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 :)"

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.

Pierre said:
My friend and I went shooting animals together on a bright winter day, me with a D700 & 70-200 VRII f/2.8 and him with a D7000 & 70-300 f/4.5. When comparing my photos with his, my system was significantly better on every shot to the point that I no longer consider the purchase of a D7000 as a second body, event if it is more portable. I know a better test would have been for the both of us to have a 70-200 and I cannot tell how much of the degradation is due to the lenses choice. If you care more about picture quality and you are willing to carry heavy professional lenses anyway, then I think a D700 would be a better choice.

Mind you that my friend pictures were still very good but even him saw the difference and he no longer wants to go with a head to head challenge anymore.

yeah right, $600.00 lense against a $$2300.00 lens

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.

hopefully biased test and reporting like yours will not turn off prospective buyers.

My friend and I went shooting animals together on a bright winter day, me with a D700 & 70-200 VRII f/2.8 and him with a D7000 & 70-300 f/4.5. When comparing my photos with his, my system was significantly better on every shot to the point that I no longer consider the purchase of a D7000 as a second body, event if it is more portable. I know a better test would have been for the both of us to have a 70-200 and I cannot tell how much of the degradation is due to the lenses choice. If you care more about picture quality and you are willing to carry heavy professional lenses anyway, then I think a D700 would be a better choice.

Mind you that my friend pictures were still very good but even him saw the difference and he no longer wants to go with a head to head challenge anymore.

Ade Barkah said:
business.

What I really want is D700 + higher megapixels + HD video. My local camera store knows that they can charge my credit card the day the D700's successor is announced.

I am also wanting to see that camera show up. My problem is I would be hard pressed to justify paying over $3k for something that is just a hobby. Even AT $3k I would probably ponder it for quite some time (and probably end up with the D300s replacement if it came out) ;- )

jing7600 said:
Im selling my 2 month old d700 if you're interested...

that is a no no, read the rules

the terminator will be here soon.

or as arnold said....you've been term.....ted

I shoot with both a D700 and D7000 (now professionally).

While the D700 is still my main camera, if I can only keep one body, I would keep the D7000. It has superb stills image quality (on par with the D700 under most lighting conditions) AND it can do HD/1080p video as well, which is becoming so important to the business.

What I really want is D700 + higher megapixels + HD video. My local camera store knows that they can charge my credit card the day the D700's successor is announced.

@NSXType-R: Although I got the D7K with its kit lenses (AF-S Nikkor 18-105mm 1:3.5-5.6 ED),the decision on betting the D700 or D7000 was not from the lens point of view. I migrated to digital from a Film Nikon 8008s (The predecessor of the N90), and I still have it with some FF Glass that I could use on the D700.

I knew this kit lens from a different camera I got for my daughter two years ago, and I saw that you can get neat results from it (I mean cost-effective results)

--- Ricky

Spoiler: I'm not a professional photographer but an amateur one that takes photography as a serious hobby.

Super Shooter said:
@Rx4photo I think she's just playing mind games with you man. Women love to play mind games! Just show her a picture of the $3000 diamond necklace you almost bought her and call it even.

Yeah, I recently mentioned a future upgrade to her and now she's not too enthusiastic about the extra $$. Go figure. Personally, I'd rather get a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens now because that D7000 is an awesome camera.

@Rx4photo I think she's just playing mind games with you man. Women love to play mind games! Just show her a picture of the $3000 diamond necklace you almost bought her and call it even.

PB PM said:
I think it comes down to two things, what you can afford and what you need to get the photo shoot done. If you can get the job done with a DX camera, by all means use one. If you need an FX camera to get the job done, get one.

Absolutely, and the choise in my opinion, has nothing to do with how many shots you plan to or in the past have put through your old camera.

Here's a story.

Last year I gave my Powershot Pro1 to my niece because she was very interested in photography and couldn't afford a nicer camera than the one in her cellphone. That's when I began researching my next camera. After discovering that Nikon was about to come out with the D7000 and figuring my wifey would have an issue with its cost I planned my strategy. I came home from work and told her I wanted this camera (D7K) and that camera only for Christmas. She said "are you sure." I said "YES." She said "what a coincidence, I was going to get you a Nikon for Christmas." I said "how about that, well, this is the one I want."

We ordered it that night in September (she even paid for it herself as a gift to me) ...waited for 2 frustrating months...and I got it in November and I have enjoyed it ever since.

We were watching TV in January and someone on this home decorating show had a 3Ds. That's when I explained the difference in DX and FX to her. I asked her "by the way, what Nikon model were you looking at buying for me anyways?" (the whole time I thought she was planning to get me a high end Coolpix). She said "I'm not sure but I know it was going to cost 3 THOUSAND DOLLARS." I said "WHAT?"

We went to the B&H website and she pointed at the D700 with an attached lens. I said "YOU WERE GOING TO BUY THAT FOR ME?" She said "yeah, but you wanted that other camera and I didn't want to say anything, besides we saved a lot of money."

SO, to this very day I've been happy with my D7000 but in the back of my mind I can't help but to think "man, what IF I'd gotten that D700....."

I think it comes down to two things, what you can afford and what you need to get the photo shoot done. If you can get the job done with a DX camera, by all means use one. If you need an FX camera to get the job done, get one.

You can compare them both here:

http://imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

To my eye the FX sensor creates the "better" (more pleasing) image even though it has fewer pixels.

rbid said:
I also thought to upgrade from the D70s to the D700 but my budget was not there (for a new camera), so after a small research, I decided to get the D7000, and I'm *very* happy with this decision.

Cool!

What's your kit comprised of, lens wise?