# One more question... nikon d7000 or d700?



## Reyna (Apr 12, 2011)

i know this has probably been asked a ton on here so sorry if i'm repetitive! i just can't decide on my new camera. i'm deciding between the nikon d7000 or d700.

a few things that i want in my camera are better iso quality, fp-sync flash (which my d60 does not have at all), and more focus points (my d60 only has 2). 

i just can't decide if a full frame camera is worth the extra money! i'm afraid if i go with the d7000, i will regret it in the future. 

i would LOVE to hear some of your opinions! 

thank you!!!


----------



## RockstarPhotography (Apr 12, 2011)

I chose to purchase 2 d7000's instead of 1 d700.  Be it appears I'm in the minority.


----------



## Reyna (Apr 12, 2011)

can you tell me why?


----------



## RockstarPhotography (Apr 12, 2011)

For me having a quality second body was a big decision.  The 7000 is a great camera, and falls between the 300 and 7000 as far as performance.  Your not getting a full frame camera with the 7000 though, which is not really that much of a concern to me.  The 700 is schedualed for a replacement sometime later this year or early next year so IMO, prices may drop, the 7000 still being new may hold it's value better.  But that's my opinion.

Here is a thread I posted about my purchase, some of the replies may be of concern to you

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/beyond-basics/240851-did-i-make-right-choice.html


----------



## Reyna (Apr 12, 2011)

nobody really said why the full frame is so much better though? is the quality that much sharper on the 700 or is it just that the full frame that is so much better.... and why?!!


----------



## RockstarPhotography (Apr 12, 2011)

Full Frame Sensor vs Crop Sensor &#8211; Which is Right For You?


----------



## Ginu (Apr 12, 2011)

I think it would really depends on what the OP is looking in doing with his purchase. Unless there is a need for two bodies I would definitely go full frame, although the lens will also be pricier.
If the budget doesn't allow for a nice lens with a D700, then i would suggest a D7000 along with a good lens, maybe even a second hand pro lens 24-70 2.8 or something along those line. I think it all depends on shooting style and what the OP is into.

Judging by the lens used by the OP'd I would have to say a D7000 with a good pro/semi-pro lens will do him well, but I would still not knock the full frame body for two crop bodies unless needed.

Reyna what type of phtography are you into? What is your shooting style? What are you trying to achieve besides the better flash and two focus points on your D60?


----------



## thierry (Apr 12, 2011)

if you can afford a d700.. just get a d7000 with some nice lens, maybe on really nice lens..


----------



## ghache (Apr 12, 2011)

For me, i got the d7000 for realy cheap which was leaving me with alot more money for lens and studio gear.

i bought a tokina 12-24 F4, a sigma 70-200 2.8, a strap, 1 softbox and 2 new background with the left over money i had planned to spend. i am happy i did get the d7000 because for the photography i do the d700 was not giving me more.


----------



## mjhoward (Apr 12, 2011)

If you are just barely able to afford the D700, then get the D7K.  You are going to spend quite a bit more on lenses for the D700 to get the FOV's that you are used to with the 60D.  BTW, FF has better low light because it has a larger sensor and larger pixels.  The larger pixels can gather more light and are therefore more sensitive to light.  FX also has a slightly shallower DOF at similar Aperture settings over DX.


----------



## inaka (Apr 12, 2011)

Get the D7000 with a battery grip and spend the difference on glass.


----------



## ghache (Apr 12, 2011)

mjhoward said:


> If you are just barely able to afford the D700, then get the D7K. You are going to spend quite a bit more on lenses for the D700 to get the FOV's that you are used to with the 60D. BTW, FF has better low light because it has a larger sensor and larger pixels. The larger pixels can gather more light and are therefore more sensitive to light. FX also has a slightly shallower DOF at similar Aperture settings over DX.


 
I see that you are using alot of tokina lens.

is the tokina 16-50 and the 100 macro worth it? after buying the 12-24, i think the lens is totally worth the money. I was wondering about the other lens they have.


----------



## Ginu (Apr 12, 2011)

Also we all know the D700 is due for a replacement which is supposed to be sometime in September now, however the price will reflect that replacement (guessing somewhere around the 3099 to 3499$ mark) and it will not be on sale as it is a new product. The shop closest to my house was selling the D700 for 2100$.

Go D7000 with a really nice pro lens or if you can swing it, the D700 is in my opinion a better camera if you can get a decent lens for it as well.


----------



## Reyna (Apr 12, 2011)

ginu, $2100! that is a lot cheaper than anywhere i can find one! 

thank you all for your help!


----------



## Ginu (Apr 12, 2011)

Reyna said:


> ginu, $2100! that is a lot cheaper than anywhere i can find one!
> 
> thank you all for your help!


 
I don't know if this makes any difference but I do live in Canada so our $ is slightly higher than the US $. Surprisingly quite a few stores around Vancouver have them in stock from 2100-2250$. I just wish I had the cash so I can finally convert to FX.


----------



## KmH (Apr 12, 2011)

mjhoward said:


> The larger pixels can gather more light and are therefore more sensitive to light.


Close, but no cigar.

The larger pixels are not more _sensitive_ to light.
Because the pixels are larger, they have more area to _capture_ more light (ISO 200 is ISO 200 regardless the sensor size), generating a larger signal, and the larger signal doesn't require as much amplification which reduces both shot and amp noise.


----------



## mjhoward (Apr 12, 2011)

KmH said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > The larger pixels can gather more light and are therefore more sensitive to light.
> ...



I'm not really into semantics.  If an element produces a relatively larger signal with the same amount of exposure OR it produces the _same_ signal with _less_ exposure, then I would say it is more sensitive.  You're explanation is really from an engineering perspective, which is fine and believe me I understand exactly what you are saying as I'm an EE myself. Since we are on a photography forum, my statement of sensitivity was really more relative to photography and exposure times and I believe that relative to the amount of exposure time, a larger element is more 'sensitive' since as you said, it will produce a larger signal with the same exposure time.  Sorry for any confusion.


----------



## mjhoward (Apr 12, 2011)

ghache said:


> I see that you are using alot of tokina lens.
> 
> is the tokina 16-50 and the 100 macro worth it? after buying the 12-24, i think the lens is totally worth the money. I was wondering about the other lens they have.



My first Tokina was the 11-16 and I loved it.  It is built like a tank and has excellent IQ.  So I figured... why not, I'll give the other Tokina 'Pro' lenses a try.  They are all built just as tough and have great IQ.  I've only noticed CA very slightly in a shot of a white/silvery butterfly wing against a black background with really strong sunlight on it.  Other than that, I can't complain at all.


----------



## dxqcanada (Apr 12, 2011)

The Nikon D7000 uses a very good Sony IMX071 sensor: Teardown of the Nikon D7000 DSLR » Recent Teardowns » Chipworks

Yes, Nikon does not always use their own sensors 


The comparison is not bad: http://94.23.242.64/index.php/Camera-Sensor/Compare/Compare-sensors/%28appareil1%29/680|0/%28appareil2%29/441|0/%28onglet%29/0/%28brand%29/Nikon/%28brand2%29/Nikon


----------



## kundalini (Apr 12, 2011)

Reyna said:


> ginu, $2100! that is a lot cheaper than anywhere i can find one!
> 
> thank you all for your help!



I bought my D700 from these guys.  They have a refurb for $2090.

Nikon D700 SLR Digital Camera Body | Digital SLR Cameras | Nikon 25444 @ Photo 4 Less


----------



## manaheim (Apr 12, 2011)

This is almost a ridiculous question. 

The D700 is a FAR superior model camera.  Unless you wind up camera poor and not able to buy any lenses, you buy the D700 and never look back.


----------



## inaka (Apr 12, 2011)

manaheim said:


> This is almost a ridiculous question.
> 
> The D700 is a FAR superior model camera.  Unless you wind up camera poor and not able to buy any lenses, you buy the D700 and never look back.


 Not ridiculous at all when you factor in costs. And you have to assume costs are a factor otherwise the OP would just get a D3X instead of the D700. 

A few things that make the D700 potentially less appealing will be that it will be replaced with a more advanced model later this year and costs WAY more than the D700. Also, I believe the auto bracketing on the D7000 is far superior, allowing for +/- two stops in auto bracketing and the D700 only allows for one, right? This would be a big deal for me since I take may pics for HDR. Have a feeling this will be "corrected" in the D700's replacement model.


----------



## djacobox372 (Apr 13, 2011)

The D7000 is the better deal.

D700 is about one stop better in iso performance, that's about it.   And that is coming from a D700 owner.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 13, 2011)

inaka said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > This is almost a ridiculous question.
> ...



Um, yeah, but the cost issue is about as obvious as it can be, thus making the point kinda like "well, durrr".

And very few people are going to wait (and likely spend more money) on the next model of camera for an additional stop in bracketing.  (you shouldn't be using auto-bracketing in your HDRs, anyway)

So yeah... kinda a ridiculous question.


----------



## Sharfy (Apr 13, 2011)

I am very satisfied with my d7000 and i am loving it every time i do some practice shoots. When you buy a camera just make sure to bring it everyday and do some practice to maximize its features.


----------



## ghache (Apr 13, 2011)

manaheim said:


> inaka said:
> 
> 
> > manaheim said:
> ...





D700 is deffinetly a better built camera but when i comes down to image quality and overall performance , MMMEEHHHHH not so sure.


----------



## KmH (Apr 13, 2011)

dxqcanada said:


> The Nikon D7000 uses a very good Sony IMX071 sensor: Teardown of the Nikon D7000 DSLR » Recent Teardowns » Chipworks
> 
> Yes, Nikon does not always use their own sensors


Sony has been making image sensors for Nikon for a long time. Nikon designs the sensors. Sony just does the fabrication. Guess who Sony buys their photolithographic steppers from. Stepper - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nikon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Reyna (Apr 13, 2011)

thank you all. after stressing about it all night and talking to my hubby, i've decided to go with the d7000. i would be totally be camera broke if i got the d700 and i only have 1 lens that would go with it. i truly don't think my hubby will let me get any other photography equipment for a long time if i decided on the d700. for what i am looking to do, i think it will be a great camera.


----------



## djacobox372 (Apr 13, 2011)

KmH said:


> Close, but no cigar.
> 
> The larger pixels are not more _sensitive_ to light.
> Because the pixels are larger, they have more area to _capture_ more light (ISO 200 is ISO 200 regardless the sensor size), generating a larger signal, and the larger signal doesn't require as much amplification which reduces both shot and amp noise.



I had to LOL at this one.  That's a fantastic example of circular logic.  Bravo!

Kinda like saying that a 1lb hamburger doesn't have more calories then a 1/2lb hamburger; the calories are the same it just has more hamburger.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 13, 2011)

ghache said:


> D700 is deffinetly a better built camera but when i comes down to image quality and overall performance , MMMEEHHHHH not so sure.



Right.  The low-end pro body of the Nikon line is clearly a total piece of crap.

*rolls eyes*


----------



## kundalini (Apr 13, 2011)

Reyna said:


> ... i've decided to go with the d7000. i would be totally be camera broke if i got the d700 and i only have 1 lens that would go with it. ....


Congratz on the new gear and for making a wise financial decision for your partucular circumstances.  I'm sure you'll be happy.  Now that you have gazed at FF from the precipice, you might consider purchasing only FX lenses in the future.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 14, 2011)

goldenfinger said:


> D700 is a product years ago and will be replaced by D800(rumors) And D7000 is the newly released product and with many new technics. so D7000 is the right choice. Never mind full frame.



Again.  Wrong answer.

Folks, seriously... if you're going to give advice, I highly recommend you assess your own level of knowledge a bit more critically before posting.  What's more is if you knew anything, you would know that a canned single-condition response is almost assuredly going to be innacurate at best, and destructively misinformed at worst.  Choices in gear for photographers vary wildly based upon needs and budgets.

I've been somewhat glib in this thread, but here is the real breakdown...

The D700 is a pro-line model camera with pro-line features and capabilities.  It has essentially unmatched high-ISO performance when compared to any of the other cameras in the Nikon line, saving those that are more expensive.  Most notably the D3S, which was designed to be a high-ISO performer vs the D3X which is the megapixel king.  The D700 is also the lowest entry-point full-frame sensor model in the Nikon line, which is part of the reason for the high-ISO performance, and also provides just an overall higher-quality image because it packs the same number of pixels onto a larger sensor space than it's partial-frame sensor cousins.  (lower pixel depth translates to fewer issues with heat, cross-talk between pixels (voltage arcs), etc.)  Also, the full frame affects lens capabilities as partial frame cameras cause lenses to effectively "zoom in" on their subjects... an 18mm lens becomes a 27mm effective focal length on a partial-frame Nikon.  The D700 is, however, a slightly dated camera at this point.  Newer model cameras (even lesser tier bodies) will sometimes exceed their bigger more expensive cousins in capabilities... for example... the D7000 is 16MP, where the D700 is 12MP.  The D700 is also rumored to be replaced sometime this year, and while a newer model is likely to be slightly more expensive, generally a person evaluating a D700 for purchase now would be wise to wait until the presumed D800 hits the market so that they can better evaluate their options.  D700s will generally be available for some short period of time after the D800 is released, though there is always that gamble that they get gobbled up before you can get your hands on one.

The D7000 is a lower tier of camera- technically two tiers lower, falling under the D300S and being at essentially the D90 level.  It has some significant improvements over previous D90-level cameras (such as a magnesium alloy body, previously reserved to the D300S level and above), but would still be considered the entry point for the serious consumer-level photographer.  It is an absolutely fantastic camera with a lot of wonderful features and capabilities, and also has the autofocusing motor built-in- a critical component for any photographer serious about flexibility in lens choices, and the lowest-level body in the Nikon line to have this feature.  It is a partial-frame sensor body, which has the reverse of all the effects noted for the full-frame sensor D700 above.  This is not a game-ender, but something to be aware of.  This camera is pretty much brand new and thus not likely to be replaced anytime soon. (figure 3-5 years)  This camera is obviously less expensive than it's bigger cousins and therefore often a good choice for the budget-conscious when comparing to larger bodies, and given it's newness and capabilities may even be a reasonable choice when compared to a D300S, even assuming you have the money to purchase the D300S.  (keeping in mind that the D300S is likely to be replaced very soon with the presumed D400, and therefore waiting might also be a smart choice)

THERE.

Now THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is an ANSWER.


----------



## ghache (Apr 14, 2011)

manaheim said:


> goldenfinger said:
> 
> 
> > D700 is a product years ago and will be replaced by D800(rumors) And D7000 is the newly released product and with many new technics. so D7000 is the right choice. Never mind full frame.
> ...



NINJA.


----------



## Reyna (Apr 14, 2011)

manaheim said:


> goldenfinger said:
> 
> 
> > D700 is a product years ago and will be replaced by D800(rumors) And D7000 is the newly released product and with many new technics. so D7000 is the right choice. Never mind full frame.
> ...


 
thank you for a great answer! you've given me a lot to think about


----------

