Upgrading from D300 to D700 - is it worth it

At the moment im using a nikon d300 rig.

Im considering buying a second rig. When im on trips and assignments i will have a backup, and i will be able to have one setup for wideangle and one for macro. One of my passions is deep wreckdiving and im wondering if its worth to buy the second rig with the D700? Will i have an advantage with the 700 on deep wreckdiving using high isos and low F values? How is it compared with the D300? If so what lenses to buy ? 15 mm, 16 mm - 17-35 maybe. i have read that many of the lens/dome cmbinations for the D700 have problems with low f values?

How is it to use the trusted 105 and 60 mm macro lenses on the D700?

Please help me out

L

Hi Lasse,

All of these questions and more have been done here many times in many diverse threads.

Suggest you do a search in the archives for D700 and start digging. Look for posts that involve Alex Mustard and / or Loftus as both of them have been there and are vastly experienced.

There are many for's and against what you are considering but with a bit of poking about in the archive you will find the answers.

Best regards,

Paul C

Thanks Paul!

I have allready done the search , and it is a lot of information about this. But I have problems finding a straight clean answer.

Trying again for a easy answer:

Will i get better photos with a d700 taking photos at high isos and below F8 using only ambient light (using 15, 16mm or 17-35) than using the d300 doing the same with 10-17 or 10,5 mm?

Lasse

Hi Lasse,

If high ISO with ambient light is your priority I definitely think the D700 will perform better than the D300. I do not own a D300 but have compared the high ISO to a friends D300 topside, and the D700 is in a class of it's own.

In other situations say up to ISO 400 the two are equivalent in my opinion, though some prefer the D300 (DX) predominantly because of lens choices like the 10-17. Now that I use the 10-17 with TC, I do not miss my DX camera (D200) at all.

I think there is more to high ISO ability than just low noise, I think high ISO ability also allows better penetration of shadows and subtle gradations of shadows that show up with the D700 in low light that enhance photography of underwater landscapes. I have not done any wrecks yet, but I think the advantages will be the same.

Thank you Loftus. what kind of Tc are you using with the 10-17? I love my 10-17, and its a big issue losing it. How is the the 10-17 with tc compared to 16mm? Maybe cornersharpness below F8?

Thank you Loftus. what kind of Tc are you using with the 10-17? I love my 10-17, and its a big issue losing it. How is the the 10-17 with tc compared to 16mm? Maybe cornersharpness below F8?

I use the 1.4 Kenko 300pro.

Check out the threads on the Tokina 10-17 with TC and the Nikon 16mm unsharpness thread for comparisons.

Lasse, I do think crop sensors are much better for underwater photography unless you absolutely need high ISO shooting, eg dark or high shutter speed ambient light conditions. A D700 is virtually the same resolution as the D300, which negates another FX advantage, higher resolution.

Otherwise, with FX, you have more battles with soft corners and dome ports, different DOF considerations (needing to go for higher fstops to get the same DOF at the same focal length (not FOV)). This is especially important for shooting macro and for your shots of wrecks. All the tests show DX has better corners at faster apertures for equivalent focal lengths. Dynamic range also shrinks as you move up the ISO scale.

I was talking to a devout Nikon user the other day and he was again touting the incredible ISO performance of his D3 compared to his D2x. That's the problem as there was a huge gap. The D300 to D700 jump on the other hand isn't as pronounced. Even if you get the 1+ stop ISO noise advantage, with the softer corners and DOF issues, it may equate out.

With the 60 on FX, on the canon, I tried it with an extension tube. Paul Kay and Matt Segal gave me that idea. But seriously, I like the smaller setup with a 50mm macro.

I suggest you borrow or rent a D700 rig and see if the results suit you.

Even Alex Mustard will have to agree that FX is low on the plus side in uw shooting, he just won't do it because he bought a D700.

I think there is definitely more than 1 stop difference in high ISO ability between the D300 and D700. I do some club photography with a friend who has a D300, and the D700 is really superior by I think at least 2 stops. As I said earlier, it's more than just noise (which one can remove with software) it's about significantly more penetration and detail in the shadows and dynamic range differences as well. Even though DR decreases with increasing ISO, it does so with all cameras and my impression is that with the D700 that decrease in DR is noticeably less than the D300. In most situations underwater I think it will be difficult to tell the quality of a D300 from a D700 (or any other camera including higher MP cameras), and a DX camera may have some advantages; but for low light wreck photography I really think the D700 will be an easy choice, even with the wide angle corner sharpness issues.