Nikon D300 vs Nikon D700 Review
By Damien Lovegrove, July 2009
Damien Lovegrove takes a look at the Nikon D700 and Nikon D300 digital SLRs. In this test he uses the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 lens with the D700 & the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 with the D300.
Lenses
The Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 lens is a fair bit longer and has a smaller diameter barrel than the 17-55mm f/2.8 lens. Both lenses are AF-S G ED specification with the 17-55mm being DX format only. They are fairly weighty, have a manual /auto focus switch and take a 77mm threaded filter.
I much prefer the feel of the 24-70mm lens over the 17-55mm objective. The zoom ring on the 24-70mm lens is wider and it has a lighter, smoother action than its DX cousin. It just feels better in the hand and superior in every way. The lens hoods that come with the lenses as standard are of a similar design with the 24-70mm hood being slightly longer to compensate for more travel in the lens barrel as a result of zooming. The zoom range is 2.9:1 for the 24-70mm lens and a slightly greater 3.2:1 for the 17-55mm lens. The range of zoom is as close to 3:1 for each objective as to make little noticeable difference in operation.
D300 v D700 Camera Bodies
Both the Nikon D300 and the Nikon D700 camera bodies have similar main camera dimensions; they are the same width for instance and have all the key controls in identical places. However, the Nikon D700 does have a larger prism block to match the full frame sensor. This has resulted in it having a smaller top LCD screen than the D300. The D700 is noticeably heavier than the Nikon D300 but it is still a compact professional Digital SLR and certainly not one of the big boys. All the camera menus and systems on both bodies are so similar there is really nothing to separate them. The grip and feel of both camera bodies is nearly identical. I was switching between the camera systems throughout the day of my comparison test shoot and I often found myself looking at the numbers on the front of the camera body to see which camera I was using. They have so few physical differences the reason to pick one camera over the other will certainly be for imaging or financial reasons.
The Practical Differences
Having established that there are no major handling differences between the camera and lens systems we have to look next at the differences associated with the pixel density of the sensors. The Nikon D300 has more pixels in a space half the size of the Nikon D700 sensor. So will more pixels or bigger pixels produce the best images.
Typically, larger pixels are more sensitive than smaller ones. This is certainly the case with the Nikon D700 pixels on its full frame sensor. The D700 is therefore more suited to low light photography at extreme ISO values than the Nikon D300 as a result. Much has been written about high ISO comparison, and as sophisticated noise measuring systems are needed to accurately do a comparison test I decided to stick to real world shooting.
I put both the camera and lens combos to the test on a portrait shoot that used ISO 200 to ISO 800 and f/4 to f/16. This range should be right in the sweet spot of both systems. I expect the lenses to perform at their best at all zoom values so that is what I used.
Before the shoot I reset the menus on both cameras to their default settings except for the few personal tweaks I like to dial in when shooting Nikon. I nearly always shoot on Manual but I chose to use Aperture priority too in order to see how the camera light meters compare.
I shot a full mix of lighting styles from flash in daylight to natural window light in a dark café interior. I swapped between the cameras regularly to really get a feel for what sort of user experience they gave me. I must say that I was most disconcerted to find that the metering in the cameras was varying by up to 2/3rds of a stop for identical frames at times. I switched to manual exposure and I found it was not just the metering that was varying. When I exposed both cameras at the same settings in manual I was getting different exposures in the file. This is possibly due to a number of factors and I just got on with the job of getting good frames without caring what the exact figures for shutter speed and aperture were for a given ISO. After all, it’s pictures that count and both cameras were delivering exactly what I wanted on the handling front.
Once back at the studio I downloaded my files, juggled them up, renamed them, and gave the set to Marko our in-house post production expert to process in Adobe Lightroom. He really had to work hard with the Nikon D300 files to even get close to the pictures from the Nikon D700. Some of this could be down to the input profiles for each camera setup in Adobe Lightroom but that aside the Nikon D700 and 24-70mm lens combo images sparkled with a clarity that the D300 images lacked. Each time we looked at a picture and its sister frame taken on the other camera it was easy to spot the D700 image. This is not to say the Nikon D300 images were bad in any way and if we weren’t comparing them with the D700 files we’d be happy.
Well, after my findings from the portrait shoot, I decided to explore a little further into why I was experiencing the difference in quality between the systems so I ran three tests in my garden. I do hate garden test shots so I’ll spare you the pictures as they are not works of art and you really need to pixel peep at 100% to glean anything meaningful from them, but here are my findings…
Tests 1 & 2:
I wanted to assess the optical performance at f/22 of each lens on its corresponding body using the widest zoom setting and then the tightest zoom setting. As an aside, the 24mm lens setting on the Nikon D700 is noticeably wider than the 17mm setting on the Nikon D300 when doing a side-by-side comparison.
Taken with Nikon D300 for Test 1
Taken with Nikon D700 for Test 1
Taken with Nikon D300 for Test 2
Taken with Nikon D700 for Test 2
Results:
I found that the Nikon D700 with the 24-70mm lens resolves far more detail than the Nikon D300 with the 17-55mm lens as both ends of the zoom. The D700 and 24-70mm lens combo has a better natural contrast and produces far superior pictures with more clarity at both the centre and edges of the frame. It’s worth noting that the Nikon D300 on aperture priority chose to use 1/30th second while the D700 used 1/25th second with all the settings the same and identical light on the scene. This variation in a controlled situation looking at foliage in a ‘normal’ scene with the cameras on tripods ratifies my previous findings on the portrait shoot.
Test 3:
I wanted to use the same lens on both cameras to see if the sensor or optics were the reason for the differences in image clarity. I chose to use the 24-70mm lens as it covers both the DX and FX sensors. I also chose a mid-zoom setting on each camera and matched the image coverage in the viewfinders.
Taken with Nikon D300 for Test 3
Taken with Nikon D700 for Test 3
Results:
The images viewed at 100% in Photoshop were very difficult to distinguish. They were all excellent. I looked at the centre and the edges of each of the frames and after much deliberation I concluded the Nikon D700 image was marginally superior but not by much and on another day I may have chosen the Nikon D300 image, it was that close.
D300 vs D700 Conclusion:
Both cameras function in a similar way and are easily swapped between on the fly. The layout and controls of both bodies are similar and they feel equally comfortable to hold. They both have a pop up flash and control remote Speedlights in the same way using Nikon’s creative lighting system, so there really is nothing to separate them in handling terms. The picture quality from both bodies when using the same lens is very, very similar too. The only real difference to consider with the camera bodies are with the sensor size. Yes, the Nikon D700 is a bit heavier, but not much. Is it worth £615 more than the D300? I’m not sure it is unless you need the amazing high ISO capability of the D700, then it’s worth every penny.
Nikon make such an extensive range of lenses that for all but the most extreme focal lengths cover both the DX and FX systems. There may be some advantage of a smaller sensor when shooting wildlife as it may mean you have to carry less focal length to get the same magnification in your pictures. Others argue that the extra sensitivity of the larger sensor of the D700 means you don’t need as big a maximum aperture on your lenses to get the shot. It’s horses for courses and I expect your decision to go FX or DX may well be influenced by the lenses you already own.
Are the picture differences between the two camera and lens combos significant? Yes, I much prefer the look created by the Nikon D700 and the 24-70mm lens. The Nikon D300 can get close with it’s 17-55mm lens but the Nikon D700 pictures sparkle with clarity and quality straight from the camera. The lens is the biggest factor here and the wonderful Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 optic sets a benchmark that the 17-55mm f/2.8 lens doesn’t quite manage to reach. You can easily see why Nikon can charge £170 more for the similar specification lens. The Nikon D700 images shot with the 24mm – 70mm lens are a joy to post produce and if like me, you shoot a lot of frames, you will not regret investing the extra money in Nikon’s FX system. If you need a fast standard zoom lens and around a 12megapixel output, the Nikon D700 with the 24-70mm f/2.8 lens sets the standard.
Nikon D300 Rating:
- Build quality: 9/10
- Image quality: 7/10
- Value: 8/10
- Overall:
Nikon D700 Rating:
- Build quality: 9/10
- Image quality: 9/10
- Value: 8/10
- Overall:
(12 votes, average: 3.25 out of 5)
Loading ...
An interesting read ! I’m using a D200 with the 17-55mm f/2.8 lens and have been really pleased with the results. I also use a 10.5mm f/2.8, the 12-24mm f/4 and a 300mm f/2.8 Looking to upgrade to the D700 soon (or the D3x if I can find the extra cash) so this was good to read. My DX lenses I would need to change though with the D700, not sure if I would trade it all in or keep as spare.
Cheers,
Pete
Peter StephensSo what? A Porsche with first class tyres is faster than a Fiat with poor tyres !
DidierThe 24-70 is much better than the 17-55. Everyone knows that. Comparison of two different bodies with such different lenses is just nonsense. And it just means that the24-70 is much better than the 17-55. Again.
No need of such a test to prove it…
[...] You can find it here [...]
Nikon D300 vs. Nikon D700 Review | Talk|URBEXi took aset of shots with my D300 and a D700 in shop with my nikon f1.4 50mm lens it was hard to tell which was best .But the build quality was not as good as the D300.
satchellAll I can say the D700 must have performed very well to have beaten my D300 as the pictures I have taken and printed have absolutely blown me away. Couldn’t be more satisfied unless someone had given it to me instead of having to buy it.
TomHoping that as I learn to use its full potential the pics will get even better.
I use the 18-200 VR Zoom and love the SB 900. The wife must really love me to have bought such a great birthday pressie…
I have owned the D300 for almost 2 years now. It has been everything I expected, and more. I had considered an ‘upgrade’ to the D700, but decided I didn’t want the expense of new lenses. The D700 is a fine camera, but definitely not worth the extra money over the D300. Yes full frame gives better clarity, but this is only noticeable over A3 sizes. The glass is what really affects the quality of the picture, like most things, any camera is only as good as the weakest point. Buy the D300, and you have money to spare on decent glass. If like me you enjoy wildlife photography, the 1.5 gain on the lens is of benefit too.
Steve MichelleEnjoy, Steve.
Great point Steve – good glass is top priority vs. a more expensive camera body!
IMHO the high ISO performance and large viewfinder are the real plus points of the D700! It’s quite an expensive upgrade if you own DX lenses though…
OliverOne of the more overlooked differences between the full frame sensor and the DX sensor, is the depth of field. With a35mm size sensor you get less depth of field for a given aperture than a cropped sensor. Great if you want that look, not so good if you want everything sharp. I like the shallow depth of field and love my D700. I also use a D2xs, which is also very good, but not quite in the same league as the D700 in terms of exposure latitude, high ISO performance or resolving power, but I use them for different styles of shooting now. Both great cameras.
Rich
Richard CromptonI took my D300 to Alaska and was very disappointed with the noise level when out photographing the bears on Katmai. My wife’s D3 performed excellently at ISO 1600 in exactly the same conditions and produced shots that were vastly superior to to the D300 ar every turn. As a result I decided to go for the D700 which has the same sensor and image management system as the D3 but (a) doesn’t cost as much and (b) isn’t as heavy. Its performance in weak light is stunning – a brilliant camera and one that does full justice to good Nikon optics. Like the D2X the D300 is a very noisy camera – its good but if you have the choice go for D700.
Bob RyanSo we have proven that if you put a better lens on a camera it produces a better result. Wouldn’t it have been better to do the test and just use one lens?
JoFrom my very breif test I did not find the D700 to be worth the addition cost over my D300. Most of my shooting is under controlled light and I very rarely use anything other than ISO200.
However, if I did not have a D300 and I had to choose between the cameras I would get the D700 as it is a more flexible camera.
Very nice read. I used to own a D80, then D90. When I purchased the D300, I fell in love with photography again. The camera was so easy to use, and it assisted me in producing stunning shots. I truly believe that the D300 is the best invention since apple pie
Then I purchased the D700. Wow! That is all I can say. Wow! The ability to shoot using natural light, and produce such quality shots. Increased ISO. All that adds up to flexibility. Now I am dreaming about photography again, and out on the shoot every chance I get. The debate isn’t which camera body is better. Every proud owner of his/her camera takes pride and joy in their “love” and will defend their “love” to the end. So, which ever of the two cameras that you own, know that you have the best that technology can produce at this age and get busy shooting!
Louis M.Can’t say I would disagree but with a D300 I have no option to use the 17-55 but I have found it a very nice lens.
SteveYes I would happily buy a D700 or a D3 but as I love wildlife photography I can’t lose the 1.5x factor. I also understand that a D3 in DX mode is not as detailed as a D300, but its only something I have read.
What I would like is a DX body that offers the noise capabilities of a D3, the rest I can live with
What an absolutely useless test. How on earth can you do a comparison using two different lenses?
of course the results will be different. I would strongly suggest anyone reading it totally ignores what has been written.
Realspeed
realspeedHi Realspeed,
It’s true testing the overall IQ of the D300 v D700 isn’t fair with different lenses. However as a setup comparison it’s valid because D300 users who need a standard f2.8 lens only really have the 17-55mm as an option.
In my opinion the 17-55mm is the DX equivalent of the 24-70mm. The 24-70mm is superior and that’s another factor in deciding between the D300 & D700 as a complete kit.
Thanks,
OliverI was faced with the choice between the D300 and D700 a year ago, and I went for the D300. I’m a macro shooter, and the increased DOF and 1.5x crop work to my advantage. It was also the availability of the 18-200 that swayed me, as I could get the D300+18-200 for the same price as just the D700, with no real wide-angle unless I dropped another $2400. So far, I’m happy with the D300, although I sometimes lust after the higher-ISO performance. @Bob – the comparison to the D2x is not true – in noise, the D2x is as far from the D300 as the D300 is from the D3.
Dave Pijuan-NomuraI also felt that the comparison was mostly about the lenses, not the cameras. It was only the observations about handling and the one direct comparison using the 24-70 that I found valuable. I’ve used both the 17-55 and the 24-70 and agree that the 24-70 is noticeably better in sharpness, contrast, and handling. That said, the 24-70 is peerless on the D300 for event photography.
Having owned both cameras I would like to say that for me being a railway photographer the D700 blows away the D300 at night.I took a shot of a train doing 50 M.PH. last week at 10.30 at night . Settings being
I.S.O. 5000 f/1.6 @ 1/400th and it is totally noise free even at A3 size. A D300 would not live with it I thought the comparison you carried out was spot on. This camera has the ability to photograph a black panther in a dark cave believe me!!!
Mark Ainsworth.
Mark Ainsworth.For anyone interested we use 2x D3 bodys and 2x D3oo bodys side by side for weddings.
philip gowdyResults speak for themselves…8000 images later……full frame great at high iso low light.
Normal conditions…hardly any difference…..
If I was to purchase again….and didnt need full frame or mega frames per second…keep the money….
for anyone who doesnt know D3 and D700 sensor the same….
The writer’s logic, if any, is too fuzzy to be of any aid.
1) “The Nikon D300 has more pixels in a space half the size of the Nikon D700 sensor. So will more pixels or bigger pixels produce the best images.” Well, yes, the D300 has 64 more pixels than the D700 on the horizontal and 24 more pixels on the vertical. Too small a difference to be meaningless. Pixel pitch (size) does have an impact.
2) “I switched to manual exposure and I found it was not just the metering that was varying. When I exposed both cameras at the same settings in manual I was getting different exposures in the file. This is possibly due to a number of factors and I just got on with the job of getting good frames without caring what the exact figures for shutter speed and aperture were for a given ISO.” Clearly, this person has never used a Nikon camera before, or any other DSLR for that matter.
3) “He really had to work hard with the Nikon D300 files to even get close to the pictures from the Nikon D700. ” Then, a few more paragraphs after… “I found that the Nikon D700 with the 24-70mm lens resolves far more detail than the Nikon D300 with the 17-55mm lens as both ends of the zoom.” Shhh! this is top secret insider information… And then…
4) When using the same 24-70mm f/2.8 lens on both cameras: “The images viewed at 100% in Photoshop were very difficult to distinguish. They were all excellent. I looked at the centre and the edges of each of the frames and after much deliberation I concluded the Nikon D700 image was marginally superior but not by much and on another day I may have chosen the Nikon D300 image, it was that close.”
Finally, he goes on to recommend the D700 over a D300 that has dual memory card slots, a 100% viewfinder, a larger LCD, less weight, and cost 650 less, only because: “The Nikon D700 images shot with the 24mm – 70mm lens are a joy to post produce and if like me, you shoot a lot of frames, you will not regret investing the extra money in Nikon’s FX system.” but having said a few lines before that “The lens is the biggest factor here and the wonderful Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 optic sets a benchmark that the 17-55mm f/2.8 lens doesn’t quite manage to reach. ”
Ok, well, thanks for the recommendation to use the 24-70mm f/2.8. I thought this was an article comparing the D300 to the D700… under similar conditions, that is.
And I'm not Ken Rockwell, butWell, I’ve been using the D300 since it was launched and always been quite happy with it and the 17-55mm. Recently been taking product shots (mainly books and other medium sized items) – can’t get far enough away to get whole shot with my 60mm macro, so again using the zoom, and distortion is horrible, especially near frame edge. Wonder if I should trade up to the D700 and the 24-70mm, or just stick with the D300 and buy a couple of w/a primes……
Nigel YoungI shoot news and use both a D3 and a D300. In normal use there is no difference betwen images from each camera. The D3 ONLY comes into it’s own when working in low light when the superb high ISO performance is a deffinate advantage. I shoot this combination of cameras out of preference as the 1.5 crop factor on the D300 is fantastic on teles and long zooms and the wide angle capability of the D3 with the14 – 24mm lens is stunning. The drive speed of the D300 with the MB10 is about the same as a D3 with focussing speed slightly slower than the FX camera – not something though that you would notice too much in real useage. To sum up both are SUPERB cameras easily blowing the old D2X D2H combo out of the water with to me the high ISO of the D3 just and only just making that camera the very best.
Paul MacI recently got the Nikon D3S and think it beats both of these. Check this short clip I found. The video and stills were captured using the camera. So cool!
James Hunthttp://vimeo.com/9337388
Thanks for posting the D3S video James – it’s very impressive. Enjoy your D3S!
OliI agree with James.
Nikon are the best cameras in the world. Don’t believe me? http://vimeo.com/9450557
JoeBob Ryan….
Not sure if your comment about the D300 being “a noisy camera” was tongue-in-cheek or not, but if not, then I have to question your wisdom. Not only have I seen the D300 reviewed and described as one of the least-noisy DX format camera’s on the market, but I fell about laughing when you compared your $1500 D300 with your wife’s $3000 D3, citing “produced shots that were vastly superior”. Well knock me down with a feather! – Who’d have thought it? Remind me to throw away all my kit and replace it with stuff costing twice as much and maybe, just maybe, I’ll see better results too, you think?
D. IsgruntledLike the initial reviewer, you seem to consider it sensible to compare apples with pears.
I used to have a d700 and a d300, then moved to replace the d300 with a second d700 for work.
THe d300 is good, but I always wished for a brighter viewfinder and clean isos over 1200. With the d700’s I have i often shoot at 1600-3200 and I enjoy the improvements (the images feel more 3-D and alive on fx).
If you find yourself needing hi-iso, the d700 is worth the cost…. its a similar deal as getting fixed f2.8 lenses compared to f4 or viraible lenses – for the extra cost will you use the extra stop ?
As I make my living from photography, I have no hesitation in recommending the d700….. but if i was shooting for fun / didnt shoot at such high isos, I’d prbably keep the pennies for a holiday.
Al OverdriveI use a nikon d200 for weddings and model portfolios. have looked at comparisons between d200 vs d300 & d2x vs d3 from my research there is small improvements. this is something that camera companies have done since the film days.
rupertIs it worh paying hundreds/thousands more for slight improvements unless earning mega bucks.
for anything where I be blowing up larger than A3 I also have a kodak DCS 14n which is full frame and only cost me £200, bargain!!!
Hi there just to comment regarding the lens debate of 17-55 & 24 – 70 are people forgetting the independant brands here sigma have the DC & DG brands surely something similar can be found here and save even more money.
rupertYou can save money on buying Sigmas sure, but I wouldn’t bother if your professional work requires sharp edges, all this debating is relevant to a professional end. But I’m looking to get the 24-70 because its made for Nikon by Nikon.
EdmundBlackcomparing 24 – 70 mm to the 17-55 mm is not logical.
alexandraThe reason the 17-55 Dx lens and the 24-70 Fx compatible lens have been compared are because its the best lens available for the same 35mm focal range on each camera. As such the test is spot on.
GrahamI find the results interesting having moved from a D300 to a D3. When I started comparing D300 with the Nikon 17-55 F2.8 shots and the D3 with a Tokina 28-70 F2.8 I was blown away by the difference. Not just in low noise but also in terms of clarity, detail, contrast and color. I accept that the D3 is another step up the ladder but the sensor and several other of the critical components are shared with the D700.
As far a Nikon lens being better than 3rd party lenses, this true to a degree, however in my experience there is no difference that I can see between my Nikon 70-200 and my Sigma 70-200. My default wide angle lens for the D300 was a Tokina 11-16 because it was sharper than the Nikon, my default wide angle lens for the D3 is a Nikon 16-35 F4 VR. Its horses for courses. Incidentally VR on a wide angle lens is useless 99% of the time as I tend to used these lenses for landscape work with involves longer exposures and a good tripod, VR is normally switched off for this work to get the sharpest results.
If your buying kit dont be dogmatic in buying by brand, read reviews, hire a lens for a day to test it and ask somene who has one allready. You’ll save yourself a fortune.