Thinking about a Nikon D700 to augment my D300. Other than the FX format, the D700 seems very similar to the D300. The DX's don't interest me. I'm a bird shooter trying to get better at BIF.
Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
Jim Graham
Printable View
Thinking about a Nikon D700 to augment my D300. Other than the FX format, the D700 seems very similar to the D300. The DX's don't interest me. I'm a bird shooter trying to get better at BIF.
Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
Jim Graham
Is there a specific question you need an answer to James? I have the D700 and D300 and much prefer the D700 except for the occasions that I really need the extra reach. Focus is better, viewfinder bigger, high iso amazing. Handling essentially the same so no learning curve from the D300.
Thanks for your help, Tony.
I guess my biggest concern is whether the D700 will capture the same detail as the D300. The effective pixels are essentially the same, but in the case of the D700, they are spread over a larger sensor.
Has this been a problem?
A couple of issues here, James. from the same shooting position the D300 will get more pixels on the image if you use the same lens, so in that scenario may have a slight advantage. I find adding a 1.4x TC and using the D700 is usually a better choice - lose a stop from the TC but gain about 2 stops with the D700 by being able to increase the iso and maintain image quality. I find the D700 images can stand huge crops without too much quality loss - see http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...t=yellowhammerQuote:
Originally Posted by James Graham
If the 500+1.4 or 1.7 isn't enough on the D700 and the light is good the D300 is a better option - I see them as complementing each other but if I had to have only one it would be the D700 without a doubt.
I find that, too. Despite everybody saying it's better to have more pixels/area, but the cropped images from a D700 still look better (better details and tonal gradation) to my eyes. Anybody cares to shed some light on why so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Whitehead
Tony and Desmond
Thanks for your input
I've sort of got to disagree with one exception.
Using a D300s as my primary body, combined with a 500f4VR and TC;'s, I decided I needed to experiment. The D700 and D3 had wonderful IQ but for where I shoot,as distance is an issue many times, 12MP FF absolutely would not cut it for me so I sold both FF bodies. When I shoot eafgles here with a 500F4 and a TC1.4 or 1.7 on the 300s, it works great. Try and do the same thing with eagles in flight with a 12MP FF at distance and you end up with a dot in the middle of the viewfinder...and as much as I would have liked to crop them into usable fashion,it was a no go. If I had owned a 600 at the time as I do now, it may have been somewhat better, but still not usable much of the time for what I do. I tried hard to convince myself for a month it would work, but it wasn't to be for me at least.
Now...when I was in Florida where the birds are more easily approached and overall there are more large species there than here in New England, The D700 was the body of choice.
If anything else, I think you will get a great deal of benefit out of the improved ISO. I own a D300 and love it. I passed on the D700 and went for the D3s. But, given their similarities between the D700 and D3, I think you will benefit from the D700. The reach isn’t anything that can’t be compensated with a 1.4 or a 1.7 multiplier, when needed. I think your ability to crop will also improve. I say go for it…
Thanks All! Probably should have mentioned that I use the 600mm consistently with great results. I also like to handhold the 80-400 f/4, but it is so slow that 90% of my BIFs using that combination are discards.
