D700 vs. D7000 vs. D300s

[todd_hendon]

<p>Hello. I have been reading through the forums on photo.net and have really enjoyed the input from the members of this site. I would love some advice for a camera upgrade that I am planning to make soon.<br>

I am a serious hobbiest and am always looking to better my craft. I shoot mostly people/events many of which are in low lighting settings. I do enjoy doing post processing with Photoshop CS4 and the majority of my images remain on my computer for display on the web or my computer/tv though I do print images for family and friends.<br>

I currently use a D70s and have Nikkor 18-200mm VRII zoom, a Nikkor 10.5 DX fisheye (which I hardly use), and Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 D lenses. I have really enjoyed my D70S but wanted to go up to the next level. I have been amazed by some of the images I have seen from the D700 and also been interested in all I have read about the D7000. In addition, some people I have spoken with have reminded my not to forget the D300s.<br>

In looking at the D700's FX format, I am aware that I will need FX lenses and was looking at the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Nikkor Wide Angle Zoom Lens and Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED AF Nikkor SLR Camera Lens. I know this will cost a pretty penny but currently I am able to afford this if it seems like a logical choice.<br>

So my question is this...<br>

Is it silly for a hobbiest to jump into a D700?<br>

Will I really notice that much of an improvement with the D700 over the D7000 or D300s for my limited purposes?<br>

Is the added cost worth it? Will I be able to compensate for differences between the camera types in post on photoshop (noise reduction, etc.)?<br>

Would I be better off with a DX camera and buying faster FX lenses for now and the future?<br>

I would appreciate any opinions in regards to DX vs. FX and if you feel for my situation DX is the way to go, do you like the D7000 or D300s? Thanks!</p>

[tangibleimages]

<p>If it is the case that you shoot in low light situations, the 70-200 2.8 lens is going to be far better than the 70-300 variable aperture lens by several stops.</p>

<p>As far as DX vs FX, I've seen stunning photos with either format. I imagine that you will see one or two stops of noise improvement between your D70 and the newer d300s. The D700 only really give you about one stop better noise characteristics over the DX format, at least in my experience. The new D3s is a different story.</p>

<p>I'd say you'd be fine with the D300s and faster lenses than you currently use (i.e. 70-200 2.8 vs the much slower 18-200). Plus, with the savings you could get some fast lenses.</p>

<p>At any rate, for lens choices I'd go with the 17-35 and the 70-200 instead of the 24-70 and 70-300. The difference between 35 and 70mm isn't that much (buy a fast 50mm if it is), but the difference between 17 and 24mm truly is. Also, the stop you'd gain over DX by going FX would be negated if you chose a slow lens like the 70-300 over the faster 70-200.</p>

[rossb]

<p> I guess if you could say you are a wide angle photographer then the FX camera would be nice. If you could say you are a telephoto kind of person then one of the DX camera's would be nice. The D7000 is the newest technology, it has ISO 100 and the depreciation on your investment is minimized in comparison to the other camera's. </p>

[Jerry_]

<p>You have the AF 50mm f1.8D lens - it will work well on a D700. If you can find a clean AF 85mm f1.8D Nikkor lens, you would be good for starting portraits with a D700 body. And the *old* AF 28-105mm f3.5D~ zoom lens will also do OK on a FX body. The latest zoom lenses are nice, but not good on the budget.</p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Todd, the primary reason whether one image is great or not is the photographer. I see you have no particular reason to get the D700 and FX. If I were you, I would get the D7000 and some good lenses. If you have money, take some photography classes and perhaps take some photo trip. IMO that is a much better way to spend your money than investing on some expensive cameras and lenses you don't necessarily need.</p>

[photo5]

<p>D7000 FTW! Much better than the D70s in every way.</p>

[angkordave]

<p>I heartily endorse Shuns Comments about kit vs Knowledge. I am an experienced photo tour operator and see many Photographers with decent kit who want to learn more. It sometimes surprises me that there are a lot of people with pro level gear who really don't know how to get the best out if it. <br /> Sometimes just a little tweaking in Photoshop can turn a so-so image into a really good one.<br>

Get training on PS or join a photo club<br /> I'd spend money on good lenses and a D7000 unless I was into wildlife or sport then the I'd go for D300s. Also be aware that CS4 wont open RAW files on new Cameras as I found with my D300s<br /> I'll probably go the FX route eventually', but as I have produced high class prints up to a metre wide or more on DX, full frame is not such a priority.</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>For a Dx camera I always recommend a 17-50/55 f/2.8 (Nikon, Tamron, Sigma or Tokina) and the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8, the perfect combination to cover the long standard pro focal length of 24-200. The slower 70-300 VR with a good low light camera like the D300s or D7000 would be a really good addition, even with the ISO compromise. (I'm still using two D70s bodies with very acceptable results, and saving to replace them with D300s.)</p>

[bourboncowboy]

<p>If you're shooting people and events in low-light settings, get the D700. While I've never shot with the D7000, I have shot with the D300 and D90. They're fantastic in decent light, but they just don't cut it at ISO 4000. I consistently sell 8x10 prints at this setting.</p>

<p>I moved to FX a couple years ago, and it's the best move I've ever made. And yes, I'm a hobbyist - but I still sell a few prints.</p>

[paul_wheeler1]

<p>Dave Perkes,<br />If you update your Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) to version 5.5 you will be able to read D300s RAW files in CS4.<br /><a href="http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/thankyou.jsp?ftpID=4578&fileID=4242">http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/thankyou.jsp?ftpID=4578&fileID=4242</a></p>

<p>BTW, the latest version of ACR doesn't work with CS4</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Since you state you can afford the upgrade, the D700 is indeed the logical choice.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>In short,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Would I be better off with a DX camera and buying faster FX lenses for now and the future?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I think so. I would start with upgrading lenses. But not restrict to FX only lenses, because at the wide end, you might get nasty compromises. Good lenses keep value, so get what makes sense now. For the body, the D70s may be aging, but for web and TV display, and normal sized prints, it delivers enough. Nothing in the topic start suggests that FX is a requirement, and as such it will only generate a huge extra cost with relatively little return value; DX, to me, seems a logical choice tempting as FX may seem.<br>

For low light settings, let's start with faster lenses than a f/5.6 one, not only because of the extra stops but the extra creative potential that wide apertures deliver. Michael Kohan lists the logical choices, though I'd add a 35 f/1.8 too.<br>

Whether you should opt for the D7000 or D300s - well, I'm waiting for real test reports on the D7000 before answering the question. The spec sheet looks great, but a spec sheet does not make a camera.</p>

[hugo_laporte]

<p>I would suggest that you stay DX (D7000), so you can keep your fisheye and invest on better glass for your zoom lenses. As far as I know, there will not be a huge difference between the new D7000 and D700 in terms of low light performance, as it is an all-new sensor.<br>

For the lenses, I would choose the Tamron 17-50 2.8 if you don't plan to buy a FF soon, and a 17-35 2.8 if you do. For the zoom lens, as others mentioned before, the 70-200 VR (or VR II) would be a much better choice over the 70-300 and would seems logical since you saved 1000$ buying a DX over a FX.<br>

- I personally have a D700 and think it is a heavy block of metal. D7000 will deliver an amazing IQ within a much lighter body. </p>

[John Crowe]

<p>The D700 is too expensive for what you get and it really should be the next camera that Nikon replaces, so I would avoid that choice. The sensor of the D300/s is based on a 5 year old sensor which has finally been nicely upgraded in the D7000. I see the D7000 is very competitively priced, but that would be because it is a smaller body. I doubt you require full frame and I do like the idea of the new D7000 but be sure to check one out in person to see if the body size is okay.</p>

<p>The next logical step for Nikon, of course, is to put the D7000 sensor into the replacement for the D300s. While this replacement camera will be about $1800, I think it would be worth waiting for to see.</p>

<p>Your general purpose photography needs seem to indicate that a full frame is not required. The primary role of full frame bodies is in ultrawide to wideangle architectural and landscape photography generally using lenses from 8mm to 50mm. For pros the lowlight performance and speed of the D3 broadens it's uses to portrait/event/sports photography.</p>

<p>I recommend sticking with crop bodies, and waiting to see the replacement for the D300s, and invest in better glass designed for full frame bodies, to keep your options open down the road.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>For the money you spend on a D700, imagine how many cool lenses you can get if you only get a D7000! Wow! You don't strike me as a photographer who benefits from FX (no offense intended, I'm not either...) and there are some great benefits to DX. Size, tele reach, price of lenses.</p>

<p>The "great photos" you see shot with high-end stuff is often shot by photographers who could have, in most cases, probably gotten the same image with a D70s, if printed at what most of us consider normal sizes.</p>

<p>I upgraded to a D90, but have yet to capture an image with it as great as the two or three favorites I captured with my D50, Better camera? Yes. Better photos? Depends on me, not the camera.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>I'm not going to try to persuade you one way or the other, Todd. But baldy the advantages of the full-frame D700 are: Ability to easily get really shallow depth of field to isolate the subject; ability to use smaller apertures before diffraction degrades the image; better ISO sensitivity versus noise tradeoff (ISO3200 is practically noiseless and ISO6400 fully useable); ability to use high quality true ultrawideangle lenses (i.e. not fisheyes or consumer grade lenses); ability to make full use of the huge number of used and cheap high-quality Nikkor lenses from the film era; brighter viewfinder image due to less magnification being required.</p>

<p>Advantages of DX: Greater depth of field for a given aperture and angle-of-view make it great for Macro and telephoto work. Errrm, and I really can't think of any more advantages.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Advantages of DX: Greater depth of field for a given aperture and angle-of-view make it great for Macro and telephoto work. Errrm, and I really can't think of any more advantages.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Rodeo Joe, DX has a lot of advantages as well:</p>

<ul>

<li>DX bodies tend to be a lot cheaper. E.g. the D300 (DX) and D700 (FX) are very similar in terms of features. The D700 is about $1000 more, about 70% more expensive.</li>

<li>Most DX cameras are smaller</li>

<li>Equivalent FX lenses are also more expensive and tend to be bigger. E.g., the 28-300mm/f3.5-5.6 AF-S VR is a lot bigger than the equivalent 18-200mm AF-S VR.</li>

<li>The "crop factor" is a big advantage when you need to use long telephoto lenses.</li>

</ul>

<p>I own both a D300 and a D700, so I know them very well. In fact, I wrote photo.net's reviews on both cameras.</p>

<p>As I said earlier, the OP has not at all explained why he needs an FX body. If he goes FX, clearly he needs to replace his 18-200mm DX and 10.5mm DX fisheye. That would be a very easy way to spend a lot of money on both camera and lenses for no apparent reason other than for the sake of getting FX. But it is his money; clearly he is free to do whatever that pleases him.</p>

[marvin_mcabee]

<p>The D7000 is the latest technology with new sensor and upgraded video. D700 and D300s are the older technology so if you want one of these you may want to wait for their upgrades. I think many people are waiting for a D400 and D750 or what ever they are called. I think for the latest technology the D7000 would be the choice.</p>

[n-j]

<p>someone here wrote </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The D700 only really give you about one stop better noise characteristics over the DX format, at least in my experience.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>this is so wrong; i don't know how he coming to this point;<br>

I think rodeo joe already said it all; FF is another format with its own pro and cons; the d700 is worth every cent; you just can't compare it to any dx cam;<br>

and the price of a cam is no con. otherwise a hasselblad must be one of the worst cams out there;<br>

you should start your decision with the question : do i need a FF ?<br>

can't tell you bout dx-cams, sorry, but the d700 is one of the best cams i ever operated.<br>

regards</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>hmm, i just picked up a d300s. it's even nicer than the d300, which is one of the best DX cameras ever made. if you dont need the better AF module, the d7000 might be a good option.</p>

<p>one thing to consider here is the cost of fast FX glass vs fast DX glass. you can always use fast glass to get an extra stop on a d7000/d300s, but sub-2.8 primes for FX are pretty pricey. also zooms cost a whole lot more too.<br>

first, the DX glass</p>

<ul>

<li>tamron 17-50/2.8: $450-$650</li>

<li>sigma 50-150/2.8: $750</li>

<li>nikon 10.5 fisheye: $600</li>

<li>sigma 30/1.4: $450</li>

<li>nikon 35/1.8: $200</li>

<li>tamron 60/2 macro: $500</li>

<li>tokina 11-16/2.8: $600</li>

<li>tokina 35/2.8 macro: $350</li>

<li>tokina 12-24/4: $400</li>

<li>nikon 18-200VR: $750</li>

<li>nikon 85/3.5 macro: $450</li>

</ul>

<p>now, the FX lineup:</p>

<ul>

<li>nikon 17-35/2.8: $1700</li>

<li>nikon 24-70/2.8: $1700</li>

<li>nikon 14-24/2.8: $1700</li>

<li>nikon 70-200/2.8: $2150</li>

<li>nikon 24/1.4 AF-S: $2200</li>

<li>nikon 35/1.4 AF-S: $1800</li>

<li>nikon 16/2.8fisheye: $900</li>

<li>nikon 16-35/4 VR: $1050</li>

<li>nikon 28-300: $1000</li>

<li>nikon 105/2.8 VR: $900</li>

</ul>

<p>as you can see, jumping into FX is the gift that keeps on costing. not saying it doesn't make sense for some folks, but there are a lot of reasons to stay with DX.</p>

<p>ideally, a pro DX body and an pro FX body would be the best of all worlds, but it's going to take a well thought-out lens strategy and/or deep pockets to build a system across two formats. you could always cheap it out and scoop up inexpensive FX lenses like the 28-200G and 28-105, but that's going to negate the high-ISO advantage somewhat.</p>

[photo5]

<p>Eric, congrats on the new D300s! I'm envious. I love my D300 but am sure I'd like the D300s even more. Keep us posted on your impressions of the new camera!</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>you can always use fast glass to get an extra stop on a d7000/d300s, but sub-2.8 primes for FX are pretty pricey.</em></p>

<p>Eric, you conveniently chose to leave out some inexpensive and excellent fast primes for FX, such as the 50/1.8, the 50/1.4, and the 85/1.8. Those are no more expensive than the three sub-f/2.8 primes for DX that you listed. Interestingly, they also match their function for typical applications of fast lenses. The fast primes for FX that you did list are lenses that have no DX equivalents. Of course, if you want a fast wide angle for DX, you can use the 24/1.4 FX lens to get a 36mm equivalent lens, but then you'll be paying more than the equivalent lens (35/1.4) would cost on FX. In fact, to be more accurate, a 36/2.2 would be the FX equivalent of the 24/1.4 since you need wider apertures on the smaller format to get similar effects. Not only are many things simply not available for DX, some things cost more money to get on DX than on FX.</p>

[charleseagan]

<p>Before the D700 I would have said put your money in the lenses, but the D700 body changes so much, particularly if you do available light photography. If you really want to take it to the next level, the D700 will certainly help you do that.</p>

[bms]

<p>My 2 cents:</p>

<p>I often shoot the D300s and the D700 at the same event - and apart from a better viewfinder and FX format, the D700 is in a different class when it comes to high ISO (say, above 400). Furthermore, the 24-70 is a great lens and on DX, it is a little long (36-105) if you like wide angle. On the D700 it is near perfect.</p>

<p>I would say, if you want to shoot low light, go with the D700 and 24-70, you won't regret it. If you do your shooting at 200-400 ISO, D7000 and follow Shuns suggestion of treating yourself to some photo vaca.</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>D700 has much larger mirror and prism, and that is important to achieve greater focus accuracy and metering, especially in low light.</p>

<p>You need to compare D700 and D300 viewfinders, side by side, and you will know that. Once you use D700 for a while, it will be hard to go back to the darker tunnel vision of much smaller optics on FX. If your eyesight vision is not perfect, then the D700 should be your choice.</p>

<p>Well..., latest DSLR make good pictures, and perhaps looking through viewfinder could be substituted by the live view feature, if you must.</p>