D700 vs. D300s

Hi all! I'm pondering between the choice of D700 vs. D300s to match with the 300mm 2.8 VR for a short arm setup. The main targets will be large raptors and terns which can get close up and walk-around shooting. For fast BIF/action, which camera is a better bet? I've read that D700 has the same AF module as D3 but is still slightly slower. While D300 was slightly slower than D700, but the D300s had its AF slightly improved. All these make for some confusion in decision making! For those who have used both. which of the two performs better in focus acquisition and tracking? Thanks in advance for your help!

I would chose the D700 as long as I could get close enough to my subjects. I have a D300s which I use for bird shooting in New England because I can't get close enough. But, when I am Florida I use an FX camera.

D700 AF is exactly the same as D3/D3X/D3S they share the same MULTICAM3500FX module and the same EXPEED processor, I have never used the 300 for BIF, but from what I have seen its files are quite noisy passed ISO 400. For large and close raptors D700 is a no brainer. I shot harriers with the D700 and 200-400 last year and they aren't the largest raptors, excellent AF and image quality. The banking image in my signature was made with that combo.

I use my D300 at iso's of 640 and 800 all the time with no problems. I expose to the right, post process in NX2 and throw in a little noise reduction for the BG, IF needed, thats it. Jim Fenton does the same. Taken at iso 800

http://www.naturesportal.net/Florida...33_hp5Ny-L.jpg

Of course Nancy, noise is not going to show up in a 1024 pix image, have to look at 100% for noise and sharpness :D Besides, did you really need ISO 800 here? better example for high ISO is evening light when you need it!!!

drawback of overexpose is that you will lose highlight details like the shoulder area in the above example :) BTW, would not have clipped the wings if you had a D700 :eek:

On that image I just did not zoom back with my 70-300VR. I do not overexpose, I just expose so that the subjects information on the histogram is more in the ride side, but not falling off the edge. Jim does similiar except he uses a custom white balance to get there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi

Of course Nancy, noise is not going to show up in a 1024 pix image, have to look at 100% for noise and sharpness :D Besides, did you really need ISO 800 here? better example for high ISO is evening light when you need it!!!

drawback of overexpose is that you will lose highlight details like the shoulder area in the above example :) BTW, would not have clipped the wings if you had a D700 :eek:

---

I do not hesitate to use ISO 800 with my D300 if I need the added depth of field or shutter speed. And I seem to need it fairly often. I used it on my last two photo trips: With a wood duck hen and 12 ducklings (in order to shoot at f16 and get all the ducklings sharp) and on a pileated woodpecker nest in the dim light of a thick canopy of trees ( I was shooting at 1/80 to 1/160 second at f5.6 and some images were still ruined by subject motion)Correct exposure is critical but the results are quite good IMHO (with a little selective background noise reduction,I can't see a noticeable difference in image quality on 12" X 18" prints) . I'd love to have the D700 to be able to shoot at even higher ISOs though.

I think the D300 is very noisy, even at ISO 400. So is the 7D for that matter.
But if you need the reach, and the higher ISO, you bite the bullet, and use noise reduction.
Just because one uses it it doesn't not mean it is not noisy.

I will go for D700 , have used D300 and D700

have also shot both D300 and D700.

i would go with a D700 hands down for your subjects.

ISO 800 on the D300 is very noisy as compared to the D700. I would estimate ISO 1600 or 2000 would be the same as D300's ISO 800.

plus the AF seems much snappier than the D300. have not used a D300s but i don't think it's AF as improved that much over the D300.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fabs Forns

I think the D300 is very noisy, even at ISO 400. So is the 7D for that matter.
But if you need the reach, and the higher ISO, you bite the bullet, and use noise reduction.
Just because one uses it it doesn't not mean it is not noisy.

---

Fabs is right, Just because someone uses it and says it is not noisy, doesn't necessarily mean it is true. Likewise, if someone says it is very noisy (at ISO 400 no less), that is not necessarily true either. Do your own testing and make up your mind. If you don't have access to both cameras, then Google the subject to get the opinion of those reputable websites that have tested the cameras, rated the cameras, and possibly even provide side-by-side comparison images. Thom Hogan's review of the D300 could be one place to start, but there are many out there.

I started with D700 and D300s. I sold my D300s a month later because most of the time I shoot is right around sunrise and for a few hours. Of course, this past winter it has been cold and rainy.
D700 is my beat up camera now and I love it. With grip you can get up to 8 fps (if I remember correctly)
It is a trade off. So far I have happy to shoot FX. Maybe when the DX is better than current one, I may consider adding it to my list. Good luck.

Jay, I think you answered your own question. If you can get close, the D700 is going to be quieter, no one would argue that. If you can not, as Fabs said, then you must bite the bullet. A miniture BIF shot, regadless of how quiet it may be, is worthless. I can and do clean up noise with filters but have had little satisfaction on enlarging images to adaquate size. I use a D300 with a 200-400 and a 1.7 with good results as long as I stay at 12x18 for prints.

Thanks all of you for the super advices! I am still kinda stuck but started thinking from another angle. Based on timeline, it seems likely a successor to D700 would be out soon? If so, it'll not be very economical for me to buy a D700 now and lose quite a bit of bucks later when I upgrade to that. Maybe an option is to get a cheaper D300s to use for now until a higher pixel D700 successor comes along.. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill McCrystyn

Jay, I think you answered your own question. If you can get close, the D700 is going to be quieter, no one would argue that. If you can not, as Fabs said, then you must bite the bullet. A miniture BIF shot, regadless of how quiet it may be, is worthless. I can and do clean up noise with filters but have had little satisfaction on enlarging images to adaquate size. I use a D300 with a 200-400 and a 1.7 with good results as long as I stay at 12x18 for prints.

---

Bill this is my art show booth and all of these images were taken with the D300. My larger canvas come out terrific and I have had great success in selling them.

http://www.naturesportal.net/Service...63_Rqkm6-L.jpg

Hi Nancy. I am very impressed with your portable gallery set-up. If you could I would like to have some info on it as I also may use such a set up at times.

I am curious about the sizes being shown. Could you tell me which is smallest and which is largest so I may have something relative to judge them. I know the D300 will render larger than 12x18 IF you can get in tight and IF I had a printer that could handle it. :o Thanks, Bill