# Nikon D7100 vs nikon D700 (Internet is more confusing)



## enerlevel (Mar 3, 2015)

hi all, 
I have mainly narrowed my choice to these two cameras. I pretty much know the pros and cons of both. for me, the only deciding factor would be high ISO noise and IQ. 
now I have read on the Internet that 

1) D7100 is pretty much same or even worse compared to D7000 high ISO noise. 

2) another reiview said that if I downsize the D7100 image to 12 M.P , then the images are actually same or better than D700. 

3) another review said that D700 is better in sharpness and high ISO than D7100

I had previously used D600 and then moved to D7000. the image quality and high ISO noise is day and night. 

therefore now I could sell the D7000 (terrible release value atm) and either move to D7100 or D700. 
so anyone has any personal experience ? and which review is actually saying the truth?


----------



## jaomul (Mar 3, 2015)

D700 has better high iso. D7100 has better dynamic range at base iso, so in theory it gives better photos at more extremes of highlights and shadows. The higher res offers bigger possible prints.

Taking numbers out of it (I have a d7100), from my limited use of a d700 I think it's the better imager


----------



## Braineack (Mar 3, 2015)

What crazy reviews are you reading? because all these points are inaccurate.

what made you go from a D600 to a d7000?


----------



## coastalconn (Mar 3, 2015)

It depends on much you crop.. The D700 has about 5MP where the D7100 has 24..  So to compare apples to apples, you would have to downsize the D7100 to 5 MP..


----------



## qleak (Mar 3, 2015)

coastalconn said:


> It depends on much you crop.. The D700 has about 5MP where the D7100 has 24..  So to compare apples to apples, you would have to downsize the D7100 to 5 MP..



the d700 has 12MP... 

The same argument applies just not a drastic. 

D700 released 2008, discontinued 2012. So not only has it been discontinued for 3 years, it was on the market for 4 years. Can you in good conscious shell out for a 7 year old sensor design? 

Why not a d600 or d610 if price is what's keeping you down?


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 3, 2015)

when I got my D600's, i had looked at getting a D700 as the backup. 
when i looked at used prices on ebay, the D700's were so close to the price of the D600's it just didnt make any sense to get a D700 over a D600.


----------



## coastalconn (Mar 3, 2015)

qleak said:


> coastalconn said:
> 
> 
> > It depends on much you crop.. The D700 has about 5MP where the D7100 has 24..  So to compare apples to apples, you would have to downsize the D7100 to 5 MP..
> ...


Yes it is a 12mp camera, but it is 5 MP is equivalent DX mode.  So where the D7100 has 6000x4000 pixels, the D700 has 2784x1848...  hence 5MP.


----------



## qleak (Mar 3, 2015)

coastalconn said:


> qleak said:
> 
> 
> > coastalconn said:
> ...



Well it makes total sense when you say it that way


----------



## goodguy (Mar 3, 2015)

I would probably say the right camera for you is the D750 but I dont know if you have the money to get it.
D7100 and D700 are pretty different beasts, its hard for me to compare them, DX vs FX, new tech vs old tech.
If you are doing a lot of sports and nature/wildlife then these cameras will be better then the D610 which has a slightly less effective AF system but if you dont do mostly this type of photography then the D610 should be your right choice.
AF on the D610 really isnt so bad, it looks less impressive in numbers (39 vs 51) and as I said less effective but I think out of these 3 I would go with the D610.


----------



## nerwin (Mar 3, 2015)

Just get a D610. It couldn't of been easy going back to a D7000 after shooting with a D600. I think you'll feel better going back to a D600/D610. 

You can't compare a DX sensor to a FX sensor..they are two very different sensors.


----------



## enerlevel (Mar 4, 2015)

thank you all for replying.  i had a thread which explained why i shifted from D600 to D7000. basically i lost my wallet on a trip and had to downgrade to get some extra cash. the D700 and the D7100 can be brought now for £550 where as the D600 as going for more than £800 ATM. 
i know the differences between the two formats and i was certain that FX performance in low light cannot be touched by a DX camera but this review got me thinking. 

Better Family Photos High ISO comparison D7100 vs. D7000 D600 and D700

if you see at the bottom, he says ...  
*CONCLUSION*
The D7100's high ISO performance does not seem very remarkable when viewed against competing cameras at 100%.  However, at the same size viewing size, the D7100 shines and can actually offer the same (or even slightly better) performance as the full-frame D700.  I invite you to download samples from DPReview (using their studio comparison tool) to draw your own conclusions.


----------



## astroNikon (Mar 4, 2015)

Have you compared the prices of a d600 to a d700 to where you are at?
If there's marginal price differences then I would take the d700 off the table
and go with a d600 again.

i have a d600 and d7000.  I barely, barely use the d7000 anymore for anything.  Even photo'ing aircraft the d600 is used.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 4, 2015)

I have owned the d7000, d7100, and d600.. all were fantastic cameras.
The 7100 does indeed handle low-light pretty well. However, I'll give you a great, real use example of the difference I saw while I had both the 7100 AND the 600 before I got the second d600.

At iso 1600 the d7100 would start showing some noise, not a lot if the exposure was good and there was not a ton of shadow. A little noise reduction and it was fine. At 3200 iso the 7100 would start to show more noise, especially in the shadows, but not so much that LR'S noise reduction couldn't handle it. Properly exposed, the 7100 could even go to iso 6400 and still be cleaned up decent if the scene wasn't very dark.

The d600, like the 7100, also has a 24mp sensor.  Just bigger.
Properly exposed at iso 1600 I saw little to no noise, no noise reduction needed.
At iso 3200, again, properly exposed,  there was very little noise and only minor noise reduction was needed.
Even at iso 6400 I didn't need much noise reduction to clean up the image.

I can't say that the d600 handles low light twice as good ad the d7100, because I didn't find that to be the case,  but it was a noticeable difference. It was even more of a difference when you took a picture that was underexposed with high iso. The d600 had better results when I needed to add exposure on top of the iso.

I'm a huge fan of the d7100, but if low light performance is a big priority for you, the d600 wins over the d7100.


----------



## enerlevel (Mar 4, 2015)

the difference between the D700 and D600 is about £300. for that price i can upgrade my lens hahaha...  so yes it is a big difference in price between the D700/D7100 and D600.  
i tried to scale down images of D7000 to 12Mp. and even 5Mp. and i am not impressed. its not as sharp as i would want it plus most of the pics are just out of focus...  i think it has been discussed a 100000 times about focus problems on the D7000.


----------



## shadowlands (Mar 4, 2015)

Go FX! D600, D700, D610, D750, etc... go used with keh or adorama, also... save money....


----------



## astroNikon (Mar 4, 2015)

enerlevel said:


> ...  i think it has been discussed a 100000 times about focus problems on the D7000.


FWIW, I never had a focusing problem with my d7000.  I did have issues with certain lenses that created focusing issues in certain situations such as the Nikon 70-300vrii


----------



## sleist (Mar 4, 2015)

I own both the D700 and D7100.  They are both fine up to ISO 1600.  How big do you plan on printing?  That would help determine if 12MP is enough for you.  If I were buying FX today, I would get a more recent camera, even though in some ways the feature set is a step down from the D700.  The D700 has a very strong anti aliasing filter and requires some sharpening on all images.  The D7100 has no anti aliasing filter and generally only requires output sharpening.  The D700 is not sharper than the D7100.  The D700 is more forgiving of less perfect technique due to the low pixel density.  This may make it seem sharper to some photographers.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 4, 2015)

I got my second d600 from Henrys in Canada for $900 with a 90 day warrantee and 5200 shutter count.
It's in EX condition


----------



## enerlevel (Mar 4, 2015)

thanks for the reply,  
i  do not plan to print , its just for memories and family photoes , however i do have a good eye and also very fussy when it comes to my pics. to be honest, 12 mp is good enough for me. and i mostly use it for family group pics so always end up with the need of high iso and usually f6 or higher.
still confused if d7100 downsized to 12mp is  = as good as D700 at 12mp.

btw the lens which i have are
24-85VR and 
80-200 f2.8

for lenswise i can get Fx no problem.


----------



## qleak (Mar 4, 2015)

enerlevel said:


> the difference between the D700 and D600 is about £300. for that price i can upgrade my lens hahaha...  so yes it is a big difference in price between the D700/D7100 and D600.
> i tried to scale down images of D7000 to 12Mp. and even 5Mp. and i am not impressed. its not as sharp as i would want it plus most of the pics are just out of focus...  i think it has been discussed a 100000 times about focus problems on the D7000.



strange the d600 is cheaper than the d7100 on amazon.co.uk


----------



## Derrel (Mar 4, 2015)

qleak said:
			
		

> strange the d600 is cheaper than the d7100 on amazon.co.uk



Maybe not...Amazon is home to many low-ballers...dealers that will take less money than others are willing to accept...Amazon is sort of an "aggregator site" for dealers...so the low-ballers float up to the top and are readily visible. Also, the D600 has a bad reputation with shutters that are self-shredding and which crap out, as well as the well-known oil-flinging issue...and of course, the D600>D610 replacement program for lemons...the D7100 has a good reputation, while the D600 has been hurt pretty badly by problems that thousands and thousands of units have had.


----------



## cgw (Mar 4, 2015)

And then Amazon.ca also sells merch on its own. They're listed as an authorized Nikon dealer by Nikon Canada and are apparently allowed to sell below the MAP other dealers can't undercut. During the past holiday sale frenzy, they moved D7100 bodies for C$850 for week--a good $100+ under the lowest prices elsewhere.


----------



## enerlevel (Mar 4, 2015)

Not sure about Amazon but all shops and sites I checked locally, are selling the D600/D610 at a higher price than the D7100 or D700. I brought them cheap when all the oil dust issue was at its peak... Now that people know about the free replacement and repair program, looks like the prices have gone up again...


----------



## raventepes (Mar 5, 2015)

The D7100 is a great body. It's been my workhorse for a while now.  Would I take it over a D700? You bet! The D700 is an older body. There's nothing wrong with having an older camera if that's all you need, but if you're as finicky about IQ as you say you are, the smarter choice would be to get either a D750 or a D610 and downsample the resolution, assuming you're fine just shooting JPEG's. Choosing one of these two bodies would also make the most sense since you have FX lenses, and while DX will accept those lenses, the angle of view changes. Shooting at 24mm on a DX body with an FX lens irritates me, and I'll assume I'm not alone in that. You just can't really do wide angle. Farther out (your 80-200) is ok. That's where you want the crop factor. 

Just my opinion, at any rate.


----------



## Solarflare (Mar 6, 2015)

The D700, D600 and D7100 are all wildly different cameras.

The D700 is the pro camera of old, a smaller D3, which was the first full frame camera of Nikon, with the same sensor. That means the D700 has the best controls and build quality (the D3 would still be an upgrade even over that, though). However, back then DSLRs didnt have video - I think the Nikon D90 was the first DSLR with video ?!?

The D7100 is an APS-C camera. It has a top notch Autofocus, just like the D700, but otherwise its very much a D600 in build and interface. As an APS-C camera, the sensor is small (24x16mm vs 36x24mm for full frame), which means all focal lengths get a crop factor - a 200mm lens on an APS-C sensor gets the same field of view as a 300mm lens on a full frame sensor. This makes this camera predestined for Wildlife, where you can never have enough range.

The D600 is an entry level full frame camera. It has the same resolution as the D7100, but with a more than twice as large sensor area.

Glas for FX is a LOT more expensive than for DX. But theres also a LOT more choices, and you'll get quite a bit more image quality for you extra money, too.


----------



## enerlevel (Mar 11, 2015)

a friend of mine deals in cameras, so lately i tested 3 cameras in order to see which performs better for me. the setups were
1) Nikon D700 * Sigma 24-70 f2.8 HSM
2) Canon 6D * 24-70 f2.8 MK I
3) Fujifilm XT1 * 35mm f1.4

i tested the pics @ 20,000 iso and 4000 iso.  the canon and nikon were raw but converted with zero editing. while the fujifilm was jpeg because it doesnt shoot 20,000 at raw. the shots were in my living room with yellow light. what i noticed was

1) the D700 shots were all yellowish. i think the auto white balance didnt do a good job. the 6D and XT1 had the same temp.
2) iso 20,000  D700 had plenty of colour noise. 6D was sharp with small grains and the xt1 had some banding noise in the blacks.
3) iso 4,000 the D700 was the sharpest. then was 6D folllowed by XT1. 

the Xt1 being  an APS-C did a great job. its better than the D7000 for sure!!!. however i dont think it can still compete with the Full Frame cameras.


----------



## enerlevel (Mar 11, 2015)




----------



## enerlevel (Mar 11, 2015)




----------



## Designer (Mar 11, 2015)

Your examples are not telling us much.

The EXIFs have been stripped, there is no identifying text with the photos, but even if I follow your listing in the previous post, the one that shows the most yellow is not the D700.  Using "auto WB" is bound to show differences.  

Too many variables in the mix.


----------



## enerlevel (Mar 11, 2015)

the ones which are yellow are from the D700   these are not scientific test  but just normal ISO matched , Aperture matched , Same lightning test. there are many variables in the pics , but just a basic idea of hyow these cameras perform in real life tests.


----------

