I said it already
D700 is the best all around camera on a market at this stage, that if you can afford it and willing to sell all the DX glass that you might have....

Jest received my D700 - very impressed so far. Very good quality! Impressive ISO! Nice button layout. Nice performance. Great viewfinder!

Tough question. I have a lot of fun with the D300 at the tele and macro ends but when it comes down to it those aren't the areas where I get hired to shoot pictures. The D700 is absolutely amazing and I can't live without the ISO performance. Not to mention 200mm on a crop sensor is too much for a portrait.

AaronFoto - Ok now here is the BIG question -- which one do you love the most? I mean - the one you could not live without, and if you had to make a choice, which one would you keep??

I have both of these cameras. At the lowest ISO's the pics will be virtually indistinguishable in quality. However, they separate in noise and quality pretty quickly as the ISO goes up. Both great cameras but the D300 just can't compete in low light.

Thanks for the replies everyone, Ive decided to just wait another month or so
to see if the D400 unicorn comes out.

The D700 seems like a great camera but since I shoot every once
in a while, it would be such a waste of money to have it sitting around.
Instead new iMac here I come~

cheers.

If you have 70-300 VR and you could afford D700 and you are after landscapes, flowers and wildlife no DX camera could match this combination. What your dealer was trying to say is that FX is less dependable on lens resolution, and that is actually true because of the larger pixel size. Not to mention faster speed and lower noise. And if you have something wider to add to this like 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 IF-ED AF-S you would have a great set.

"warprints is right, when You like outdoor/nature photography than d300 is a better choice for You. Sure You can use d700 in dx mode, but than You only get 6mpx (probably rather prefer to buy d40 and a nice lens :)) adding to this the fact that in wildlife photography You crop a lot, d700 in dx mode will give You around 3mpx pictures (after cropping) and that's just not enough. With d300 You will have the reach and the fact that after cropping You still gonna have around 6-7Mpx - enough for a decent A3 print (after good post processing skill)"

The world is ending, I agree with adamz again! lol

Seriously, if you do a lot of wildlife stuff, the D300 would be the better choice.

For wild life, I guess a lot of it depends on if your subject is moving or not. For stationary objects, I'd prefer the D300 hands down as it gives me more range and shutters speed isn't an issue. Provided I could get close enough, however, I'd prefer to have the D700 as you can shoot noise free at higher ISO's and thus achieve faster shutter speeds.

Like most things, its kind of a trade-off. If the D700 had just a few more MP's, enough to get a 6mp crop, I'd go with a D700 for the best of both worlds in DX Crop mode. 6mp is about what I find necessarry for most shouts.

What 16-55 DX lens do you have?

Which FX lenses do you have?

warprints.. sorry about the confusion. I meant Non-FX as in.. compared to my D80.

Matstar ..I enjoy shooting outdoor natuer.. landscapes flowers etc. wildlife if there
I have the reach with my 70-300mmVR.

tai...i never considered the importance of the viewfinder coverage until this post.
thanks for sharing.

Looks like I will wait a bit longer for the D400. HOPEFULLY it will be out soon.
If Nikon is reading..Release it already!

Thanks for the input guys!

autoyota - you said your want to shoot outdoor/nature - does that mean want to shoot wildlife (eg. birds in flight) or landscapes or even macro (eg. flowers, insects, etc..)?

...or everything outdoors?

warprints is right, when You like outdoor/nature photography than d300 is a better choice for You. Sure You can use d700 in dx mode, but than You only get 6mpx (probably rather prefer to buy d40 and a nice lens :)) adding to this the fact that in wildlife photography You crop a lot, d700 in dx mode will give You around 3mpx pictures (after cropping) and that's just not enough. With d300 You will have the reach and the fact that after cropping You still gonna have around 6-7Mpx - enough for a decent A3 print (after good post processing skill)

Whoa - that's a new one for me. How does an FX camera have a non-FX sensor? I don't understand.
And Matstar, I know that it depends on the lens, not the body. But if I'm doing wildlife photography, and I have to hike 5 miles to get to my wilderness site, I'd rather lug a D300 with a 300 f/2.8 and TC1.4 to get a 630mm equiv lens, rather than lug a D700 with a 400 f/2.8 with a TC1.4 that results in only a 560mm equiv. Also, for many people, cost is a consideration. The D300 outfit is considerably less expensive. (I'm not saying that my way is the right way - it's just what I think.)

thanks for the replies. I usually shoot outdoor/nature photography as a weekend
photographer type of guy.

a local dealer claimed that the d700 is clearer since it is a non-FX sensor meaning
bigger pixels and ultimately better picture. As for the D400, I wonder about that
and if it will be announced in the next upcoming months.

It seems that Nikon releases there pro bodies in the autumn ?

what to do what to do?

Thanks tai, I'd have to agree - especially when you are wearing glasses. Yes the prism is a very good size.

The coverage is nice on the D300, but to me absolute size of the viewfinder is extremely important. It gives me a better sense of the composition to see it at a larger size, and helps with focus, though digital full frame models could certainly use higher magnification like they used to have on film. I can understand why someone would prefer the 100% coverage and have no argument with you if you do, but to me it is less important.

tai, the D700 viewfinder LCD does look much more impressive, but how is it better than the D300 which has 100% coverage?

True, matstar, but the FX will net you larger photosites at the same resolution, or alternatively higher resolution with the same size photosites, giving you less noise and better high ISO performance, plus you get a much nicer viewfinder on FX. So if you don't need the extra reach and can afford the extra cost, I'd definitely go with the FX.

It all depends on the lens - not the body, that determins the angle of view. Clearly there are lenses that are purpose built to make the DX very wide - in fact Nikon just release their widest DX lens ever! The FX will give you a wider angle of view than the DX, but seriously, 10mm on a DX is ultra-wide enough. The D700 also enables you to shoot in DX mode which will increase the lens reach by 1.5x - which is a digital zoom that drops half the resolution.

Adamz is right. The camera's really speak to different types of photography. The D300 is a DX camera with a 1.5 lens factor - great for sports, nature and other situations that benefit from "longer" lenses. The D700 is an FX camera. Better for portraits, landscapes, architecture - where wider lenses usually rule.

what kind of photography You prefer? as both bodies are on semi-pro level, d700 is great for portraits/landscape and d300 great when You need range

The D300 is a superb body but if you are going to use the camera extensively and can afford it - go for the D700.

Another thing to consider is a *HOT* rumor of a D300 replacement happening very soon! (maybe as early as next month or two?? or closer to August/September??)

Nikon sales are up lately ie. more body sales = more lens sales = more net profit for Nikon! Which means we should expect more price drops soon as newer models are rushed to market!

Thoughts on either? I am looking for a replacement for my D80. I only have a 16-55mm DX lens, the rest
are the full frame format?

has anyone compared the two?