The first "D700 or [whatever]" question!

[Digital Skunk]

.....

The issue I have is that we don't know what the OP does. Which is why he won't get a good answer, he'll just get what we think he should do. If he was a freelance sports shooter then he should get the 300. If not then get the D700 and 14-24.

Like you Hmac, I have no need for a 300, and if I did I'd rent one or borrow one. I use my bodies far more than I use any single lens, so having a D700 would benefit me more than a 300 mm. But that's for how and what I shoot.

 

[Hmac]

Like you Hmac, I have no need for a 300, and if I did I'd rent one or borrow one. I use my bodies far more than I use any single lens, so having a D700 would benefit me more than a 300 mm. But that's for how and what I shoot.

As I was shooting family waterskiers last evening, OTOH, I found myself thinking about the 200-400VR...

 

[Clix Pix]

Chiming in here to add my tuppence.....

Yes, it's really important to determine what kind of shooting one does the most, as that definitely should guide one in one direction or another.

Last August, when Nikon announced the two new cameras, D3 and D300, I read the specs on each and mulled over the possibilities. I finally wound up buying both cameras because I had specific uses for each. Almost a year later and having used the two cameras extensively, I can say that for me I made the right (albeit expensive!) choice. My usage is: D300 for all birding and anything that requires long lenses. The D3 for candids, portraits, macros, close-ups, wide-angle shots and everything in between. Admittedly, I already had the 300mm f/2.8 VR at the time I was buying the two new bodies, and I had already determined that I very much enjoyed birding and wildlife photography.

If I were faced with the decision today, and didn't already have a D3 and didn't already have a 300mm f/2.8, I would weigh the pros and cons of each choice, but probably would end up buying the D700, as I suspect that this in the long run will provide more bang for the buck. If it is anywhere near as good as the D3 (and I'm betting it will be!) this could be an excellent tool for further exploring photography and expanding your creativity in a way which buying the 300mm f/2.8 VR just wouldn't be. As someone else has mentioned, how often would you be using the 300mm f/2.8? Daily? Weekly? Monthly? It definitely might be the wiser choice to simply rent that lens when needed.

Good luck in making the decision!

 

[Westside guy]

Speaking as a decidedly non-pro...

Now that the D700 is here, it might be an interesting experiment (for someone with enough money, which isn't me!) to compare shooting stuff (say, birds) using the D300 versus using the D700 plus a 1.4x teleconverter - both with the same lens. I know you lose a stop with the teleconverter, but is the noise handling on the D700 good enough to allow you to shoot at double the ISO of what you're using on the D300, and get the same quality results?

 

[Digital Skunk]

As I was shooting family waterskiers last evening, OTOH, I found myself thinking about the 200-400VR...

Yeah, that's a situation where you would need to consider buying tele zoom and such. If you shot waterski sports daily or weekly having your own glass is a plus.

Like Clixpix says, we all have to evaluate what we shoot then base our decisions on that. Not knowing what we shoot, or what the OP shoots, doesn't help us make the best decisions. I haven't needed to go that long in almost 4 or more years, and when deciding whether to go D3 or used D2xs, I choose the used Xs since I rarely raise my ISO above 800, even at weddings in dimly lit churches.

...

I would hope that the D700 has the high ISO IQ of the D3. It truthfully the camera body I have been waiting for since the F100 got the boot. It's truly a digital F6, or F100 with variable FPS and pro viewfinder.... except for the 95% viewing angle, and the lack of a speed increase for DX shooting, but whatever.

I still don't need one of those bodies, but since it's the "IT" that I have been looking for it shall be mine. The question is whether or not to get two of them, or just get one and find another $2000 to get the D3 to go with it.

Back on topic.... For me, long teles do better as renters or borrowers, but if the OP shoots long more often then the 300 will be a better choice.

 

[compuwar]

I have no clue how Nikon's teleconverters perform on his D80 or D300, but I know they work well with the 70-200 on my D3, and I suspect they'll work just as well on a D700.

Other than resolution issues on the D2x, Nikon TCs are more affected by the lens than the body- assuming you can lock down a lens sufficiently to take care of movement issues and the TC doesn't have front/back focusing issues with a particular body (That is generically, the TC simply magnifies the image, so which body you use it on is only relevant if you use too much magnification on a body that requires absolute resolution to be higher- in this case, the D2x/D2xs being the highest resolution bodies Nikon currently makes.)

However, in terms of absolute image quality a prime blows away a zoom and TC, especially in the case of the 300/2.8. I'm not sure Nikon makes a sharper lens.

 

[Digital Skunk]

the 300/2.8. I'm not sure Nikon makes a sharper lens.

It's been said many times, they don't. It's by far the best tele I have used, though I haven't used the updated 400VR.

 

[compuwar]

It's been said many times, they don't. It's by far the best tele I have used, though I haven't used the updated 400VR.

Well, this prompted me to look- the 200/2 is better in the center but loses at the edges of the frame if I'm reading the MTF charts correctly- and the new 400VR kicks the 200 and 300's butts wide open.

In fact, the 400mm Nikkor VR seems to handily kick every single Nikon and Canon's butt in terms of sharpness and contrast from the center to the edge of the frame[1]. I'm surprised they don't ship safety glasses with the 400VR so you don't cut your eyes looking at images.

[1] AFAICT both Nikon and Canon test at 10 lp/mm and 30 lp/mm where Photodo and Zeiss test at 10 lp/mm 20 lp/mm and 40 lp/mm- while there's bound to be some test variance the 400/2.8VR's MTF at 30 lp/mm looks phenomenal- especially out at 21mm (Near the edge of the frame on a FF body, and .5mm off the edge of an APS-C sensor.)