Dilemma: D700 or D7000?

<p>From a recent posting, some members may have noticed that I had just about committed myself to purchasing a D7000. However, after much thought, I am questioning whether that is the better buy.<br>

In addition to my m/f film equipment, I have a brace of F4s. The a/f lenses I mainly use are 24mm; 35-70 f2.8; 50mm f1.8; an "old" 70-210 f4 constant. Whilst the focus of some of these might be slow by modern standards, they suit my kind of photography and have never let me down in optical terms. I also have several manual lenses that I use, including 90 and 105mm Tamrons; Tamron 70-150 soft focus; Vivitar 90-180 close focus; Nikon 300mm f4.5 ifed.</p>

<p>I have a D70s that I use for "snaps", and it is that which I wish to upgrade for some serious digital work.</p>

<p>In the UK, a D7000 and D700 are around 1,100 and 1,700 gbp respectively. On the face of it, this is a significant difference. However, more careful scrutiny indicates that such might not be the case. If I were to buy a D7000, I would certainly need a quality lens of wider angle than my 24mm. In addition, I already have a spare battery and good cards that would fit the D700. These factors taken together, suggest the costs would be about the same.<br>

What other factors are there? Well, the D700 is much heavier, but I'm already used to the weight of my F4s. The D700 doesn't have video, but that is of no concern. The D700 may be replaced before too long, but it is also a better built camera of professional quality than the D7000. Perhaps more than anything else it is FX, and that would probably get the best out of my existing lenses, quite apart from the general advantage of frame size. One of my sons, who uses a different system - I can't remember the name but I think it begins with C, changed from DX to FX last year. He says it is inconceivable that he would change back.</p>

<p>I am now strongly inclined to the D700 in my particular circumstances. Do other members think there might be lack of logic to my thought processes or other major factors I have missed?</p>

<p>Mervyn</p>

<p>Mervyn, you hit all the important points, I am sure your decision will be the right one.</p>

<p>D700 sounds a much better choice, I'm sorely jealous :-)</p>

<p>Hi Mervyn.</p>

<p>What the D700 will give you is a little more depth of field control and possibly (but as yet unsubstantiated) more accurate metering than the D7000 and maybe a little more low light capability. You already have a good range of focal lengths covered at decently bright maximum apertures. Members of my camera club who made the switch from DX to the D700 (including the D90) would not go back to DX either. There's also the larger D700 viewfinder to consider which may also suit your circumstances.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I were to buy a D7000, I would certainly need a quality lens of wider angle than my 24mm. In addition, I already have a spare battery and good cards that would fit the D700. These factors taken together, suggest the costs would be about the same.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you get the D700, IMO you should get some new lenses anyway to take full advantage of the new camera. Is you spare battery EN-EL3e? The older EN-EL3 and EN-EL3a will not fit the D700. If you have old 1G, 2G CF cards, they will feel really small on the D700.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />The D700 may be replaced before too long, but it is also a better built camera of professional quality than the D7000.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not in my opinion. The D700, D300/D300S, and D7000 are all similarly built. The D700 is bigger and heavier while the D7000 is smaller and lighter. A heavier camera does not mean it is better built; it merely has more weight.</p>

<p>I have had a D700 for over 2 years; I just bought a D7000. I shoot both FX and DX to take full advantage of both formats. Since I mainly use DX for wildlife, I tend to shoot more DX in terms of number of frames captured.</p>

<p>I think you should consider this for the longer run. Most people upgrade their DSLRs every 2, 3, or 4 years. If you need to buy an extra DX wide zoom, that is a one-time deal and the lens can easily last you 10 years, if not longer. If you get the D700, it is not merely 1700 Pounds vs. 1100 this time. Every time you upgrade the body, you will pay the "FX premium" again and again. I, for one, do not see the FX price gap closing any time soon unless you only buy used DSLR bodies that are 4, 5+ years old.</p>

<p>The D7000 has HD video capture, live view that is easier to use, dual memory cards (but I personally prefer CF than SD; I think SD cards are fragile), and a 100% viewfinder. The D7000 also uses newer battery technology. The new EN-EL15 holds more charge and I really like the charger design.</p>

<p>There are not right or wrong approaches. I like both the D700 and D7000, as well as the D300/D300S.</p>

<p>I have used a D700 for two years, and recently lost it in an accident. While awaiting insurance adjustment, I went through the analysis your now in - replace the D700 or buy a D7000. The D7000 is, by all reports, excellent. And it is half the price of the D700. However, after some thought I am awaiting the arrival of a new D700 from B&H. I moved to digital from film, first with a D200. I was never comfortable with that format, especially since, at that time, wide angle lens were limited. I have loved the D700 and find that it does everything I want to do - and does it well. And, if Nikon releases a D700X or D800 tomorrow, so be it. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have a D70s that I use for "snaps", and it is that which I wish to upgrade for some serious digital work.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I mean mistracking CD, I mean corrupt MP3 file, the D70s is a perfectly competent camera that has been used by many (including me) for 'serious digital work'. Remember, the D70 can take any picture that the D700 or D7000 can take. (Well, not fast-moving sports or anything needing superfast autofocus, but your film bodies are no better in that respect.) What do you shoot?</p>

<p>I have both a D700 and an F4s. The D700 with an MB10 weight is withing a few ounces of the F4s. The biggest advantage of going with a D700 is that your F4s lenses will work perfectly with it and you will not have that DX crop factor to deal with.</p>

<p><em>If I were to buy a D7000, I would certainly need a quality lens of wider angle than my 24mm. In addition, I already have a spare battery and good cards that would fit the D700. These factors taken together, suggest the costs would be about the same.</em></p>

<p>not really. as shun says, moving to FX will cost more in the long run. the 24mm AF-D/2.8 isnt really known as a stellar digital performer, for one thing, and may not be as good optically on 16mp DX or 12mp FX as on a d70. so you may need to replace that regardless. down the line, if you upgrade to newer glass, better FX lenses will cost more than comparable DX lenses. also, you will need to buy larger-capacity cards regardless of your choice, as file sizes will be much larger, especially if you shoot RAW. the d70's battery is not compatible with d700, either.</p>

<p>so, either way, it's gonna cost you, but in the longer term DX may end up costing less. that's not to say a D700 isnt logical for you, just that you need to be realistic about the economic investment an FX moves necessitates, both now and in the future.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have had both the D700, 5D mark I and II, and now have the D7000 in addition to my D300 and D3100. For my needs, the D7000 fills all I need for now and for sometime into the future. IT is well built and is everything Shun says it is. IMHO, I agree with Shun 100% on his statements, even down to memory card preferences. I have never had a CF card fail back to my original 340Mb one, but have had two SD cards fail within 2 yrs. That doesn't mean I won't look at a D800 or D400, but the D700 is not going to give me anything I don't already have or better...YMMV</p>

<p>Unless you have a pressing need to shoot FX format, I'd buy the D7000 and spend the difference you save on a good lens. D700 is an old technology camera these days, and bound to be replaced by Nikon in the next few months. I'd hang on and wait for the replacement if you're convinced you need FX format. Otherwise, enjoy the D7000 and the good lens you'll buy with it (like the superb Nikon 16-85mm VR zoom).</p>

<p>If you want a large, bright viewfinder, fast, accurate AF and excellent high ISO performance, the D700 is the obvious choice. Although some consider the D700 an 'old technology camera', it gives better IQ under a wider range of adverse shooting conditions than most cameras on the market today, including the D7000.</p>

<p>This seems to be an umpteenth time repeat of D700 vs D7000, Dx vs Fx again. For the reasons that Elliot quotes above, go with the D700, but I will add that if you are a F4S person with those lenses, you will NOT be happy with DX format, and will regret it And whats with this "D700 is old technology camera" buisness ? Who says ............? So any camera that doesn't have video, is now 'old technology' ???</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If you want a large, bright viewfinder, fast, accurate AF and excellent high ISO performance, the D700 is the obvious choice. Although some consider the D700 an 'old technology camera', it gives better IQ under a wider range of adverse shooting conditions than most cameras on the market today, including the D7000.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Elliot, I wonder how much experience you have with the D7000 to make those comments? My experience is that the D7000's viewfinder and AF capability are on par with those on the D700. The D700 does have better high-ISO results.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I will add that if you are a F4S person with those lenses, you will NOT be happy with DX format, and will regret it And whats with this "D700 is old technology camera" buisness ? Who says ............? So any camera that doesn't have video, is now 'old technology' ???</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can't speak for the OP, but I certainly wouldn't be happy to use those old lenses the OP has on any DX DSLR. I also would be very unhappy to use those lenses on any FX DSLR. To me, it is silly to spend so much money on a high-end DSLR and put mostly old, low-end lenses on it. But for whatever reason, quite a few people on this forum favor that approach. (IMO the only decent lenses on the OP's list are the 50mm/f1.8 and 35-70mm/f2.8, whose limited zoom range is a major drawback.)</p>

<p>And I'll repeat what I have posted before: video is a "must have" feature on any future DSLR I am getting. I have just started that with the D7000. But that is me.</p>

 

<p>I'm in the exact some boat. I even own most of the same gear as you. I'm getting the D7000, with the rationale that I usually shoot 120mm film for my 'arty' stuff, and the only really important stuff I'll need to crank the ISO up for is sports, where a little extra noise isn't as big of a deal.</p>

<p>Since whatever I get is going to be my daily shooter, and the D7000 is lighter, cheaper, and more enjoyable to use, that's my call. If I wasn't also shooting film, it would have been worth the upgrade to the D700 for the larger sensor and better enlargements.</p>

<p>I was of course refering to his AF lenses, not the manual focus ones.</p>

<p>No question. D700....only buy a used one.....around $2k.<br>

Yes, it will be replaced, but you could wait forever if you are worried about obsolescence. And the D700 has heaps of resolution. Its a mini D3. <br>

I had a D300 and the DX thing gave me the irrits. I also have an F4s.....love it....And many of your lenses...all best used on FX. </p>

<p>Get the d700 you will be happy you did. I have tried the d7000 and it is fine, but after using the d700 its hard to be satisfied with DX.</p>

<p>I moved from a F100 straight to the D700. Why? I wanted a digital equivalent of the F100 and I believe the D700 is that camera. I did consider a D300 though. It is cheaper, has near equal capabilities, but still I decided to stay on FX format.</p>

<p>All reasoning considered, I believe that there is no decisive argument to choose for either camera. Both are excellent pieces of equipment. On the FX premium: In my opinion, money is of limited concern. Not that I have money in abundance, on the contrary, but I just save a little longer to get what I want.</p>

<p>If you are happy using the F4 range, the weight and feel of the D700 will be a factor to consider. Personally I couldn't care about video in my camera, but for you it just might open a whole new spectrum of use.</p>

<p>All I can state is that the D700 is performing way, way beyond my expectations!</p>

<p>a "full frame" sensor does not get the best out of a lens, it's quite the opposite. With a cropped sensor, you are putting all of those MP on the sweet spot of the lens (provided you aren't using a DX lens). </p>

<p><em>a "full frame" sensor does not get the best out of a lens, it's quite the opposite. With a cropped sensor, you are putting all of those MP on the sweet spot of the lens (provided you aren't using a DX lens).</em></p>

<p>Nice idea, but the sweet spot usually isn't sweet enough to compensate for the smaller area. And the light that enters the (FX) lens outside of the angle of view corresponding to the DX sensor will be bouncing around in the lens, causing additional flare and ghosting which will be recorded by the sensor. It's like having all the drawbacks of a wide angle lens but only getting a normal angle of view. This didn't really work for me. It is true that in some cases you get more even sharpness across the frame by using an oversize FX lens on a DX camera, but overall I find it's preferable to use FX lenses on FX cameras.</p>

<p>The real benefits of DX are in telephoto and macro work, where it is possible to use a smaller rig to see more detail of a distant object (or a very small one at some distance) if there is enough light. And of course in many cases it is possible to make a smaller & less expensive camera & lens for the smaller format.</p>

<p>maybe so, but i'd try to avoid the outer areas of retrofocus slr lenses if i could, if IQ was really important to me, which it isn't. my point was to not get hung up on the 24x36 sensors. budget is what usually gravitates people to small format slr's, so where should one draw the line. if IQ is what you are ultimately chasing, and you are shooting genres like landscape, then why would you choose an sfslr?</p>

<p>IMHO you will probably want to purchase a new wide angle lens with either body. I use a D700 with older AIS glass and am happy enough not to want to purchase newer, larger, heavier glass though the 24mm PC-E tempts sometimes. The D700 is large and heavy and I have thought about something lighter but since I already have the D700 I will suck it up and carry the weight for 30 plus miles over 2-4 days. The IQ of the D700 is good enough. I plan, hope to wear this one out first. Either body will probably work very well for you. Maybe it just gets down to price or more weight with a bit better ISO preformance or just what you are comfortable with. One reason I purchased a D700 was to get away from buying a new body every 18 months. I still feel that way.</p>

<p>Ty, your sensor is just like film. A larger sensor will yield greater resolution and tonal range as the image is (essentially) being magnified less, or it can yield the same resolution as a larger print. This is why people shot medium format for years, and why APS and 110 cameras made poor enlargements.</p>

<p>Again, not saying a larger sensor is a must-own. I'm a pretty picky guy, and I opted to go DX. Just saying that using the phrase, 'It's just a full frame sensor,' is like saying, 'It just has 500 horsepower.' You might be correct, but you're also sort of missing the point.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Ty, your sensor is just like film. A larger sensor will yield greater resolution and tonal range as the image is (essentially) being magnified less, or it can yield the same resolution as a larger print. This is why people shot medium format for years, and why APS and 110 cameras made poor enlargements.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Forgive me once again, but this is a <em>profound</em> misunderstanding. 12MP is 12MP. Once you get to the digital universe, things are measured in pixels, not inches or millimeters. Let's take my D70. It is a 6.1MP camera--2000x3000 pixels on 16x24mm sensor size. It will print 10x15 inches at 200 ppi. Now let's grab an old 6.1MP MF digital back. It has a physically larger sensor (say 30x45mm) but it will still print 10x15 inches at 200 ppi. Pixels are pixels. Now the pixel <em>density</em> of the D70 will be greater--more pixels/sq. mm. so the noise level will be greater, especially above base ISO, but the resolution is identical.</p>