capture formats, cameras, and people photography.

One of the most annoying misrepresentations is the idea that somehow photography done with the Nikon D1 and D2 generations was somehow not fully professional. I owned two D1-series bodies, and still have a D2x and yet I ADDED a Canon 5D system JUST FOR PEOPLE PHOTOGRAPHY, because, yes, people and studio work done with an APS-C camera looks un-professional to me. Every Uncle Bob and Aunt Sally has an APS-C dslr in this day and age. People hire a pro to get images that they,or friends or family, CAN'T MAKE. Entry-level crop bodies are the new Instamatic of the 2000's. Moms have them, dads have them, high school kids have them,etc.

APS-C has become the "affordable" format since 2001,and it is not used by most higher-end or even mid-level portrait or wedding shooters; virtually all of the higher-payed shooters are shooting full-frame d-slrs. The pictures look richer, better, and with more-selective focus,and make much better "event" pictures in the eyes of older, well-monied clients with taste and a bit more life experience from the pre-digital era.

When people think of "professional" portraiture, they think of a clear subject, in high resolution, with an out of focus, blurry background....and in fact, many people will call up and ASK,specifically, if we can, "Shoot a clear sharp picture of everybody,but with the background nice and BLURRED." You can get that "look" by buying VERY expensive Canon 50/1.2 L, 85/1.2 L, and 135/2 and 200mm f/2 L lenses and using them on your crop-bodied camera.
OR you can get the same "looks" and pay $9,000 less by just buying a full-frame camera and using "regular" professional-grade lenses. Adamant crop-body fanatics seem penny-wise and pound-foolish WRT to professional gear.

Of course, if you were born in 1982, you probably wouldn't realize that the above is what a lot of monied clients are expecting when they hire a "professional" photographer. If you sell any microstock, you'll soon realize that NOISE levels will get files rejected just about faster than anything else. Bigger is better.

Those who can not discern the visual,aesthetic,or technical differences between APS-C and FX images,and who learned on APS-C and have been shooting for 4 or 5 years often seem to forget that there has always been an underclass of shooters and an established, professional class with training and discerning clients who expect "more" than what their nephew can get.


----------



## Dao

N0YZE said:


> Christ, I'm running out of popcorn!



Man .. you ate all the popcorn!!!


----------



## unnecessary

interesting thread full of a lot of incorrect info. Parkerman's info is right though.


----------



## Dao

Well, just want to post which Press Release I mentioned earlier.


Quote from Nikonusa
"This year, Barnstorm students will have the opportunity to try out Nikon&#8217;s new D3 and D700 professional digital SLR cameras as well as receive technical advice from Nikon experts available on-site."

Nikon Press Center - NIKON ASSISTS YOUNG PHOTOGRAPHERS ACTUALIZE THEIR CREATIVE VISIONS AT BARNSTORM XXI

And this is how Canada Nikon classified their cameras
Nikon Canada


----------



## itznfb

unnecessary said:


> interesting thread full of a lot of incorrect info. Parkerman's info is right though.



I backup my statements with facts and his posts are incoherent ramblings... god I love the internet.


----------



## itznfb

Derrel said:


> One of the most annoying misrepresentations is the idea that somehow photography done with the Nikon D1 and D2 generations was somehow not fully professional. I owned two D1-series bodies, and still have a D2x and yet I ADDED a Canon 5D system JUST FOR PEOPLE PHOTOGRAPHY, because, yes, people and studio work done with an APS-C camera looks un-professional to me. Every Uncle Bob and Aunt Sally has an APS-C dslr in this day and age. People hire a pro to get images that they,or friends or family, CAN'T MAKE.



If you think the sensor somehow magically enables you to take a better photograph then you are indeed way more out of touch than I though. A full frame sensor has it's advantages but to make a ridiculous claim that a shot taken with a APS-C sensor doesn't look professional just shows that you don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## Dao

itznfb, I do respect your opinion.  But it is a little different from what I read from other places.  And some of your points are valid.  If I am going to shoot for money, I would rather save the photos to 2 separate cards at the same time if possible.


----------



## Parkerman

itznfb said:


> unnecessary said:
> 
> 
> 
> interesting thread full of a lot of incorrect info. Parkerman's info is right though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I backup my statements with facts and his posts are incoherent ramblings... god I love the internet.
Click to expand...




Incoherent ramblings? Did you miss my post on this page?? 


I used direct quotes from the "factual" information in which you provided.


----------



## unnecessary

itznfb said:


> unnecessary said:
> 
> 
> 
> interesting thread full of a lot of incorrect info. Parkerman's info is right though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I backup my statements with facts and his posts are incoherent ramblings... god I love the internet.
Click to expand...

 

You backed up your statements with info and facts that YOU dont understand yourself.

For now on, you are known as the guy who thinks the D300 is above the D700


----------



## itznfb

Parkerman said:


> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unnecessary said:
> 
> 
> 
> interesting thread full of a lot of incorrect info. Parkerman's info is right though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I backup my statements with facts and his posts are incoherent ramblings... god I love the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incoherent ramblings? Did you miss my post on this page??
> 
> 
> I used direct quotes from the "factual" information in which you provided.
Click to expand...


Both your posts on this page are incoherent ramblings.
If you want to get down to the most detailed wording possible then the D700 is only mentioned as a professional camera in an article. It's noted as have professional level performance in it's press release. The D300 is noted as "professional" in it's press release.

I have no idea what you're even getting at honestly. Your post is so useless I fail to see your point. I even stated in the same post your quoting me from that Nikon lumps the D3x, D3, D300, D300s, and D700 in the same category and everything else into the non-pro category.

Will you please go back and read the entire thread so maybe I wont have to read another one of your retarded posts?

And if I ignore you again please don't post just making sure I read your last post. You're starting to seem like a left out little puppy.


----------



## RONDAL

itznfb said:


> unnecessary said:
> 
> 
> 
> interesting thread full of a lot of incorrect info. Parkerman's info is right though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I backup my statements with facts and his posts are incoherent ramblings... god I love the internet.
Click to expand...

 

he uses direct quotes from the links that YOU post and somehow he is incorrect.  There is nothing wrong with admitting you may not have had all the information and that you agree with another view.

but then thats what mature professional people do....and we know theres none of those around here cause only you shoot the D300s


----------



## Parkerman

N0YZE said:


> Full frame vs crop has nothing to do with rating a camera pro, prosumer, or beginner.
> 
> I always believed Nikon's methodology on this was:
> 
> DX = Pro (D1, D2, D3)
> DXXX = Prosumer (D100, D200, D300)
> DXX = Consumer (D70, D80, D90)
> 
> Now we have to add:
> DXXXX = Entry Level (D3000, D5000)





THIS sums up exactly what I am saying...

The D300/D700 are prosumer camera's, they are not professional... The DX lineup is the professional line up.


----------



## Moe

Darn, it seems I got here too late for the popcorn. I really can't believe this has gone over 3 pages. Please someone insert the guy beating the dead horse gif.


----------



## boogschd

tl;dr 

are they still fighting?


----------



## Parkerman

itznfb said:


> I have no idea what you're even getting at honestly. Your post is so useless I fail to see your point. I even stated in the same post your quoting me from that Nikon lumps the D3x, D3, D300, D300s, and D700 in the same category and everything else into the non-pro category.





itznfb said:


> The D3x, D3 and D300s all have basically the same specs. The D700 is a notch down in basically the same categories as the D90.




Hmm...


----------



## itznfb

RONDAL said:


> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unnecessary said:
> 
> 
> 
> interesting thread full of a lot of incorrect info. Parkerman's info is right though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I backup my statements with facts and his posts are incoherent ramblings... god I love the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> he uses direct quotes from the links that YOU post and somehow he is incorrect.  There is nothing wrong with admitting you may not have had all the information and that you agree with another view.
> 
> but then thats what mature professional people do....and we know theres none of those around here cause only you shoot the D300s
Click to expand...


Um... yes he's incorrect. Because he is replying to things I clearly stated as opinion as if I had said they were face, replying to things I said were fact and saying they really aren't and replying to things I say Nikon even misrepresents itself and saying I somehow said other wise. When you read the actual thread you see he is completely wrong. So yes. He is incorrect.



unnecessary said:


> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unnecessary said:
> 
> 
> 
> interesting thread full of a lot of incorrect info. Parkerman's info is right though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I backup my statements with facts and his posts are incoherent ramblings... god I love the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You backed up your statements with info and facts that YOU dont understand yourself.
> 
> For now on, you are known as the guy who thinks the D300 is above the D700
Click to expand...


Apparently you're the one that doesn't understand them. And when I made the comment about direct product comparison it was about the D300s, not the D300. Again, try actually reading the post. The D300s's specs are higher than the D700. Period. That's a fact.



Parkerman said:


> N0YZE said:
> 
> 
> 
> Full frame vs crop has nothing to do with rating a camera pro, prosumer, or beginner.
> 
> I always believed Nikon's methodology on this was:
> 
> DX = Pro (D1, D2, D3)
> DXXX = Prosumer (D100, D200, D300)
> DXX = Consumer (D70, D80, D90)
> 
> Now we have to add:
> DXXXX = Entry Level (D3000, D5000)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THIS sums up exactly what I am saying...
> 
> The D300/D700 are prosumer camera's, they are not professional... The DX lineup is the professional line up.
Click to expand...


Really? Someone elses guess as to what Nikon used as a branding system is your proof? In Nikon's DSLR comparison chart they label the D300, now the D300s, AND the D700 as professional. I would take their information over yours.


----------



## itznfb

Parkerman said:


> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you're even getting at honestly. Your post is so useless I fail to see your point. I even stated in the same post your quoting me from that Nikon lumps the D3x, D3, D300, D300s, and D700 in the same category and everything else into the non-pro category.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> 
> The D3x, D3 and D300s all have basically the same specs. The D700 is a notch down in basically the same categories as the D90.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm...
Click to expand...


Congrats. Those posts aren't related. Yes the comparison sheet puts the D700 in the same category as the cameras I listed and yes, if you compare them straight down the D700 is closer to a D90 than a D3.

Try actually reading it before posting. Honestly, why are you guys posting without actually reading what you're referring to?


----------



## RONDAL

why are you even posting when you dont even bother to read the literature which you are quoting?


----------



## itznfb

I did. You apparently did not.


----------



## itznfb

I love how only 3 posts responded to the OP. One of them being mine. The rest has been bashing my post without basis other than you are somehow personally threatened by the fact that the D700 has lower specs than the D300s.


----------



## Moe

Yes! They made some more since the thread keeps going! Who wants butter?


----------



## dhilberg

itznfb said:


> [. . .]
> It is a bold statement but in reality the specs from the D700 more align with a D90 than they do a D3.
> [. . .]



The D700 is basically a D3 stuffed into a prosumer body. The D700 has the same sensor, AF system, image processing system, monitor (LCD screen), startup and shutter lag speed--among other things--as the D3.

  There's a nice review of the D700 over at dpreview.com which outlines all the similarities between it and the D3. I won't bother to repeat them here, but there are only a handful of differences, mostly physical (size, weight, viewfinder coverage, etc.)--none of which affect image quality.

If I were in the market for a new body, and I had the money for the D300s, I'd spend the extra $633 and get the D700. You don't need dual CF slots to shoot a wedding. Pros shot weddings for decades with only one roll of film in the camera at a time. Dual CF slots would be nice, but it's not a necessity.


----------



## PhotoXopher

D300s has one CF and one SD card slot, correct?


----------



## RONDAL

correct.


----------



## itznfb

dhilberg said:


> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> 
> [. . .]
> It is a bold statement but in reality the specs from the D700 more align with a D90 than they do a D3.
> [. . .]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The D700 is basically a D3 stuffed into a prosumer body. The D700 has the same sensor, AF system, image processing system, monitor (LCD screen), startup and shutter lag speed--among other things--as the D3.
> 
> There's a nice review of the D700 over at dpreview.com which outlines all the similarities between it and the D3. I won't bother to repeat them here, but there are only a handful of differences, mostly physical (size, weight, viewfinder coverage, etc.)--none of which affect image quality.
> 
> If I were in the market for a new body, and I had the money for the D300s, I'd spend the extra $633 and get the D700. *You don't need dual CF slots to shoot a wedding. Pros shot weddings for decades with only one roll of film in the camera at a time. Dual CF slots would be nice, but it's not a necessity.*
Click to expand...


The D700 is NOT a D3 in a different body.
Referring to the bolded statement... dual card slots can prevent you from being sued. A larger sensor cannot.


----------



## Insp Gadget

Thanks for the informative replies guys. Not interested in the pissing match though. Any popcorn left? 

Another question. (God forbid! LOL)

The wife is also interested in a new lens. Has anyone any experience with the 85 1.8 and the 85 1.4? Huge difference in price, but is it really worth it? Would these lenses create any differences in the pictures with either camera listed above? (or would one be better than the other?)


----------



## Parkerman

Insp Gadget said:


> Thanks for the informative replies guys. Not interested in the pissing match though. Any popcorn left?
> 
> Another question. (God forbid! LOL)
> 
> The wife is also interested in a new lens. Has anyone any experience with the 85 1.8 and the 85 1.4? Huge difference in price, but is it really worth it? Would these lenses create any differences in the pictures with either camera listed above? (or would one be better than the other?)




The difference is in the quality of the glass.

And there would also be a big difference between the D300 and the D700, with the 700 it wouldn't crop in on the image.. For instance.. The 85mm is a FX [full frame] lens. When you put it on a DX body.. it will make things appear closer... because the camera is not taking full advantage of the lens. 

In otherwords... To fit things in the frame, you wouldn't have to be as far back with the D700 as you would with the D300.



*edit*

It can be like this picture... the green is Full frame sensor.. the Red would be a Crop sensor.







From Ken Rockwell


----------



## unnecessary

itznfb said:


> dhilberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> 
> [. . .]
> It is a bold statement but in reality the specs from the D700 more align with a D90 than they do a D3.
> [. . .]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The D700 is basically a D3 stuffed into a prosumer body. The D700 has the same sensor, AF system, image processing system, monitor (LCD screen), startup and shutter lag speed--among other things--as the D3.
> 
> There's a nice review of the D700 over at dpreview.com which outlines all the similarities between it and the D3. I won't bother to repeat them here, but there are only a handful of differences, mostly physical (size, weight, viewfinder coverage, etc.)--none of which affect image quality.
> 
> If I were in the market for a new body, and I had the money for the D300s, I'd spend the extra $633 and get the D700. *You don't need dual CF slots to shoot a wedding. Pros shot weddings for decades with only one roll of film in the camera at a time. Dual CF slots would be nice, but it's not a necessity.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The D700 is NOT a D3 in a different body.
Click to expand...



You are the first and ONLY person i've ever heard say that.


The D700 has exactly the same image quality, and handles just a little bit better. I can't say anything better about the D700 than that. *The D700 is a D3 with a smaller battery (unless you add the grip) and a cheaper finder screen system, and that's it.* The D700 even has the superior rear thumb control of the D3, not the crappy single-piece thing from the D300.

Nikon D700

The introduction of Nikon's new D700 may have been one of the worst kept secrets in an industry with more leaks than the Titanic, but it was still something of a surprise coming so hot on the heels of the D3 and D300. *Essentially a D3 shrunk down and squeezed into a body* roughly the same size as a D300, the D700 is Nikon's first 'compact' professional SLR,

*The D700 joins the D3 as a fully-fledged 'professional' model; it has the same tank-like build quality* (though we're sure the pop-up flash will cause a few raised eyebrows), and gets you the full pro service from Nikon. And the pricing (around $2999) reflects this; anyone hoping for an 'affordable' semi-pro full frame Nikon SLR will have to wait until the cost of producing such large sensors falls considerably.

Nikon D700 Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

*Like its big brother Nikon D3*, D700 has incredible clean image at high ISO setting, 51 AF points with several tracking modes include 3D tracking. It shoots 5 fps but can be boost to 8 fps with battery grip attached. Unlike D3, it has compact size but it is not light

Nikon D700 Review

The D700 is Nikons second full-frame DSLR. Announced on July 1st 2008, the D700 essentially takes the D3s large FX format sensor and squeezes it into a D300-sized body. Along with being smaller and lighter than the flagship D3, its also comfortably cheaper, making the D700 Nikons first affordable full-frame DSLR

Nikon D700 review Cameralabs introduction


----------



## jcblitz

N0YZE said:


> Full frame vs crop has nothing to do with rating a camera pro, prosumer, or beginner.
> 
> I always believed Nikon's methodology on this was:
> 
> DX = Pro (D1, D2, D3)
> DXXX = Prosumer (D100, D200, D300)
> DXX = Consumer (D70, D80, D90)
> 
> Now we have to add:
> DXXXX = Entry Level (D3000, D5000)



Sweet, never realized that.


----------



## Kcc

I don't wanna be sued !!! But I love the full frame body.
Now I am thinking of getting a D300s and a D700, when I have the money...than I will get the D3x too. But I will stick with my D60 for now, coz I am still trying to get enough flash to start a studio! 

Kcc


----------



## itznfb

unnecessary said:


> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dhilberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> The D700 is basically a D3 stuffed into a prosumer body. The D700 has the same sensor, AF system, image processing system, monitor (LCD screen), startup and shutter lag speed--among other things--as the D3.
> 
> There's a nice review of the D700 over at dpreview.com which outlines all the similarities between it and the D3. I won't bother to repeat them here, but there are only a handful of differences, mostly physical (size, weight, viewfinder coverage, etc.)--none of which affect image quality.
> 
> If I were in the market for a new body, and I had the money for the D300s, I'd spend the extra $633 and get the D700. *You don't need dual CF slots to shoot a wedding. Pros shot weddings for decades with only one roll of film in the camera at a time. Dual CF slots would be nice, but it's not a necessity.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The D700 is NOT a D3 in a different body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are the first and ONLY person i've ever heard say that.
Click to expand...


You are kidding right?

If you think those are the only differences between the D3 and D700 then you're obviously high on something. And you've obviously never seen a D3 in person because it has the exact same 8 way directional pad with OK button in the center as the D300s and D700.


----------



## itznfb

Insp Gadget said:


> Thanks for the informative replies guys. Not interested in the pissing match though. Any popcorn left?
> 
> Another question. (God forbid! LOL)
> 
> The wife is also interested in a new lens. Has anyone any experience with the 85 1.8 and the 85 1.4? Huge difference in price, but is it really worth it? Would these lenses create any differences in the pictures with either camera listed above? (or would one be better than the other?)



You/She would be perfectly satisfied with the 1.8... until you get the 1.4.


----------



## unnecessary

itznfb said:


> unnecessary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> 
> The D700 is NOT a D3 in a different body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the first and ONLY person i've ever heard say that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are kidding right?
Click to expand...


You are highly uneducated about cameras. You should give up photography as a whole and find a new hobby. It isn't for you 

Sit there and ignore all the links from the highly credible websites I posted. *There are even youtube videos where Nikon Representatives said the D700 takes most features from the D3 and fits it in a smaller body.*
You are hilarious and a waste of time. 

You are highly uneducated about cameras. You should give up photography as a whole and find a new hobby. It isn't for you


----------



## itznfb

unnecessary said:


> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unnecessary said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the first and ONLY person i've ever heard say that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are kidding right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are highly uneducated about cameras. You should give up photography as a whole and find a new hobby. It isn't for you
> 
> Sit there and ignore all the links from the highly credible websites I posted. *There are even youtube videos where Nikon Representatives said the D700 takes most features from the D3 and fits it in a smaller body.*
> You are hilarious and a waste of time.
> 
> You are highly uneducated about cameras. You should give up photography as a whole and find a new hobby. It isn't for you
Click to expand...


Yep. I'm the one uneducated. Then tell me why every single pro out there is still buying a D3 when they can get the same thing for 1/2 the cost?


----------



## PhotoXopher




----------



## kundalini

:meh:


----------



## Guido44

> D300s has one CF and one SD card slot, correct?





> correct



I'm missing something. My D300 only has a CF slot. What am I missing?

Pardon my dumbness or blindness   .......?


----------



## RONDAL

d300 and d300s are two different models.

The D300s is the newly released and upgraded version of the D300 that incorporates both SD and CF card writers


----------



## RONDAL

itznfb said:


> unnecessary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are kidding right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are highly uneducated about cameras. You should give up photography as a whole and find a new hobby. It isn't for you
> 
> Sit there and ignore all the links from the highly credible websites I posted. *There are even youtube videos where Nikon Representatives said the D700 takes most features from the D3 and fits it in a smaller body.*
> You are hilarious and a waste of time.
> 
> You are highly uneducated about cameras. You should give up photography as a whole and find a new hobby. It isn't for you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. I'm the one uneducated. Then tell me why every single pro out there is still buying a D3 when they can get the same thing for 1/2 the cost?
Click to expand...

 




we get it.....you're right......the rest of the world is wrong.  you purchased the faaaar superior camera when you bought your D300s, we will all now bow down to you and proclaim your greatness and the fact you are indeed a PRO.  



ITS ME AGAINST THE WORLD AND DAMMIT IM GONNA WIN WHETHER OR NOT I LOOK STUPID DOING SO!


----------



## Montana

In reality, I cannot believe a wedding photographer has to ask this question on a forum.   

If it were me, and I had a great camera like the D300, I would pair it with a D700.  D700 for lowlight and wide to normal work.  D300 for telephoto work.  Possibly never haing to remove a single lens during the whole ordeal.  If I had to choose just one of those bodies, it would be the D700....no question.  

Not sure I really care if a camera is labeled as "pro" or not.    But..............IMHO, if it has a pop-up flash its not pro.......pass the popcorn!


----------



## itznfb

RONDAL said:


> we get it.....you're right......the rest of the world is wrong.  you purchased the faaaar superior camera when you bought your D300s, we will all now bow down to you and proclaim your greatness and the fact you are indeed a PRO.
> 
> 
> 
> ITS ME AGAINST THE WORLD AND DAMMIT IM GONNA WIN WHETHER OR NOT I LOOK STUPID DOING SO!



lol. You're a joke dude. You know nothing. It's not me against the world. It's me and the millions that agree with me. The D3 costs twice as much yet its sales are still twice as high. The D700 is just about the only camera Nikon has ever sold that has had almost a $1000 price drop in the first year. Why is that? Because it's not worth anywhere near $3000. Yet the D3 is clearly worth $5000. Please. Explain why people continue to pay $5000 for a D3 but won't pay $3000 for a D700 when they are the same camera according to you. Stop your bitching and answer the question.


----------



## unnecessary

poor guy^  he is in the wrong business. LOLOL


----------



## Dao

Because they can.


----------



## RONDAL

itznfb said:


> RONDAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> we get it.....you're right......the rest of the world is wrong. you purchased the faaaar superior camera when you bought your D300s, we will all now bow down to you and proclaim your greatness and the fact you are indeed a PRO.
> 
> 
> 
> ITS ME AGAINST THE WORLD AND DAMMIT IM GONNA WIN WHETHER OR NOT I LOOK STUPID DOING SO!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol. You're a joke dude. You know nothing. It's not me against the world. It's me and the millions that agree with me. The D3 costs twice as much yet its sales are still twice as high. The D700 is just about the only camera Nikon has ever sold that has had almost a $1000 price drop in the first year. Why is that? Because it's not worth anywhere near $3000. Yet the D3 is clearly worth $5000. Please. Explain why people continue to pay $5000 for a D3 but won't pay $3000 for a D700 when they are the same camera according to you. Stop your bitching and answer the question.
Click to expand...

 

the questions been answered, multiple times in this thread in fact.  I can't help it if your reading comprehension isn't up to par.

I have a question for you, seeing as how you are throwing around professional all over this thread.   Have YOU ever shot a wedding?  Have you ever been hired by a client do produce work?

I mean I dont know what your gig with the zoo is, but I wouldn't think its "professional".
And then I look at your pictures and I see nothing that you would even need a D700 for.  Most of your shots are outdoor, at long range, with MORE than adequete lighting.  

You don't have the need for dual writing capability, the gorilla isn't going to sue you cause all her wedding photos are distorted and full of noise.  

I've come to the conclusion you dont NEED a D700, and you're trying your hardest to justify that to the rest of the world while still maintaining you own the superior camera.

Trying to have any kind of discussion with you has proved fruitless by everyone thats tried.  

So hey, throw another personal remark about how I'm an idiot and keep digging.  If you dig a little deeper you might come out the other side.


----------



## unnecessary

I looked at his work as well. Just basic shots of animals with extreme DOF. Thats PRO STYLE!


In Fact, after reading more on this D300s, its actually more compared to the D90 LOL. Same crappy video recording DX camera. Nothing more.

No where near the D700/D3.  


The D700/D3 hence is even in the same Nikon link he posted earlier. He Fails at reading comp.


----------



## PhotoXopher

unnecessary said:


> In Fact, after reading more on this D300s, its actually more compared to the D90 LOL. Same crappy video recording DX camera. Nothing more.



So out of nowhere the D90 and D300s are crappy cameras because they have video capability? 

Wow, the things you learn on forums.

D90, D300, D300s, D700 - in reality, all of these cameras could shoot a wedding and help a capable photographer produce very fine photographs. Photographers have worked with much worse over the years and somehow have had happy clients.

Amazing.


----------



## unnecessary

N0YZE said:


> unnecessary said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Fact, after reading more on this D300s, its actually more compared to the D90 LOL. Same crappy video recording DX camera. Nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So out of nowhere the D90 and D300s are crappy cameras because they have video capability?
> 
> Wow, the things you learn on forums.
> 
> D90, D300, D300s, D700 - in reality, all of these cameras could shoot a wedding and help a capable photographer produce very fine photographs. Photographers have worked with much worse over the years and somehow have had happy clients.
> 
> Amazing.
Click to expand...



No, i was referring to the "video recording". Not the camera itsself.


----------



## Big Mike

Lets all take a breath and tone things down a little bit.


----------



## PhotoXopher

unnecessary said:


> No, i was referring to the "video recording". Not the camera itsself.



Gotcha... FWIW I haven't had any issues with mine, looks great to me.

Some excellent short movie examples of video from the D90 on YouTube as well.


----------



## unnecessary

Yea you're right N0YZE. I retract my previous statement. It does look good.


----------



## PhotoXopher

Not that I could do that, but at least the camera has the ability


----------



## Joves

Insp Gadget said:


> Thanks for the informative replies guys. Not interested in the pissing match though. Any popcorn left?
> 
> Another question. (God forbid! LOL)
> 
> The wife is also interested in a new lens. Has anyone any experience with the 85 1.8 and the 85 1.4? Huge difference in price, but is it really worth it? Would these lenses create any differences in the pictures with either camera listed above? (or would one be better than the other?)


You might want to wander over to the NikonCafes lens lust section. There is a thread on the 85 1.4 just search the section for Cream Machine. And I would go for the D700. I own a D300 and love it but, Im still saving for a D700 because as I see it both have their uses. 
Here is the link for the 85 1.4 lots of pics it is an appreciation thread. NikonCafe.com


----------



## fiveoboy01

> If you think those are the only differences between the D3 and D700 then you're obviously high on something.


 
You seem(or claim to be) knowledgeable, then what exactly are the "other" differences you speak of?


----------



## RONDAL

dont worry, he shut up pretty quickly a half page back


----------



## kundalini

RONDAL said:


> dont worry, he shut up pretty quickly a half page back


 Do you think it's because he/she actually read and comprehended his/her own links?   

Even if all his/her opinions were factual and correct, the message was lost due to ego.  The slew of insults was becoming a bit tiresome.  :er:


----------



## Nicholas James Photo

From a practical point of view I would recommend the 300, assuming that your wife is not going to buy two new cameras.
At weddings it would be fool hardy not to have a backup camera. With this in mind, if she gets to know a 300 like the back of her hand - she could (borrow) use yours as a backup. Only a thought.


----------



## itznfb

RONDAL said:


> dont worry, he shut up pretty quickly a half page back



Maybe because it's pointless arguing with delusional people. If you want to ignore factual numbers and pretend a camera is better just because it's 2 stops better in ISO then go right ahead. ISO performance isn't the only factor in taking photos. And the D700 is inferior in every other way. The D700 is an inferior camera to the D300s. Period. Nikon's own documentation proves that fact and you're unwilling to or unintelligent enough to comprehend it then that's your own problem and I'm unable to help you with that.


----------



## DScience

itznfb said:


> RONDAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> dont worry, he shut up pretty quickly a half page back
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because it's pointless arguing with delusional people. If you want to ignore factual numbers and pretend a camera is better just because it's 2 stops better in ISO then go right ahead. ISO performance isn't the only factor in taking photos. And the D700 is inferior in every other way. The D700 is an inferior camera to the D300s. Period. Nikon's own documentation proves that fact and you're unwilling to or unintelligent enough to comprehend it then that's your own problem and I'm unable to help you with that.
Click to expand...



:hail:

Well, Nikon hired Ashton kutcher to advertise the D90. So in reality it's probably better than the D300s, and a pro camera. Sorry man you made the wrong choice! :lmao:


----------



## Montana

So let me get this straight......you Nikon guys not only fight with the Canon guys, but also amongst yourselves?  LOL


----------



## DWS

yes, Montana......BUT, we are
*"Faster than a speeding      bullet.
    More powerful than a locomotive.
    Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.
    Look! Up in the sky!
    It's a bird. It's a plane. It's...*


----------



## jazzodin

I've been reading this thread off and on and I have to say thanks for the entertainment.I'm not sure why itznfb is pushing the D300s so much.Maybe Nikon should get him as a salesman I'm sure he'd rocket  the sales of the D300s through the roof...lol.I'm sure it's a great camera, it's a nikon.I'm a wedding photographer and the  D700 is the PERFECT camera for me.I don't need the D3. I don't give a flying monkey  butt what itznfd says, the D700 has the exact same sensor and image quality as the D3.Here in Canada the D3 is over $2000 more the the D700.I certanly don't need to spend that for the dual card or any of the other extras the D3 has.Itznfd has probably never shot a wedding before so let me tell him this. I would recomend this camera for wedding photographers because of the high iso.Ever shot in a church....they can be very dark and you are not allowed to use a flash and the extra iso is a great piece of mind.Of course you can still get great wedding pictures with other cameras but lets face it if you can make your job easier why wouldn't you.Itznfb has no need for a D700.I just can't figure out why he is goes on and on about his camera.Nobody cares.All of the articales and reveiws I've ever read the D700 has been refered to as a pro camera.If you look at the Nikon Canada its listed in the pro section.I don't understand why your disagreeing with Nikon. I have to be honest I don't know that much about the D300s so I'm not going to make any comments about it,all I konw is I love the D700 and unless I could afford the D3x I wouldn't change my camera for anything else.


----------



## itznfb

jazzodin said:


> I've been reading this thread off and on and I have to say thanks for the entertainment.I'm not sure why itznfb is pushing the D300s so much.Maybe Nikon should get him as a salesman I'm sure he'd rocket  the sales of the D300s through the roof...lol.I'm sure it's a great camera, it's a nikon.I'm a wedding photographer and the  D700 is the PERFECT camera for me.I don't need the D3. I don't give a flying monkey  butt what itznfd says, the D700 has the exact same sensor and image quality as the D3.Here in Canada the D3 is over $2000 more the the D700.I certanly don't need to spend that for the dual card or any of the other extras the D3 has.Itznfd has probably never shot a wedding before so let me tell him this. I would recomend this camera for wedding photographers because of the high iso.Ever shot in a church....they can be very dark and you are not allowed to use a flash and the extra iso is a great piece of mind.Of course you can still get great wedding pictures with other cameras but lets face it if you can make your job easier why wouldn't you.Itznfb has no need for a D700.I just can't figure out why he is goes on and on about his camera.Nobody cares.All of the articales and reveiws I've ever read the D700 has been refered to as a pro camera.If you look at the Nikon Canada its listed in the pro section.I don't understand why your disagreeing with Nikon. I have to be honest I don't know that much about the D300s so I'm not going to make any comments about it,all I konw is I love the D700 and unless I could afford the D3x I wouldn't change my camera for anything else.



I'm not disagreeing with Nikon, 3 or 4 people in this thread are. It's not me however. Nikon is the one that lists their specs. Not me. I'm not pushing any camera and I agree the D700 has better ISO. By *two *measly stops. And other than that two stop performance the D700 has absolutely 0 performance improvements and 0 functionality improvements over the D300s. It doesn't touch the D3 in any way shape or form. Anyone that disagrees, has obviously never shot a wedding with both. If you want to use weddings as an example. And yes, I've shot weddings with both.

I love that you guys refuse to believe a camera that's $1000 dollars less can perform better and have more functionality and then in the same post whine and cry that the D700 is just as good as the D3 that's $2000 more. Every pro on the planet disagrees with you.

This can go on for years.... so why don't you show me on Nikons specs where the D700 is so vastly superior to every other camera on the market.... k. I'll be waiting.


----------



## fiveoboy01

Not that I'm a huge expert on the rest of all this, but I'd argue that two stops in ISO performance is hardly measly.  Especially if there's low light shooting involved.


----------



## itznfb

There are times when 2 stops can make a difference. But if that's your reason for spending $600-1000 more on a camera then you're using it as a crutch and need to work on other areas of technique.


----------



## fiveoboy01

I don't agree.  There are times where the high-ISO performance is a necessity rather than a band-aid for poor skills.  And well, that's just what it happens to cost if you want(need) to go FX.


----------



## Derrel

The D700's ,"A measly two stops," better high-ISO performance can mean the difference between GETTING SHOTS that are crisp and clear, and getting adequately exposed but motion-blurred shots. Two stops better performance means your 400 watt-second lights are more like 1600-watt seconds. Two stops better performance is not measly, it is a HUGE difference: it turns an f/5.6 lens into the functional equivalent of an f/2.8 lens, and it turns an f/2.8 lens into the equivalent of an f/1.4 lens. Two stops better means that instead of f/2.8 at 1/500 second, inadequate for minor league baseball at night under the lights with a D300 will yield f/2.8 at 1/2000--fast enough of a shutter speed to adequately stop most baseball action, to keep the ball round-looking, and not the elongated, 6-inch-long "blob" it is at 1/500 second when coming off the bat. I seriously do not understand itznfb's repeated defending and elevating of the D300 over the D700, except that his signature prominently displays and proclaims he's a D300 owner. The two bodies are not even comparable--one's a full-frame, the other's a crop-body.They are different animals, entirely. Neither is intrinsically better than the other; BOTH have stronger points and weaker areas. For some gigs, the D700 would be vastly preferrable, on others, the D300 would win out.

The D700 also has about a 2.3x larger capture area than a D300 has, meaning a MUCH, much larger area one can crop from, and also makes longer lenses like our 300/2.8 more-useful indoors for volleyball,basketball court far-end from other baseline, sideline football,etc,etc. Many,many times the 50% field of view reduction of a 1.5x body limits the usefulness of high-speed lenses like 70-200/2.8 and 300/2.8 when you are shooting indoors....cropping off the field of view of a 70mm setting and making it into that of a 105mm lens is NOT helpful indoors, or even outdoors on smaller field events like high jump, pole vault,etc.

Here's noted Nikon expert Thom Hogan's take on the D700, mostly vis a vis the D300, but also vis a vis the Nikon D3. Just a few excerpts.

Nikon D700 Review by Thom Hogan

"the AF and imaging capabilities of the D700 are the same as the D3."

"The D700 includes an internal flash ala the D300, as well. So one way to think about the D700 is to think of it as a full-frame D300."

"The imaging chain is exactly that of the D3: same sensor, same microlenses, same digitizing circuit, same processing. Likewise, the D700 seems to have the autofocus processing speed of the D3 (most visible in Auto Area AF), though it does seem to have a slight lag in acquisition I don't always see in my D3 (could be slight changes to AF algorithms)."

"That pretty much wraps the big picture up: D300 body, D3 image quality."

"here's the way I see it: the D3 is squarely targeted at the photo journalist and sports shooter who needs absolute performance, the D700 is more targeted to the serious amateur and pro backup market. If I were shooting all day for a newspaper, that second slot and the voice annotation alone would be the clincher for the D3. If I were shooting sports, the faster frame rates make the D3 the choice (yes, you can get close with the D700 and MB-D10 grip, but you end up with a larger combination that isn't quite as robust)."

"On the D300, the new CAM3500 sensor covers a very large portion of the frame, which means that the system is very good at following subject motion and managing highly off-center autofocus. On the D700, the same sensor covers a smaller portion of the frame, meaning that autofocus capabilities are restricted to a smaller portion of the frame. For some subjects, this is a problem, for others it usually isn't (hint: subjects with skin tones fare better outside the autofocus sensing area with Auto Area AF than others).Coupled with the scene recognition that is being done by the metering CCD in the viewfinder, the new focus system is sometimes so uncanny in 51 point 3D or Auto Area focus mode that it boggles the mind. This happens most often when there are faces or other skin tone in the area covered by the autofocus sensors. As it turns out, while various skin tones can look fairly different to us humans, to an RGB metering system they all are in the same narrow range and thus easily detectable."

"White balance, curiously, seems better on the D700 than on the D300, especially in mixed lighting. The direct Kelvin settings once again didn't match my Minolta Color Meter and my Imatest measurements, but they're closer than the D300 was"


----------



## Sw1tchFX

itznfb said:


> jazzodin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been reading this thread off and on and I have to say thanks for the entertainment.I'm not sure why itznfb is pushing the D300s so much.Maybe Nikon should get him as a salesman I'm sure he'd rocket  the sales of the D300s through the roof...lol.I'm sure it's a great camera, it's a nikon.I'm a wedding photographer and the  D700 is the PERFECT camera for me.I don't need the D3. I don't give a flying monkey  butt what itznfd says, the D700 has the exact same sensor and image quality as the D3.Here in Canada the D3 is over $2000 more the the D700.I certanly don't need to spend that for the dual card or any of the other extras the D3 has.Itznfd has probably never shot a wedding before so let me tell him this. I would recomend this camera for wedding photographers because of the high iso.Ever shot in a church....they can be very dark and you are not allowed to use a flash and the extra iso is a great piece of mind.Of course you can still get great wedding pictures with other cameras but lets face it if you can make your job easier why wouldn't you.Itznfb has no need for a D700.I just can't figure out why he is goes on and on about his camera.Nobody cares.All of the articales and reveiws I've ever read the D700 has been refered to as a pro camera.If you look at the Nikon Canada its listed in the pro section.I don't understand why your disagreeing with Nikon. I have to be honest I don't know that much about the D300s so I'm not going to make any comments about it,all I konw is I love the D700 and unless I could afford the D3x I wouldn't change my camera for anything else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not disagreeing with Nikon, 3 or 4 people in this thread are. It's not me however. Nikon is the one that lists their specs. Not me. I'm not pushing any camera and I agree the D700 has better ISO. By *two *measly stops. And other than that two stop performance the D700 has absolutely 0 performance improvements and 0 functionality improvements over the D300s. It doesn't touch the D3 in any way shape or form. Anyone that disagrees, has obviously never shot a wedding with both. If you want to use weddings as an example. And yes, I've shot weddings with both.
> 
> I love that you guys refuse to believe a camera that's $1000 dollars less can perform better and have more functionality and then in the same post whine and cry that the D700 is just as good as the D3 that's $2000 more. Every pro on the planet disagrees with you.
> 
> This can go on for years.... so why don't you show me on Nikons specs where the D700 is so vastly superior to every other camera on the market.... k. I'll be waiting.
Click to expand...

Two stops is not measly, especially when you consider the DR and color depth at those higher ISO's. 

And think about it, churches are dungeons, you'll want the best low-light capability you can get, something the D300 doesn't deliver in comparison to a D3,700, or 5DII. Any wedding shooter would rather have full frame-better-high-iso then 7 fps and dual card slots on a partial frame camera. It just doesn't make sense to shoot yourself in the foot shooting a D300 if you can afford the 700 and you're making a living off of it shooting in dark places 75% of the time. 

And the video, really doesnt count. On the Nikons, it sucks big fat donkey dick, no matter how you look at it. 720p motion jpeg with no manual control.. Might as well use your aunts sony handycam. 

If anyone is serious about shooting video on their SLR, they own a 5D mark II because it's a poor mans RED. Full manual control over the video, 1080, and it's not motion jpeg.


----------



## itznfb

Derrel said:


> The D700's ,"A measly two stops," better high-ISO performance can mean the difference between GETTING SHOTS that are crisp and clear, and getting adequately exposed but motion-blurred shots.



So you're telling me that for years up until now these shots were not possible? The high levels of ISO performance found on even the D90 are higher than anything you could get on film. I'm sorry, it may be more convenient and I'm all for harnessing technology but it is no way a difference maker between getting the shot an not getting the shot. That is just a load of bull.


----------



## itznfb

Derrel said:


> I seriously do not understand itznfb's repeated defending and elevating of the D300 over the D700, except that his signature prominently displays and proclaims he's a D300 owner.



Because I gave my valid opinion (which barely anyone else here has done) on which is the better choice. And no one on this forum apparently can comprehend that statistically the D300s is more advanced and more functional. 

Everyone keeps bitching and moaning but refuses to answer two simple questions that I've asked multiple times.

Other than ISO, what makes the D700 a better camera?
Why would a pro still spend $5000 on a camera that is clearly the exact same as a $2500 camera?


----------



## Derrel

Dear itznfb,

I was shooting Pac-10 basketball in the mid-1980's using manual focus Nikons (FM,FE-2,F3-HP) using Kodak HC-110 push processed to Exposure Index 3,200, souped in HC-110, developed for around 17 minutes at 76 degrees Farenheit, to get basically salt-and-pepper, high-contrast, shadows-are-awfully-dark-but-highlights-will-print on-newsprint shots. back then "high-speed color" for publication was 3M's ASA 640 color slide film. I grew up shooting Kodachrome 64 or Ektachrome 100 Profesional for high-quality color. So, yeah, it;s possible to shoot color at night sports events now--it never used to be possible to get the results we can get today...

So YEAH, for YEARS, literally YEARS, low-light,high-quality color shots were simply NOT possible. I don't think you have been involved in photography long enough to truly grasp the fundamentals of either full-frame digital, high-ISO, or available light sports/PJ shooting. As a Nikon shooter shooting sports for publication in the mid-2000's I envied Canon guys; now there are shots that were formerly impossible to make without strobes, which can be made on the D3 and D700 Nikons using ambient light, only four years later, simply because the high-ISO performance of the D3 and D700 are so,so,so much better than what the earlier Nikons could do.

Have you ever shot indoor basketball or volleyball with balcony-mounted strobes and remote triggers, simply because your color film was ISO 400, or your d-slr sensor could not give adequate color quality for 4-color publication? That was the early-to mid-2000's for many sports shooters. I shot basketball and volleyball indoors using two,balcony-mounted strobes in 2005 and 2006 because my Nikons were not up to the task of shooting ambient light in any of the main venues I shot at. That was 2005 and 2006; the D3 hit the streets in 2007,and started a landslide of available light shooters away from Nikon crop-body and Canon 1.3x because of 1) full-frame and 2) High-ISO that is and was better than every other camera on the market in 2007.

Anybody who FAILS (and you clearly fail) to understand that a high tide floats all boats is sadly mistaken in understanding what low-light shooting means when your sensor tops out t ISO 1600 versus ISO 6,400 or ISO 12,800,with acceptable quality at 25,600 if the images is converted to B&W and de-noised. Dude--the benefits of two full stops more of low-noise, high-detail, color-rich actual ISO performance is positively HUGE for low-light shooting, whether it be wedding, news, documentary,or sports shooting. The newer full-frame Nikon bodies with their ISO 3,200 and even ISO 6,400 performance now make it possible to shoot for 4-color reproduction images that were simply *not* possible--for decades. Same goes for Canon bodies with new high ISO performance that was *IMPOSSIBLE* to get in the 1970's, 80's,or 90's, or even the early- to mid-2000's.

I recall when the top E-6 color film was ISO 640. Do you? probably not. The idea that a D300 or D300s is statistically "better" than a D700 for wedding work, the original premise of this thread, if you recall, is ludicrous. For low light,high-ISO work, or just wedding and portraiture work, the benefits of a FX Nikon or a FF Canon are very,very well-known. A FF body gives a larger image area by a factor of 2.3 to 2.6x (Nikon vs Canon) and just makes it easier to get a good all-in-one lens that will truly work from wide-angle to short telephoto,with optimal image quality. The main pluses the D3 has over the D700 is faster firing rate,bling or cachet, better weather sealing due to inbuilt battery grip, and dual card slots and the number one reason--voice annotation, which allows for on-the-spot captioning,right in the field; simply press the button and do a voice caption,and you can speak the caption info right into the built-in microphone--who,what,when,where,why...something a news or sports shooter wants to have to make his images more useful.

The advantage of the FF Nikons over the 1.5x Nikon bodies is that the 300/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 lenses are more easily-used on FF cameras when you have credentials and are shooting from right where things are happening. For the person hired to shoot an event, the FF bodies are very hard tools to beat, and are markedly better than what Nikon had just a couple of years ago. Compare the D2x's sensor performance to that of the D3; no comparison on which outputs the cleaner, better files.


----------



## fiveoboy01

> Other than ISO, what makes the D700 a better camera?


Other than the dual card slots and the video capability of the 300S, I don't know. 

I would say that *the high ISO performance* is what makes the D700 a better camera by a mile...  _For those who need the capability.

_You seem to think that the performance advantage of the FX sensor is a mostly insignificant advantage...  I, and many others, don't.



> Why would a pro still spend $5000 on a camera that is clearly the exact same as a $2500 camera?


Don't know, don't care.  The main guts of the D700 appear to be very, very similar, if not mostly identical to the D3, and you have yet to refute that fact with anything other than your own opinion(unless I missed it). 

I just don't think that dual card slots and video capability make the 300s a better camera than the D700.  As was said by someone else, if I had to choose between dual card slots and an FX sensor, I'll take the FX sensor.


----------



## itznfb

Derrel said:


> Dear itznfb,
> 
> I was shooting Pac-10 basketball in the mid-1980's using manual focus Nikons (FM,FE-2,F3-HP) using Kodak HC-110 push processed to Exposure Index 3,200, souped in HC-110, developed for around 17 minutes at 76 degrees Farenheit, to get basically salt-and-pepper, high-contrast, shadows-are-awfully-dark-but-highlights-will-print on-newsprint shots. back then "high-speed color" for publication was 3M's ASA 640 color slide film. I grew up shooting Kodachrome 64 or Ektachrome 100 Profesional for high-quality color. So, yeah, it;s possible to shoot color at night sports events now--it never used to be possible to get the results we can get today...
> 
> So YEAH, for YEARS, literally YEARS, low-light,high-quality color shots were simply NOT possible. I don't think you have been involved in photography long enough to truly grasp the fundamentals of either full-frame digital, high-ISO, or available light sports/PJ shooting. As a Nikon shooter shooting sports for publication in the mid-2000's I envied Canon guys; now there are shots that were formerly impossible to make without strobes, which can be made on the D3 and D700 Nikons using ambient light, only four years later, simply because the high-ISO performance of the D3 and D700 are so,so,so much better than what the earlier Nikons could do.
> 
> Have you ever shot indoor basketball or volleyball with balcony-mounted strobes and remote triggers, simply because your color film was ISO 400, or your d-slr sensor could not give adequate color quality for 4-color publication? That was the early-to mid-2000's for many sports shooters. I shot basketball and volleyball indoors using two,balcony-mounted strobes in 2005 and 2006 because my Nikons were not up to the task of shooting ambient light in any of the main venues I shot at. That was 2005 and 2006; the D3 hit the streets in 2007,and started a landslide of available light shooters away from Nikon crop-body and Canon 1.3x because of 1) full-frame and 2) High-ISO that is and was better than every other camera on the market in 2007.
> 
> Anybody who FAILS (and you clearly fail) to understand that a high tide floats all boats is sadly mistaken in understanding what low-light shooting means when your sensor tops out t ISO 1600 versus ISO 6,400 or ISO 12,800,with acceptable quality at 25,600 if the images is converted to B&W and de-noised. Dude--the benefits of two full stops more of low-noise, high-detail, color-rich actual ISO performance is positively HUGE for low-light shooting, whether it be wedding, news, documentary,or sports shooting. The newer full-frame Nikon bodies with their ISO 3,200 and even ISO 6,400 performance now make it possible to shoot for 4-color reproduction images that were simply *not* possible--for decades. Same goes for Canon bodies with new high ISO performance that was *IMPOSSIBLE* to get in the 1970's, 80's,or 90's, or even the early- to mid-2000's.
> 
> I recall when the top E-6 color film was ISO 640. Do you? probably not. The idea that a D300 or D300s is statistically "better" than a D700 for wedding work, the original premise of this thread, if you recall, is ludicrous. For low light,high-ISO work, or just wedding and portraiture work, the benefits of a FX Nikon or a FF Canon are very,very well-known. A FF body gives a larger image area by a factor of 2.3 to 2.6x (Nikon vs Canon) and just makes it easier to get a good all-in-one lens that will truly work from wide-angle to short telephoto,with optimal image quality. The main pluses the D3 has over the D700 is faster firing rate,bling or cachet, better weather sealing due to inbuilt battery grip, and dual card slots and the number one reason--voice annotation, which allows for on-the-spot captioning,right in the field; simply press the button and do a voice caption,and you can speak the caption info right into the built-in microphone--who,what,when,where,why...something a news or sports shooter wants to have to make his images more useful.
> 
> The advantage of the FF Nikons over the 1.5x Nikon bodies is that the 300/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 lenses are more easily-used on FF cameras when you have credentials and are shooting from right where things are happening. For the person hired to shoot an event, the FF bodies are very hard tools to beat, and are markedly better than what Nikon had just a couple of years ago. Compare the D2x's sensor performance to that of the D3; no comparison on which outputs the cleaner, better files.



Your entire lengthy retarded post is a bunch of bull****. There are millions of shots from the 70's 80's and 90's that have done exactly what you say couldn't have been done. There are countless indoor sports shot with nothing but ambient light on film. The fact that you say these things can't be done discredits everything you've ever said.


----------



## Derrel

Sorry itznfb (it'z-in-focus,barely, perhaps?), but your lack of experience is evident to me. You clearly are simply incapable of rational,dispassionate judgement about photographic equipment or technique. I think your lack of familiarity with the issues is pretty sad.

You are clearly a D300 fanboy,and obviously a newcomer to serious photography. I think everybody is fully aware of how much you like the D300!

Rotsa ruck!:lmao:


----------



## jazzodin

itznfb,go to Nikon.ca and you will see that the D300s is listed in the advanced section while the D700 is in the pro section.Just so you know Nikon is the company that designed and built these cameras so I'm sure they know what is pro and what isn't. Clearly you are incapable of admitting you made a mistake.You posted on the first page of this thread that the D300s is pro and the D700 is prosumer.I really fail to understand why you feel the need to shove your wrong opinion down everyone throat.

I'm sure your camera does the job you need it to do just fine.The D700 has everything I need in a camera for the line of work I'm in.

I think it's safe to say that nobody really cares about your opinion anymore,although I do find your post very amusing.
I did take a look at some of your shots,I did like some of them,but in all honesty I could have got those shots with my D70.
You remind me of my 8 year old nephew when he stamps his feet and makes a huge fuss if he feels like he's not being heard.

Keep on shooting with that pro camera of yours because you know what they say,it's the camera that makes you a pro not the photographer...lol
GROW UP PAL.


----------



## RONDAL

oh wow look who came back.....and is still mouthing off at the world from his soap box shaped like a d300s.

let it go buddy, you've failed to convince anyone of anything, mainly because NOTHING you have posted has any substance to back up your claims.  Unlike the countless posts by others either quoting direct reviews, pieces of literature YOU posted, or years of their own personal experiance.


----------



## terri

Say good-bye to this thread.

Guys, this kind of back-n-forth jabbing is not only pointless, but does little to showcase TPF as a friendly, informative forum. Even the OP, who was satisfied with his responses here and left the thread _days_ ago, stated he was not interested in the "pissing match" going on here. That should have been enough of a clue to DROP this thread. The OP asked, several answered, we had some of the usual disagreement - who cares? 

I continue to see the same few posters having their comments reported. You should know who you are. Trust me, there is a limit as to what will be tolerated around here if you continue to violate the TPF guidelines for conduct, as well as Canon v Nikon debates. 

Consider this a collective warning to tone it down a notch. Go re-read your Pact. :er:     Then make use of the Ignore feature.


----------

