I have both a D700 and a D7000. I chose the full-frame sensor and FX lenses for all the reasons previously stated by others. The only reason I have a D7000 is for the video, which is remarkable. I was ready to purchase a much more expensive Sony b'dcst or prosumer video camcorder until I heard rumors of the D7000 and its 1080p capture and H264 MPEG4 recording. Since I already had the F2.8 "trinity" lens compliment, the ability to utilize them for my video shooting made my decision easy. But, I still think of my D700 as my "serious" camera when it comes to still photography. If video is not a consideration, I feel the D700 is the best buy. Soon, I will probably be facing the dilemma of relegating both bodies to backup positions when Nikon finally offers a true pro-level full-frame camera with full HDTV capture and recording.

Like many on this post im going to put my vote on the d700. When I moved over from film i went with a dx body. It has covered my needs but a full frame just would have been better. The crop factor by itself was enough for me to wish I would have went straight to full frame. It is very situation dependant,"which many on here have said" because you might be happy with the extended range of 1.5. I am going to pick up the d700 myself. Love the low light abilites and pro sealing, plus it fits my hands alot better.

I likewise am trying to decide between the D700 and D7000. Right now I'm using the d70s. I only have 3 lenses, (50mm 1.4 - 17-55 2.8 DX and 70-200 2.8 VR. I've recently started taking High School portraits and could desperately use some advice as to which camera to purchase.

One of each. Use the D7000 as a backup and occasional video. ;)

Hi ylDave, If you can afford it I'd say buy the D700. If you can afford it, and can afford to wait for a possible D700 replacement then wait and see?
The problem with waiting is that you don't know how long you'll be waiting for, it could easilly be a year from now and it'll be more expensive than the D700.
If you need a body right now I say D700.

I'm also facing the dilemma of what upgrade path to take.

I have a D200 and would like to upgrade; mostly to get the high iso / low noise / improved DR and AF of one of the newer DSLRs; can't decide between D300s / D700 / D7000.

D7000 - like the price, video capability, high iso capability, improved DR but don't like the controls and am concerned about some of the forum postings about dead pixels / af hunting. And I will have to buy new cards and batteries which will get expensive. And on the handling - I own a D70s which I bought for the high speed sync capability which I never use because I don't like the controls or the ergonomics; much prefer the D200.

D300s - better high iso but some of that is in the software so you lose texture; probably a better all around camera than the D200 but is it a better choice than the other 2? Definitely would be an advantage to share batteries / cards with my D200. I'm not even considering video capability on this due to the limitations.

D700 - my pro friends rave about this camera; but for the price I could get both of the other two. Should I wait until Feb / Mar 2011? NR says it is due for a refresh so I shouldn't buy now (although I would be buying proven technology). This would be complementary to the D200 capabilities (sport with D200; portrait / low light with the D700)

I shoot a mix of sport and portrait. If I was shooting all sport, of course DX would be the better choice for me (except for night time shots, D700 would perform better) to get better range out of my lenses (80-200 2.8 and 70-300 VR) To further complicate things, I occasionally shoot the kids performance (piano, vocal music) in dimly lit rooms; the D7000 video plus a sharp prime lens would be ideal for this.

Thoughts?

Dave
http://flickr.com/sportsaction

The D700 is the bet out of those two. Equip it with a MB-D10 battery grip and the EN-EL4a battery (make sure you get the charger for that battery too) - and you have something pretty close to a D3 experience (8fps).

I used a D700 for nearly 2 years - in all conditions. It got quite heavy use and it is still going strong. It's now the backup camera to a D3S, or the second camera for when I need two of them. I cannot recommend the D700 highly enough.

Images from D700 are very clean as well. Viewfinder is quite good - but I recommend the rubber eyecap attachment, it's a worthwhile addon.

I wouldn't recommend the D7000, it's a DX format - and isn't a really well known quantity. The D700 is known, it does the job well.

On second thoughts, a D700 replacement may be on the horizon soon enough, so perhaps wait and see.

Agreed, actually, on both posts, above, from PB PM and Mike. But, I also think that an FX-body camera is "right" for the OP specifically because he's used to shooting 35mm (which of course, is full-frame). Moving from a film body to a DSLR is hard enough, which, as PB PM points out, with a DX-format DSLR, there's no large, bright viewfinder as you're accustomed to seeing in just about any film SLR. My first DSLR was a DX-format D70, and moving from 35mm to the tiny, dim, hard-to-see viewfinder of my D70 was quite a shock.

I also think the OP will appreciate familiar, full-frame, focal-lengths. Although DX makes your fast, long lenses, quite long and quite "fast" (e.g., you can now benefit from a 300mm f/2.8-equivalent for a fraction of the cost of an actual 300mm f/2.8), I really miss the nuances of shooting various short, fixed-focal length lenses on a full-frame camera (e.g., 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm).

Double-post!

Hi David,

As most have commented, the FX cameras will fit whatever full size Nikkors you have (if you have much of a collection) to exact size, the DX cameras will have a 1.5 crop factor.

Image quality won't be much of a factor, other than that DX (the D7000) will have more noise.

Frankly, the one reason I'd recommend that you go to the DX line is for cost savings. You don't really indicate that you're doing anything other than for recreation, and using digital equipment saves money in the long run, and DX equipment is less expensive than FX equipment; and it is less expensive - partially, I think - since it has a bit less noise that separates one market from another. If you _are_ in a position to be in the market that favors less noise regardless of the cost, you would want to at least consider the D700 and know that all the FX lenses will be more costly as well.

While I agree with Drab's enthusiasm's for Lightroom for gang processing, I use CS5 Photoshop for individual photos, masks, and a slew of other things currently referred to as 'digital darkroom.'

My best,

Mike

To me one of the biggest deal about getting an FX body over DX is viewfinder size, even a 100% finder on a a DX body is small. The 100% finder on my D300 feels tiny and dark compared to the 92% finder on my F90X. If I had the money and had to choose between an FX and DX body, I'd take the FX body, no questions asked.

Personally I'd take the FX body for other reasons, such as better ergonomics, more external buttons for quickly changing settings and the diffraction limit for many lenses is closer to F16 rather than F8-11. Bokeh looks much nicer on film/FX than DX, it is just a little bit creamer. If you love the look of your images on film, you might find the look on DX to be a little different in that regard.

Both the D700 and D7000 will meter older manual focus AI and AI-S lenses, but unlike the FE you cannot use pre-AI lenses unless they are modified.

Forgot to mention. Make sure you budget for a proper raw processing software package as well.
Just as film is only half the equation and printing is a vital part of realizing your vision, raw processing is crucial.

I believe Adobe LightRoom is the best one out there, period. If you have a Mac many people seem to love Aperture. Outside those two one quickly descends into mangled workflows, missing features, follow-the-leader, and a vacant user community.

I would recommend getting a D700, if you don't care about shooting 1080p24 video. An FX sensor will be more light-sensitive with a lower noise floor than its DX counterpart. Not all noise tests are as revealing as they could be. Real-world tests will show a significant, discernable amount of noise in DX images, even at ISOs as low as 100, under trying circumstances (dusk, magic hour, or low-light shooting with lots of chroma in the frame).

From my initial tests, the D7000 appears about as noisy as my D90 (and I think my D90 is fairly noisy). In fact, the noise level in my D90 made me swear I'd never buy another DX body, but I wanted to benefit from the improved video capability of the D7000 now. Though I don't own a D700, from what I've read elsewhere, it appears to be about a stop faster than a D7000, with a visibly lower noise floor.

Increased speed, lower noise, and greater dynamic range are going to be greater contributing factors to achieving improved image quality with the D700's FX sensor, more so, than say, than just the higher megapixel-count of the newer D7000's sensor. If you want to shoot video, get the D7000, or wait for the D800 next year. If you're only concerned with stills, then I would lobby for you getting a D700, or wait for its successor sometime next spring (hopefully).

Double-post!

to reinforce the previous post, focal length for DX must multiplied by 1.5

so a 24-120 lens will behave like a 36-180.

great for telephoto use, bad for wide angle.

But as you do not have much glass to start with, its no issue.

It would perhaps help us if you could state what your budget is for lenses. that value will go far in determining what you should get.

dberkowitz said:
Thank you for your responses. While I appreciate everyone's enthusiasm for the D700 no one has given me a reason to get it, other than how it feels in my hands -- not a reason to be dismissed, but not quite what I was looking for in terms of an analysis of the relative image quality from a D700 shot under the conditions I described versus the D7000.

Drab came closest to the mark in terms of addressing the question. I saw a bunch of image comparisons on Ken Rockwell's site that make the argument to spend twice the money for the D700 less substantial. The question he doesn't address as clearly as I'd like is in the context of the kind of shooting I do. I wish he'd qualify what he means by "medium," "high" "higher" and oh boy ISOs for the analysis he provides. From the images he shot, there doesn't seem to be too much difference between the images on the D7000, the FX, and the Canon 5D MKII.

As for printing, I had a bunch of old Ektalure that I got from a friend's father, other than that, I like the warmer toned papers from Berger. I wish Portriga was still around, or something like it.

Well, if you don't like changing your perspective you get from your lenses, you should go FX, not DX, where there is no crop factor going.

You seem to have a couple old Nikkors hanging around.

In my mind you aren't going to really see a noticable difference in the image quality between the two until you start pushing past ISO 1600. Once you start pushing beyond this, the D700 starts to pull away. From the images that I have seen, at higher ISOs, the noise is slightly better with FX (even though the D7000 does a darn good job with it), and in my mind the colors hold better at high ISOs.

The crop factor on the D7000 mentioned previously is something that you really need to keep in mind since you are coming from film. In my mind, it comes down to D7000 if you shoot at the longer end, and FX if you are a wide shooter. Shooting at 24mm on FX will be the same as you are used to, where as on the D7000 it is going to be closer to 36mm, which could be frustrating.

Sorry, I just rewrote my post to reflect a different perspective. So, your last post doesn't really follow anymore. hopefully it makes more sense now,

Squimish, I'm not asking about a generic DX, I'm asking about the D7000. The test images I've seen at Rockwell's site comparing the D7000, D700, D3X and 5D reveal that the differences are a lot less than you suggest.

The D7000 is a consumer camera and the D700 is a pro camera. Noise is apparently still the bane of the DX format at higher ISOs, but all the other advantages wrought from the resolution and dynamic improvements are quite significant for quality. If your glass is best for a DX sensor then the D7000 is a no-brainer, but if your glass is best suited for FX you might actually want to wait until February and see if they release and FX body that will probably make the D7k be like what the D90 was like compared to the D3/D700. I guess what Im saying is that your glass should determine your choice. And your budget. And how badly you actually really need the camera at the moment.

*so glad Im not shopping for a new camera at the moment - I wouldn't know what to do either*

Are you manual focusing? Viewfinder brightness may be another consideration.

"I wish Portriga was still around, or something like it."
Agfa Portriga was fantastic stuff... *Link Removed* for something similar.

Thank you for your responses. While I appreciate everyone's enthusiasm for the D700 no one has given me a reason to get it, other than how it feels in my hands -- not a reason to be dismissed, but not quite what I was looking for in terms of an analysis of the relative image quality from a D700 shot under the conditions I described versus the D7000.

Drab came closest to the mark in terms of addressing the question. I saw a bunch of image comparisons on Ken Rockwell's site that make the argument to spend twice the money for the D700 less substantial. The question he doesn't address as clearly as I'd like is in the context of the kind of shooting I do. I wish he'd qualify what he means by "medium," "high" "higher" and oh boy ISOs for the analysis he provides. From the images he shot, there doesn't seem to be too much difference between the images on the D7000, the FX, and the Canon 5D MKII.

As for printing, I had a bunch of old Ektalure that I got from a friend's father, other than that, I like the warmer toned papers from Berger. I wish Portriga was still around, or something like it.

It really comes down to cost. Both cameras and DX/FX lenses are very good and will lead to great images.

D7000 is half the cost of the D700 and the lenses are equally cheaper. If you use a just a few lenses in the normal range, then the D7000 might do fine, but if you plan on getting the best glass, you might as well just get a D700 as the lenses are all going to be FX anyways.

If you can afford it, just buy both :)