D300 vs. D700: weight considerations

[Rob-F]

I'm using a D300. I've been so happy with it, once I got over the rather heavy weight, that I'm thinking of adding a D700. But the D700 weighs even more! Even so, it might make sense, because the 15mm wide-angle lens I have to use to make up for the crop factor is not so light, either. Neither are the monster zooms. I had a 20-35/2.8 and got rid of it on account of the weight it added to the already heavy D300.

I'm just thinking that if I used the D700 with a lightweight 20mm AF-d or 24mm AF-D (I already have the latter), the light weight of the lens could justify the added weight of the D-700.

Or should I just stick with the D300? The 15/3.5 is the only really heavy wide-angle lens I use. With longer focal lengths, using a D700 will just make it heavier, not lighter. But I'm a wide-angle guy, so the crop factor does limit me.

Just thinking out loud. Has anyone else been worrying about this trade-off decision?

 

[semordnilap]

I don't like heavy cameras, so for slr I have a d7000. Obviously the IQ won't be the same, but it's pretty great.

One lens I've been thinking about is the Tokina 11-16/2.8, which is a DX lens that gets you pretty wide. So there's an option for staying smaller and wide. I'm guessing the tokina is not too light, but that's to be expected, and I'm sure that aspect is better than the equivalent in FX land.

 

[willie_901]

I own both bodies. The D700 really is noticeably heavier (and larger too).

For gigs (interior photography) I always use a tripod and the 17-35/2.8 zoom. This would be too heavy to carry around with a neck strap. Otherwise I use primes on the D700. I've used the 85/1.8 AF-D, 85/1.4 G, 50/1.8 AF-S, 50/1.4 G, a 35/2 AIS, 28/2.8 AI, 24/2.8 AIS, 20/2.8 AIS and 105/2.5 AI. With the exception of the 105/2.5, the lighter weight of the prime lenses does make difference. I shot an outdoor dance festival and two weddings and was not bothered by the extra weight of the D700. Well, that's not true. For the wedding ceremonies I used the 70-200/2.8 VR-II and that was really uncomfortable. But the primes are really workable for a long period of time (3 + hours).

The D300 is my back up camera for work. When the D700's replacement becomes available I plan to sell the D300 and buy a high-mileage used D700 for a back up. The D700 sensor is significantly better than the D300's. I'm not just talking about high ISO performance. The dynamic range is better and the D700 tolerates overexposure better too (much less purple fringing). I prefer the D700 RAW files over the D300's.

If you are a wide-angle shooter you will really enjoy the FX format. I got the D700 because my average focal length for gigs is 20-22 mm (FX). The in-camera level on the D700 is very useful as well. Besides weight and size, the only thing the D300 has over the D700 is it's 100% finder. I miss that on the D700, but not enough to spend the extra $$$ on a D3.

 

[Keith]

I use my D700 for shooting gallery openings that normally last a couple of hours. I choose to walk around with the camera in hand rather than using a strap of any type and the lens I use exclusively for these gigs is the 35mm ZF Distagon which is a fair lump for a 35mm prime. The ergonomics of the camera are so good that I find this to be no problem whereas the weight of the camera and lens hanging off a strap would bother me quickly.

I have considered a wrist strap to negate the slight risk of being bumped and dropping the camera while working but so far haven't bothered.

I couldn't go back to a crop camera after having had the D700 for six months now ... the extra weight is a minor price to pay for the image quality IMO.

 

[Rico]

Sad to say, but WA coverage on a cropper DSLR is best solved with a zoom (thank you Canikon). I paired the 17-55/2.8 with my D300 and, other than being a heavy mofo, makes a perfect P&S. For walkabout, the weight problem was solved by adding a D3000 and its remarkable 18-55 kit zoom. The FF D700 is a breakthrough product, but doesn't bring enough benefit for its upfront bulk IMO. I enjoy digital FF with an old Canon 1Ds, but this one doesn't leave the studio. Out and about, 135 film still wins if I want that look.

 

[tbarker13]

I sold my D300 to move to the D700. Best decision I've made.
The low-light ability of the D700 is just fantastic. I have no qualms about using it at ISO 3200.
Of course the weight is the downside. Particularly when you consider that I shoot it with either a 24-70/2.8 or 70-200/2.8. It's just plain ol heavy.

Of course, only you know how much weight is too much for you to carry. For me, the downside is that I only carry it when I know I'm going to use it. But I felt the same way about the D300 as well.

 

[hans voralberg]

The extra weight is negligible, just go for it, a world of difference

 

[italy74]

+1 about extra weight negligible. D700 has a great hand grip.
I know a Zeiss Ikon with Biogon 21 F/4.5 is much lighter for w.a. shots, but of course you didn't want to talk about that, right ? 😉

 

[jaredangle]

I use my D700 in the studio and it's a godsend. Yes, it weighs a little more than the D300, but I'd consider the weight to be negligible, especially if you're using the plastic primes like the 20mm f/2.8 or the 85mm f/1.8

It's great for walk-around with a proper strap or handgrip, and the files it produces are simply beautiful, from the minute they hit the sensor all the way to an 11x14 print.