Nikon d700 or d7000?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by monet_talty, Sep 18, 2010.

  1. Photography has primarily been a hobby for me, but lately I have had more requests to do weddings and portrait photography, so I decided I wanted to upgrade to Nikon d700 and then the D7000 is announced. Now I realize they are in different leagues FX vs DX, but one of my primary reasons for wanting the D700 is its amazing low light capabilities, which it would appear that I would get from the d7000. I have no interest in video, so this is not an advantage to me where as the price difference is because the $1,000 savings allows me extra money towards a new lens. I decided to join photo.net because I have been reading threads and there are so many people who seem to have a wealth of knowledge and I really need some advice. I really want the d700 but will the d7000 meet my needs at a lower price?
     
  2. D700 for weddings, hands down. It excels in low light, which you'll be in a lot of at a wedding/reception. D7000 is impressive, but not as good as D700 in low light.
     
  3. It may be a bit early to get any meaningful responses to this question since the D7000 has not been released for sale to the public yet, so no one on this site has any hands on experience. Check dpreview.com since they are apparently the only ones with a hands-on review so far. You can compare their reviews of the D700 and D7000 and maybe get an idea of which will work better for you.
     
  4. Spend the $1000 on glass. The D7000 won't match the D700 in lowlight but you'll probably only lose 1 to 2 stops MAX. Buy some fast primes assuming you have the basics like speedgun and fast zooms...
     
  5. One thing to keep in mind is that the D7000 does not have a Mirror Lock Up feature. If you see yourself wanting to get the best from high-resolution shots when working on a tripod at the lowest ISO settings, especially with long lenses, the lack of MLU could be a factor due to mirror vibration. If most of your work will be handheld (events, sports, photojournalism, etc.) then you won't miss the MLU feature.
    Judging from specs alone, the D7000 seems like a great camera for the price.
     
  6. The DX format - not quite as good with a wide-angle lens for a group of people...more often a good thing in wedding images. i.e., a 24mm lens on a D300 (or when the D7000 is on the shelves to buy) is like a 36mm lens with the DX crop.
    On the D700, a 24mm lens is just that... For sports, the DX format is pretty good....the crop does not hinder much. Putting a team photo image on a DX image means fewer pixels for each face as you squeeze the folks into your image. The FX format may work better...
     
  7. Putting a team photo image on a DX image means fewer pixels for each face as you squeeze the folks into your image. The FX format may work better...​
    Uh, no. If I shoot a group with 27mm focal length on my 12Mp D700 and the same group with an 18mm lens on my 12Mp D300, I've got as many pixels per face. Same number of pixels, same angle of view.
     
  8. Thank you all so much for the very quick and helpful responses...it is so nice to have the input.
     
  9. "...I've got as many pixels per face. Same number of pixels, same angle of view."
    Yes, you are right, but if you have the same lens on both camera bodies.....?
    [From my meager experience -- the wider the lens, the better chance of distortion at the sides of the image ...going horizontal... and that would be with either the FX or the DX format.]
     
  10. Yes, you are right, but if you have the same lens on both camera bodies.....?​
    Then you change position to keep the same framing. Correct?
    [From my meager experience -- the wider the lens, the better chance of distortion at the sides of the image ...going horizontal... and that would be with either the FX or the DX format.]​
    Depends. If that 18mm is from an FX lens, then you are using the edges of the lens, which would mitigate distortion. No?
     
  11. If you go to the wedding section you will find many pros using a D300 with a 17-55mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8 zoom. If you don't have good glass I would think it best to go with a D7000 and get a good zoom.
     
  12. The D700 would probably be my choice of the two you specify for a serious biz camera. The question I have is: Do you already have FX/35MM lenses to use with the D700, or would you have to add glass too?
     
  13. If I were a professional, the D7000 might be my 5th choice. I would rather have a D300(S). The D700 is a pro camera. The D7000 is not. I would not do weddings without backups for every important piece of equipment.
     
  14. I do already have some nice FX/35mm lenses, but I would definitely like to add a few more.
     
  15. I have some concerns that with multifunctional cameras there is more things that can go wrong.
     
  16. Ray House

    Ray House Ray House

    Dan South, the D7000 does indeed have a mirror lock-up. A "real" one, not the shutter delay of the D80 and D90.
     
  17. Here is the deal. We have no idea at this point what the high ISO performance of the D7000 is. Having said that there is no reason to believe that it is any worse then the D700 and it could, quite possibly, be better.
    You did not tell us what you are shooting now. I will assume it is a Nikon Digital and that you have a few lenses for it. They might not work on an FX camera so you will be spending well over $1K more and then you will need lenses. If you have some DX lenses now economics might weigh heavily in favor of the D7000 or a D300X.
    I wonder how many of the folks who tout the virtues of the D700 high ISO performance for weddings actually shoot weddings. Anyway. If you are going to shoot portraits, any modern DSLR will be fine. If you are going to shoot weddings, you are better off with a D-40, Kit lenses and the rest of your money spent on professional training and education. Seriously. Buy the less expensive camera. Then take some wedding photography seminars. Then second shoot with a couple of good wedding photogs if you can find them. Then decide what lenses to buy.
    For the record. If you are going to do weddings and want to do them properly you will need two bodies, a good selection of lenses including at least one fast telephoto. So budget at least $1K for your 80-200 F2.8. You will need two SB-900's or perhaps one SB-900 and one SB-700 and that is another $500-$600 at the minimum. You will need a tripod. $100.00 and and a hand full of memory, another $100.00. So you have two grand to spend before you talk bodies and other lenses.
    There is a reason that good wedding photographers make serious money. It is because they have serious training and experience. You can't buy a game Monty. If you have to invest in anything now it is your skill that ought to get the lions share of your money.
    Or you can join the CL GWC's and botch up people's important day.
     
  18. D700 hands down. Tried and tested by so many here. When I lost mine the other day, without hesitation went and bought another D700 straight away. And, as someone else mentioned, weddings means close quarters shooting, confined spaces, wider angles as opposed to long shots, FX format without a doubt.
     
  19. Lee-I understand what you mean and I know how important weddings are. I always bring 2 digital bodies and 1 film- 3 flashes ...ect. Although it is not my primary profession, I have been involved with photography for over 20 years now. My husband and others try to encourage me to take it to another level, but I love my other job too much.
     
  20. Thanks Andrew...that's the direction I was headed just got a little off track with the d7000 announcement. And sorry you lost your camera!
     
  21. Dan South [​IMG], Sep 18, 2010; 05:45 p.m. "One thing to keep in mind is that the D7000 does not have a Mirror Lock Up feature."
    According to dpreview, the D7000 has MLU.
     
  22. D700 = larger viewfinder (can be very important)
    D7000 = dual memory card slots (can be very important)
    Wide angle on the D7000 at 17mm (assuming you are using the 17-55mm) will give you about the same field of view as the D700 at 24m (assuming you are using the 24-70mm) but with some distortion towards the sides (noticeable on faces in group shots) but improves at around 20mm. Keep in mind that the 24-70mm may cost almost double that of a good used 17-55mm. And of course the D700 will cost you more than the D7000.
    FX and DX are not in different leagues - they are just different in viewfinder size, very high ISO performance (although the D7000 may narrow this gap) and the field of view. At lower ISO's, especially with flash, you will not see a difference in IQ. At mid ISOs, you won't see much of a difference, especially in normal sized prints. Which is the right choice for you? Only you can decide. Neither option will disappoint. I doubt a wedding photographer would have any hesitation shooting a wedding with a D7000 with the 17-55mm lens in front of it. Many weddings have been shot with lesser DSLR bodies with great results - lighting and technique are still more important than the body.
     
  23. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    The D7000's rated ISO range is from 100 to 6400. The high end is exactly the same as the D700's (200 to 6400). Whether the actual high-ISO results are similar or not remains to be tested when production units of the D7000 become available, hopefully next month.
     
  24. Depends on the weddings you do and where you live. Around here, wedding photographers are mostly delivering stuff on CD and video montages on the web and DVD these days, and when they deliver prints almost never deliver anything above 8 x 10.
    True, I don't shoot weddings (I did a couple years ago... never again... not for me...) but I work in a church and interact with ALL the photographers coming in here. Not one of them shoots FX. Not one of them needs to. Not one of them has plans to upgrade.
    If you're in a more cosmopolitan area where people buy huge prints and are paying big bucks for special stuff, then that's one thing, but I can say in my neck of the woods that FX would be a total waste of money.
    For prints up to 8 x 10 or 11 x 14, a well-shot wedding or portrait on a D700 will look the same as on a D7000 I'll wager.
     
  25. Hi Monet
    I was reading through the different responses and I was curious about what SLR body and lens you are currently using. I think knowing this sometimes helps in giving cost/benefit feedback.
    On a side note I have also noticed programs like Adobe Lightroom als have enhanced noise reduction functionality which could help you when shooting at high ISO situation (e.g. inside churches). An investment here might also help you in the long run.
     
  26. Thank you all so much for the good information. I really appreciate you taking the time to help me.
     
  27. oops...I did not see your question Randy before my last post. I have a d70 and a d40 which with my good primes have served me well, but I really feel it is time for me to upgrade.
     
  28. not to hijack the thread but what about a D7000 instead of a D300s ?
     
  29. According to dpreview, the D7000 has MLU.​
    According to Nikon's specs, it doesn't. But it would be great if it does.
     
  30. I stand corrected. The D7000 DOES have mirror lockup. Most excellent!
     
  31. I stand corrected. The D7000 DOES have mirror lockup. Most excellent!
     
  32. My suggestion would be a D700 and a D300 as a back up (if money allows)
    Shot a wedding two weeks ago with a D3 (same IQ as D700) and compared to the wedding I shot with a D300 a few months ago (I don't shoot weddings professionally, only for friends and family, although I do have a professional background in fashion/beauty/surf photography) it's really not a comparison.
    The D300 and no doubt the D7000 are great grab a shot camera's and with their high ISO capacities (no doubt the D7000 will be al least on par with the D300) most forgiving in most of the (worst) light situations.
    But the difference between the IQ of the D700/D3 simply is too big IMHO, in smoothness, tonality, detail dynamic range.
    The MLU is not a real world deal breaker, setting up a MLU shot while shooting a wedding is too time consuming and risks loosing important shots while you were fiddling with the camera.
    If you already have the classic set of '35mm' lenses (the 24-35-50-85-135-200) you're also better of with a FX camera as you no longer have to compromise due the the crop factor (again IMHO)
    The above does not mean that I think DX has no use or function, I still have along with my D3's my trusty D1H, D2X and D70S, but apart from my D2X on low ISO, I usually grab my D3's when the image's really matter.
    My two cents (for what it's worth)
     
  33. Paul, I have owned the D700 and D300 and saw no difference in tonality. In fact, the D300 has a higher dynamic range than the D700, so tonality should really be better with the D300. Unless you're talking about shooting at ISO 1600, then yes the D700 does indeed walk all over the D300, but even then, not by much. Ultimately the D700 was too big and chunky for me, and the 90% viewfinder a real compromise in the design that got in my way too often (I shoot full frame, never crop in post). And at ISO 200, the D300 images have a higher acutance and appear sharper by default than those from the D700.
     
  34. Monet, if you have a good set of 35mm Primes then you may be very wise to go with the D700. Everyone talks fast zooms ... I think a D700 with 35mm 50mm and 85mm (or 105, or maybe a 180 depending on size of church), would be more than adequate.
    I hired a good friend and a local pro photographer to shoot my wedding 12 years ago. He did the whole wedding with an F100, MB-15, Nikkor 24-120mm, SB-28 on a strobe-frame and one white lightning monolight with one umbrella (for the group shots on the altar). Pictures looked awesome.
    Shooting DX is fine, there's nothing wrong with it, but if you've got FX glass that is good stuff (AF glass at that), then the D700 maybe be a good 'investment' and not a 'solution.' Only you can decide if you want to jump forward with digital photography and FX, or not. Were it me, I would go with the D700 if I could generate the business.
    Someone did make a comment about big metropolitan style wedding photography and smaller town wedding photography ... That poster is correct, at least in my experiences as well. There are different expectations there from those different types of customers. Make sure your clients know what they want, and of course, make sure you can deliver that. But you probably already know that since you've been shooting for a while.
    Best of luck to you, and I hope you have fun doing it ... and make a little jingle along the way.
     
  35. Thank you so much for all the wonderful insight. I do have 85 and 50 primes that you mentioned Zoid, but my 35 mm is dx. I was just about to purchase a d700 on Mon. but then I began thinking about some of the comments here and began to wonder if I should wait for the d7000 to be released before I make my decision. I have small hands and the d300 works fine for me but above Dave mentions the d700 being to big for him. I can hold one at a camera store but it is the long hours I am concerned about. If I was a full time photographer I think I would have a D3 and d700 for my back-up. I really want the d700-I have for the past 2 years- but now I am just afraid that the d7000 will meet my needs just as well and I will have extra money to spend on glass. Thanks again for all the comments!
     
  36. I'm going to do the wait and see until I can play with a D7000 with my own hands before I decide if it's any better than a D300s or a D700. The way I look at anything new is it's pure 'Speculation' until you put the camera through it's paces. I purchased a D700 about 5 months ago to support my D300s and I for one love the pro build and being able to use my older FX lenses to their max. Also it feels about as good as my F4 and F5 regarding build quality.. We shall see when real people begin using the D7000.
     
  37. I'm in Monet's position right now, debating on whether to purchase the D700 or the D7000. The D7000 has been out on the market now for awhile, so I'm hoping that someone who has purchased one (D7000) can give us some feedback. Also, if someone has both, then that would make for some sweet feedback! Thanks in advance for any and all responses, as well as the wonderful feedback above to Monet's question.
     
  38. I am also in the same boat, deciding between the two. I am an oddity, however, as I have waited to get into digital, only now doing so due to multiple trusted developers / printers shutting down, and the increasing costs associated with film. I keep looking at Nikon Rumors and other sites, and there is talk of a D700 replacement in August or so, which is tempting to wait for, but in the meantime, would a D700 be ok, with the only lens I need to replace being the lower end wide angle zoom. Other thoughts on this thread from newcomers with the same decisions, or experience with either or both cameras? I wanted a D700 for two years, but have not been able to afford it, and now it is two plus year old technology, so I either wait for its replacement or what?
     
  39. A clean used D700 can be had for under $2000, not that much more than a new D7000, in the greater scheme of things Nikon.
    I would get the D700.
     
  40. This thread has been dormant for a while, but I thought that I would give it a bump to see if anyone has any new thoughts.
    I have been shooting with a D700 since August 2008. I want to explore video and have been waiting for the D800. Tired of waiting, I started researching the D7K. People have been very impressed with it and so I picked one up this weekend.
    I am doing a lot of side-by-side comparisons using a 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 105-Micro (all Nikkor), and an SB-600.
    My initial findings are that low-light shots come off noisier and softer with the D7K. Also, highlights sometimes produce strange artifacts.
    Both well-lit natural light shots, and macro shots using a flash, though, produce extremely comparable photos.
    This is just a rough initial finding. I need to ensure that I am using all of the proper settings on the D7K (ie, don't have defaults on that should be turned off), and I want to do more rigorous, controlled testing. If the D7K passes muster, I probably will sell my D700 body and throw the savings into the D800 cookie jar.
    In the meantime, anyone have their own set of results that they would like to share? I would love to hear about them.
    Rudy
     
  41. Hello. I thought that I should follow-up my original question with the answer that I arrived out. Perhaps this will help someone else on the fence.
    I ended up returning the D7000 after extensive side-by-side testing against my D700. I put them through their paces using several different lenses and in many different environments. It really was no contest. Under optimal conditions, the D7000 did a great job closely equaling the D700 but with any slight deviation from said optimal conditions, the D7000 quickly degraded. The D700 clearly generated the superior image across the board. And I don't mean that you needed a microscope to see the differences. It really was night and day.
    This was a failed experiment but it gave me such a newfound respect for the D700 that I went out and bought a couple of ED lenses. I felt bad for having taken her for granted.
    It also taught me FX sensors are far superior to DX sensors. I already knew that but this experiment really hammered it home. I doubt that I will ever again bother contemplating a non-FX sensor. I remember when I upgraded from the D300 to the D700, I was stunned at the improvement in picture quality. That was 2 1/2 years ago and the D700 is, obviously, still proving to be an incredible camera.
    So, I will go back to my original plan of biding my time as Nikon prepares the D800. This time, though, I am not anxious about it - this experiment has proven to me that the D700 isn't showing her age. I am a little worried about the D800 being 36MP though. Not only do I not need that much resolution, both in terms of image size and storage requirements, but I can't help but think that the picture quality won't be as good. Those photocells are going to be TINY. But Nikon knows what they are doing, so we'll just have to wait and see.
    I hope that this helps.
    Cheers.
    Rudy
     

Share This Page