# D7000 to D700 upgrade or downgrade



## vipgraphx (Apr 3, 2012)

Ok I am at a stance and have thought this to pieces weighing the pros and cons on this subject.

I have a D7000 and I was looking to sell it and get the D700. I have been shooting HDR like crazy and I enjoy it. I also like taking portraits of the kids and their sports.
The D7000 thus far has been awesome and great camera however I would like to be able to shoot more bracketed photos in one burst without having to adjust the camera with the various ways I have read how to with the D7000.  The D700 will allow this for me and I believe up to 7 AEB. So thats that part. The D7000 has done a great job with sports but with the battery grip on the D700 it supposed to go to 8fps which is 2fps faster than the D700 and with soccer that could make a huge impact on getting the right shot. Portraits I am not worried about either one.

I like the qualities you get with FX lenses such as nano crystal since I like to shoot into the sun. With the DX lenses there really is not a "PRO" UW lens that can holds its own to lets say the 14-24. I do have a great tokina lens but it still has its fair share of ghosting and glare but can't complain to much for what I paid for it.

Now lets move into sports. I love the fact that the 70-200 I have on the D7000 body gets me in closer and acts more like a 105-300 I believe,  and you get the sweet spot of the lens (center). I would loose that with the D700 but since I have not shot with a D700 and I am not sure what the distance would look like and if I am over thinking it.

I don't shoot use my D7000 for video as I have a very nice 1080p HD video camera. So that feature is not important to me on either camera. In doing some research some places say going from a D7000 is downgrading a bit on image quality while others say opposite. Going from a 16mp to 12mp is a downgrade but since the D7000 is a smaller sensor really is it? The D700 is a bigger sensor and even though it is older I believe it should have superior image quality sine it is bigger and has more pixels in a given area compared to the D7000 16mp.

Some have said after going from the D7000 to the D700 felt like the image was not as sharp but is that user error or is there truth in that.

I was going thinking about holding out until the D400 is announced to see if it was going to be full frame of DX before I decided but I have someone right now that wants to by my camera and grip for $1300 and Someone is selling a D700 gripped for $1900. I still can sell my tokina and nikon 35mm and get just about the difference so to me its like a trade off. I still will have the 50mm 1.8G and the 70-200 2.8 for the D700 and will buy the 14-24 asap. the 24-70 would be a later purchase as I don't think it is necessity right now for what I shoot. 

I don't want a D800 as being around computers and working professional I know those huge files will hit my computer very hard and will most likely have to upgrade. I have three computers. An imac quad-core  i5 with 8gigs of ram, a dell workstation dual xeon processors and two scsi hard drives @ 15000rpm and 8g ram very fast graphic card but I do my photo editing on the imace. I also have a HP laptop. The reason I have added these items into the post is that I don't believe rendering HDR will be as fast as it is now with the huge files from a 36mp camera and to add that in shoot in raw with 5-7 exposures..can someone say choke. I think I would need a faster machine than what I have now and could handle that type of size files and not take forever doing it thus why I have no interest in the D800. Just wanted to explain. I think if I try to process as many HDR's as I do now I would fry my computer prematurely.

So there is my problem and I have over thought this and I think its time to get some other perspectives maybe I am missing something. If you could help a brotha out and shed some of your thoughts I would really appreciate it.


----------



## Trever1t (Apr 3, 2012)

200mm on DX is 200MM on FX, only difference is a narrower FOV, you know that. I can't see a single advantage of the D7000 with one exception, MP. MP might be to your advantage with the D7000 if you enjoy cropping in...for that extra reach.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Apr 3, 2012)

You lose 6300 Ds  .

I consider D700 a huge upgrade.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Apr 3, 2012)

I did that and its a HUGE upgrade. Not just full frame, but build quality, ISO performance is even better, focusing, image quality, viewfinder performance, professional knobs and controls, and at least a hundred other things I'm forgetting.

And in the studio i don't have to back up through walls to shoot models at 85mm nor lose depth of field against the backdrop from backing the $#$% up. I sold my D7000.

And right now they're giving away D700's =)


----------



## vipgraphx (Apr 3, 2012)

Thanks for your comments.


----------



## vipgraphx (Apr 3, 2012)

Question for you folks. In order to get 8FPS you need the AA batteries plus the battery in the camera? Just the AA batteries? Or can you still get 8FPS with both rechargeable nikon batteries packs in camera and in grip?  Just saw some youtube video saying that you need the AA batteries in the grip to take advantage of 8FPS...


----------



## Trever1t (Apr 3, 2012)

Either a different battery 9one for D3 if I recall correctly) which then requires you to get another battery charger and end cap or use the grip's included 8-cell AA battery magazine and use Enlopes to get the fast shutter. Using battery supplied with camera doesn't do it.

I only run the grip with rechargeables. Battery in camera is used after you've exhausted the grips reserves.


----------



## adichiru (Apr 3, 2012)

I own a D7000 and was thinking of getting a D700. I postponed as I could not see how I would justify the difference in cost (double) taken into consideration not such a huge difference in image quality. However, looking into this for a few month and testing a D700, I can't see how you could compare the two cameras. They are different type of camera built for different type of usage.

I consider now the D800 and to be honest, after "testing" it for a few hours, it does not look expensive at all. All that non-sense over the Internet about the sensor requiring higher quality lenses than the one already on the market is really stupid. I used it with the 105mm f/2.8, 35mm DX f/1.8 and Sigma 150-500mm. All of these performed very well. I am not going to even read those lab tests saying all kind of stuff totally irrelevant for real life shooting.

For me, enjoying a lot shooting wildlife, the MP counts, especially going from APS-C to FX (so loosing the FOV a crop camera offers to the an FX lens is not appealing at all).

While I made the decision to buy the D7000 vs D700, D7000 won as it was new technology (sensor, CPU), higher MP and higher burst speed. I would not sell the D7000 just to get a full frame camera, rather keep it as backup or moments when you need higher speed (D800 is slower unfortunately at full quality).


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Apr 3, 2012)

I didn't sell my D7000 "to get" a D700 back when I upgraded.  I sold it because I never used it andy more, and my D80 was backup then as it is now =)


----------



## vipgraphx (Apr 3, 2012)

Trever1t said:


> Either a different battery 9one for D3 if I recall correctly) which then requires you to get another battery charger and end cap or use the grip's included 8-cell AA battery magazine and use Enlopes to get the fast shutter. Using battery supplied with camera doesn't do it.
> 
> I only run the grip with rechargeables. Battery in camera is used after you've exhausted the grips reserves.



So two nikon batteries 2 EN-EL3 batteries gets you 8fps? 



adichiru said:


> I own a D7000 and was thinking of getting a D700. I postponed as I could not see how I would justify the difference in cost (double) taken into consideration not such a huge difference in image quality. However, looking into this for a few month and testing a D700, I can't see how you could compare the two cameras. They are different type of camera built for different type of usage.
> 
> I consider now the D800 and to be honest, after "testing" it for a few hours, it does not look expensive at all. All that non-sense over the Internet about the sensor requiring higher quality lenses than the one already on the market is really stupid. I used it with the 105mm f/2.8, 35mm DX f/1.8 and Sigma 150-500mm. All of these performed very well. I am not going to even read those lab tests saying all kind of stuff totally irrelevant for real life shooting.
> 
> ...



I enjoy landscape and sports so if I can get up to 8fps with the added batteries and grip that will work. I also love landscapes and HDR so having 7 AEB is a huge for me.

could you explain this please.."(so loosing the FOV a crop camera offers to the an FX lens is not appealing at all)" are you saying that for example the 70-200 appears to get you further with the DX sensor than it does with the FX sensor? Or Are you saying that that using an FX lens on a DX body is not appealing because you loose the actual range as it is cropped?

Thanks for your feedback as well. I have certain reasons why I would like to go with the full frame for what I shoot. I also like the fact that I can crop in with the D7000 but if I loose that it means I will have to become a better photographer so I don't rely on being able to crop. However when you are fully zoomed in and still would like a crop its nice to be able to have image quality there but at the same time I don't do a lot of enlarged prints of the kids playing soccer. 

The person that is selling the D700 is selling it for $2000 with 2 EN-EL3 batteries, 2 MH-18A battery chargers, MB-D10 battery grip, AA battery magazine for grip and it has 5785 shutter actuations. It seems like a fair price. I have a guy lined up to buy my camera and 35mm lens for $1400. I can sell my tokina 12-24 for about $300-$400 making it between $200-$300 to move into the full frame. Yes I know I will need to then buy a 14-24 and adds cost but thats fine with me as I would be getting a lot better lens and wider for that matter.


----------



## Trever1t (Apr 3, 2012)

no, you only get highest FPS with the Amazon.com: Nikon EN-EL4a Rechargeable Li-Ion Battery for MB-D10 Battery Pack and Nikon D2 and D3 Digital SLR Cameras (Retail Packaging): Camera & Photo end cap and charger or 8AA batteries. The Camera's EN-EL3 have nothing to do with it.


The MB-D10 grip includes a cartidge to hold one regular ENEL3 and a cartridge to hold 8aa cells. I only use the AA cells...get better FPS and no added cost.


----------



## vipgraphx (Apr 3, 2012)

Thanks Trever1T for the clarification and link..I guess it would be the 8 AA batteries for now. hahahaha


----------



## Trever1t (Apr 3, 2012)

yeah, unless you had a D3 and wanted to use the same bateries in both cameras it makes no sense to use anything other than the AA's


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Apr 3, 2012)

eneloop  rechargeables *FTW*

here are a very few of my spares (ignore the battery for my monolights)    =)


----------



## 12sndsgood (Apr 3, 2012)

Glad to see others using the interloops. I have just been picking them up to use.


----------



## zamanakhan (Apr 3, 2012)

Do it, it seems like a decent deal. For an extra $1000 tho I would be tempted by the d800 instead.


----------



## vipgraphx (Apr 3, 2012)

Yeah I know but its slower for sports and I really don't feel like buying a new computer because I know that these files may cripple a quad core i5 with 8gb of ram processing HDR  3-7 frames on a daily basis. I think I would at least need to get 16 gigs of ram. and replace the processors with quad core i7. That alone is going to be an expense. I am all about saving time and I process photos in between jobs and time is of the essence. My system is relatively fast thes raw files but I have noticed since I have been doing HDR my fans are kicking on more frequent which is saying that either there is something wrong with the fans or the the computer is starting to show that HDR can take its tole on your computer. I used to do animation and video editing and so years back I bought a $7000 dollar tower with dual xeon processors two seagate scsi 15000rpm hard drives and 8 gigs of ram and a 256meg nvidia quadro fx graphics card. This was back in 2004 and the system was a beast. what I would need to date would be something like that but with todays technology to feel confident that my computer will be able to hang.

Maybe I could have someone email me some D800 bracketed raw files and do a test and see what happens. I still think in the long run though you will need more power regardless. Nothing worse than a file that takes a few minutes to apply a filter. Now think about HDR if you are using 5 brackets and merging them into photomatix whats that going to do and how long will it take when you move your sliders to adjust. I know it will take longer and there will be lag.

I don't know I keep thinking if this is the right move or should I wait to see what happens with the D400. I just know that I want the capability of faster FPS and more AEB 7-9 is ideal for me. If the d400 is still a DX I know it will have what I need and I could look into the sigma 8-16 for the super wide angle lens and forget about the 14-24 2.8 nikon. All though in the back of my head I never will...hahahahaaha

My brain hurts


----------



## zamanakhan (Apr 4, 2012)

i was just looking at another thread by markw and according to him there isnt a hugely significant difference in processing time. The other important thing is for sports its better to time your shot with a 4fps than foolishly shoot 12fps for 4 sec. The problem with that is that you have waaay too many pics and if you time it right you get the one good picture you were after anyways. Maybe pm markw, he may be able to send you the raw files. 

Needing more power is pretty much an endless road. You will eventually have to upgrade the computer no matter what, this time you are upgrading the camera before you do the computer. 

I know what you mean but i have a feeling the d400 will still be a dx as well, if its not then i think i will be getting one as well. if it is dx, i may keep the d7000 or go for the d7000 upgrade again. I was wondering whether Nikon may release a d700s or d710 maybe, with a lower mp and higher iso sensitivity (not saying the d800's is bad, but imagine how much better it could be if it was 16 or 24mp.) I only think this might be the case because they stated the d800 is not a replacement for d700, but then again they did the same with the d90.


----------



## JeremyDueckPhoto (Apr 4, 2012)

I have a D300 and a D700 but I use the D700 ALL the time even though the D300 is a great camera. The focusing of the D700 is 2x better than the D300. The 700 is a little slow for sports but with a grip its pretty much a great setup for most anything. I checked out the D7000 once and Id take the 700 all day, anyday.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Apr 4, 2012)

JeremyDueckPhoto said:


> I have a D300 and a D700 but I use the D700 ALL the time even though the D300 is a great camera. The focusing of the D700 is 2x better than the D300. The 700 is a little slow for sports but with a grip its pretty much a great setup for most anything. I checked out the D7000 once and Id take the 700 all day, anyday.



I'm thrilled with the performance of my D700 too. And now the D700 is a bargain, might pick-up one as my backup body and retire the D80!


----------



## vipgraphx (Apr 4, 2012)

zamanakhan said:


> i was just looking at another thread by markw and according to him there isnt a hugely significant difference in processing time. The other important thing is for sports its better to time your shot with a 4fps than foolishly shoot 12fps for 4 sec. The problem with that is that you have waaay too many pics and if you time it right you get the one good picture you were after anyways. Maybe pm markw, he may be able to send you the raw files.
> 
> Needing more power is pretty much an endless road. You will eventually have to upgrade the computer no matter what, this time you are upgrading the camera before you do the computer.
> 
> I know what you mean but i have a feeling the d400 will still be a dx as well, if its not then i think i will be getting one as well. if it is dx, i may keep the d7000 or go for the d7000 upgrade again. I was wondering whether Nikon may release a d700s or d710 maybe, with a lower mp and higher iso sensitivity (not saying the d800's is bad, but imagine how much better it could be if it was 16 or 24mp.) I only think this might be the case because they stated the d800 is not a replacement for d700, but then again they did the same with the d90.



I hear ya on the never ending road. I have to upgrade software every year or two to keep competitive in my profession. I do feel though that the D800 is just to much for what I really want. It seems like its great if you want to make 1 mile long prints. I also think unlike the D700 that it is more of a specific use type of camera. Even by adding the grip you gain 2fps which still from what I have read can not be done at 36mps you have to drop down. So its pointless. I think its a landscapers dream camera. 



JeremyDueckPhoto said:


> I have a D300 and a D700 but I use the D700 ALL the time even though the D300 is a great camera. The focusing of the D700 is 2x better than the D300. The 700 is a little slow for sports but with a grip its pretty much a great setup for most anything. I checked out the D7000 once and Id take the 700 all day, anyday.



Thanks for your insight its good to know. The more I thin about it the more I feel that the D700 will be a great camera for me for what I am looking to have. More brackets, faster FPS (with the grip) and to be able to use the 14-24 effectively. Since it is a full frame camera I believe even though its 12mp you can still get the print size that a D7000 can. Only draw back at this point is loosing the reach of the D7000 paired with the 70-200. Even though I now 200 is 200  and after many hours of research yesterday I know that that when you consider the crop factor at full resolution you do get closer to your subject. Since its in the camera crop and not a photoshop crop the image is going to look like you are much closer and you will not loose resolution. That is the only negative I see in this decision and to be honest with you folks I am not sure if that is a bad thing if you get better quality photos.

I think my decision is made in my head....I think.....


----------



## xposurepro (Apr 4, 2012)

D700 is an awesome camera but there's no way I would buy one today knowing that for only 400 more bucks I could get a D800 which is a massive upgrade over the D700. There would have to be a $1000 price difference for me to even consider it.


----------



## vipgraphx (Apr 4, 2012)

There is about a $1322.99 price difference if I buy local and  $1050 if I bought online with free shipping..I am getting it used for $1950. New they are selling for $2199 so yeah there is a nice difference plus that extra cash can go towards the 14-24.

If I decide that I need the D800 once they are in stock without having to wait until until god knows when I could sell the D700 easy for what I paid if minus a couple $100 I am sure...But the reason I don't want the D800 is the sensor is just to big. Files are going to be to big which means another hard drive more ram even more processing power. I kid you not I know what I am talking about in this area...People might not think so but you will need more power or you will find yourself waiting around a lot. At least for what I do. So its not just the camera cost of the D800 it is also the added $$ expense of having to really beef up your computer or buy another one. I find it  hard to believe that I can do HDR like I do now and not sacrifice time with the computer processing and rendering.


----------



## poker_jake (Apr 4, 2012)

xposurepro said:
			
		

> D700 is an awesome camera but there's no way I would buy one today knowing that for only 400 more bucks I could get a D800 which is a massive upgrade over the D700. There would have to be a $1000 price difference for me to even consider it.



I just bought mine new for $1949, with a grip under $2200. I had the same d800 vs d700 but decided on the d700 due to lower price, higher fps (for sports/airshows/action shots), and 12mp is still more than plenty especially since most are downsized for web use anyway. So unless you need video or print
bigger than 36x24, the d700 is great bang for the buck especially since it can be found under 2k now.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Apr 4, 2012)

xposurepro said:


> D700 is an awesome camera but there's no way I would buy one today knowing that *for only 400 more bucks* I could get a D800 which is a massive upgrade over the D700. There would have to be a $1000 price difference for me to even consider it.



Man wow where do you shop to spend so much on a D700


----------



## vipgraphx (Apr 4, 2012)

I'f there is a little haze on the upper left part of the screen does that pose a problem? I just checked out this d700 and when looking at the screen there was a little haze on the upper left. Should I pass


----------



## vipgraphx (Apr 5, 2012)

Thanks for all your help. I bought the D700 last night. I went and looked at one in the afternoon and it looked ok but had a haze between the back screen glass and LCD screen in the upper left and right corner. I also noticed dust of particles in between there. My gut told me not to mess with this one as it probably was exposed to moisture or I have heard some people who will order new glass and heat up the glue lift it up and replace it. It could have very well been that but i was not whiling to risk it.  So I drove up to Phoenix and purchased the original one I was looking at. I paid $2000 but it came with the grip and an extra battery and charger along with a remote shutter remote. It is mint condition looks brand new with 5k shutter count. 

I am going to have to get a memory card and card reader to test this out. So far just by looking at as I never have seen one in person it looks very well built. And I noticed in the menu there are way more controls that than the D7000. I am sure there will be a learning curve but its always fun to learn.

I considered the D800 after I have the money in my hand from the sale of my D7000 but the 200mb file size is just enormous. If I took 5 brakets that is 1gig file size poring into photomatix....that is crazy. Plus I now save my original exposures ( I use to through them away ) and I can easily see running out of hard drive space real quick. 

I look forward to testing the bad boy out and in the end I think I made the right choice.


----------



## Trever1t (Apr 5, 2012)

Good deal congratulations!


----------



## vipgraphx (Apr 5, 2012)

what do you recommend for a memory card for 8fps. Scandisk Extreme or another brand?

Do you use a fire wire card reader or usb? The guy who sold this to me said I should look into a firewire card reader.

with my D7000 I just used the built in reader on my imac but can't do that now.


----------



## Trever1t (Apr 5, 2012)

I use SanDisk exclusively, not that other brands aren't as good, just haven't had any issues with that brand. I use a USB reader on my laptop but my main edit machine has a reader built in. USB 3 reader would be faster than firewire if you have USB 3 on your machine. Either way, even regular USB 2 upload speed isn't any issue.


----------



## vipgraphx (Apr 5, 2012)

Eneloop batteries where mentioned. Is there a particular one and charger?I have seen blue and white eneloops. I have not found the locally so I will have to order online.Just want to make sure I get the right ones for 8fpsThanks


----------



## Trever1t (Apr 5, 2012)

I have this charger and love it, it has dropped in price since I bought mine 2 years ago http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00454YCWY/ref=oh_o01_s00_i00_detailsSanyo brand eneloops. Amazon.com: Sanyo NEW 1500 eneloop 8 Pack AA Ni-MH Pre-Charged Rechargeable Batteries: Electronics


Edit: Posted wrong charger...corrected


----------



## vipgraphx (Apr 5, 2012)

Have you seen or heard these oneshttp://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&sku=766725&is=REG&A=details&Q=


----------



## Trever1t (Apr 5, 2012)

not until now. They are 2500mAh as opposed to the 2000mAh of the white ones BUT they are 500 recycle use compared to the 1500 cycle white ones.


----------



## vipgraphx (Apr 5, 2012)

So that means they should last longer per charge but charge less amount of times?Sorry I am not a battery guru. I did find at the cemeta shop here does sell the white ones with the charger For $35 for 4AA. Is there a benifit to the charger you listed as opposed to the ones that Sanyo has as a package.Thanks for helping.


----------



## Trever1t (Apr 5, 2012)

recycles, not recycle time. The number of times a battery can be charged = lifetime....so the white 2000mAh batteries will have a longer lifetime while the 2500mAh will last longer per charge. Honestly I have no issues with the white ones. 

Yes, the charger I linked to isn't a flate rate charger. I can 'program' my rate of charging as well as discharge a battery before recharing. Allows full charge, extends battery life. Worth every penny if you are spending $20 for 4 - 8 batteries.


----------

