D700 vs. D7000

[elliot1]

<p><em>"The D7000 has major focusing issues. Its low light ability is way below the D700's. "</em></p>

<p>Renato, based on my actual use of a D7000 since early this year, and comparing the results I get with it VS the D3 I have been using for the last 3 years, both these statements are simply not factual.</p>

[greg_kowalczewski]

<p>I defer to Wade Thompson's opening question "What lenses do you already own?" (Important question)<br>

The pros and cons of the D700 v D7000 should be made with respect to the lens you intend to use. In short, the quality of the glass should match the quality of the body. A mismatch in either direction is not optimal (but it generally makes more sense to invest more money toward good glass).<br>

When statements are made about how good or bad either body works, the users who make them (such as Renato or Elliot) should qualify these statements in terms of the lenses that were fitted, what they were shooting and under what type of light (or better still, post a shot and state the EXIF data), along with any significant post processing (be it cropping, increasing contrast, noise reduction etc).</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Again, please see my posted yesterday, September 6 at 9:56am above. Two weeks ago, Vicki the OP already told us that:</p>

<ul>

<li>She shoots her son's youth football games.</li>

<li>She currently has a D50 with 18-55, 70-300 (did not specify which version) and 50mm lenses.</li>

<li>Her budget is about $1000.</li>

</ul>

<p><a rel="nofollow" href="00ZEVv">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00ZEVv</a></p>

<p>So unless her budget has somehow suddenly gone up 2.5 times, the D700 is totally out of question. Moreover, even though she can stretch to a $2500 body, without corresponding lens support, it is silly to spend so much money on a body lone.</p>

<P>

For someone who has been using a D50, the D7000 is already a huge upgrade.

</P>

<p>Concerning the D7000, I bought one as soon as it was available in November last year. Since then, I have gone one two international trips. My experience is that its AF is very good, just a bit below the top-of-the-line D3/D300's Multi-CAM 3500. A lot of the so called "AF problems" on the D7000 are simply user errors, as Thom Hogan points out.</p>

<p>I captured the following image at a late night tennis match @ ISO 3200 on the D7000, with the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR II at 200mm, f2.8 and 1/500.</p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<p>This is the pixel level crop. AF is spot on. At ISO 3200, clearly the quality is not the best but still acceptable. I printed this image to 8.5x11 and it looks fine to me.</p>

<p>It also shows that the 70-200 VR II is still excellent @ 200mm, f2.8 on the demanding 16MP D7000. If people have the budget, I would much rather invest on good lenses first.</p><div></div>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>should qualify these statements in terms of the lenses that were fitted, what they were shooting and under what type of light</em></p>

<p>I agree absolutely. Opinions on the high ISO image quality and autofocus performance expressed here vary widely. Rather than assume that one poster or another is wrong, what is likely behind these differences in findings is simply different conditions, different objectives, and different lenses used. I have to say that my experience leans towards agreeing with Renato's view (though I would not express it using as strong words). I've shot the following sports with it: 1) indoor figure skating (poor results vs. D3), 2) long-distance runners (here I have had to make amendments by resorting to shooting stopped down with both FX and DX), 3) WRC (the D7000 worked ok here thanks to the subject being a good fit for central cross-type AF points, which I normally can only rarely use, also the special stages I shot at were during broad daylight), 4) theatrical re-enactment of medieval knights tournaments (including horse racing; AF performance was decent but not great; got a lot of shots where the AF had found a more interesting detail to focus on in the background rather than the racing horse; of course this could be because I was trying to maintain focus on the rider's head instead of relying on just getting some part of the horse sharp which a lot of people seem to be satisfied with). Other subjects which require solid AF performance include indoor PhD defences (this requires the use of f/2 maximum apertures, subject is not moving much; D7000 did poorly in the AF department though best shots were excellent (lens: 200/2 AF-S)), street photography with long lenses (the D7000 performs ok with the 70-200II stopped down to f/4 here; at f/2.8 not so much; with the 200/2 + 2X TC the performance was poor, with 70-300 VR best results were good but a very low percentage of focus keepers), concert photography with a wide aperture (stopped down to f/4 good results consistently, at f/2.8 it is difficult but not impossible to get good results though there is a lot of variability in focus, and at f/2 even on a tripod the camera constantly jitters the lens (200/2 with no TC) in and out of focus, making it very difficult to get acceptable results though the sensor and lens themselves match well and produce good image quality). I am used to FX and the Multi-CAM 3500 on FX has the advantage that the portion of the whole frame on which an individual focus point is sensitive to, is smaller than on DX cameras, therefore I can pinpoint the focus on a face even though a whole horse is in the picture, something I cannot reliably do on the D7000. My conclusion was that the camera is too limiting in terms of the choice of optics, apertures, ISO settings and conditions which yield good results on a consistent basis. Other people shoot in a different way, and get different results but I want a certain visual look to the image and am not satisfied merely with getting a subject in focus (with lots of background clutter) at f/8. I maintain that the D7000 has a great sensor and I have high expectations for future cameras employing it or further developments of it. It remains a great option for telephoto photography for people on a budget but <em>if the budget allows</em> for a D700 and good lenses (i.e. 70-200 and 300/4 or better) then I would definitely get those rather than a D7000.</p>

<p>As to the question of achieving sufficient reach, well, I find the 70-200 Mk II gives harsh bokeh in backgrounds when the subject is from tens of meters (or more) away from the camera. At short distances the bokeh is good. However, the use of a DX camera typically means you will use this lens on subjects that are further away, meaning that this adverse effect will be exhibited more commonly in the pictures. Sharpness is almost never a problem with this lens (well, too much sharpness might be, for portraits in hard light), but the backgrounds sometimes are. I think the 300/4, while it doesn't have quite the AF performance of the 70-200/2.8 or 300/2.8, gives nicer rendition of backgrounds and for someone possibly shooting subjects far away (as is often the case in sports that take place on a large field) this matter should be considered. To me the ability to cleanly separate the main subject from the clutter of other team members and render the latter as smoothly as possible without sharp edges, is important to high quality photography of distant subjects and that's one of the reasons why I've become very fond of the 200/2+TC20E III; while the central sharpness is not quite as good as you'd expect from a prime lens without TC, the sharpness is still very good even wide open, and the rendition of backgrounds is unbelievably beautiful. Someone concerned primarily with the sharpness of the main subject and not at all interested in how clean the rest of the image is, might not care about such things.</p>

<p>Anyway, 300/4 + 70-200 (I or II), and D700 would be my preference. You can get the lenses second hand and maybe also the camera (though I would buy the camera new). The 70-200 Mk I is cheaper than the Mk II and offers better bokeh in long-distances (and also maybe better sharpness at f/4 at long distances); at close distances (any aperture), at f/2.8 (any distance), and in the FX corners the Mk II is sharper though. Mk II's autofocus is said by Nikon to be a better match for the D700/D3 series AF sensor. I can believe that though I always found both lenses to autofocus excellently.</p>

<p>If you get the D7000, one version of the 70-200 or another is still something you will want. (80-200/2.8 AF-S should also be fine if you can get one of those.) Borrow or steal if you have to (seriously!) You can get much better results of the D7000 by choosing a lens which it mates well with and the 70-200 is among the best of them. The 70-300 VR is affordable, small, and convenient to use and gives decent image quality on the D7000 but the autofocus is not a good match with this camera and probably you will want to shoot in conditions where a 300mm f/5.6 that requires stopping down to f/8 to give clear images is too slow. Though certainly you can start with that. Remember: most of us start with very modest equipment and manage to obtain better equipment over several decades of commitment (and investment) to the hobby. You can get the 300/4 later if you want to.</p>

<p>BTW the D700 is only 70% more expensive than the D7000 currently where I live and so this should not be a driving decision either way. If the 200mm reach is not sufficient for the OP on FX then a 1.4X TC on a 70-200 Mk II might be. (Mk I gives poor results on the 1.4X TC also, at least on DX.) I would not recommend the 2X TC on the 70-200II ... I have tried it and found the printed images muddy for a lack of a better word. Some have said they like it though. But then often you may run into the 70mm limit on DX ... at least I have, when the subjects are approaching close by I like the more dramatic and three-dimensional view of the short focal length (though you could argue it is not safe to use it). The D7000 is lighter weight ... which means you will take it with you more often and probably you'll be able to shoot longer stretches without fatigue. So there is no one camera that is the <em>absolutely </em>best choice in all respects. I guess they make so many different models for this reason. And as has been said, the D7000 will yield far, far better results than the D50. The improvement is certainly going to be a thrill in that respect. I made this post not to discourage you from buying the D7000 but because I felt some of the things said above exaggerate the D7000's merits vs. the D700.</p>