I agree with the 17-35 (or even the 14-24) over the 24-70.. but that's really a personal choice.. it's only a matter of liking wide angle over normal and vice versa.
D700 vs. D300S + 24-70mm
(51 posts) (19 voices)-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
Niz: Well Reason I'm getting the 24-70 is because the following.
D300S
MB-D10
70-200mm f/2.8 VRII
24-70mm f/2.8For a total of $5,024.84
What kind of conditions is when a D700 will be obviously better than a D300S? Not in high profile concerts for sure. Other situations?
I will be shooting for a site that releases the photos, watermarked, to the world to view, later on compiles them into a big photobook and sells them. I get paid. :P
I might also do some free lancing or some kind of work for a Korean broadcasting corp.I'm still not sure if I really need the ISO 6400 clarity... But then on the other side I'm not sure if I need the 24-70... This is so confusing and stressful -.-;
I've been also pondering upon the new DX camera being released this summer. It will be a D90 replacement, but that means it wont be necessarily "better" than the D300S, right? That's my thought since D300S is more higly priced after all... unless Nikon plans to discontinue D300S early...
A part of me wants to wait for the D700 update before buying my camera but a bigger part of me wants to buy the camera asap... Big dilemma @_@Posted 2 years ago # -
I wish I had the problem of having to spend $6000. That really sucks to be you right now! ;-)
Posted 2 years ago # -
Lol jonnyapple. Well my true budget is $15000 but... I don't want to spend more than I need to. I could just give up and get a D3S and the two lenses but that'd be bad... very bad... especially for a beginning amateur like me... X-X
I'm trying to be smart and resourceful and spend least money for most value...
Posted 2 years ago # -
Had a look at the photos.. lol ! If you are going to be that far from the stage .. a 200mm on a DX wont be long enough !! I would go with a D700 and the new sigma 50-500 OS! The 50 - 500 is a good birding lens .. after all ;-)
Posted 2 years ago # -
Where are you finding those two lenses with the body and grip for that price, the 24-70 is $200 more then the 17-35?
Posted 2 years ago # -
soshigee said:
Lol jonnyapple. Well my true budget is $15000 but... I don't want to spend more than I need to. I could just give up and get a D3S and the two lenses but that'd be bad... very bad... especially for a beginning amateur like me... X-XI'm trying to be smart and resourceful and spend least money for most value...
you also said this the other day "I love image quality over anything else which is why I'm making a big jump from a D80."
If I had 15k right now I'd grab a new D700 and arm it with a 200mm f/2 like I mentioned before, a 50mm and a 85mm 1.4 and then save the rest for a killer MF setup. The IQ from the 200mm or a nice new Rolleiflex 2.8 would fulfill your love of image quality better than anything you've suggested so far. And you would still have thousands left if you shopped right.
Posted 2 years ago # -
if You have 15K and don't know what to do with it, get me a 600/4 - will even move my butt and fly to You to pick it up :) but seriously, if You are amateur You don't need d3 (x,s, whatever) os this camera will kill You (too much control is not the best solution when You start). get lenses first, decent body, and like I said before, get me the 600/4 :D
Posted 2 years ago # -
Niz: Adorama rebate.
Well, I don't want to spend over 5.3k... so it's one of the two kits that I mentioned :|
Will the 24-70 be good enough for everyday shots and still life?
Posted 2 years ago # -
I would say get the D700, But not geting either one of those lenses would be a shame. I would have to suggest going over budgit to get what you want. I found that the image quality of DX in higher ISO (past 1600) wasnt sharp enough. (i upgraded from a D90 to a D3)
I put a little list together on B&H to see the price..
D700+ 24-200 2.8 lenses 5,800$
Mb-D10- 250$
Nikon 50mm 1.4 AFS- 440
The total comes to 6400ish Give or take adding batteries filters and memory cards
In that case id be worth it going over budgit to get te FX IMHO.
Posted 2 years ago # -
and the 24-70 is worth every penny. Its an amazingly fast lens.
Posted 2 years ago # -
-
smarterchild said:
I would say get the D700, But not geting either one of those lenses would be a shame. I would have to suggest going over budgit to get what you want. I found that the image quality of DX in higher ISO (past 1600) wasnt sharp enough. (i upgraded from a D90 to a D3)I put a little list together on B&H to see the price..
D700+ 24-200 2.8 lenses 5,800$
Mb-D10- 250$
Nikon 50mm 1.4 AFS- 440
The total comes to 6400ish Give or take adding batteries filters and memory cards
In that case id be worth it going over budgit to get te FX IMHO.
Well on A dorama the D700 with 24-200 2 lenses is $5700. You said I get the 50mm f/1.4. Do I need the prime after I get the 24-70 mid range zoom? I was thinking I wouldn't need it since the 24-70mm is good enough for everything else I shoot.
Well, it seems I should just get the full frame. But since the new FX camera is being released, I think I should wait for that... although it'll cost me more -.-; is the update worth the extra $1000 dollars? Since I get an almost 1000 dollar rebate with the D700 right now.
Rather, I think the smarter choice here is to get the D300S with the two lenses and batt pack, and with the cropped sensor I can get more reach when shooting concert at ISO 1600. Then when the FX camerae is released and it becomes a little cheaper maybe in early 2011 I should get that as my primary and use the D300S as secondary. I am going to minor in photo in college. Of course this is all assuming that the new DX ccamera / D90 replacement will be "lesser" than a D300S..................
Posted 2 years ago # -
soshigee I'm located in Korea as well. Have you been to Namdaemun yet? I got my D700 there last Christmas for an insane price. Some people don't like this area but I have a lot of contacts here who might be able to help you out. Some fellow shooters at my job can help as well and most are bilingual.
Posted 2 years ago # -
soshigee - this is why Nikon dumps products during the rebate season. . .it's been going on in some form since March! They can get their remaining inventory Out The Door and you're getting it at a great price!
You will have to probably spend an additional $1500 with the new D700/D800/D900-whatever replacement since there won't be a rebate for it. . .and the rebate probably won't happen for awhile.
I personally think if your existing needs require it, you should get it, and not look back. . .realistically, you're getting a lot of top-line equipment for $5k!
Posted 2 years ago # -
The 50 isnt necessary but i thought i saw a post from you that you were interested in that lens. It does add some characteristic to owning that lens even though you have the 24-70 end covered. the 1.4 is dreamy.
The D300s will be great for you and so will the D700. Both are good cameras. The d700 is going to be better with ISO and clarity, But being a starter itll be fine.
Every body has to start out some where :).
But You wont be sorry if you spend the extra 400ish for the D700 + 2 lenses
Posted 2 years ago # -
Well, actually I have to pay approx. $1000 more for D700.
Does the 1.4 prime make a big difference compared to the 24-70 2.8?
I don't think I'll be spending 400 more for this prime though.Well, a new FX is coming out anyway so IMO I think, since the new DX probably won't be better than a D300S, unless someone thinks otherwise, please tell me now, I should get the D300S and wait until the next FX releases and decide if I should get a second body then or wait until that body price drops.
It's basically agreed that the new DX will be a D90 replacement which means it won't be more expensive or better specs than a D300S, am I right? (Although the two barely have any difference)...
Posted 2 years ago # -
Well, if you get a D300s I don't think you'll be disappointed. But why doesn't the D90 work for you? If you're going to be upgrading to FX eventually, anyway, why not save money now on your (future) backup camera by getting one that costs half as much and takes the same pictures?
I still think the next DX upgrade could replace the D300s and D90 simultaneously with a kind of cross between the two. People talk about how old the D90 is, but really the D300 is older and due for a replacement first. The 's' update was minor. If that happened, it would make room for an enthusiast FX camera in the line priced just above that new flagship DX model.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Well, right now, it's because of pricing.
A d90 doesn't have rebates with the 24-70 and 70-200. So if I bought a d90 and the two lenses separately, it costs the same as getting the d300s package with the 2 lenses because of the 1000 dollar rebate.
I just think, D300s is priced higher than what a d90 replacement could be set as. Which is why I suspect it wouldn't be necessarily better than a D300s in terms of AF points and the other differences from a D90. Maybe it could have more megapixels?
I want to buy the kit now because of rebates. Ofcourse if I could I would buy the newly released versions of everything but there would be no rebates and the two lenses by themselves cost around $4000.
I'm going to have to take a chance, unless someone really convinces me that these two new models will blow me away.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Oh, that makes complete sense, then. Sorry I didn't understand that. I'd go with the D300s, then. No one knows what the new models will have. If it's a phenomenal difference and you decide you need to upgrade, there will still be people willing to pay for the older models, so it's not as if you're wasting the money. Think of the rebates as your insurance against an irresistible update. ;-)
Besides, think of the pictures you're missing while you try to decide...Posted 2 years ago # -
Especially my high school graduation which is in a week... I need to do over night shipping X.X lol..
Still can't d ecide if 24-70mm is really really worth it... -hits head-Posted 2 years ago # -
I have been looking over the two myself for awhile. The d700 just seems to be such a better camera in low light at higher iso's it really is hard to turn away from.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I have a D700 and a D300s. The only time i use the d300s is for field sports where my 300 2.8 becomes a 450 2.8 and for birds and small animals with a tc-20eIII where my 300 2.8 goes from a 600 5.6 (f/8 is sharp) to a 900 5.6. 900 at f/8 has a shallow DOF.
the rest of the time it is D700 no question.
the d700 is sooooooooo much better than the d300s.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Hi Gareth,
"the d700 is sooooooooo much better than the d300s."
I tell myself that at my age and with my age appropriate tremors, I will only use smaller and lighter cameras, but when I see such comments, my gear lust grows...
Just on more thing to control. ;-)
My best,
Mike
Posted 2 years ago # -
Mike Gunter said:
Hi Gareth,"the d700 is sooooooooo much better than the d300s."
I tell myself that at my age and with my age appropriate tremors, I will only use smaller and lighter cameras, but when I see such comments, my gear lust grows...
Just on more thing to control. ;-)
My best,
Mike
I've just learned to control it, Mike. I originally found Nikon Rumors watching for a D700 replacement, and now I don't even want one enough to budget for one.
Posted 2 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
