Nikon d700 or d7000?

<p>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? </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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...</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Judging from specs alone, the D7000 seems like a great camera for the price.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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...</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>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...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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. </p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you all so much for the very quick and helpful responses...it is so nice to have the input.</p>

<p>"...I've got as many pixels per face. Same number of pixels, same angle of view."</p>

<p>Yes, you are right, but <strong>if you have the same lens</strong> on both camera bodies.....?</p>

<p>[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.]</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yes, you are right, but <strong>if you have the same lens</strong> on both camera bodies.....?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Then you change position to keep the same framing. Correct?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>[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.]</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Depends. If that 18mm is from an FX lens, then you are using the edges of the lens, which would mitigate distortion. No?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I do already have some nice FX/35mm lenses, but I would definitely like to add a few more. </p>

 

<p>I have some concerns that with multifunctional cameras there is more things that can go wrong.</p>

<p>Dan South, the D7000 does indeed have a mirror lock-up. A "real" one, not the shutter delay of the D80 and D90.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>Or you can join the CL GWC's and botch up people's important day. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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!</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2071900">Dan South</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, 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."<br>

According to dpreview, the D7000 has MLU.</p>

<p>D700 = larger viewfinder (can be very important)<br /> D7000 = dual memory card slots (can be very important)</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. <em><strong>Not one</strong></em> of them shoots FX. <em><strong>Not one</strong></em> of them needs to.<em><strong> Not one</strong></em> of them has plans to upgrade.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Hi Monet</p>

<p>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.<br>

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.</p>