Nikon D90, D7000 or D700

[april_hollingsworth]

<p>I currently use a Nikon D90. I was looking into upgrading (that's an understatement, I know) to a D700. I then came across reviews for the D7000. My main reason for upgrading is to be able to shoot low light weddings and candle lit receptions. Is the D700 worth the extra moola? Would the 7000 be a decent upgrade?</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Is this paid work? If it is, for that sort of low light shooting, D700. If not... unless money isn't a big deal, probably keep the D90. The D7000 is a stop better, but that not a huge difference.</p>

[Jerry_]

<p>The D700 body, with a good lens ... is a good tool for low-light situations. You may benefit from a monopod, or tripod, if you get into the need for slow shutter speeds -- the D700 will work.</p>

<p>The D7000 is a DX-sensor camera, like your D90. If you are happy with the smaller sensor, then the D7000 will be good for you. As good as the D700....?</p>

<p> </p>

[april_hollingsworth]

<p>It's not for any certain wedding. But yes, they are paid.</p>

[craigd]

<p>Since you say you get paid to shoot weddings, I'd go for the D700. Just bear in mind that you'll want to replace any DX lenses you may have; a D700 hobbled by a DX lens is wasted.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<blockquote>

<p>a D700 hobbled by a DX lens is wasted.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>+1. Unless you have, say, $1500+ for lenses, I would choose the d7000.</p>

[sunray1]

<p>While both camera's have good low light performance, IMO there is a difference in 'look' between images from a D7000 vs a D700. I'm not saying one is better than the other, it's just that I prefer the look of D700 files. Might be worth to compare for yourself if you can shoot some files on your own memory card in a shop.<br>

I also prefer the ergonomics / button lay out and big viewfinder of the D700 and IMO there is a noticable difference in AF performance in low light situations.<br />For me those are the main reasons why I prefer the D700 despite the higher price tag. </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>low light weddings and candle lit receptions</em></p>

<p>For this application, the D700 would be (considerably) better, in my experience. But you need fast lenses to fully realize its potential if you want to keep the mood of the candle light. I.e. 35/1.4, 50/1.4, 85/1.4, 24-70/2.8 etc. A 50/1.4+D700 would be the least expensive way to get good results in candle light. A D7000 is reasonably competitive with the D7000 up to ISO 400 (at ISO 100 arguably it is better than the D700 at 200), but at higher ISO (800-3200) the general image quality and editability of the images are reduced significantly below the capability of the D700.</p>

<p>I use both cameras and like them both, for different applications. I use the D7000 for macro (at ISO 100 on tripod) where it excels, for landscape details, and also for outdoor concerts in daylight where I need more reach than 200mm gives on the D700 (the 70-200II range on DX is usually a good fit for this). Generally speaking, when the (outdoor) light is at its best, I am very happy with the camera. But in low light, the autofocus of the D7000 struggles a bit more than the D700's, and the quality with fast wide angle glass is not quite as good as it is with FX.</p>

<p>If you have the money for it, I would get the 50/1.4 AF-S + D700 + 24-70/2.8 AF-S. This will allow you to get great results in the application you mention. (It's also good for other applications such as travel, giving you more freedom from tripod use in the evening.) If money is tight then I would consider using the 35/1.8 DX (or other fast primes) on your current DX camera and waiting until you can afford an FX setup. People have been shooting weddings with 35mm film and DX digital for many years but the utilization of available light is easier with FX. And remember that if you're responsible for providing the bride and groom their wedding images, you need a backup camera, in fact you should have backups for every critical component of your setup (borrow, lend, or steal, if you have to). So keep the D90 around (you may want it for your long lens shooting in either case). The D7000 is certainly an improvement over it but if you really want to shoot the kind of events you're talking about then I think your money is better spent going directly to FX.</p>

 

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Can you wait a little while to find out what the eventual D700 replacement will be? This is, as has been stated a lot here, a poor time to buy a D700. It's replacement is around the corner.</p>

<p>If you can't afford to plunk down a lot of cash for some new lenses, then stick with the D7000. You'll probably thrive with it, depending on your market.</p>

<p>I'd wait.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>I have both - and as pointed out both have pluses and minuses for someone in your situation. </p>

<p>For you - coming from a D90 - the button layout of the D7000 is going to be a piece of cake. Going to the D700 on the other hand is going to be a whole new experience - since everything is different. </p>

<p>Lenses - If you have Fx lenses - such as the 50 f1.8, 70-200 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8 - then going to Fx isn't going to cost you an arm and a leg - But if you only have 'Dx' designated lenses - then you're going to be shelling out a ton of money for the camera - plus lenses to use on it. </p>

<p>One point that hasn't been made - and it bit me during a recent wedding - is the buffer speed of the D7000 when shooting raw is like a snail. Even with the best sandisk cards in - I can regularly fill the buffer on the D7000. On D700 - I've rarely done that - and it takes seconds for it to clear - as opposed to the minutes for the D7000. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[april_hollingsworth]

<p>I have the 50mm 1.8 D, 80-200 2.8 D and 28-105 mm macro. These will work with the 700, right?</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Yes, those are all FX lenses that are fine on a D700. They'll just behave a bit wider, of course, because there isn't the 1.5 crop factor - so you still have most of the same functionality but you'd want to shuffle around some of the uses. For example, if you shoot portraits with the 50mm on the D90 you'll probably want to go to the 80-200 on the D700.</p>

[rossb]

<p> I suppose when shooting for money a person could consider the overhead. How much will you make shooting and how much do you spend doing it. If you crunch out some numbers and you are not making any money then your overhead may be to high. I suppose as America's wealth continues to be transferred to the very rich the rabble will not be paying much for a wedding shooter. What I am saying is raising your prices will not most likely work out. </p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>I think it would help to know what your usual lens setup is with the d90. Then you'll figure out the cost of a similar replacement for the d700. </p>

[keithdunlop]

<p>Whenever someone is considering between a couple of different cameras for potential upgrade, I always recommend renting both bodies and seeing first hand what works for you. I use both borrowlenses.com and lensrentals.com.</p>

<p>That being said, I have used both the D700 and D7000 professionally for weddings. The D7000 is a tough camera to move to after using the D700, but it has a lot of the things that pros are hoping for in the future D800, namely, higher resolution, dual card slots, HD video, etc. I would be hesitant to rely on the D7000 for heavy pro use due to the lessor build quality, but it is certainly up to the task of low light work. Yes, it lacks the buffer of the D700, but I don't see this as a problem for weddings. The real problem with DX bodies for wedding work is the lack of being able to use wide angle primes at their true focal length. You end up having to use a 17-55 or 12-24 to get your wide angles back.</p>

<p> </p>

[april_hollingsworth]

<p>I currently use the following:</p><p>50mm 1.8</p><p>35mm 1.8 (DX)</p><p>18-55mm VR (DX)</p><p>80-200mm 2.8</p><p>28-100 macro</p><p>When you say "You end up having to use a 17-55 or 12-24 to get your wide angles back," do you mean that it will vignette and the 17-55 and 12-24 won't? <br></p>

[georges_pelpel]

<p>What he meant is that a prime 20mm becomes a prime 35mm on a DX body. No vignetting, just a shallower angle of view.<br /> <br /> Nikon has a prime 14mm to get close to the same effect on a DX body that a prime 20mm delivers on an FX body. But the 14mm is a very big lens compared to the 20mm.<br /> The only other option on DX bodies is to use zooms for wide-angle work. Zooms are heavier and larger and not necessarily delivering the same optical qualities a prime lens does.</p>

[craigd]

<blockquote>

<p>What he meant is that a prime 20mm becomes a prime 35mm on a DX body.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which is actually wrong. The focal length has nothing to do with it. The field of view is cropped by the smaller sensor, that's all. People really need to understand the relationship between focal length, sensor format, and angle of view. One can say that a 20mm lens on a DX camera gives an angle of view similar to that of a 35mm lens on an FX camera, but "angle of view similar to" isn't the same thing at all as saying that the focal length changes.</p>

[randyhargraves]

<p>If you are shooting wide open aperture at these events then you may not need the ultra high ISO capability of the D700. If you shoot at or above 1600 then the D700 is the best option. I shoot a few paid weddings here and there and I use my D300s because I can stay under 1600 with my 35 1.8, 50 1.4 and 180 2.8. </p>

[leslie_cheung]

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>I currently use the following:<br>

50mm 1.8<br>

35mm 1.8 (DX)<br>

18-55mm VR (DX)<br>

80-200mm 2.8<br>

28-100 macro<br>

When you say "You end up having to use a 17-55 or 12-24 to get your wide angles back," do you mean that it will vignette and the 17-55 and 12-24 won't? </p>

</blockquote>

 

 

<p>If you decide to get the d700, a FX camera, then neither of the DX lenses (18-55mm and 35 1.8) would not work for weddings. However, I would use the 80-200, 50 1.8, 28-100mm and add a tamron 28-75mm for ~$400. Most likely the 80-200 and 28-75mm f2.8 will be 95% or so of your event work. Keep the 50mm for lowlight shots. You can even sell the 28-100 imo. </p>

<p>In short, add a 28-75mm to your d700 and keep the 80-200 on your d90. That's a decent setup for events/weddings if you decide to go for the d700. Keep the 50 1.8 in the bag and you'll be set. If you have the dough, of course, get the nikon 24-70mm G and 70-200mm f2.8 VRII (~2k each) </p>

[georges_pelpel]

<p>Craig, you are correct.<br>

Of course the physical features of the lens do not change, a 20mm is always a 20mm.<br>

What I meant is that the a 20mm coverage on a DX sensor is equivalent to the coverage of a 35mm on a traditional (35mm film size or digital FX) sensor. By traditional I mean what the majority of us has grown up with after years of using 35mm film cameras. </p>

[keithdunlop]

<blockquote>

<p>When you say "You end up having to use a 17-55 or 12-24 to get your wide angles back," do you mean that it will vignette and the 17-55 and 12-24 won't?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I mean that the field of view of a 24mm lens on a DX body is not the same as on an FX body. Your view is roughly that of a 35mm lens. If you are using DX bodies and need wide angles, you have to go to super-wide zooms like those mentioned previously.</p>

[keithdunlop]

<p>BTW, before I get flamed, I realize that there are super-wide primes available, but the DX zooms like the 17-55 are better optically IMHO.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I think you'd be better off with a D7000 and buying another modern lens, such as 17-55mm f2.8. Your lenses are all older, screw drive types and with older coatings. I honestly doubt you're going to see any difference in image quality between D7000 with better lenses and D700 with old lenses, or much difference between D7000 and D700 anyway. What lighting do you have-- I assume a pair of SB-900? One other thing to keep in mind that with the D700, you will have about one stop less of DoF from your lenses. Not a big deal if you mostly shoot portraits, of course.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>