Nikon D300 or D700

Ok I cannot decide which camera to get, the D700 is really pricey but I think it would be the best for my wedding photography. Or would a D300 be just as good with the right lenses?

Ok, I'll take a stab at the question. The answer is that it all depends on a number of factors.

The D300s is a DX sensor camera, so the image sensor is not full frame. If you have a Nikon system with DX lens you'll probaly want this camera. Although you can use the D700 with DX lens, you lose resolution. The smaller sensor is an advantage if you need extra "reach" with telephoto lens. For instance if you use a 70-200mm lens, this really is more like a 110-320mm lens since there is a magnification factor. The camera itself also has video which really isn't all that great, but can substitute for a camcorder in a pinch, but it is really a compromise. I have the D300s and the image quality is great. Under normal circumstances and controlling variables (if possible) if you put a D300s & D700 image side by side and take an image and study them, you'd be hard pressed to see a major difference. The larger sensor of the D700 has the advantage of better S/N ratio and larger pixels but unless you really look, it is my opinion the two will look pretty similar.

Now for the D700, it has the FX or full size sensor, plus the low light ability of this camera and the D3 is incredible. If you value low light photography, it is the hands down winner. For things like sports, it may not be the best solution. For wedding photography it is highly desirable, but as always, the camera is only a tool and the quality of the images depends more on the guy/gal behind the camera. I personally am looking for th D700 successor and will probably move towards one from my D300, this is specifically for the High ISO performance.

So the answer is for you to decide with some of the above considerations. Bottom line: low light and price no object, get the D700. If you are looking for a great camera and don't expect to shoot in the dark, get the D300.

Not to confuse things, but you should also look at the new D7000. It just isn't built like a tank like the Dx00 series of semi-pro cameras of Nikon.

Hope this helps!

Great advise from Roverrich. I would ad the following:

If you decide on the D700, the next step is the FX bag of lenses. Be prepared to laid out some serious coin.

Roverrich wrote: If you value low light photography, it is the hands down winner. For things like sports, it may not be the best solution.

I shoot both the D700 and the D300, and for the reasons Roverrich stated very well above, both have their strengths. I would disagree with this statement above, however. I use the D700 almost exclusively for indoor sports due to the ability to get the shot in low-light situations that I can't get with my D300.

D700|Tamron 28-75mmf/2.8

The frame rate is not that of the D3/D3s, but neither is the price tag! The D300 is virtually unusable at anything above ISO 1600, while I get usable photos at ISO's up to 6400 on the D700 routinely, and even up to ISO 10000 (!). I lust for a D3s with usable ISO's above 25,000! "To infinity- AND BEYOND!"

D300|Nikkor 300mm f/2.8

The D700 shines in wedding situations also where you're not allowed to use flash, again situations with the D300 where you're forced to use post processing procedures to get a marginally useful shot. Is the D300 a great camera? Oh yeah! For outdoor sports and aviation shots I slap the 300mm f/2.8 on that baby with a 2.0 TC and get sterling results with it - the crop factor really makes a difference. But for indoor shots and architectural/landscape shots - it's the D700 all the way.

D300|Nikkor 300mm f/2.8|TC2.0-IIE

I went to the D300 from the D80 for - drum roll please - the better low light performance it had over the D80. And I went to the D700 for the same reason. . . and I'll go someday to the D3s for the same reason.

Sierra Hotel wrote:

Roverrich wrote: If you value low light photography, it is the hands down winner. For things like sports, it may not be the best solution.

I shoot both the D700 and the D300, and for the reasons Roverrich stated very well above, both have their strengths. I would disagree with this statement above, however. I use the D700 almost exclusively for indoor sports due to the ability to get the shot in low-light situations that I can't get with my D300.

.

Ah ha said the blind man to the deaf man! I stand corrected! My kids play primarily outdoor sports and hence my statement. For indoor sports with poor lighting, I agree with the D700. Gee now if I convince my kids to play more basketball, I can convince my wife to let me get a D700. Great idea thanks!!

Great photo of the jet!!

I currently have a D300 and hope to save up some cash to pick up a D700 and make my D300 my "spare", but realistically I'm about a year away from that happening.

Great advice so far from everyone. If weddings are going to be your endeavor, I'd shell out the extra money for the D700. The extra resolution and low noise from the full frame sensor will be a life saver in times when you either can't use flash, or you want to catch ambient low light in indoor environments using higher ISO.

Something to consider:
A D700 with a run of the mill 28-300mm f3.5-5.6 VR lens retails for about $3000.

Lets suppose you wanted to get the D300 with a comparable zoom range in better glass.
A D300 with 24-70mm f2.8 and 80-200 f2.8 retails for about $4000.

Even though the D300 will have better glass, you're shelling out crazy bucks for just a few f-stops wider. Sure, you'll compensate with twice the ISO on the D700 and it's lesser lens. BUT the D700 will still give you better results because it's full frame sensor can resolve more detail with lower noise.

These days glass isn't everything....

Yasko wrote: These days glass isn't everything....

Yasko has a good recommendation, but I'd add to his statement above - "These days glass isn't everything, but if you buy good glass today for the D300 or D700, it will still be good glass when you're shooting the D400/500/600 etc."

Bodies are becoming throw away commodities (look at the advancements from the D1 through the D3x). Today's top of the line D3x that sells ~$8,000 will be selling for $2,500 in two years, and less than $1,000 in five years. You can buy a used D2X today for just about $1,000. It doesn't measure up in many categories to the best professional and pro-sumer bodies out there, but it was the best camera in its' class in its day. If you had purchased the D2X back in 2005 when it first came out, along with the best glass that Nikon had to offer, say the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR G, along with the 35-70mm f/2.8, today you would still have outstanding glass with a body that is very long in the tooth, and would be looking to update the body (if you hadn't already done so). But your glass would still be worth a lot, and still useful with the new camera body (thank you Nikon).

My thoughts are get the best glass you can afford, and get a good body - you'll be swapping that out every couple of years.

Great point Sierra, my really good lenses have gone through a few camera bodies, and I'd rather lose the camera than the really nice glass. As soon as your weddings start paying for themselves, start getting that really nice glass!