Comments on: Nikon D300 vs Nikon D700 Review

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:30:22 +0000

I have both cameras and the reason why I prefer D700:
Noise is visible on D300 sometimes at ISO 400.
The overal sharpness on D700 is better (slightly but better).
Higher ISO shotting – no comparison.
D700 made in Japan (not very important probably but I like it).
Shutter sound on D700 I like more.
I did about 2600000 clicks on D700 and it still working and Nikon fixed shutter on D300 after 1200000 clicks (which is pretty good too).
I like more viewfinder on D700.

By: Nikon Cameras

Nikon Cameras — Fri, 27 May 2011 04:26:56 +0000

I loved Nikon D300 vs Nikon D700 Review | Warehouse Express You should see Nikon Promos

By: Keith

Keith — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:21:55 +0000

It is interesting that all the comments from folk with actual field experience of the two models favour the D700. I am lucky enought to have both cameras. This came about by chance and was not part of some carefully thought out strategy. They are without doubt the two best cameras I have ever owned. I sometimes use both together, but if someone told me tomorrow that I could only keep just one, I would decide, without the slightest hesitation, to dump the D300. But since I am not in that situation, and since the two handle in such a similar manner, it is possible to use them together and enjoy the qualities of both. And, whenever I have thougts of rationalising my kit, I do always end up deciding to hang on to the D300.
But, be in no doubt, the D700 is the biz! The high ISO performance alone would ensure this, but it is certainly not the only reason. So if you can afford a D3s, then go for it. Failing that, the D700 is a very fair alternative. And if you “only” have a D300, you still have a very fine camera.

By: Chris

Chris — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 21:02:24 +0000

I owned a D300 for a few years and took some fabulous shots with it but, along came the the D700 and well, needless to say, I traded up.

When I got home and took the D700 out of the box my initial reaction was “What have I done.? this feels just like the D300.!! – The controls are all the same, menu functions virtually the same and the handling felt the same; why did I go through all the grief selling my D300 equipment and buy another camera which on first impressions felt identical to the one I just sold..?” – WRONG..!!

When I used the D700 for the first time in an environment I was familiar shooting the D300 in, the differences were immediately noticeable. The D700 view finder was significantly brighter, especially in low light conditions and so it should be, I’m using a “FX” format lens which is letting in more light.!! Focusing was also significantly quicker and more accurate, the whole feel and handling of the D700 compared to the D300 was more responsive, agile, and reactive; for me the D700 out performs the D300 by far.

I wonder though how would the D300 perform using the same “FX” lens on it..? Could I have given myself a significant upgrade just by changing the lens to an “FX” format allowing more light into the camera enabling the sensors to perhaps respond more effectively.?? Who knows..!! – on this bases I do feel though when comparing two different camera bodies it is very important to make sure all other factors are consistently the same and this blogs test could easily have been conducted with one common “FX” format lens on both cameras to give a more accurate comparison.

Personally as a regular user of both cameras I think the D700 with the “FX” format and all that goes with it outperforms the D300 by far and is certainly worth the extra money. I would suggest to anyone though thinking of upgrading there D300 or D300s to a D700 to try an “FX” format lens on the D300 first and then compare.

By: David

David — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 22:38:29 +0000

Both cameras are just tools for taking photographs. I have a d300 and d200 ( prefer d200 ) and have use of a d700. Please get over the ‘my camera is better than yours’ playground mentality and just enjoy taking photos.

By: Graham

Graham — Sun, 08 Aug 2010 09:06:50 +0000

The 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.
I 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.

By: alexandra

alexandra — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:30:53 +0000

comparing 24 – 70 mm to the 17-55 mm is not logical.

By: EdmundBlack

EdmundBlack — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:11:27 +0000

You 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.

By: rupert

rupert — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:07:52 +0000

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.

By: rupert

rupert — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 08:42:02 +0000

I 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.
Is 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!!!