[D7000] - Buy D7000 Or D700? « Nikon Rumors Forum

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR » [D7000]

[D7000] - Buy D7000 Or D700?

(34 posts) (20 voices)

Tags:

12 Next »

dberkowitz

new member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 3
offline

Remarkably, I have yet to switch to digital. Most of my photography has been shot on an FE or a '56 M3, Tri-X pushed to 1600 and shot at night, processed with PMK. My question is that previously, every photo shop I've gone to has said that if that's what I like to shoot, then the right choice is a D700. I've read in several reviews that the D7000 is its equal for most things. So my question to the members of this forum is what would you choose and why. I don't have much glass, so that part of the question isn't as pivotal.

Thanks in advance,

David

Posted 2 years ago #
Fargo911

member
Joined: May '09
Posts: 46
offline

I actually just picked up a D700 instead of the D7000. I am sure that the D7000 would also take great pictures, but for me, it was just a matter of the D700 feeling better in my hands, and the viewfinder being larger.

I would go into a place like Best Buy and hold them both, and see which one feels better in your hands.

Posted 2 years ago #
kishore

member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 14
offline

the d700 is a full frame and d7000 is cropped sensor ( 1.5 crop factor )

d700 has larger pixels to it collects more light than the d7000

moving from film I would suggest sticking to full frame

Posted 2 years ago #
Drab

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 540
offline

FWIW, even the 7000 should exceed the resolving power and tonal range of Tri-X @ 1600. As for Tri-X @ 400ish, that will be a bit closer on the resolving mark, and Tri-X would possibly win @ tonal range.

Have you been printing or scanning as of late? I've still to find good hardware / technique for scanning (I use HP5 fwiw).

Posted 2 years ago #
aslightdelay

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 327
offline

For as good as the D7000 looks, given what you've described, I'd second what kishore and fargo both said. Try both, and if it feels right, go for the 700. Yeah, I know, there's rumors of its replacement. But the (hypothetical) D800 vs. D700 matchup is probably going to be like what we saw with the D7000 vs. D90. Improved camera? Sure. That doesn't mean that the camera's predecessor was immediately rendered a piece of crap by its replacement. If you've got to have a dilemma, you could do worse than having to choose between two very good cameras.

And not for nothing, if you haven't switched to digital by now, that also tells me you're probably not one of these people that has to have the newest toys as soon as they're out. Get the 700, and enjoy it. :)

Posted 2 years ago #
broxibear

preferred member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 254
offline

Like others I'd veer towards the D700 too dberkowitz, but get to a retailer and try both of them...you may find one feels more comfortable than the other?
I'm used to handling larger cameras like F4s and RB67s and when I first picked up a D80 it felt tiny so try them out.
In the UK the D700 is roughly £700 more expensive than the D7000...you may want to spend the savings on lenses ?

"Have you been printing or scanning as of late? I've still to find good hardware / technique for scanning (I use HP5 fwiw)."
I had the same problems Drab, in the end I photographed my portfolio prints and used Silver Efex *Link Removed* and Photoshop to fine tune the images.
My prints were too big for my flatbed scanner and because they were fibre based they were too rigid for a drum scanner...It worked out well though...if a little time consuming.
The other way is to scan your negs/transparencies and take it from there.

Posted 2 years ago #
Drab

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 540
offline

I'd rather scan the negatives. (Yea, I forgot to mention that) as I still shoot around 400' a year.

It is in the B/W negative scans that I've run into issues. I'm just not getting the dynamic range I should. I'm lucky to get 8 stops, and that is horrible. I don't know if I should develop thinner or what.

Posted 2 years ago #
broxibear

preferred member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 254
offline

If they're 35mm negs then you can get a reasonable scanner like the Canon 5600F for about £120 or a Plustek 7400 for about £200.
Medium format scanners are expensive though, it may be cheaper to get them professionally scanned by a lab in that case ?
A few of my prints were lith prints and copying them with a D3 produced some impressive results...whatever you do it will be time consuming I'm afraid.

EDIT: ok, so you're already using a scanner?.

Posted 2 years ago #
Drab

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 540
offline

Yea, 5600F is what I'm using.
Supposedly (photo.net) one can't get much better w/o spending an order of magnitude more.

Posted 2 years ago #
rafakoy

junior member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 6
offline

If you can afford it, just buy both :)

Posted 2 years ago #
gelu88

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 295
offline

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.

Posted 2 years ago #
dberkowitz

new member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 3
offline

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.

Posted 2 years ago #
broxibear

preferred member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 254
offline

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

Posted 2 years ago #
The Man From Mandrem

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 151
offline

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

Posted 2 years ago #
SquamishPhoto

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,076
offline

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*

Posted 2 years ago #
dberkowitz

new member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 3
offline

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.

Posted 2 years ago #
SquamishPhoto

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,076
offline

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,

Posted 2 years ago #
Fargo911

member
Joined: May '09
Posts: 46
offline

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.

Posted 2 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

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.

Posted 2 years ago #
gelu88

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 295
offline

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.

Posted 2 years ago #
studio460

preferred member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 1,231
offline

Double-post!

Posted 2 years ago #
studio460

preferred member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 1,231
offline

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).

Posted 2 years ago #
Drab

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 540
offline

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.

Posted 2 years ago #
PB PM

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 2,217
offline

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.

Posted 2 years ago #
Mike Gunter

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 946
offline

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

Posted 2 years ago #