I think the 39 p Af makes it a keeper. I found that the 11 af points on many previous mid low models is kinda slow and terrible at quick AF. Still better than those D70s's I use at my weekend job.

I myself have a batch of Nikon DSLRs, quite a few DX, and the one D700. The D700 is one amazing camera. All that said the D7000 is going to be a big seller and a very practical camera.

I have a D700 with a few Pro lens, there is only one disadvantage, its an expensive bit of kit, but the results are fantastic. Should you wait? yes for Nikon's new full frame high end consumer camerae. All of Nikon new lenses are full frame. I suspect they are going to introduce a full frame high end consumer camera to go with them, if you cant wait go for the D700 but put aside at least as much again for some lenses eg the 70-200 f2.8

very good comment, this actually makes me thinking...

JJump said:
If you are not a professional photographer, or don't need to use the photos you take professionally, and are only going to be shooting your kids, there is simply no justification for the extra $1000 between the two bodies. If the AF on the D7000 can't freeze your child, it's not like the D700 is going to be 1000x or should I say, $1000 better. Try focusing manually once in a while, as you'll be surprised how well you can do with moving kids, sometimes better than an AF can track their eyes.

As far as the ISO. It's a matter of just turning more lights on, or shooting your child in a better lit area. Those who need the high ISO and go for full frame cameras are generally those that have professional reasons why they have to be able to shoot in dull lighting.

You can get very large sized enlargements of your kids just using a DX sensor, so why not just stick with that and save the cash? You have to decide if it's worth that much more money of having the thrill of the better camera, or are you actually, really going to need that better camera?

If you are not a professional photographer, or don't need to use the photos you take professionally, and are only going to be shooting your kids, there is simply no justification for the extra $1000 between the two bodies. If the AF on the D7000 can't freeze your child, it's not like the D700 is going to be 1000x or should I say, $1000 better. Try focusing manually once in a while, as you'll be surprised how well you can do with moving kids, sometimes better than an AF can track their eyes.

As far as the ISO. It's a matter of just turning more lights on, or shooting your child in a better lit area. Those who need the high ISO and go for full frame cameras are generally those that have professional reasons why they have to be able to shoot in dull lighting.

You can get very large sized enlargements of your kids just using a DX sensor, so why not just stick with that and save the cash? You have to decide if it's worth that much more money of having the thrill of the better camera, or are you actually, really going to need that better camera?

Back last November, I was debating over getting the D700 or wait for its replacement. When news broke out that D700 replacement would not be for 2010, for me going D700 in May was a no brainer. Given every thing else I had to buy; switching the body when the replacement comes out is not going to be the biggest expense, especially if the D700 retains its value.

Now with a 10 month old eager to get older and your investments in lenses, I would say that for you, not having any video of your son may be a much worst proposal than not having the elusive and still to be demonstrated better pic of a FF.

D700 and the bigger heavier FF lenses would be quite a cumbersome to add over the rest of the baby stuff you have to carry. Another problem I am facing is that I have almost no picture of myself as my wife finds the D700 too heavy to handle. If your wife is anything like mine, you may have to do all the pictures yourself.

Agreed there's no way the D7K can equal the D700 performance except it except it exceeds in resolution. Trust me get the D700.

NSXType-R said:
I agree, your body is aging anyway, it's nice to upgrade every once in a while.

LOL!! I didn't read this with the double meaning previously. HA! Now, I almost peed in my pants!

CassiusRoads said:
Sounds like something out of science fiction. Almost as funny as when someone on another forum posted that they mainly enjoyed shooting children and animals. Photographic quotes read out of context can be quite amusing.
A little more on topic - The D700 sounds like the right upgrade for you if your priorities are low light shooting and excellent af. The D7000 is probably a great upgrade as well, but how it compares to the D700 for high iso and af performance is still unknown. One other thing to consider is that your 35 f/1.8 isn't really made to cover 35mm, although, if you like a lot of vignetting it'll work fine at large apertures. I'll probably get a D700 some day as it fixes the two problems I have with my D200: tiny viewfinder, and relatively poor high iso performance. With af lenses I'm guessing the D700 and D7000 focusing speed and accuracy will be comparable, but I'm biased towards the D700 since 90% of the time I use mf lenses.

Haha, I see what you meant there.

Honestly, if price is no issue, he could upgrade to the D700, but he'd have to get a couple FX lenses.

where did this whole AF-performance thing come from?

D700 has a pro-layout and speed for AF.

There's no way the D7k will equal it. . .it may come close, but it won' have 51 points, and the VF spread of points will be certainly different.

ISO performance is up in the air - most pics I've seen were jpg's, not RAW, so who even knows. . .it'll probably be close, real close, but the TYPE of noise is the key question here. . .the D700 will still probably have "better looking" noise compared to the D7k due to the size of the pixels, etc. . .

So let's no compare the two that directly. . .(still wouldn't mind a D7k in my bag!)

:) what if i take a jump getting a d700 only 20 days later found out d7k almost has the same AF and ISO performance? or only a little bit weak AF and ISO?

again, there is almost 1k difference in price!

I thought I was maybe crazy upgrading last Christmas from my D300 to a D700 because I thought there might be a refresh back then! Maybe I felt this way because the D3X was released at Christmas time. Boy, I feel foolish now. Don't wait you could end up waiting forever especially if your finances are in order right now. The D700 is magical :)

NSXType-R said:
I agree, your body is aging anyway, it's nice to upgrade every once in a while.

Sounds like something out of science fiction. Almost as funny as when someone on another forum posted that they mainly enjoyed shooting children and animals. Photographic quotes read out of context can be quite amusing.
A little more on topic - The D700 sounds like the right upgrade for you if your priorities are low light shooting and excellent af. The D7000 is probably a great upgrade as well, but how it compares to the D700 for high iso and af performance is still unknown. One other thing to consider is that your 35 f/1.8 isn't really made to cover 35mm, although, if you like a lot of vignetting it'll work fine at large apertures. I'll probably get a D700 some day as it fixes the two problems I have with my D200: tiny viewfinder, and relatively poor high iso performance. With af lenses I'm guessing the D700 and D7000 focusing speed and accuracy will be comparable, but I'm biased towards the D700 since 90% of the time I use mf lenses.

The D700 is an amazing camera and at least we know it is one of the best cameras ever made. I know two people with Nikon D3x that have both said the D700 is simply amazing. They both own D700 also. They use the D700 almost exclusively when they are on the run, not the D3x. If I get a D700 upgrade ALL that I will be getting that for is video. From what I have seen of Nikon video to date, the D700 still looks like a winner. In fact I am going to stick to DX for Nikon video. Depends to on what you get a D700 for? This all makes me think the D700 is still going to look great YEARS from now. I am going to buy a D7000 when I can get it. But FF has its huge advantages. First is the view in the finder.

fedorafans said:
i guess i will hold off until i see how well the AF performance is on D7k then make decision.

IF the new meter is there for why I think it's there, and IF you use 3D subject tracking, than I think the D7000 AF is going to blow most everybody away.

the d7000 has 16MP, video and possibly as good high ISO as the D700.

Every other thing the D700 has is better than the D7000.

If you are shooting inside you need full frame with fast lenses. ideally the 35mm 1.4G when it comes out.

RE:Drab said:
Are you saying the 300 f/2.8 produces images with a greater depth of field on your D300s than the 300 f/2.8 does on your D700 from the same focal distance?

I am unclear, but it seems you want me to say FX shots have the same depth of field as DX shots when the same lense is used.

Well they do.

What is not clear is why I would say that to someone with a d50 who has no idea (assumption) about how these things are related.

The fact that the shot will be completely changed and therefore effective focal length rather than actual focal length is far more useful should be considered.

An identical looking (not theoretical) shot taken using a d700 with 300 2.8 wide will have 1.5 times less depth of field than the shot taken on a d300 with 300 2.8 wide.

Of course in order to take a shot that looks the same on the d300 I would need to be 1.5 times the distance from the subject.

I hope this is clear to everyone.

I'd say get the d700. The full frame is that good :)

i guess i will hold off until i see how well the AF performance is on D7k then make decision.

man, i wanted a d700 badly..

I agree, your body is aging anyway, it's nice to upgrade every once in a while.

i don't think it's crazy.

The price point for any replacement will be 10% more than whatever is on the market now. . .(usually). . .

and the D700 sensor is still pretty damn amazing. . .to get noise levels close to a D3s (newer 12mpx FX sensor), just use DxO software or DeNoise/Noise Ninja, you'll easily gain the 1.5 stops lost when comparing the two. . .

D700 is amazing camera with amazing autofocus/metering. It makes tracking things (kids, animals) in all directions, effortless. I upgraded to D700 in July it is awesome. D7000's tracking/metering is a big unknown Today. The high iso ability is probably going to be great, but that's not everything. If you can't track your kid running and suddenly moving directions, high ISO won't necessarily help if the camera can't keep up with sudden changes of movements. It has been established time and time again that D700's autofocusing system CAN. Judging from the fact that Canon 5D Mark 1 still sells used for $1000 after 5 years even after 5DM2 has been out for 2 years, it is safe to say that D700 will hold its value even after the successor will come out.

Gareth said:
yes, though i suppose i would have to run some tests to make sure. but my 70-200 2.8 VRII at 200 on the d300s is 300 equivalent and has FAR more depth of field than my 300 2.8 VR on my D700 when focussed on a person who fills the whole frame.

That's not what I asked... I asked:

Drab said:
Are you saying the 300 f/2.8 produces images with a greater depth of field on your D300s than the 300 f/2.8 does on your D700 from the same focal distance?

Gareth said:
After reading this,

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/digitaldof.html

it would appear the D300s has 1.5X the depth of field (this can be good or bad, depending on how many people I want in focus).

EDIT: Bob appears to saying what I'm saying. As I reread the answer given isn't to the question I asked, thus the confusion.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pva1964/sets/72157623286710404/
http://www.naturfotograf.com/D3/D3_rev06.html

Drab said:
Just to be clear. Am I reading this right? Are you saying the 300 f/2.8 produces images with a greater depth of field on your D300s than the 300 f/2.8 does on your D700 from the same focal distance?

yes, though i suppose i would have to run some tests to make sure. but my 70-200 2.8 VRII at 200 on the d300s is 300 equivalent and has FAR more depth of field than my 300 2.8 VR on my D700 when focussed on a person who fills the whole frame.

After reading this,

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/digitaldof.html

it would appear the D300s has 1.5X the depth of field (this can be good or bad, depending on how many people I want in focus).

I said the d700 was great for indoor kendo, but i used the same lens on the d300s the day before to shoot outdoor soccer, the results were very pleasing, though if i felt like running around a lot, the d700 would look better with more OOF areas.

Gareth said:I used the d700 and a 300 2.8 VR. the people in the backgroud ruin most packed gym kendo shots, but with this combo i got some REALLY nice shots. If i used the d300s it would have been too long and to much DOF.

Just to be clear. Am I reading this right? Are you saying the 300 f/2.8 produces images with a greater depth of field on your D300s than the 300 f/2.8 does on your D700 from the same focal distance?

waiting for d800 just takes too long and i think the price will be pretty stiff when it first releases.

lewinp said:
if its not so urgent, you might want to wait until Nikon announces the D700 upgrade (numerous postings on this) - then I suspect the price of a D700 will fall significantly. Most people seem to think February. You have a nice collection of prime lenses that will work good with the full frame.