I think sevencrossings is giving very good advice!

But the DX advantage is NOT just cost. I have just calculated what adding a D800 and the 24-120 VR Nikkor would be for me right now. About $4,200. The D7000, D300, D90 I am using all work quite well. The D700 was SOMEWHAT better in low light. I sold the D700 as I really needed video also. The BIGGEST advantage of DX over FX is weight in the field. If you were working (using gear that weighs more than camera gear) the addition of yet a BIGGER camera to do documentary shots really is not justified.

In my mind if you are using FX pro gear, photographing is ALL you better be doing. Which to me means you'd better be a photo PRO or you are just a tourist. I do not go places as a tourist. Nikon is taking a huge gamble by leaving such a hole in their DX lineup to push FX all this much. And this is from someone who used very large format cameras in the field for years. I am not going back there. FX does not have such a clear advantage over DX. MOST people taking photos are doing it with much smaller sensor cameras than DX DSLR. IF I WERE NIKON I damn sure would be paying attention to that fact!!

msmoto said:
Another new member, leinadbc,"...............

I have a little money to spend................."

the very big advantage of Dx (D7000) over FX ( D700) is cost

so keep the D7000

I am certainly an advocate of the new 85mm f/1.8G. One of the best bangs for the bucks Nikon has to offer.

As to going from a D7000 to a D700...this is almost a sideways shift. The problem comes in the enormous cash outlay for all the glass...I think instead I might get either the 85mm or possibly the 105mm or 135mm f/2.0 as this would be good for concerts and the local scene. The ISO is the same for the D700 and D7000 so the advantage of the crop sensor is one can use a 135mm f/2 on the D7000 and have the same image size as the 200mm f/2.0 on the D700....only a savings of about $4600!

But if you have that kind of money, well, it just keeps going on and on and on.....

Keep your D7000, grab some new glass, and show us some photos on PAD...

In reply to leinadbc...

I wouldn't say that any camera is going to give "better" pictures but from a technical image standpoint, it really depends on the look you want with the photos.

The D700 has the bigger sensor being full frame so you'll have the advantage (or disadvantage depending on how you look at it) of a narrower depth of field when shooting wide open at 1.8. Honestly from a technical standpoint, I think that's the only advantage you're going to gain from the D700 over the D7000 as far as what the final image may look like.

If you're doing mostly outdoor or studio controlled shots, I'd just suggest buying the 85mm 1.8 for the D7000. The older 85mm 1.8D is my primary portrait lens right now on a D7000 and it's excellent. I've heard nothing but good things about the G version as well so you can't go wrong.

If you do a lot of indoor shots in random environments then the D700's ISO performance may benefit you but you already have a great camera in your hands.

My two cents... :)

Another new member, leinadbc, is asking

"Hello, I'm currently using a nikon d7000 with a 50mm 1.4 and use it for portraits mostly, I also have a 80-200 2.8 that I like to use for concerts but is too heavy for doing everyday portraits, I have a little money to spend so I was wondering if a D700 with a 85mm 1.8 would give me better pictues than my D7000 with the 50mm, I also like having the ability to take pictures in lowlight situations like local bars, thanks for your advices :)"

You can control the aperture by using tape to fix the aperture pin (don't put tape on the ring, but on the lens mount to prevent the aperture from stopping all the way down). This is a DIY solution I occasionally use to do things like mount my 11-16 on my FM2 (it works surprisingly well, certainly much cheaper than buying a used 14mm or 15mm).

If you do this, use a good tape that is removable (professional framing tape works, if it's for VERY short term use you could use masking tape or painter's tape too), and that you only need a little bit (on the order of a few square mm). Also you need to meter, since the FM2 doesn't do stop down metering- the easiest way is to stick it on a dslr in manual mode and lower the aperture in 1/3 stops- when the image doesn't change anymore, you have found the aperture that you fixed the lens at.

As with any DIY solutions, you do this at your own risk etc..

>> have a two G lenses that are buggers \,,

Are those lense DX lenses by any chance.. ? , then you'll have havy vignetting as well on you FM2 at 35mm film ( = "Full Format" or "FX format"....).

Which is a long thread to say 'no'. Bugger. If one existed, I'd buy it. It is a LOT cheaper to get one adapter than suffer through Sigma and buy older lenses. I don't live in a house. Currently, I am living in a few places till next year and cannot afford both the money for lenses (that I want to check myself are good and usable) and to transport them around. No room. Anyway, thanks for all the responses.

Tao...

I am astounded by your comment of "any lens will do".

Maybe if you are into lomo stuff, but there is just as much of a difference in lens quality on film as there is in digital, if not more, due to the fact that there is no automatic correction of abberations.

Also, such adapters would only work for any given model of lens, all G lenses have different aperture ranges, which means that no single adapter could be used for the AI-pin placement. It would be cheaper to get a few good old Nikkors and go nuts.

A "Fools errand" if you ask me. Just buy some used MF lenses.

If one did exist, cheap crappy adapters usually run close to $100. Good ones - $350.
A 50mm 1.8 E-series lens runs about $50 on ebay.
A Sigma 24mm 2.8 MF runs for $18.

When it comes to film these days, as long as you are not doing commercial/ paid work, any lens will do. I personally like the crappy Sears lenses for their "artistic" touch to an image.

I haven't heard of such an adapter. Changing the flange distance would mean that you cannot focus to infinity anymore (like using an extension ring). To compensate that you would need to add some optics to the adapter. Basically you need a 1x Teleconverter with the ability to "translate" from electronic aperture setting (camera communication to G-lens) to mechanical.

I don't think that someone would bother to produce something like this - unfortunately. But if you find one, let us know!

Even if such an adapter were available it would be very expensive. At least a couple of hundred dollars or around the same price as getting another lens.

The price of Nikon's older lenses has shot up in recent months. Even before the earthquake. I blame the D7000 and it's ability to shoot older lenses. I also blame mirrorless cameras from Panasonic and Olympus. Older lenses that nobody wanted are now popular again. Lenses for those systems use to sell for 10 or 20 dollars. Now they fetch hundreds. Luckily i can still buy Canon's FD lenses for under $100.

I don't mind losing the G stuff. I have the lenses and cannot afford more, manual AF-D, or not. Actually, my favourite: a 50 1,2 from the first batch is having major troubles and Nikon don't reckon they can fix is as the parts here are no longer available. The part in question is the aperture ring.

I am currently unemployed and will probably not be employed for more than 1 month in the next 6, so buying lenses (even if employed as I have a wife...) is sadly out of the question. I'm all for concessions right now, but it looks like I have none availabe.

FM2 is manual, why go through the trouble when you can get great manual focus lenses for very small money compared to the cost of G lenses.

then you loose all the advantages the G lenses have over the older lenses, as Niko said "That's why you are better off just getting used AF-D and older lenses"

and they will no longer be G and maybe loose the electrical contacts.

not worth the trouble, sell them and get D lenses, still work with your D200 and the Fm.

I have 3 G lenses, but have a different set of manual focus lenses for my F3.

That's why you are better off just getting used AF-D and older lenses.

By the way I just spent this weekend burning some Pro 800Z film with my FM2 while waiting for the world to end.

Yes, I realise that, but an altered flange distance would still be better than not using the lens at all. I have extension tubes, etc., that also alter the distance, but they don't allow me to change the aperture of my lens.

Such an adapter would alter the flange focal distance.

I have an FM2 that I quite love and a D200. I also have a two G lenses that are buggers because of the lack of aperture ring. Does anyone know of an aperture ring that will convert (with, I assume, some loss) a G lens to an AI-S lens?

donaldejose said:
First, do not buy the D700 now. It is expected to be replaced by the D800 in a month or in a few months. Just wait a while. In 6 months you should be able to choose between the D7000, the new D800 and a used D700 sold at a lower cost than they are sold for today because they will be "old" technology at that time.

Second, the picture quality is almost guaranteed to be D800 the best, D700 next best and D7000 last. But you will have to look at the images yourself at the ISOs you plan to use and make your own judgment as to the cost/quality ration.

Sorry to say the best answer to your question is "neither" right now. Just wait a few months until the D800 is out and add that choice onto your list.

Its going to be longer than a month for the D700 replacement. The tsunami/earthquake in Japan has causes serious delays in any pro bodies and lenses. While the D700 is still amazing, the D7000 is damn close and a great bargain until a D700 replacement is near. Even when the D800 drops, the D700 will still take amazing photos.

If the D800 was announced today, it would still be several months before stock is available and probably several more before you'll actually get one.

First, do not buy the D700 now. It is expected to be replaced by the D800 in a month or in a few months. Just wait a while. In 6 months you should be able to choose between the D7000, the new D800 and a used D700 sold at a lower cost than they are sold for today because they will be "old" technology at that time.

Second, the picture quality is almost guaranteed to be D800 the best, D700 next best and D7000 last. But you will have to look at the images yourself at the ISOs you plan to use and make your own judgment as to the cost/quality ration.

Sorry to say the best answer to your question is "neither" right now. Just wait a few months until the D800 is out and add that choice onto your list.

To my eyes, I can barely tell the difference between the D7000 and the D700. The D700 has just a little less noise at ultra high ISOs and retains slightly better detail at high ISOs, but the difference is very minimal. I actually passed on the D700 and purchased another D7000(I have two D7000's) due to my experience with these bodies. Paying MSRP for a soon-to-be refreshed D700 wasn't a smart buy, especially since the D7000 comes so close.

I am interested in what the OP bought since this is a 7 month old thread now . . .

I have access to both d700, d7000 and the 70-200vr2. what is the best way to compare them in fairnes given one is ff and one is crop i.e. shoot from the same distance, shoot at the same angle of view, etc.

Rx4Photo said:
This is actually what I'm curious about. I would naturally expect the D700 paired with the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII to produce significantly better images than the D7000 paired with the 70-300mm f/3.5-5.6 VR. But would love to see image comparisons of the D700 vs the D7000 both with the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII.

You should note that the N70-200mm F2.8 VRII is not the lense I use the most. If I had to choose only one lense, I would take the N24-70mm F2.8.
If you want the best glass, you would get both, then at that price, the increment between the D7000 and the D700 is not as significant, but you would be comparing roughly a $10,000 system against a $2,000 one (and yes, at that price, one would expect to see the difference in quality).

Once you decide on the price you are willing to pay for your glasses, choosing the body becomes a no-brainer.

casperwb said:

why did you not switch lens and use both lenses on both cameras so you could have a good idea of the difference in the quality of photos for these cameras.

This is actually what I'm curious about. I would naturally expect the D700 paired with the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII to produce significantly better images than the D7000 paired with the 70-300mm f/3.5-5.6 VR. But would love to see image comparisons of the D700 vs the D7000 both with the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII.

The answers could determine my next major purchase-either a full frame camera or just get the 70-200mm f/2.8. I currently have the D7000 and shoot occasionally with the 70-300mm VR and am often left unhappy with the final results with shots taken with zoom beyond...say...200mm.