Dilemma: D700 or D7000?

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Forgive me once again, but this is a <em>profound</em> misunderstanding. 12MP is 12MP.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Les, not exactly. An easy example is that 12MP from those tiny point-n-shoot sensors is not going to give you the same quality as a D3S. The issue is that the quality of the pixels matters, and those densely populated small pixels is very challenging to the lenses as well as to the photographer's discipline.</p>

<p>In any case, the OP merely wants to know whether he should get the D700 or D7000.</p>

[trygve_thorsen4]

<p>Mervyn,<br>

I think the main reason for getting a D700 is that you can use your lenses at the same angle of view as with your F4s. Most other conciderations on getting the D700 or the D7000 will be based on if you want to buy new lenses. It might well be that you are happy with your old lenses on the D700. As long as you are not changing lenses every time a new greater lens comes around, there will always be better lenses than what you have.<br>

I came from film (F2, F4), bought a used D2H some years ago and last week got a D700. For my photography I prefer prime lenses over zooms most of the time, and I was never happy with the cropped view on the wide end. Yes, I would have better image quality with the 14-24 instead of my 20mm, but I find the 20mm good enough. And so on for my other lenses.<br>

I find the question is not only about DX of FX camera bodies, also if you want to use DX or FX lenses. If you want to use FX lenses - go for the FX body.</p>

[photo5]

<p>Arthur, the D700 is not at all the digital F100 in my experience. The F100 handles like a dream, with perfect proportions and a superb weight to balance ratio. The D700 is chunky and much heavier. If Nikon released a true "digital F100" I'd buy it in a heartbeat. The D700 was too large and too thick (the grip, I guess I have small hands) for me. Not to mention the 90% viewfinder coverage was terrible compared to the D300's 100% coverage.</p>

[benjaminm]

<p>In the year 2010 the D700 is still good enough FX entry level camera. Otherwise Nikon would already replace it. In my opinion an FX entry level model is still much better than every newest DX toy. If you have some old lenses, you can use them on D700 with no limitations. They have enough resolution. My simple old 105/2.5 lens gives me the same or better results than my newest 70-200/2.8VRII at 105mm.</p>

<p>My advice: buy the D700 body.</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>To me, it is silly to spend so much money on a high-end DSLR and put mostly old, low-end lenses on it.</p>

<p>That's a joke right Shun? If so it was a lousy one. Those "low end", (assuming MF Nikkors) of which he speaks will compete or beat anything Nikon puts out today. And they will still be working 20+ years from now when all those new plastic Nikkors<em> are in a landfill somewhere</em>. I only use "low end" manual focus Nikkors, from 16mm - 600mm and not only do they work <em>flawlessly</em> on my D700 and F4S, they produce <em>consistently outstanding results </em>up to 16 x 20 and beyond. But then again, I guess I am somewhat of an enigma on this site. I <em>very rarely </em>use a camera's meter and I prefer to do the thinking <em>myself</em> when it comes to making an image, rather than being a spectator and letting a computer do the thinking and focusing for me.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>That's a joke right Shun? If so it was a lousy one. Those "low end", (assuming MF Nikkors) of which he speaks will compete or beat anything Nikon puts out today.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Scott, that is not at all a joke, but you made the wrong assumption by equating MF to low end, hence the rest of your post is completely off track. Plenty of auto-focus wide angles, especially older ones from early on in the AF era, do not work well on digital SLRs. A lot of members here are well aware of that problem. However, as I pointed out earlier, there are also plenty of people who either don't care or cannot see the difference.</p>

<p>Incidentally, I still own some of those plastic AF lenses that I bought back in 1990. Physically they are fine after 20 years, but in many cases I prefer newer optical designs.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>Scott, what's all this talk about having to meter yourself and not using AF? Doing all that yourself sound terribly inconvenient. Sometimes I set my camera to A, but having to turn the aperture ring hour after hour gets a bit tiring in the wrist and fingers, so I can only handle that in small doses. I think Nikon have been aware of this RSI issue with their lenses for some time, and have since upgraded their lenses by removing those awkward aperture rings.</p>

[mervyn_wilmington]

<p>First, please can I thank all those who have made contributions. They have been very educational and interesting. I thought some of the contention could be leading to pistols at dawn. I might have suggested that satisfaction would be better achieved by D700s and 7000s at all times of day and night with a variety of glass, both old and new. I suspect the problem with that is that there would be even more debate about what the results proved - or didn't prove. Neverthless, without that sort of discussion, we would all be the poorer</p>

<p>Second, I must say sorry to Les Berkley. He took some exception to my inference that serious photography could not be achieved with a D70s. What I said was unfortunately worded. A true photographer can achieve good results with almost any camera. However, if one considers what a D70s and a D700 respectively provide, there are clearly worlds of difference, for example in the pixels and iso performance. That said, a superior camera will not make a poor photographer a superb one, but it may make a good one even better.</p>

<p>Third, since it has been raised, I do have a "spare" Nikon battery for a D700. I also have a "spare" Sandisk 4gb Extreme IV card. The capacity may not be that great, but it will be a starter, bearing in mind that my kind of photography does not result in hundreds of images per session.</p>

<p>Fourth, the issue of lenses. I have no doubt that some more modern glass will, in absolute terms, outperform some of mine. However, I don't photograph flying birds or planes, or racing cars or horses, or men on the moon. Most of my work is landscape/townscape and flora which are usually capable of being more accommodating in optical terms, especially if one is prepared to move around a little. I has, though, been rightly said that some older Nikon glass performs superbly. I would include my ai 50mm f2.0 in that category. It may have a little less speed, but it has nothing less otherwise in performance terms.<br>

I could, of course, try to replace my Tamron f2.8 70-150 soft focus and Vivitar 90-180 close focus, flat field with something more modern, but would I really get significantly better results?<br>

Then there is the vexed question of whether my "old" lenses would perform better on a D700 or 7000? I suspect that without substantial contemporaneous tests, who can really say? I think, on balance, the vote suggests the former should be preferred. It also remains my inclination.<br>

However, whilst I still have that inclination, I shall think a little longer. Of course, it remains open for members to offer further advice, especially if, above, I have uttered something absurd. I will avoid the temptation of publishing other peccadilloes, for example, regardless of the camera I am using, I still always carry a Pentax spot meter...........</p>

<p>Thank you again to everyone who has contributed.</p>

<p>Mervyn</p>

[michaelmiller]

<p>Since camera weight and size do not matter much to you, I would advise to buy a Nikon D700. It's better at high ISO's, works perfectly and it's build like a tank.</p>

<p>I have used the D700 in combination with the excellent Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 and although it's the best digital camera I ever had, it's too heavy and too big for my taste. I felt like I was hauling and lifting a 1Kg brick (and that's without a lens).</p>

<p>The D7000 is a perfect solution for me. It's light, small, strong and almost as good as the D700 at higher ISO's. Now I carry my camera happily all day. The D7000 test information on this website may be of interest: http://artoftheimage.blogspot.com/2010/11/nikon-d7000-vs-nikon-d700-high-iso.html</p>

<p>The best of luck with your luxury decision ;-)</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I could, of course, try to replace my Tamron f2.8 70-150 soft focus and Vivitar 90-180 close focus, flat field with something more modern, but would I really get significantly better results?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mervyn, there is no doubt that the D700 is an excellent camera (even Dave Lee said so when he used to own it), but the question is whether it is wise to spend most of your budget on that and put some old lenses on it. To use your own words, will you really get "significantly better" results with the D700 over the D7000? Or you are better off spending less on a D7000 and buy some new DX wide angle.</p>

<p>Lots and lots of test have already been perform to demonstrate that various old lenses do not work well on DSLRs. I have the 24mm/f2.8 AF-D, which has the same optical formula since the 1977 AI version, which I used to own. Even stopped down to f8, f11, the corners are simply unsharp. My 35mm/f1.4 AI-S has fairly serious chromatic aberration issues.</p>

<p>But the only issue that matters is whether you are happy or not. If owning an FX-format body makes you happy, then by all means get the D700.</p>

[mervyn_wilmington]

<p>Shun,<br>

Many thanks for your last posting.</p>

<p>You say lots of tests have already been performed to demonstrate that various old lenses do not work well on DSLRs. My only experience is with the four af lenses I mentioned in the original postings, plus the 300mm f4.5 ifed, on the D70s.<br>

Have any of these tests been published on the web? If you could give me a pointer in the right direction, I would be much obliged. Obviously, I want to be best informed before I spend money. I might get frightened enough not to spend any at all!</p>

<p>Many thanks.</p>

<p>Mervyn</p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Mervyn, check out this thread on the 24mm/f2.8 AF-D: <a href="00UKN6">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00UKN6</a></p>

<p>Nikon's 24mm/f2.8 has had the same optical forumula since the 1977 AI version. However, Bjorn Rorslett reports that his AI-S version, which is chronogically between the AI and AF-D versions, performs quite well on the D3X. Bjorn's opinions are well respected and are what I would trust. My findings typically match his, but Bjorn has far more lenses, cameras, and experience than I do.</p>

<p>There is a lot of similar information on the web, but you need to do some searching. As starters, check out Bjorn Rorslett's web site.</p>

[mervyn_wilmington]

<p>Shun,</p>

<p>Many thanks for that.</p>

<p>Mervyn</p>

[melvin_bramley]

<p>Just how well does the Nikkor 70-210 F4 perform on digital?<br>

How about the other older lenses?</p>

[mervyn_wilmington]

<p>Melvin,</p>

<p>You will see that my original posting asked the question whether I should buy a D700 or 7000 having regard to my existing lenses.<br>

The debate rather changed as to whether my existing lenses were really suitable for digital at all. One school took the view that they would not do justice to the potential capabilities of either camera. The reasons for that seem to be twofold. First, top quality glass of today is better than that of yesterday. Second, that modern lenses were designed to take account of digital sensors because they do not behave in exactly the same way as film in "receiving" the image.<br>

The other school argued that if "old" lenses performed well on film, they would usually also do so on digital. Several members supported this with their own experiences.</p>

<p>You will see that in my posting of Nov 19th, I suggested that short of testing old and new lenses contemporaneously, it seemed that consensus would not be achieved - and it might not even then!</p>

<p>I can only give a very qualified view. I have used the lenses I have referred to over a long period for film. At one time, at the outset, I used to have my negative colour film commercially processed always with 18"x12" prints. At that sort of cost, you have to be reasonably confident about our own skills as a photographer, but even more about the quality of your equipment, particularly the lenses. All I can say is that, in my opinion, the results were almost always good or better.<br>

If, in particular, you then have regard to the 70-210mm f4 constant, you will find some "experts" saying its quality is such that it does not fall much short of the contemporary 80-200 f2.8 professional lens. Others suggested its performance was only good.</p>

<p>You may be aware that the 70-210mm f4 has almost become something of a cult lens. That is dangerous because people tend to become even more subjective than they might usually. However, there is one "longish" string of user reviews that very much proclaim its high qualities. Most of these may be for film use. I found one reference to it being a favourite lens with a D700.</p>

<p>My experience with the 70-210 and my D70s has been good/very good. However, there are perhaps problems in "testing" it because of limited pixels and iso performance. I experienced this recently. I always have the D70s set as to provide best image quality, although, of course, the iso setting will depend on lighting conditions. On this occasion, I took a photograph of someone fly fishing on a nearby reservoir. I could not get very near to him, and compositional requirements put him in the upper right hand corner of the frame. The problem - at least so far as I was concerned - was as I did a sectional enlargement the pixels were so pronounced that I could not actually judge the image quality that the lens was providing.</p>

<p>It is a grey and damp here today. However, having regard to the debate, I hope in the next day or two to put the 70-210 onto the D70s and shoot at least a couple of hundred frames in as many circumstances/surroundings as I can muster. Whether that will take me any further forward, remains to be seen............</p>

<p>Mervyn</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Mervyn, I don't have the 70-210mm/f4, although my parents have one and presumably I could borrow that next time I visit them. And currently I only have a few older lenses around. One of them is the 35mm/f1.4 AI-S, which is one of the classics. You can see in the following thread I made an A/B/C comparison among the new 35mm/f1.8 AF-S DX, the 35mm/f1.4 AI-S and the 17-55mm/f2.8 AF-S DX. Both 35mm "primes" have a lot more chromatic aberration than the modern high-quality zoom: <a href="00Tva8">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Tva8</a></p>

<p>If your purpose is to shoot landscape, the older version of the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR is terrible in the corners @ 200mm, and that is a fairly recent (2002/2003), expensive zoom: <a href="00Rdrl">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Rdrl</a><br>

But the new version 2 is a lot better: <a href="00VhlF">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00VhlF</a><br>

The test images in the above thread were based on a sample from Nikon US, but recently I bought version 2 myself for its superior quality. Now I own both versions of the 70-200.</p>

<p>My point is, from the beginning of this thread, that if you are spending some 1700 Pounds or $2300 on a nice D700, I would think you want to know which lens works well on it to give you good results. It is not a matter of FX vs. DX or manual focus or not. Some fairly recent AF-S lenses have their share of drawbacks as I demonstrated in the threads above.</p>

<p>In other words, having a nice FX body is not automatically going to solve all the technical problems. The optics in front of your camera will play a major role, so is the gray matter behind the camera. If you don't have a large budget, I think you are better off getting a good DX body, such as the D90, D7000, or D300S and some nice lenses. A lot of the DX wide zooms are fine lenses, especially if you can avoid the widest 2mm or so.</p>

<p>Finally, if you are a landscape photographer and want FX, at this point I would say wait until Nikon puts more pixels on a D700-like body. I am surprised that has not happened yet in 2010, but there should be no doubt that will be coming in 2011. It is not like 18MP or 24MP will make a huge, huge difference on your large landscape prints, but there are some advantages. Today, even the D7000 has 16MP, I am sure Nikon will put more on the successors to the D700 and D3S.</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<blockquote>

<p>Scott, that is not at all a joke, but you made the wrong assumption by equating MF to low end, hence the rest of your post is completely off track.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well perhaps if you had not been so ambiguous in your description of "mostly old, low-end lenses on it", and since the OP was talking about <em>manual focus lenses</em>, than you would not have left it up to me to try and decide what it was you were talking about in the first place.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Scott, it would help if you read the OP's opening post more carefully:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The a/f lenses I mainly use are 24mm; 35-70 f2.8; 50mm f1.8; an "old" 70-210 f4 constant.</p>

</blockquote>

[mervyn_wilmington]

<p>Shun,</p>

<p>Your recent substantive posting was interesting and helpful: thank you.</p>

<p>It has caused me to have further thought and really warrants a longer response. However, I suffer from something called Meniere's disease. You may not have come across it. Amongst other things, it causes severe vertigo. I am having quite a bad attack now. It may last a few hours or a few days........ It certainly curtails what I can do.</p>

<p>One way forward might be this. We have a Nikon dealer about an hour's drive away. He has D700s in stock, but not 7000s - they are in very short supply in the UK.</p>

<p>I am going to email him asking whether I might go over there with a good card and the 70-210. He may have a D700 demonstrator. I will suggest the camera is set to aperture priority, taken to the shop door and a couple of hundred images taken at various settings, and with subjects that might help to check definition, distortion, fall-off and chromatic fringing problems. I could then load onto my computer and see what might be proved - or not!</p>

<p>Mervyn</p>

[shadforth_stephen]

<p>I think Mervun should adopt the safe policy of "when in doubt, do nothing". Thats what I am doing until the D700 upgrade comes our way. If (as is the case with the D3 and the D700) we see the D3x sensor etc make its way into the D700 replacement, that will be the camera for me.</p>

[turgut_tarhan]

<p>I'm in the same boat, in a way. I'm mainly a landscape photographer coming from 35mm & 6x7 film era. D200 being my first digital SLR, then I've used D300 for 3 years, and finally bought a 2nd hand D700 in good condition for $2000 as a temporary solution keeping in mind that Nikon will soon release a 24mp D800 (or something similar).<br>

The first thing I noticed with D700 compared to D300 was its stunning dynamic range, and acuity of edges. Ability to photograph at high iso settings was another bonus in case of adverse conditions. In the absence of VR lenses (my preference for less weight) & less perceived DoF, I noticed it forced me to return to MF-like discipline (eg. more use of tripod & horizon level, being more selective in the field avoiding any easy snaps that mix with the serious ones). The ease of D300 + 18-200mm VR could sometimes spoil the photographer !<br>

D7000 is fine, but approaching the end of DX road with 16mp, due to lens resolution & diffraction limitations; while FX has more potential than this imo. Yet, compared to D700, with its smaller weight and dedicated DX VR zooms D7000 is more fun, it must be a breeze to use. Wide angle is no more of a problem; simply Nikkor 10-24mm & Tokina 11-16mm are stellar optics.<br>

Imo, D700 has 3 major drawbacks from landscape viewpoint: 1) Mediocre sensor resolution (even though the files are clean, it needs to be upressed for a double-spread magazine page and there is little room for cropping, sometimes stitching is necessary for higher resolution), 2) Inaccurate (95% viewfinder), 3) Heavy body & lenses (problem for hiking in nature)<br>

D700 tolerates any lens put in front at around f/8; but a 24mp D800 may not be that forgiving, it may need best lenses to get the full potential of this resolution. It will be more prone to motion blur or focusing errors. Diffraction will set about one stop earlier too. For now, I have a 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 (a good sample) for general purpose, 20mm f/2.8 for ultra-wide, Sigma 8mm f/3.5 circular fisheye & 50mm f/1.8 for low-light. They are all landscape-oriented preferences. The weight of D700 + 28-200mm to carry on neck at hiking is near my limit. It is heavier than D300, thus restricts the already limited selection of FX lenses that are less heavy than 500g. Anyway usually I don't need a fast glass, since it would be mostly used at f/5.6 to f/16 range anyway. Yet, the lens must be sharp at corners when stopped down, and all my lenses are.<br>

Though sometimes I tempt at the ease of getting a D7000 + 18-105mm VR, with the rationale of "why take the burden since there's an practical & more affordable way now with similar quality if not better", yet I never forget the true reason of moving to FX, which is the upcoming 24mp D800...</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[mervyn_wilmington]

<p>My nearest dealer has neither the D700 nor D7000 in stock at the moment. He suggests a D300s would give maximum use of my existing lenses.</p>

<p>Any experience of that, please?</p>

<p>I've sent him a link for these postings.</p>

<p>Mervyn</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>So your dealer will see my response here? Anyway, I think you should buy the camera that meets your needs, not what your dealer happens to have. D7000 supply is tight at the moment but as far as I can tell, those who want them can get them; they may need to check around a few stores. If you can wait a few more weeks, supply should be no problem at all, from your current dealer.</p>

<p>At this point of the D300S' production cycle, I don't think it is a good idea to get one now unless you must have its AF capability over the D7000. I can't imagine AF capability is a high priority for you since you mainly use older AF lenses and manual-focus lenses.</p>

[mervyn_wilmington]

<p>Thanks for the posting Shun.</p>

<p>In fairness to the dealer, I had particularly referred to the question of the suitability of my lenses on a D700. I had suggested I visit his shop and see how the 70-210 performed on a D700. Obviously, he can't facilitate that at the moment, but has offered the view that some of my lenses might be soft. You have previously expressed concern about their performance on a D700.</p>

<p>I've dropped him an email asking to explain his thoughts on the suitability issue a little more, but also enquiring why I should prefer a D300s over a D7000, especially keeping in mind the seeming better iso performance of the latter.</p>

<p>Mervyn</p>

<p> </p>

[dimitris_georgopoulos1]

<p>Mervyn,<br>

I am using a D3x which replaced my previous D3 quite equivalent in performance with the D700. I am shooting 60% of my photos in available light and night scenes. Hence I missed the hight ISO capability of the D3 and along with it the opportunity to replace it with a D3s which in low light is unsurpassed.<br>

In order to bridge the gap until a new model arrives I bough a D7000 just ten days ago. It is a camera of high picture quality but it is too small, even the classic DX lens the 17-55/2.8 is bigger than the camera, it cannot be handled easily, it has a small view finder (it has a 100% coverage but in DX terms this is small) and above all it is a DX. <br>

Once you are used to an FX it is nearly impossible to go back and underuse your lenses, revise your composition techniques etc etc.<br>

Therefore the D7000 goes back and a D700 has already been ordered.<br>

The D700 is full frame, it is a workhorse, it is mid priced for an FX camera, has an incredible performance up to 3200 ISO a full useable 6400 ISO level at which in RAW post processing you can work miracles and I feel that will retain its value for a long time to come after any new equivalent model appears.<br>

Having worked with the equivalent D3 and with the D7000 and with the replacement of D3s to look imminent (do not forget that the PMA is coming) the D700 would be the only choice for me for the time being.<br>

Last but not least do not care too much about the 12 mpx of the D700 vs. the 16 mpx of D7000. It' s only about being more accurate with your compositions in order not to crop too much. Otherwise you can reach a A3+ printing quality and more without any problem and without any interpolation or resizing and also your 35-70/2.8 will shine on the D700. Regarding of what it is written about many of the new G lenses the 35-70/2.8 remains a top performer on the D3x (I am using it) which means that the lowest resolution D700 will be a piece of cake for it.<br>

I hope I helped a little.<br>

Dimitris V. Georgopoulos<br>

Athens, Greece</p>