Nikon d700 or d7000?

[monet_talty]

<p>Thank you all so much for the good information. I really appreciate you taking the time to help me.</p>

[monet_talty]

<p>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.</p>

[david_poole1]

<p>not to hijack the thread but what about a D7000 instead of a D300s ?</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>According to Nikon's specs, it doesn't. But it would be great if it does.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>I stand corrected. The D7000 DOES have mirror lockup. Most excellent!</p>

[dan_south]

<p>I stand corrected. The D7000 DOES have mirror lockup. Most excellent!</p>

[paul_k1664875007]

<p>My suggestion would be a D700 and a D300 as a back up (if money allows)</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>But the difference between the IQ of the D700/D3 simply is too big IMHO, in smoothness, tonality, detail dynamic range.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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)</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>My two cents (for what it's worth)</p>

[photo5]

<p>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.</p>

[zoid]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Best of luck to you, and I hope you have fun doing it ... and make a little jingle along the way.</p>

[monet_talty]

<p>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!</p>

[david_poole1]

<p>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.</p>

[ron_carter1]

<p>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.</p>

[mattach]

<p>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?</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>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.</p>

<p>I would get the D700.</p>

[rudy - ny, ny]

<p>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.<br>

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.<br>

I am doing a lot of side-by-side comparisons using a 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 105-Micro (all Nikkor), and an SB-600.<br>

My initial findings are that low-light shots come off noisier and softer with the D7K. Also, highlights sometimes produce strange artifacts.<br>

Both well-lit natural light shots, and macro shots using a flash, though, produce extremely comparable photos.<br>

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.<br>

In the meantime, anyone have their own set of results that they would like to share? I would love to hear about them.<br>

Rudy</p>

[rudy - ny, ny]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>I hope that this helps.<br>

Cheers.<br>

Rudy</p>