Nikon D300 v D700 for Sports Photography

Discussion:

(too old to reply)

USU Shooter

2009-02-26 18:04:13 UTC

I am shooting a D200 and have for been for 2 years. I am ready to buy
a new body but can't get my hands on the D300 and D700 to shoot and
compare them. I really need some input from those of you who have had
the opportunity. Pros and cons of each. Is the D700 worth the extra
money? If so, why? Thanks friends. -Patrick

Bruce

2009-02-26 19:21:09 UTC

Permalink

Post by USU Shooter
I am shooting a D200 and have for been for 2 years. I am ready to buy
a new body but can't get my hands on the D300 and D700 to shoot and
compare them. I really need some input from those of you who have had
the opportunity. Pros and cons of each. Is the D700 worth the extra
money? If so, why? Thanks friends. -Patrick

For sports photography using your existing lenses, the D300 would be a
good choice. The sensor is the same physical size as that on your D200,
but with 12 rather than 10 MP and much better high ISO performance.

Because the D700 has a full frame FX sensor, your lenses won't have the
same "reach" as they do on the D200 and D300. You might need to buy a
longer focal length lens, or use a teleconverter. If you are happy to
do that, the D700 offers outstanding performance for a 12 MP DSLR with a
full frame sensor.

So the D700 would not only cost more, but might require you to buy
another lens as well. I doubt that you would find that the D700's
performance increment over the D300 would be worth all that money - both
will give you 12 MP images, after all.

So my recommendation would be to go for the D300.

Charlie Groh

2009-02-26 22:03:13 UTC

Permalink

Post by Bruce

For sports photography using your existing lenses, the D300 would be a
good choice. The sensor is the same physical size as that on your D200,
but with 12 rather than 10 MP and much better high ISO performance.
Because the D700 has a full frame FX sensor, your lenses won't have the
same "reach" as they do on the D200 and D300. You might need to buy a
longer focal length lens, or use a teleconverter. If you are happy to
do that, the D700 offers outstanding performance for a 12 MP DSLR with a
full frame sensor.
So the D700 would not only cost more, but might require you to buy
another lens as well. I doubt that you would find that the D700's
performance increment over the D300 would be worth all that money - both
will give you 12 MP images, after all.
So my recommendation would be to go for the D300.

...my main body is a D300 and I do what would be titled sports
photography (main push is marching groups in football stadium
settings). Lens of choice is my 80-200 f2.8 ED and I'm very happy
with the combination. I've tried the D700 and its performance is VERY
good and I would switch in a heartbeat, only what Bruce brings up is a
very compelling reason to stay right where I am. Reach. That said,
I'm saving my pennys so I can have one of each...

cg

Pete D

2009-02-26 23:42:23 UTC

Permalink

Post by Charlie Groh

Post by Bruce
So my recommendation would be to go for the D300.

Sounds like a very good plan, also saves lens swaps.

Pete

ASAAR

2009-02-27 02:28:57 UTC

Permalink

Post by Charlie Groh
...my main body is a D300 and I do what would be titled sports
photography (main push is marching groups in football stadium
settings). Lens of choice is my 80-200 f2.8 ED and I'm very happy
with the combination. I've tried the D700 and its performance is VERY
good and I would switch in a heartbeat, only what Bruce brings up is a
very compelling reason to stay right where I am. Reach. That said,
I'm saving my pennys so I can have one of each...

The D300 has another advantage over the D700 for sports
photography. Their 51 point Cam-3500 AF modules are quite similar,
particularly in where the 51 AF sensors are located, which is
dictated not by the sensor size but the DSLR body's geometry,
including the mirror positions and sizes. So the 51 AF sensors
cover a much greater percentage of the DX's FOV and a smaller
percentage of the FX's FOV. So in terms of absolute distances on
their sensors, the D300 and D700 AF sensors cover the same absolute
area, but this amounts to much more of the D300's frame than the
D700's. I believe that Sony's AF sensors cover an even smaller part
of their frames.

Bruce

2009-02-27 12:02:01 UTC

Permalink

Post by ASAAR

That's an interesting point - one that I had missed, given that I tend
to use manual focus, or AF with a single focus point.

USU Shooter

2009-02-27 16:42:49 UTC

Permalink

Post by Bruce

For sports photography using your existing lenses, the D300 would be a
good choice. The sensor is the same physical size as that on your D200,
but with 12 rather than 10 MP and much better high ISO performance.
Because the D700 has a full frame FX sensor, your lenses won't have the
same "reach" as they do on the D200 and D300. You might need to buy a
longer focal length lens, or use a teleconverter. If you are happy to
do that, the D700 offers outstanding performance for a 12 MP DSLR with a
full frame sensor.
So the D700 would not only cost more, but might require you to buy
another lens as well. I doubt that you would find that the D700's
performance increment over the D300 would be worth all that money - both
will give you 12 MP images, after all.
So my recommendation would be to go for the D300.

But can't you change a setting on the D700 do the achieve the
equivalent of the DX sensor size, 1.5 I think.

Bruce

2009-02-27 17:02:40 UTC

Permalink

Post by USU Shooter

Post by Bruce
So the D700 would not only cost more, but might require you to buy
another lens as well. I doubt that you would find that the D700's
performance increment over the D300 would be worth all that money - both
will give you 12 MP images, after all.
So my recommendation would be to go for the D300.

But can't you change a setting on the D700 do the achieve the
equivalent of the DX sensor size, 1.5 I think.

Yes, you're right. But you lose megapixels, I think down to about 5.1.

Bruce

2009-02-27 17:46:45 UTC

Permalink

Post by Bruce

Post by USU Shooter

But can't you change a setting on the D700 do the achieve the
equivalent of the DX sensor size, 1.5 I think.

Yes, you're right. But you lose megapixels, I think down to about 5.1.

Sorry, I should have said more than that - 5.1 MP might be enough for
emergency use, but I wouldn't want to use it regularly. Buying a 12 MP
camera and using it routinely at 5.1 MP does not make sense.

The D300 is an excellent DSLR. It has the same number of pixels on its
sensor as the D700 and its high ISO performance is excellent. Noise
levels in the D700 are even lower because of the greater pixel spacing,
but that doesn't make the D300 a noisy camera - far from it. It's a
great performer.

If you did landscape and street photography and used mainly wide angle
lenses, the D700 would be the one to go for. But for sports you need
reach, and you would be giving a lot of that away with the D700. That's
why I think the D300 is probably better for you. It is not an inferior
camera. The fact that it is so much cheaper than the D700 and meets
your needs better probably makes it the best choice.

Whatever you choose: Good shooting!

Paul Furman

2009-02-28 20:32:13 UTC

Permalink

Post by Bruce
If you did landscape and street photography and used mainly wide angle
lenses, the D700 would be the one to go for. But for sports you need
reach, and you would be giving a lot of that away with the D700. That's
why I think the D300 is probably better for you. It is not an inferior
camera. The fact that it is so much cheaper than the D700 and meets
your needs better probably makes it the best choice.

Agreed. I shoot a D200 and D700 and the 200 only gets used when I need
reach but I like wide angle & you probably need the reach more often.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Rich

2009-02-27 00:22:18 UTC

Permalink

Nikon's lack of lens choice in the telephoto end (different speed lenses)
means that is a harder choice than you'd think. A 300mm f2.8 and a D300
will give you similar results to a 500mm f4 on the D700, in-terms of
resolution and noise control. Focus speed/accuracy is another issue.