Is Nikon D700 better than Nikon D300s? Why?
Is Nikon D700 better than Nikon D300s? Why?
Exactly 400 more D's. Check the specs. You'll see why.
The D700 is a professional level DSLR camera. If you do not know this, then you should not be buying one…
Better is a subjective term but both are generally regarded as professional cameras and commonly used as such. The primary differences are that the D700 is a full-frame DSLR whereas the D300s offers video recording capability and is an APS-C format DSLR with a sensor roughly half the size of that used in the D700. Their control layouts and autofocus systems are identical with the acception of the minor changes made to the D300s to support video recording.
So which is best? Again, it's subjective and depends on what you need out of the camera. In general, one could argue that full-frame is always better and there's truth to this with regard to image quality. But, if you shoot a lot of sports with telephoto lenses, the 1.5x crop factor of the D300s' APS-C sensor actually becomes an advantage over the D700. Conversely, the full-frame sensor of the D700 means larger pixels and a higher signal to noise ratio that means cleaner and more detailed images at high ISO as well as a wider field of view at any given focal length. So if you shoot in low-light (weddings and museums) or like shooting ultra-wide angles for landscapes or architecture, the D700 is a better choice.
It should be noted that with lens choices available today, it is actually very difficult for anyone other than a professional photographer or committed enthusiats to justify the higher cost of the D700. Wide-angle lenses used to be one of the big advantages of fill-frame cameras but, there are now several lenses that largely negate this issue now. Notable examples for APS-C format cameras include Nikon's own AF-S DX NIKKOR 10-24MM F/3.5-4.5G ED zoom, Sigma's 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 DC HSM zoom, and Tokina's AT-X 116 PRO DX 11-16mm f/2.8 zoom lens. Combined with the crop-factor advantage at the opposite end of the focal length spectrum and there's a solid argument that few people need a full-frame camera.
While I'm a Canon shooter, I've spent a good deal of time working with both the D700 and D300/D300s. Most people will be hard pressed to see a difference in image quality under most circumstances. In low light, shooting at ISO 1600 or higher, the D300s is about 1-stop behind the D700 in terms of noise. I would argue that for anyone but a pro or committed amateur with money to burn, the difference isn't significant enough to justify the higher cost of the D700. Others may disagree. It might be helpful if you saw the same scense shot with each camera under identical conditions to make your own decision. To that end, check out the following links:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
http://www.dpreview.com/...review.com
http://www.cameralabs.com
Simple. It uses a larger sensor, which means better image quality in low light. When you attach a battery grip to the D700, it's shooting speed becomes faster than the D300s as well. The downside is that the D700 doesn't shoot video, while the D300s does. I doubt any of these (except for video) would matter to anyone except for professionals.
I personally prefer Nikon D300s 12.3 MP CMOS Digital SLR Camera which is really good.
*12.3-megapixel CMOS image sensor for high resolution, low-noise images3
*Includes AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II lens
*Nikon EXPEED image processing; D-Movie HD Video for cinematic 24 fps, 720p HD movie clips
*3-inch Super-density 920, 000-dot VGA LCD; one-button Live View
*Capture images to SD/SDHC memory cards (not included)