D700 vs. D7000

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by vicki_williamson, Sep 5, 2011.

  1. Hi All,
    I'm in the process on buying a new camers. Please give the pros and cons for the D700 and D7000. I will be using it for sports mainly.
  2. what lenses do you already own?
    ^ Important question.
  3. bms


    In a prior post, you stated that you have a D50 and you are a beginner. I think you maybe better suited for the D7000- you can use DX lenses, have a longer reach for sports and unless you are "machine gunning" and need the D700 speeds (fps, buffer as well as write speed), you should be fine. If you do not have a long zoom, I would consider looking into the Nikkor 70-300VR, giving you a 105-450mm "full frame equivalent" lens. You also have 16 MP, which may give you a bit more room for cropping a picture.
    The D700 will give you an relatively outdated camera with pro built qualities, but anything longer than a 300mm will cost you, in addition to spending twice as much on the body, and you might have to buy new lenses, memory cards etc etc.The D700 takes great pictures, of course - I love mine - but unless you need full frame for another reason or need its sturdiness, I'd go with the D7000.
  4. In general, full frame for landscapes/architecture and crop bodies for sports/telephoto. So "sports mainly" equals D7000.
  5. +1 on the D7000 - the only limit that I have with it is that the buffer does fill fast when shooting raw, but seems to be better when shooting Jpeg fine or normal.
  6. Thanks guys for the input
    @ Benjamin... Thank you for breaking it down for me. I went into a camera shop to check out the D7000 and the sales person kept bringing up the D700. I got a littl e confused. That's why I like this forum. you guys take the time to explain. I will mainly be using it for sports. I am trying to take something I love to do and expand.
    Thanks again,
  7. Vicki - For the most part I'd agree with everyone who's said D7000, but I'll just check: which sports? If you're reasonably close and in poor lighting, the D700 may still be the better choice. If you want the far side of a well-lit sports field, the D7000 is probably better; if you're sitting behind the basketball hoop in a dimly-lit college hall, the the D700's low-light handling might be better, if you have the lenses to use it. There's no doubt the D700 is an elderly design now, though - I love mine, but I'd be nervous about buying one at full price when so many people are predicting a replacement soon (not that anyone who actually knows is saying anything, of course). Sorry to add confusion.
  8. Vicki.
    I agree with everything Benjamin said. Another thing to keep in mind is the age of the technology and the fact that some stores may be pushing some units that will be upgraded soon. My every day camera is now the 7000 and I love it.
  9. Vicki.
    I agree with everything Benjamin said. Another thing to keep in mind is the age of the technology and the fact that some stores may be pushing some units that will be upgraded soon. My every day camera is now the 7000 and I love it.
  10. Vicki.
    I agree with everything Benjamin said. Another thing to keep in mind is the age of the technology and the fact that some stores may be pushing some units that will be upgraded soon. My every day camera is now the 7000 and I love it.
  11. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    The D700 is a somewhat out of date FX-format DSLR. IMO Nikon should have replaced it a year ago. I am afraid that the sales person is pushing what benefits him rather than you. I would suggest shopping at a different store.
    Except for the fact that the D7000's memory buffer is shallow and does not quite have sufficient memory write speed onto the SD memory cards, the D7000 should be a fine sports camera. The memory buffer issue is a weakness when you compare the D7000 against the likes of D3S and D300S; it is still a huge improvement over the D50 you have. For amateur sports photography such as the "soccer mom" types, the D7000 is more than sufficient.
    If you have the budget for the D700, I would consider upgrading your lenses after you get the D7000. However, anything above the 70-300mm is going to be costly.
  12. If it where me and I was buying a camera to shoot sports with I would look at three different cameras. They would be D3s D300s tied with D700.
    To me doing what I do the robust build and dual card slots of the D3s and D300s are a big plus. Down side to the D3s is cost and full frame. Upside is better high ISO great AF and super fast processor.
    D300s same great AF system as D3s dual card slots rugged build and can be used with or without the optional battery pack. Downside is the hi ISO is not as good as the D3s
    D700 Plus side is less expensive full frame very good high ISO available battery pack.
    Down side? Full frame.
    Yes I consider the FX format to be a down side. For what I shoot I need reach not wide angle. I can get very usable results from my D300 and D300s all the way to the top of their ISO range. Sure I have to use noise reduction in post but it still looks light years better then film did at anything close to those ISO speeds.
    If you need a camera now buy a camera now. Don't wait till the next best thing is supposed to be coming out. And you can pretty much bet that it will cost more then what it is replacing
  13. For sports you really should at least consider a used D300. The autofocus and buffer are very good. The downside is image quality above ISO 1600 is not as good as D7000. If you are shooting indoor sports such as high school basketball/volleyball, the D7000 would have an edge. If you are shooting outdoors in daylight, the D300 would have an edge. You could buy a used D300 now and then resell when a D400 shows up, and then you would have both the higher ISO capability and the fast frames per second speed. Either camera will be a HUGE step forward from the D50. I agree that the salesman is trying to sell you something expensive you don't need, and actually won't work as well as what we're suggesting here.
    Kent in SD
  14. The D700/D300 autofocus is better suited to action photography... the extra stop or so of signal-to-noise ration is also helpful when you need short shutter speeds. The D700 finder is larger and brighter. The D700 is bigger and heavier. I seriously doubt the D700's (or the D300's for that matter) capabilities would hold back the progress of any photographer on this forum.
  15. There is still a considerable gap in price between the D7000 and D700, while the gap in capabilities is not that huge for the intended use (as Shun points out). If you have D70-money to spend, I would sure get a D7000 and a good lens (or 2).
  16. What type of sports? What lenses will you be using? What will the typical lighting conditions be? What size prints will you be making? These are all considerations
    Adding to William's list, the D700 can shoot at 8fps which is offers a faster frame rate over the d7000's 6fps.. While the D700's buffer is only a bit larger than that of the D7000, its ability to clear the buffer faster than the D7000 due to faster write times gives the D700 another advantage (although if you use the new ultra fast cards that are compatible with the D7000, the buffer clears reasonably quickly (such as SansDisk Extreme Pro). Keep in mind that this is really only a concern if you shoot RAW.
    If money is not an issue, I would go with the D700. If doing so will break the bank and not enable you to get the lenses you need, the D7000 would be a better choice. You won't be disappointed with either camera.
  17. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Vicki the OP asked a related question two weeks ago. Perhaps these quotes from that thread will help keep things in perspective:
    Hi All,
    I have a D50 and I want to upgrade. Which camera will be the best to upgrade too. I use my camera to take pictures of my son's youth football game. I'm am a beginner.
    Thanks for all inputs
    I have 18-55mm that came with the camera, 70-300mm AF Nikkor, & 50mm Nikkor. My price range is around $1000. I need more fps and more memory.​
    Unfortunately, a bad camera store/bad camera sales person is frequently unhelpful.
  18. I suggest to buy a used D300 or 300s which ll be damn cheap 700/800$. will perform better than D7000. After sometime it can be upgraded to any camera.
  19. I have a D700 and my son has a D7000. The D700 is a great camera, but it's HEAVY. I have not used either for sports, but I would recommend the 7000 for casual use, just because its lighter weight and smaller size will mean you will be more likely to grab it on the way out the door. If the D7000 is too rich for your blood, look for a good lightly used D300.
    One thing I suggested to him, buy good quality, full frame lenses. That way, you don't have to re-buy them if you decide to upgrade to full frame. He's been finding some good deals in pawn shops lately :)
  20. a d7000 would be a huge upgrade from d50 in every category. d700 is better sports camera but would require spending a lot of money on new glass. so go for the d7000 and dont look back.
  21. You can:
    shoot *only* in DX mode with a D7000.
    use CF or SD media in a D7000.
    will have a *lighter* camera with a D7000.
    With a D700 body, you can:
    shoot in DX mode or FX mode (making use of any and all DX Nikkor lenses, if you wish.)
    use only CF media.
    enjoy nearly grain free images at ISO 6400, making the use of a flash at sporting events 'nil if you have the glass to shoot available light with, i.e., a f2 or f2.8 lens.
    It is your money and your investment....
  22. Jerry:
    You can only use SD media with the d7000. At least that is the case with mine.

  23. The D7000 has major focusing issues. Its low light ability is way below the D700's.
  24. For historical reasons, the D7000 is not the camera I use for sports, but if I had to choose on TODAY, that is the one I'd get. Its performance is superb and most importantly autofocus is very fast. It locks and tracks moving subject quickly which is key for sports photography. I reviewed it here a few months ago: http://www.neocamera.com/camera/nikon/d7000/review
    As for the D700, it is a great camera too. What bugs me the most about it is the lack of the 100% coverage viewfinder, it simply drives me crazy! On the other hand, if you were to specialize in INDOOR sports, the D700 has the performance advantage when combining action and low-light due to its larger pixels.
    You will notice that specification-wise the newer D7000 leads the D700 in most respects, it even shoots a bit faster continuously: http://www.neocamera.com/camera_compare.php?model[]=11&model[]=243&compare=
    Good luck with your next purchase!
  25. My opinion, being an owner of a D700 and seeing comparisons on-line:
    1. D700 is still better at high ISO settings (I'll post on that in the next few days).
    2. D7000 is better value (IMHO).
    I think that 2. is more relevant for you. :)
  26. "The D7000 has major focusing issues. Its low light ability is way below the D700's. "
    Renato, based on my actual use of a D7000 since early this year, and comparing the results I get with it VS the D3 I have been using for the last 3 years, both these statements are simply not factual.
  27. I defer to Wade Thompson's opening question "What lenses do you already own?" (Important question)
    The pros and cons of the D700 v D7000 should be made with respect to the lens you intend to use. In short, the quality of the glass should match the quality of the body. A mismatch in either direction is not optimal (but it generally makes more sense to invest more money toward good glass).
    When statements are made about how good or bad either body works, the users who make them (such as Renato or Elliot) should qualify these statements in terms of the lenses that were fitted, what they were shooting and under what type of light (or better still, post a shot and state the EXIF data), along with any significant post processing (be it cropping, increasing contrast, noise reduction etc).
  28. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Again, please see my posted yesterday, September 6 at 9:56am above. Two weeks ago, Vicki the OP already told us that:
    • She shoots her son's youth football games.
    • She currently has a D50 with 18-55, 70-300 (did not specify which version) and 50mm lenses.
    • Her budget is about $1000.
    So unless her budget has somehow suddenly gone up 2.5 times, the D700 is totally out of question. Moreover, even though she can stretch to a $2500 body, without corresponding lens support, it is silly to spend so much money on a body lone.
    For someone who has been using a D50, the D7000 is already a huge upgrade.
    Concerning the D7000, I bought one as soon as it was available in November last year. Since then, I have gone one two international trips. My experience is that its AF is very good, just a bit below the top-of-the-line D3/D300's Multi-CAM 3500. A lot of the so called "AF problems" on the D7000 are simply user errors, as Thom Hogan points out.
    I captured the following image at a late night tennis match @ ISO 3200 on the D7000, with the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR II at 200mm, f2.8 and 1/500.
  29. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    This is the pixel level crop. AF is spot on. At ISO 3200, clearly the quality is not the best but still acceptable. I printed this image to 8.5x11 and it looks fine to me.
    It also shows that the 70-200 VR II is still excellent @ 200mm, f2.8 on the demanding 16MP D7000. If people have the budget, I would much rather invest on good lenses first.
  30. should qualify these statements in terms of the lenses that were fitted, what they were shooting and under what type of light
    I agree absolutely. Opinions on the high ISO image quality and autofocus performance expressed here vary widely. Rather than assume that one poster or another is wrong, what is likely behind these differences in findings is simply different conditions, different objectives, and different lenses used. I have to say that my experience leans towards agreeing with Renato's view (though I would not express it using as strong words). I've shot the following sports with it: 1) indoor figure skating (poor results vs. D3), 2) long-distance runners (here I have had to make amendments by resorting to shooting stopped down with both FX and DX), 3) WRC (the D7000 worked ok here thanks to the subject being a good fit for central cross-type AF points, which I normally can only rarely use, also the special stages I shot at were during broad daylight), 4) theatrical re-enactment of medieval knights tournaments (including horse racing; AF performance was decent but not great; got a lot of shots where the AF had found a more interesting detail to focus on in the background rather than the racing horse; of course this could be because I was trying to maintain focus on the rider's head instead of relying on just getting some part of the horse sharp which a lot of people seem to be satisfied with). Other subjects which require solid AF performance include indoor PhD defences (this requires the use of f/2 maximum apertures, subject is not moving much; D7000 did poorly in the AF department though best shots were excellent (lens: 200/2 AF-S)), street photography with long lenses (the D7000 performs ok with the 70-200II stopped down to f/4 here; at f/2.8 not so much; with the 200/2 + 2X TC the performance was poor, with 70-300 VR best results were good but a very low percentage of focus keepers), concert photography with a wide aperture (stopped down to f/4 good results consistently, at f/2.8 it is difficult but not impossible to get good results though there is a lot of variability in focus, and at f/2 even on a tripod the camera constantly jitters the lens (200/2 with no TC) in and out of focus, making it very difficult to get acceptable results though the sensor and lens themselves match well and produce good image quality). I am used to FX and the Multi-CAM 3500 on FX has the advantage that the portion of the whole frame on which an individual focus point is sensitive to, is smaller than on DX cameras, therefore I can pinpoint the focus on a face even though a whole horse is in the picture, something I cannot reliably do on the D7000. My conclusion was that the camera is too limiting in terms of the choice of optics, apertures, ISO settings and conditions which yield good results on a consistent basis. Other people shoot in a different way, and get different results but I want a certain visual look to the image and am not satisfied merely with getting a subject in focus (with lots of background clutter) at f/8. I maintain that the D7000 has a great sensor and I have high expectations for future cameras employing it or further developments of it. It remains a great option for telephoto photography for people on a budget but if the budget allows for a D700 and good lenses (i.e. 70-200 and 300/4 or better) then I would definitely get those rather than a D7000.
    As to the question of achieving sufficient reach, well, I find the 70-200 Mk II gives harsh bokeh in backgrounds when the subject is from tens of meters (or more) away from the camera. At short distances the bokeh is good. However, the use of a DX camera typically means you will use this lens on subjects that are further away, meaning that this adverse effect will be exhibited more commonly in the pictures. Sharpness is almost never a problem with this lens (well, too much sharpness might be, for portraits in hard light), but the backgrounds sometimes are. I think the 300/4, while it doesn't have quite the AF performance of the 70-200/2.8 or 300/2.8, gives nicer rendition of backgrounds and for someone possibly shooting subjects far away (as is often the case in sports that take place on a large field) this matter should be considered. To me the ability to cleanly separate the main subject from the clutter of other team members and render the latter as smoothly as possible without sharp edges, is important to high quality photography of distant subjects and that's one of the reasons why I've become very fond of the 200/2+TC20E III; while the central sharpness is not quite as good as you'd expect from a prime lens without TC, the sharpness is still very good even wide open, and the rendition of backgrounds is unbelievably beautiful. Someone concerned primarily with the sharpness of the main subject and not at all interested in how clean the rest of the image is, might not care about such things.
    Anyway, 300/4 + 70-200 (I or II), and D700 would be my preference. You can get the lenses second hand and maybe also the camera (though I would buy the camera new). The 70-200 Mk I is cheaper than the Mk II and offers better bokeh in long-distances (and also maybe better sharpness at f/4 at long distances); at close distances (any aperture), at f/2.8 (any distance), and in the FX corners the Mk II is sharper though. Mk II's autofocus is said by Nikon to be a better match for the D700/D3 series AF sensor. I can believe that though I always found both lenses to autofocus excellently.
    If you get the D7000, one version of the 70-200 or another is still something you will want. (80-200/2.8 AF-S should also be fine if you can get one of those.) Borrow or steal if you have to (seriously!) You can get much better results of the D7000 by choosing a lens which it mates well with and the 70-200 is among the best of them. The 70-300 VR is affordable, small, and convenient to use and gives decent image quality on the D7000 but the autofocus is not a good match with this camera and probably you will want to shoot in conditions where a 300mm f/5.6 that requires stopping down to f/8 to give clear images is too slow. Though certainly you can start with that. Remember: most of us start with very modest equipment and manage to obtain better equipment over several decades of commitment (and investment) to the hobby. You can get the 300/4 later if you want to.
    BTW the D700 is only 70% more expensive than the D7000 currently where I live and so this should not be a driving decision either way. If the 200mm reach is not sufficient for the OP on FX then a 1.4X TC on a 70-200 Mk II might be. (Mk I gives poor results on the 1.4X TC also, at least on DX.) I would not recommend the 2X TC on the 70-200II ... I have tried it and found the printed images muddy for a lack of a better word. Some have said they like it though. But then often you may run into the 70mm limit on DX ... at least I have, when the subjects are approaching close by I like the more dramatic and three-dimensional view of the short focal length (though you could argue it is not safe to use it). The D7000 is lighter weight ... which means you will take it with you more often and probably you'll be able to shoot longer stretches without fatigue. So there is no one camera that is the absolutely best choice in all respects. I guess they make so many different models for this reason. And as has been said, the D7000 will yield far, far better results than the D50. The improvement is certainly going to be a thrill in that respect. I made this post not to discourage you from buying the D7000 but because I felt some of the things said above exaggerate the D7000's merits vs. the D700.

Share This Page