Broadly speaking, after 2 years of loyal service with the sumptuous D300, a friend of mine has to sell his Nikon D700 and the attraction to move to Nikon's FX format proved too strong. So I have a very large heart-cons decided to separate myself from the D300 to try their luck with the D700 FX!
First impressions top
If you have already picked up the D300, then you will not have much scenery to take in hand a Nikon D700. The two cases are very senblables.
The differences between the D300 and D700, we note that the case is a little bigger. There is also the viewfinder and that is "real" viewfinder, a circular window (style D2x, D2h, D3, etc.).. A real comfortable viewfinder. In fact, the lens is also bigger. That said, due to the presence of flash "popup", you lose 5% coverage viewfinder (which is 95%, compared to approximately 100% of the D300).
There is the back of the case where we see notable differences. Among other things, the multi-selector optient a center button (instead of "pad" we must lower the thumb in full on the D300). Honestly, it is really interesting option, but the multi-selector is because of this greater depth, and therefore more prone to be hung.
The other great strength of the Nikon D700 is its ability to deliver images that support strong corrections. It really is possible to push the sliders in post-processing to recover light or dark tones for example, that the image does not suffer. Reflex on smaller, this would result in bright areas sunk noisy shadows and color gradients that become rough when pushing saturation. None of these defects here is a real pleasure to make the necessary corrections to obtain the desired image!
Finally, there is the appearance of an "Info" button at the bottom right at the back of the case. By pressing this button, you get the screen that displays shooting parameters (such as on the LCD screen on top of the box), but also two bars that appear on the screen, and which serve to give us quick access to menu items configuration, including settings for shooting (as ISO, white balance, the D-Lighting, color space, etc..:
In addition to these changes mentioned above, you will find yourself on familiar ground on the Nikon D700, from the D300. At least that was my case, and the adaptation was very easy. It was the eye in the viewfinder that was the biggest difference.
Nikon D700 vs. D300 vs. D90 Review (Part 1)
Skip the DX FX format ... top
That's the huge difference between the two cases: one changes the format! And those who think the difference is not major, well yes it is. The big difference in the use, it is in the use of focal range. With the DX format (APS-C) that still characterizes the vast majority of Nikon digital cameras - including the D300 just - there is the magnification of 1.5X it is necessary to calculate the focal range, for an equivalence what was used in the world of film, in 35mm format (24x36). So a 50mm lens in DX format provides an equivalent of 75mm. The FX-format (also called "full frame") brings us back to the 35mm format, so with a sensor that has a size of 24x36 in size, as is the standard silver film, so a 50mm lens is 50mm.
This is the big difference, and it is huge. Yes, I did the photo film a few years ago, but I really made the picture with digital, so my eye has been at Nikon DX mode very quickly. While I was translating for a focal length equivalent "35mm" (FX), the fact remains that I have almost everything in DX before moving to the Nikon D700, and the adaptation was not so simple for me.
Meanwhile, the Nikon D700 offers a good size "D", which can crop the sensor, but by enabling this feature, the 5.1-megapixel image. The D300, He still offers the 12-megapixel DX mode. There are ultra-wide angle for DX format (such as AF-S 12-24mm f/4G, and the latest AF-S 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G), but the long telephotos are same for both formats. And it's always the long telephotos are very expensive, not great angles. So if they are the focal lengths you want, the DX format is still of interest: FX format will take away the advantage of 1.5X.
And there is depth of field also reduces a lot going FX format due to the larger sensor. It is a little trickier for macro photography, but very interesting as made for the portrait!
With regard to image quality, compared with the two types of formats (DX and FX, those of D300 and D700 with 12 megapixel both), I can confirm that there is a difference in quality. This is very subtle, but it seems to result in greater "depth", more nuances, shades of colors that seem more subtle and more "real", less contrasted and sharp. The first portraits I did convinced me!
Finally, there is the quality high ISOs, which is a great leap forward. I talk about below.
Performance at high ISOs top
The major point of the Nikon D700 Technical- details, although moving to FX format still offers a great difference in focal lengths used, etc.. Is the great performance at high ISOs offered by this case. It's a bit surprising from Nikon to have happened so quickly to offer a "mini D3", so the same sensor as the D3, but in a case similar to the D300, with a price cut in half compared the D3 and big advantage in my opinion, a system of integrated sensor cleaning, which does not have the D3 ...!
The performance of the D300 at high ISOs was already beautiful, but the D700 adds a very significant improvement. After experience, I say no wrong you win easily two full stops. In other words, the D300 I believe allowed us to use without too much loss of quality up to ISO 1600, and the Nikon D700 allows us to go up to ISO 6400. Of course, any circumstances depent shooting, all is not as clear and perfect, in that it will happen in situations with the D700 to have the image quality unambiguous ISO 6400, but in others (eg, with lots of black areas or iheavily in low light), you'll have lots of "noise" in the digital still image. But hey, even the D300 is subject to these variables shooting situations ... ... And in general, two stops of quality that you will win with the Nikon D700, which is not nothing!
That said, for those who view the images at 100% size on the screen, like me you will definitely surprised with the D300, at least initially, to have a little "noise" base in the image, even at ISO 200. Obviously, resizing, printing or by any other thing to look at the image at 100% on screen, this "little noise" does not appear at all.
Note the digital noise, especially in the area under the chin, in areas of lower luminosities, and the blurred background ... It is indeed to ISO 1600, and my faith, it seems just as nice as the D300 files to ISO 200! It's pretty impressive. These are the findings that I came to using the D700, in the wake of D300, and comparing the images I have done with the two cases.
In May 2010, I could even make a wedding in a church, without using a flash!
We all know that inside of a church, the light is far from ideal, but at ISO 1600 the Nikon D700 got off the built-in-hand, though I did not need to use the flash!
So basically, a great device for use at high ISOs. A very good camera for a portrait in ambient light.
Nikon D700 vs. D300 vs. D90 Review (Part 2)
Many people have asked the question, posed to me too, me too, and the course I am asked. And I'll be frank with you: I went to the D700 in December 2009, I returned to the D300 in February 2010, and again back to D700 in April 2010. So the question is not simple. However, I enjoyed my return to the D300, so I could re-test and see that ultimately, if you have the proper focal lengths, the FX format - and D700 - are actually better than the D300.But also depends on the use you make of it.
I think the two cases have their advantages and disadvantages compared to the other For example:
* The D300 is approximately half the price of buying the D700, which is not bad! For some, it may be better to pay less for the D300, and invest the rest of the money for better purposes.
* The D700 is slower than the D300. Natively, without the grip MB-D10, the D700 offers a burst up to 5 frames / second, compared to 6 frames / second for the D300. It does not seem like very big difference, as long as you do not need that speed, as for sports photo, for example ...
* The AF on the D300 Colima cover virtually the entire viewfinder, while the D700, the 51 Colima are clustered in the middle of the viewfinder, which is not very practical. And that's probably the most irritating I had to use the D700 compared to D300: On the left, which gives coverage of 51 Colima AF in the viewfinder of the D300, and right, what you get in the viewfinder of the D700. The coverage is much more advantageous for the D300!
* The D300, because it's DX-format has the crop factor of 1.5X, so that your goals are magnified by a factor equivalent to 1.5, which is very good for sports photography or wildlife , for example.
* The D700, for against, to mount significantly higher ISOs. Beyond ISO 1600, the D700 is much higher than the D300. Even short of ISO 1600, the sharpness of the image is greater than the D700, which is due to the fact that both cases have a 12 megapixel sensor, but the Nikon D700's sensor is much larger (1.5 times, actually), which allows the use of much larger photosites, and more distanced from each other.
