Upgrading - used D300s or D700?

[dieselpower]

A conundrum.

I've been looking at upgrading (from the D90) for a while and have had my eye on the d700 and Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8. It's going to cost me the better part of $5000 (or more, depending where I get it from). I've been weighing up whether I need to step that far yet, or if I should instead upgrade to a D300s for now, wait and see what the new offerings are from Nikon over the next few years and then get a d700 (or the eventual replacement) later on down the track.

I've just come across a used D300s with 17-55 f/2.8 for a very good price (approx $1800 less than new replacement). Less than 1500 actuations, Australian sold but no longer under warranty. All checks out in great condition and should all be good. The price of this set up is a major draw card.

There's pros and cons for each - and for me lack of warranty on the D300s is a biggy (considering my D90 has been in twice under warranty!) but the higher ISO performance of the FX body is a plus.

Any helpful advise greatly appreciated! I'll be selling the D90 and the 18-105mm lens regardless of which way I go, so no need to maintain DX for that lens as all other lenses are FX compatible.

[ricktas]

If it was me deciding and I had the funds, I would go the D700. I like my FF camera over my crop one. I know that doesn't give you much to go on, but that's my personal opinion!

[dieselpower]

You're right - doesn't give me much to go on - but funds is the killer. Only got the funds if I finance the body (can front up for the lens). Financing it also means paying more than I should, so the d300s option is looking mighty appealing to avoid that road... FF is my personal opinion too but this d300s looks mighty appealing!

[ricktas]

You're right - doesn't give me much to go on - but funds is the killer. Only got the funds if I finance the body (can front up for the lens). Financing it also means paying more than I should, so the d300s option is looking mighty appealing to avoid that road... FF is my personal opinion too but this d300s looks mighty appealing!

Agree, I only buy what I can afford! And the D300s is a brilliant bit of kit. So if you are pushing the limits of the D90 and want more from your gear, then go for it.

[kiwi]

d7000

[dieselpower]

d7000

Why? Low light performance sure - but what other benefit over the d300s is there? As far as I can see the d7000 slots in a bit below the d300s in terms of overall functionality.... or did you mean d700?

[kiwi]

no, d7000, its better than the d300s re noise, af much the same, better video, newer, lighter........etc

[arthurking83]

Yeah, I agree with Kiwi.

D300 is not really all that much of an upgrade other than for the hardware. they use the same sensor, so IQ is not going to advance in any way.

At least with a D7K, you will get much more usable images at about 1-2 stops more ISO(compared to what you're used to with the D90) .. remember D90 is the same sensor as the D300/D300s.

So D7K over D300 series bodies for sure .. but the question is, the D700 may actually become the better option in the long run.
Problems with a D700 is that in some ways you lose some advantages at the wide end, unless you're willing to spend up big to recover part of this loss.

Whilst the 17-55 is a stonking great lens, the D300 is some ways is more of a backwards step(but only because the D7K surpasses it in 99% of the tricks that it performs). D300 series still has some advantages in terms of shooting speed, and some hardware features, but in most ways the D7K is better.

Some of the advantages of the D300 are user specific, and you would know if you needed them.... such as more memory banks and more hardware buttons to achieve simple tweaks and adjustments.
But the D7K has 'hidden' advantages over the D300 too, and these are not generally mentioned.
As an example of why the D7K is better .. D300 has a larger buffer and offers longer continuous shooting sequences .. I think something like 24 continuous raw frames compared to 12 or so on the D7K, but the D7K has faster frame rates if you want to shoot at 14bit colour depth.
14bit(compared to 12bit) colour can yield better colour graduations or processing ability on the raw file, and this is specific to raw file mode. If you shoot in jpg mode the cameras are basically identical in speed.
But in 14 bit raw mode the D300 only shoots at 1.5fps, and is a figure that is not always mentioned. The D7K doesn't slow down in any way if you use 14 bit more and still soliders on at 6 or 7fps.

I'm still doubtful that the D7K has the goods over the D700 in raw ISO or dynamic range ability, so if I were a betting type of person, I'd be putting my money on a D700 if pure ISO/recovery/dynamic range was a priority(ie. landscape photography), but for all round general shooting, the D7K is probably better value for money.

[RRRoger]

I would keep shopping around or wait for the D700 to come down (maybe after xmas) if you want the benefits of FullFrame.
It is simple supply & demand. I think they are overpriced now and you would be better off getting a used D3 or better yet D3s.
I am personally waiting for the D800 which could be a long wait.

If you have to have something now, get a D7000 or even a D5100.
They are both better for my use than a D300 which has the same Sensor as the D90.

Because I can no longer handle the weight and size,
I have replaced both D3 bodies with two D7000 bodies for Events and a D5100 for hikes and Video.
What I miss is the wide Landscape shots. On our hikes I now usually shoot at 10mm with my 10-24.
I get more detail (pixels) but now quite the quality of the D3 with 14-24.
Both of the newer cameras are fast enough for me.

[Tommo1965]

get the D300S if its about $1000-1200 AU..if its used and higher priced than that..id give it a miss and keep the D90.. there's a few reasons to go from a d90 to a d300s..one is better AF....another is two car slots..not sure about the metering side of things...

.....if the D700 were $1200 au Id get one in a instant....but $5000 for a soon to be outdated body and lens is too much.

a better idea is to buy new glass if you need it..but stick to FF glass if possible...just in case a D700 is in your future

[I @ M]

I would keep shopping around or wait for the D700 to come down (maybe after xmas) if you want the benefits of FullFrame.
It is simple supply & demand. I think they are overpriced now and you would be better off getting a used D3 or better yet D3s.
I am personally waiting for the D800 which could be a long wait.

If you have to have something now, get a D7000 or even a D5100.
They are both better for my use than a D300 which has the same Sensor as the D90.

Because I can no longer handle the weight and size,
I have replaced both D3 bodies with two D7000 bodies for Events and a D5100 for hikes and Video.
What I miss is the wide Landscape shots. On our hikes I now usually shoot at 10mm with my 10-24.
I get more detail (pixels) but now quite the quality of the D3 with 14-24.
Both of the newer cameras are fast enough for me.

I am rather incredulous that you say you are waiting for the D800 to be released when you say in the same breath that you can't handle the weight of a D3.

Do you think that the D700 replacement is going to be that much lighter than the D3s replacement?

Admittedly your choice of the reasonably lightweight slow aperture consumer zooms will help with that issue but I can't equate the trade off in image quality from those lenses with buying a new FX body when sporting photos of horsies and mx bikes is your bread and butter.

Have you heard of the Coolpix range Roger, massive zoom range and very little weight, they might suit your shooting style better.

[dieselpower]

OK I'll provide a bit of history. I'm heading overseas in 2 months and was wanting to get new gear to take advantage of duty free. I have been rather hoping that Nikon would announce some new FF bodies before I went.

I'm not unhappy with the IQ of the d90 sensor and I can live with the noise properties of it. I will get a much greater benefit out of better glass since I'm using the kit lens primarily.

I can't work with the AF on the d90 anymore. I've had it recalibrated twice and it's just not reliable. The centre focus point is ok but still misses sometimes. The other AF points are terrible.

I'm wanting to move to faster glass for portraiture.

So - D7000, D300s and D700 all tick these boxes for better AF.
New D7000 and a respectable lens (let's say a Nikon 16-85 VR) will set me back ~$2300. To get the lens included with the D300s it would cost me ~$3600 (in fact - buying the used d300s and a d7000 body only would be a more cost effective way to get this lens than buying new, and I'd end up with two bodies!)
New D700 and 24-70mm f2.8 will set me back ~$5000+
This used D300s and 17-55 f2.8 is $2100. It has less than 1500 actuations. Buy price for this lens alone is around the $2100 mark and this particular example was bought with the camera so is as new. It's pretty hard to look past this price considering replacement value is close to $4000.

Originally it was D700, nothing else came into it until this d300s appeared on my radar. The reality is that I can't really afford a d700 now, and will be less likely to next year as my wife goes back to uni. D7000 with fast glass prices it in the 'probably too much' basket too, unfortunately.

However, maybe I should buy the D300s+17-55 f2.8, sell the body and my d90 and buy a d7000...

[kiwi]

There is quite a bit if difference in weight, 950g vs 1250g re d700 to d3. I'd expect similar to be with d800 and d4 when it's out

I wouldn't go col pix though, you could mount a 200-400 on the new nikon n1 and have a lightweight kit

[I @ M]

Kiwi, if the difference of roughly a block of butter is the deciding factor then I reckon it is time that you started using margarine.

But getting back on topic ( sorry Tom ) in your case with your existing lenses I would head down the D700 / D800 path and be happy ever after. The FX body is a sufficient step forward from your present setup and I feel that the D300s route would be more of a sideways shuffle given your particular work which is already very good.

[rellik666]

Just to throw something else out there with regards to the D300s V D7000 but is the D7K as weather proof as the D300s? Just curious as I can imagine that DP could be quite appreciative of that.

[snappysi]

I recently went from d60 to a d300, huge jump and am really happy with it. Whilst i would admit that a ff would be nice, i certainly cant fault the d300 so far, especially given the jump in bodies. If you can afford the d300 maybe that is a sensible way to go and down the track you can see what the pricing does on other bodies once the new Nikon dodies come out......

Simon.

[dieselpower]

Just to throw something else out there with regards to the D300s V D7000 but is the D7K as weather proof as the D300s? Just curious as I can imagine that DP could be quite appreciative of that.

Doing landscapes and seascapes, it is a consideration for sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RRRoger]

I am rather incredulous that you say you are waiting for the D800 to be released when you say in the same breath that you can't handle the weight of a D3.

Do you think that the D700 replacement is going to be that much lighter than the D3s replacement?

Admittedly your choice of the reasonably lightweight slow aperture consumer zooms will help with that issue but I can't equate the trade off in image quality from those lenses with buying a new FX body when sporting photos of horsies and mx bikes is your bread and butter.

Have you heard of the Coolpix range Roger, massive zoom range and very little weight, they might suit your shooting style better.

The D3s with a 80-400 Nikkor suits my shooting style best.
We used D3 bodies for Event Photography until the D7000 came out.

Just try holding you empty hand out for 6-12 hours in a day.
Taking up to 6,000 shots actually makes it easier for me.
I am 67, I've had both shoulders operated on for bone spurs and torn rotator cups,
and although I am still quite strong,
I no longer have PopEye arms nor can I throw 120lb bales of hay over my head.

What I really want is a D3s Sensor in an un-dumbed-down D7000 body.

The D7000 is the perfect size and weight for me now.
The "ProSumer" 28-300 delivers excellent picture quality.

But at this time the D800 is the best I can hope for with a FullFrame Sensor and it is about 9 oz. lighter than a D3
Now try holding out your hand with 9oz, does it make a difference?

[dieselpower]

Ok after laying out all the options on the table, the minister for finance and I have settled on the d300s.

Reasoning - It is cheap, provides a significant enough upgrade for me, comes with great glass (almost a free body at the price listed!!) and will make a great second body when I do upgrade to ff, and I'll still have great dx glass for it.

If for whatever reason I do decide that I'd be better off with a d7k then I will sell the d300s body and d90 and fund it that way. In the meantime if I win the lotto or get a very substantial tax refund then I'll go the d700 and glass option in addition to the d300s but at this stage the reality is that it's beyond what I can realistically afford.

Thanks for the useful comments all


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kiwi]

You won't be disappointed, I have a 300s and it's really good on good light