No - the low light is where the difference is made I think - the D700 is incredible in low light, even better than the D300 - I think I am selling myself on the D700 again - but I wonder how long until the upgrade comes out? And then I'll want that too...

I still think the idea I had, getting the D300 now and getting a full frame upgrade on the D700 when that comes out in a year or so may be best - as Karl still wants a DX camera too - so he wants the D300 when I get full frame...

Back to the original idea... don't think I'll ever decide, until I actually *do* it though!

Thanks for the input though guys!

xx

LOL, yes!! Sometimes there's no substitute for talent, I've seen some amazing shots taken on D40's, for example. Owning the best camera in the world won't make you a better photographer, better to rely on perseverance, natural talent and good old practice!

The imaging system of the D700 is pretty much that of the D3. The D300 isn't as capable as a D700 in low liight. It depends I guess on what your expectations are and what you consider low light. I guess low light capability for some people is having hand held shutter speeds in church interiors at ISO 3200 or 6400 maybe for a wedding. Low light on the other hand for someone else may be 1 second on a tripod at ISO 400. General concensus seems to be that D700 is a lot better at high ISO and smoother, more vibrant images generally but often indistinguishable from a D300 in many situations. I shot some pics on a D700 against my D300 on the street a week back in fuill daylight and I was underwhelmed. I thought my 300 was better but was only looking on the LCD.

A good point made BC. As I said, when I mean low light, I mean where currently with the D80 I'm shooting at ISO 1600 minimum and it's horrendous!!! I've been asked to do a fair few very low light shoots, and the D80 just cannot cut it. I suspect the D300 may be able to - but it would be unlikely to have the quality of the D700 in that regard.

The point I need to stress here I suppose is that I am wanting a DX upgrade on the D80 (mainly for Karl to use) and a full fram camera that performs exceptionally well in very low light situations. I was very interested in the D3X for a while (my bank balance was far less interested ) - but from the reading I've done it doesn't perform well at low light, so is less viable anyway. So far the D3 and the D700 are the only cameras that seem to perform suitably for the conditions I shoot in.

For ordinary stuff I don't suppose there'd be much difference at all - it's mostly for music and portraiture. The music one especially, the musicians I shoot hate the flash (And anyway it can ruin a shot).

xx

Really check this out Laura re low noise on a D300. Basically don't believe the hype. There is no doubt it is better and was groundbreaking when it arrived and probably is the best there is in DX. However I have used it in very low light with lots of black in shadow, and in a lab at work under specialist light sources and found it quite grainy at 1600 and 3200. It's not perfect but will be better and may exhibit less noise on less specialised images that I take. The D700 is what you want but if the D300 serves it's purpose or has to satisfy a bank balance that's fine.

It's OK - I never thought the D300 was anything like as good as the D700 on noise in low light - It was always the D700 I was after for that purpose - but certainly, the D300 is better for higher ISO shots when you're talking wildlife - better for good sharp bird shots, especially with a lens as rubbish as the Bigma can be in poor light!

I think definitely the D300 is the way to go for now, and then the upgrade onthe D700 when it comes out - so that I can get stuck in to the music photography and portraiture. Though the D300 is fine for portraiture as a stop-gap.

xx

Yup, that's what I was getting at (I only read reviews in Wildlife Photography magazines as, to be honest, not a lot else interests me photography wise!).

I was getting really frustrated with the Bigma performance until I got the D300, now I really like the lens! If Karl is wanting a camera specifically for wildlife stuff (which I know is an interest of his), then it's definitely the best option....no need to spend more really.

This was my thinking. It's an interest of mine too - but it's Karl's only real interest with photography!

It does make a big difference to wildlife stuff - especially using the Bigma, as I said. I could see worlds of difference in the images when I was visiting you in March, and we were in the same place, same distance from subject, same lens...

Have you any of your spoonbill photos about to show as an example? I could post one of mine (for giggles eh? ) and we can see the difference I meant.

xx

Laura you mention about the D700 and low light, what you also have to consider is the lens. For example D700 with a f3.5-5.6 is going to be far worse than a D300 with a f1.4 lens. You would have to crank up the ISO considerably to achieve the same light onto the sensor with the D700 combo, then you will hit the noise barrier.

Bazza

Obviously. Hence wanting the main combo I work with for such things to eb the D700 and F1.4 50mm.

xx