Need Advice - D7000 or D700 « Nikon Rumors Forum

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

Need Advice - D7000 or D700

(53 posts) (32 voices)

Tags:

12 3 Next »

ShakeyJoe

new member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 2
offline

I know these two cameras are in completely different leagues, but I would like to hear from the rest of the folks here. I've been using my D70 since 2004 and have taken over 15000 shots since. My main focus is landscape and general travel photos. I have both dx and fx lens. Video is not really important, but high ISO is something I absolutely want (which I'm sure both of these cameras have)

So I would like to know for someone who takes a landscape and travel photos, which is the best camera for me. Get the new D7000 (1199$USD) or the 2 year old D700 (2049$USD). I won't be able to afford the D700 replacement, since I'm sure it'll be close to 3k when it comes out.

Cheers.

Posted 2 years ago #
photoboy2005

member
Joined: Nov '09
Posts: 12
offline

if you have only pull 15000 shots in like 6 years then your not a heavy user really. so the D7000 will do what you want just fine. but you should really pull up the specs on both cameras and compare that way... see what you think...

Posted 2 years ago #
comm96

new member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 2
offline

Being a Full Frame DSLR, the D700 would probly pull up better in the Noise Department. And seeing as tho your main focus is shooting Landscapes, attention to detail might be of concern. I just recently bought the D700, and it is awesome at night. The 6400ISO matches or betters my D200's 800ISO. But the D7000 does look tempting!!! Tho I would probly still go for the D700....Good luck!!

Posted 2 years ago #
blckcat

member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 44
offline

Hey, I had encountered similar decision problem like you but I had to choose between D300s vs D700 vs wait for new DX camera. My choice was to wait for new DX camera (may be d7000 or d300s refresh model. I'll be deciding when D7000 gets released so I can have my hands on it.). My main reason for choosing DX is because the price of DX body and price of the DX lenses. With the price of, lets say, D7000 you can get another lens if you have budget for D700. Another thing is that most people want D700 or full frame camera is because it has better high ISO noise level and better depth of field. If you have a budget for D700, i'd get a cheaper dx camera and get a high end lens because it will make up for the depth of field (lenses that have 2.8 aperture, which are high end) and lenses with 2.8 aperture will give you more shutter speed which will make you less likely to use higher ISO setting. In addition, you get a 1.5x to the lens' zoom level. If you take more photographs of far-away subjects, this is huge money saver. Also, since DX lens' are cheap, you can get very wide angle lens and still get wide pictures as well. At the end, its more wiser for you to get a DX format camera. D700 is also very professional camera that most hobby users won't need. If you're a professional, I would say get D700 because you'll need its body performance. So this is how I justified my decision. Hope this helps.

Posted 2 years ago #
gd

member
Joined: Sep '09
Posts: 28
offline

Reading the Chase Jarvis "hands-on", he does mention this:

"JT, we haven’t shot the D700 much so I can’t say exactly how it compares at 6400. I can say that the D3s which is also a FX sensor has probably 1-2 stops better high ISO performance than the D7000. The extended battery pack on the D700 will boost it’s frame rate to 8FPS while the D7000 shoots at 6FPS regardless of the battery grip. The D700 is still probably a better pure still camera with the better sensor, fps, and ISO performance, but 1080 video and the price tag make the 7000 a compelling challenger."

I'd probably agree with the other posters and suggest the D7000 - even though the video isn't a deal maker at the moment, you might find it useful over time. ISO differences appear minimal - maube different enough if your livlihood depends on it but I doubt it is noticeable if you mainly print relatively small and put the pictures on the web. And as blckcat says, you can put the money saved from a D7000 into getting a good lens.

Good luck either way!

Posted 2 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

I have been thinking on this myself. as well as the D300s replacement. I think I will either wait and get the D400 or get both the D7000 and the D700 when the price comes down enough for my budget. It really depend on what you shoot and your style of shooting. I have always liked shooting with 2 bodies. Currently for me its the S5pro and D70 or my F601 Film camera. However recently my wife has taken the D70 and I have not seen it for months so the D7000 will be very likely be replacing my MIA D70.

My plan for the D700 FF relates to my interest in 3 main secondary areas of interest. theatre, portraits and Landscape. ( my primary interest is macro and nature/wildlife where DX shines ) The main features that FX provides for me in these areas is

1) less DOF,
2) Nice clean High ISO.
3) More details with the fx lenses that I already have (I cant afford the 35mm F1.4 .. sob)

12 MP is more than I will need ( I have been using 6MP for years! and been happy with that. ) Since these areas are my secondary interest I can wait a while more for the D700 second hand market to drop in price. I expect in about 1 years time I should be able to pick up a nice clean D700 for a good price. $1100 maybe?

However if those areas are your primary interest or the features that the FF provide suits your subjects.. You should surely go get it!

Posted 2 years ago #
sevencrossing

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 1,265
offline

Being full frame,the D700 should produce much better results BUT to take full advantage of it you will need to invest in some "professional" FX lenses and these can be expensive.
Unless you are, or have aspiration to becoming a profession, the D7000 will give much better value for money

Posted 2 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

sevencrossing said:
Being full frame,the D700 should produce much better results BUT to take full advantage of it you will need to invest in some "professional" FX lenses and these can be expensive.

The funny thing is that that statement is not really true. Due to the smaller pixels the DX lenses need to be sharper. so an FX lens that is "ok" on a DX will look much sharper on an FX sensor. There are lots of cheap and very good FX lenses in the AFD and the AIS ranges..

Posted 2 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

ShakeyJoe - for travel photography go for d7000 or even d3100, as size is what matters the most

Posted 2 years ago #
ShakeyJoe

new member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 2
offline

Thanks for all the replies so far.

After the comments, I am leaning towards the D7000 and perhaps a new lens like the 105mm micro or the DX fisheye. Getting the D700 would also mean that I would need to replace most of my wide angle lenses that I purchased for the D70, such as the Sigma 10-20, Nikkor 18-200, 35 DX. However I do have a 17-35 FX somewhere, from my days of film.

But the D700 is still very tempting. Sharper images, High ISO, and DOF is definatly good points. But if I've been using the D70 till now, both cameras would probably be a big upgrade in those areas.

Actually my D70 still takes great landscapes with a proper tripod. I only really felt that I needed a new camera was when I was taking casual pictures at a wedding, baptism, evening events, where I found myself choosing between lots of Noise (ISO 400) or slightly Blurry pictures.

Posted 2 years ago #
sevencrossing

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 1,265
offline

heartyfisher said:
...... so an FX lens that is "ok" on a DX will look much sharper on an FX sensor.

Not sure about that , But it is not all about sharpness. With landscapes tonal range and colour depth can be very important and that, in my experience is were the full frame seems to score.

Posted 2 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

ShakeyJoe said:
But the D700 is still very tempting. Sharper images, High ISO, and DOF is definatly good points. But if I've been using the D70 till now, both cameras would probably be a big upgrade in those areas.

You think? ;-)
You'll love either one, I'm sure.

Posted 2 years ago #
sevencrossing

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 1,265
offline

ShakeyJoe said:
I would need to replace most of my wide angle lenses that I purchased for the D70, such as the Sigma 10-20,.

The sigma 10-20 is an fine lens it, should be stunning on a D7000, if you do go for the D700 the fantastic Nikon 16-35 f4 Vr 11 is what you will need, but it's twice the price of the Sigma
How big you make your prints is probably the deciding factor
At the end of the day a good big'n is going to better than a good little'n, but that really means a deep pocket an a D3x !

Posted 2 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

I wouldn't compare sigma 10-20 to N 16-35, this are two different lenses. first one is a true wide lens, why the second one becomes more natural lens - far from what I consider wide

Posted 2 years ago #
Mike Gunter

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 946
offline

Hi ShakeyJoe,

With the limited number of shutter actuations that you have had over the time that you have had your D70, you might should consider two things, what is it that makes you happy and what is it that will be the most economical path to satisfying that goal?

The cost of feeding an FX camera is expensive, and the image quality from DX equipment is nearly equal if lighting is good and noise is not an issue.

DX cameras are somewhat lighter to tote around and DX lenses are not quite as expensive.

That doesn't mean they aren't tough enough to do the job. My D90 had 1200 actuations yesterday and over 3000 this week.

It's your decision, but I'd think on what makes you happy and take an economical approach.

My best,

Mike

Posted 2 years ago #
shivaswrath

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 841
offline

They are in 2 totally different classes, but clearly have some similarities.

The shutter mechanisms are both tested to 150k.

The high ISO shots by Chase Jarvis for the D7000 are pretty clean, but still behind the D700 to my eyes. . .

One is DX and the other is FX. . .very different effect on framing. 100% VF for D7k and 95% for D700, another significant difference

The price different is pretty significant too - $1000. NOT including the fact that FX lenses are more $$$ than DX (35 1.5 FX is $1800; 35 1.8 DX is $200).

So net net, D7k is more of a DX backup to the D700.

Posted 2 years ago #
shigzeo

senior member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 73
offline

It might be more fair to say that the 1,8 35mm DX lens compares to the 50mm 1,4 lens as they carry a more similar equivalent focus on the two cameras. The 35 equating to a 50 in FX terms. The 40 1,4 is usually around 400$ and sometimes less (depending on what country you live in) so the difference is 'only' double.

The D7000 has me really really salivating as I have a very used D200 that I'd like to upgrade. Thankfully, I have no money, so that isn't an issue that'll keep me up at night, at least not for the short term. What I prefer about FX is that the wide angles are really really wide. When I used my 24-70G lens on a borrowed D700, I was surprised at how much wider the frames were. That is probably the biggest draw for me. Of course, if I was a birder, the DX would be my first choice as I'd be getting an extra 50% focal distance from the same lenses and that alone saves a lotta dosh.

shivaswrath said:
They are in 2 totally different classes, but clearly have some similarities.

The shutter mechanisms are both tested to 150k.

The high ISO shots by Chase Jarvis for the D7000 are pretty clean, but still behind the D700 to my eyes. . .

One is DX and the other is FX. . .very different effect on framing. 100% VF for D7k and 95% for D700, another significant difference

The price different is pretty significant too - $1000. NOT including the fact that FX lenses are more $$$ than DX (35 1.5 FX is $1800; 35 1.8 DX is $200).

So net net, D7k is more of a DX backup to the D700.

Posted 2 years ago #
sevencrossing

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 1,265
offline

adamz said:
I wouldn't compare sigma 10-20 to N 16-35, this are two different lenses. first one is a true wide lens, why the second one becomes more natural lens - far from what I consider wide

the sigma is a DX lens,The Nikon FX, so on a full frame D700 the 16-35 has similar coverage to the 10-20 on the D70 which is DX. Yes of the two the sigma is a bit wider

Posted 2 years ago #
DaveyJ

preferred member
Joined: Jun '10
Posts: 452
offline

I own the D700 and I am buying the D7000 as soon as I can get it from B&H. The smaller size is a real benefit to me. I have been using my D90 and especially the D300 more than my D700. I really do miss the video function on my D300 and D700 though and that is why I want the D7000. The upgraded tougher body and HD video was what I was looking for. Landscapes are one of the toughest of all areas for 35mm DSLR to me as I know what I was getting on say 8x10 or even 4X5. When the D700 replacement comes out I will be in trouble financially as I will undoubtedly want one and that will be a tough call. I think for me the D7000 will have the features I want to add to my present cameras. I also think the D7000 may just become my primary camera. Right now I still always grab my D300 if it is telephoto work. The D7000 would seem to have eclipsed the D300 quite handily. But my D300 is staying in my fleet for this lifetime.

Posted 2 years ago #
PlasticSpoon

new member
Joined: Mar '11
Posts: 4
offline

I'm struggling w/ the D700/D7000 decision as well. Can someone explain why, technically, a lower resolution FX sensor would yield 'better' pictures than a higher resolution DX sensor. It seems that a 16.2 DX sensor is just just going to result in data beyond what can clearly be parsed by the sensor. On the flip side, I don't understand the pixel distribution on the FX sensor at 12.1 (less than my FX D80). Where does the extra detail and low light/high ISO performance come from? Why less noise? It's obviously not the resolution, so is purely a function of 12.1 pixels spread out over a wider space?

Thx all!

Posted 2 years ago #
sevencrossing

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 1,265
offline

PlasticSpoon said:
. Can someone explain why, technically, a lower resolution FX sensor would yield 'better' pictures than a higher resolution DX sensor.

There was a good artical on this by Ben Boswell in issue 3 feb 2011 of Advanced photographer a UK monthly

Posted 2 years ago #
PlasticSpoon

new member
Joined: Mar '11
Posts: 4
offline

Thx sevencrossing! Checking it out now!
...mlm

Posted 2 years ago #
PlasticSpoon

new member
Joined: Mar '11
Posts: 4
offline

Well - can't find the article online - at least not in the US. Open to other suggestions while I hunt down a hardcopy...mlm

Posted 2 years ago #
sevencrossing

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 1,265
offline

I cant find anything on line ether, but try looking up "sensels"

Posted 2 years ago #
Rx4Photo

preferred member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 951
offline

Although I'm not fully versed in the subject, in my reading I've learned that light receiving "cells" the FX sensor are larger than those in the DX sensor. Therefore each cell in a 12MP FX sensor will receive more data than each cell in a 16MP DX sensor. The result is better image quality. That, supposedly, is why Nikon hasn't been heavily involved in the megapixel race as the other major company has been.

You might ask then, why can't cells in the 16MP sensor capture equal amounts of data when grouped in clusters vs. the same square area of 12MP cells when grouped? That I haven't figured out yet but the graphic I remember was that of a honeycomb. The larger cells collected more photo information from each pinpoint section of the subject - and there is no "pouring over" of data from cell to cell. Once the smaller 16MP cell is full - that's it - whereas the 12MP cell is still filling up with more data from that same area of the subject.

I too have seen a couple of good articles on the subject but can't redily put my finger on the websites.

Rob

Posted 2 years ago #