I’ve decided (due to frustration) that I’m going to buy a new camera when I can get some cash together (so maybe wont be for 6 months or so) and I’m thinking of the d300 or d700.
Each has its own argument. The d700 has a full frame sensor which is nice but the d300 is cheaper which is also nice so I don’t know.
Has anyone has any experience with either of these cameras? What I’m particularly interested in is the ISO because right now the d40x just doesn’t cut it!
Bill Fonseca
Brett. The best way to make your own assessment is to jump on the Nikon website www.nikon.com.au and do a compare of these 2 camera’s. Everyone will have some sort of opinion here but I would be more incline to getting the D700 – If I were you. On the other hand it really depends on the type of photos you take the most. I’ll use me as an example. I shoot Weddings and Sports. So I need a fast and low light camera. So I got the D3. You might need to expand and use examples so people can give accurate responses.
Brett Still:
Hi Bill,
I mainly photograph landscapes and cityscapes and enjoy a lot of candid street photography. I also photography at events such as the Mardi Gras the other weekend and sports events.
I am on the look out for a new camera because my current camera, especially when I photograph events in low light, has too much noise and also because I find it a bit slow (but that may be a combination of lens and camera).
I have been looking on the web and some reviews say the d90 is as good as the d300. So I could get a d90 and a nice lens and some accessories for the price I would pay for a d700!
The question is though is it better to go for the best camera I can now or get a good package knowing I may upgrade again in the future. I think the d90 though would do me well for several years.