# D7000 to D700 switch...will it be worth it?  ADVICE PLEASE



## cannpope (Jan 5, 2012)

I currently have a D7000, but want a D700.  Will it be worth making the switch and spending the extra $$ to get one?  I have three lenses with the D7000 and only one is a DX lens, so I will still be left with a Nikkor 50mm 1.4G and a Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8.  Opinions PLEASE :/


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jan 5, 2012)

I used my D700 a few days and SOLD my D7000.  Night and day difference. Out of the box when you hold it and and first few shots you'll notice.  Its heavier than the D7000 (build quality), I suggest order the battery grip for it. Makes mine feel nicer when using the 70-200.

Wish I had time to post the list of all the differences but i think you already know.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 5, 2012)

I'm cheap. I just put some black electrical tape over the last 0 on my D7000.


----------



## cannpope (Jan 5, 2012)

I'm going to get one.  Just need to sell my 7000 body and the DX lens first.   Still gonna go in the hole about $800, but that's what tax $ is for right?  Haha


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 5, 2012)

cannpope said:


> I'm going to get one.  Just need to sell my 7000 body and the DX lens first.   Still gonna go in the hole about $800, but that's what tax $ is for right?  Haha



Will you send it to me? I got a whole role of black electrical tape I can trade you.


----------



## Patrice (Jan 5, 2012)

The d700 is whole different experience. The build quality and control is pro class. Every feature you would reasonably want on a camera body is there.  The image quality is second to none in this class. Only the d3s surpasses it on build and iso performance.

edit: corrected d300s to d3s


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jan 5, 2012)

Patrice said:


> The d700 is whole different experience. The build quality and control is pro class. Every feature you would reasonably want on a camera body is there.  The image quality is second to none in this class. Only the d300s surpasses it on build and iso performance.



I suspect you meant D3S (or as of last night D3 AND the new D*4*)


----------



## Netskimmer (Jan 6, 2012)

When I bought my D7000 the D700 was about $2,400.00, now its $3,000.00, I just can't see paying that kind of money for a camera that is at the end of it's life cycle, or close to it anyway, especially if you already have a D7000. I would at least wait until we see what the new D4 does to the prices on the rest of the Nikon lineup.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 6, 2012)

The D4 will have little impact on the prices of Nikon bodies, except perhaps for a slight reduction on the D3s prices.  Based on historical trends, I would a D700s/D800 to be announced in 4-6 months.  I would also expect that body to sell for somewhere in the $3000+ range.  There are a fair number of used D700's available - why not look in that direction?


----------



## Netskimmer (Jan 6, 2012)

tirediron said:


> The D4 will have little impact on the prices of Nikon bodies...


  Yesterday the D700 was 2,999.00 new at Adorama, B&H and Amazon. Today it is 2,699.00 new at Adorama and B&H and 2,749.00 at Amazon. I suppose it could be a coincidence... Looks like they are running 2,500-2,400 used. You might find a good deal on Craigslist or something.


----------



## Patrice (Jan 6, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> Patrice said:
> 
> 
> > The d700 is whole different experience. The build quality and control is pro class. Every feature you would reasonably want on a camera body is there.  The image quality is second to none in this class. Only the d300s surpasses it on build and iso performance.
> ...




I did. (D4 - quite the beastie according to the description!)


----------



## greybeard (Jan 11, 2012)

I'm trying to make the same decision and I think it comes down to FX vs DX........period.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jan 11, 2012)

greybeard said:


> I'm trying to make the same decision and I think it comes down to FX vs DX........period.



It may come down to that, but its a WHOLE lot more than just DX/FX.

Like going from a new camaro to a new porsche....  they are both wicked fast but there's many many more differences involved.


----------



## molested_cow (Jan 11, 2012)

My sister has D90 and when she saw my D700, she was like "it's so much more expensive and it's got no scene modes?????"

For me when I saw the D90 for the first time, I was like "WTF are these?????"

I've always used camera bodies that have no scene modes, so this was kinda new to me on a SLR.


----------



## cannpope (Jan 11, 2012)

Can't remember the last time I used a scene mode.  I think it was on my Sony P & S 3 or 4 years ago.


----------



## greybeard (Jan 11, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> > I'm trying to make the same decision and I think it comes down to FX vs DX........period.
> ...


Well, since we are buying a camera and not a car, would you care to be more specific as to what these difference might be?


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jan 11, 2012)

greybeard said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > greybeard said:
> ...



There are too many to list, my favorites from going to D7000 to D700 are:  body is built much better, knobs and controls laid out better, ISO performance better, depth of field and using in studio with right focal length lenses better (full frame), not having to back up across my backyard to shoot a headshot portrait with my 70-200 lens (at a decent focal length), and overall pic quality better.


----------



## greybeard (Jan 11, 2012)

Here is what Snapsort.com has to say about it.

Nikon D700 vs D7000







Shoots movies*1080p @ 24fps*vs*None*



Shoots Full HD (1080p) video as well as still pictures



Significantly more dynamic range*13.9 EV*vs*12.2 EV*



1.9 f-stops more dynamic range



Video autofocus*Contrast detection*vs*None*



Automatically focuses shooting video



Significantly more lenses available*169 lenses*vs*121 lenses*



Around 40% more lenses available



Much better viewfinder coverage*100%*vs*95%*



Around 10% better viewfinder coverage



Higher true resolution*16.1 MP*vs*12.1 MP*



Capture more than 30% more detail in your photos



Has more storage slots*2*vs*1*



More slots allows storing more images without switching memory cards



Smaller*132x105x77 mm*vs*147x123x77 mm*



More than 20% smaller



Shoots  faster*6 fps*vs*5 fps*



20% faster continuous shooting



Significantly lighter*780 g*vs*1,074 g*



Around 30% lighter



Cheaper*$999.99*vs*$2,499.00*



The best price we've seen is $1,499 cheaper (2.5x less)



What I am saying is that the D7000 has a lot of pro features at a semi pro price.  It has the advantage of shooting video which may or may not be important.  Comparing image quality looks to be a toss up even with the crop frame format of the D7000.  How it feels and the control layouts are important but are totally subjective.  Given the age of the D700, I think I'll just wait to see what comes out in the next few months before I pull the trigger.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jan 11, 2012)

Yes sir, bnelieve the hypeon the D7000, some of us have seen the difference and owned both.  I will agree video D7000 wins, i don't shoot video.  My D7000 had two card slots, true.  They were not CF cards tho.  

Hype for example, of course the D7000 is lighter, the D700 body is metal, not just crucial parts of it. And the 16 MP doesn't win over the full frame 12.  Google it if you don't believe me.  I saw all this hype too before i bought a D700 in addition to my D7000.  Took me less than a week of using both side by side to figure out the D7000 was gone and i sold it.


----------



## greybeard (Jan 11, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> Yes sir, bnelieve the hypeon the D7000, some of us have seen the difference and owned both.  I will agree video D7000 wins, i don't shoot video.  My D7000 had two card slots, true.  They were not CF cards tho.
> 
> Hype for example, of course the D7000 is lighter, the D700 body is metal, not just crucial parts of it. And the 16 MP doesn't win over the full frame 12.  Google it if you don't believe me.  I saw all this hype too before i bought a D700 in addition to my D7000.  Took me less than a week of using both side by side to figure out the D7000 was gone and i sold it.




Now we are getting somewhere...


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jan 11, 2012)

Just trying to help, and not saying the D7000 sux or imply that in any way, but there are reasons Nikon can sell the D700 for significantly more


----------



## greybeard (Jan 11, 2012)

Was it more the image quality of the 700 over the 7000 or the handling that made you decide.

As I look at the comparisons, true, some of them are BS but it is hard to argue with 6 fps vs 5 fps, 1.9f stop more dynamic range, 100% viewfinder vs 95%, and $1,000 vs $2500.  I have handle both and the there is no question that the build quality of the D700 is better.  From what I've seen, the image quality is still being debated.  I'm sure the D700 is in some ways better but, not $1500 better.  IMHO


----------



## molested_cow (Jan 11, 2012)

Another thing to consider is there are a lot more affordable (relatively speaking) DX lens choices than FX. It's true that you can use older lens on D700, which I have and am doing because I cannot justify getting those new expensive AF-S ones, but I'd definitely love it if I can use the latest and the greatest if I can afford them.

So if you have budget (after getting the D700 body) for top of the line glasses, then go for it and you won't even need to look back. Otherwise, you may want to wait for D400 or something if you don't think the D7000 serves everything you want.


----------



## molested_cow (Jan 11, 2012)

To add, for me I use my camera mostly for travel. Except the weight and size, D700 is excellent. Good weather sealing to take the abuse. High ISO capability to allow me to take photos without ideal lighting. Wide auto bracketing range for HDR. In the past, I'd just leave my camera behind if I am going to a place at night. Now, I am confident that I can still take great shots without a tripod or flash.


----------



## djacobox372 (Jan 11, 2012)

I suspect that youll be able to snag a d3s for less then $3k soon, id go that route.  If the d700 drops to $1500, buy it, otherwise wait.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Jan 12, 2012)

I suggest you wait for it's replacement, if the rumors are right, what you're waiting wouldn't be the D800 though.


----------



## djacobox372 (Jan 13, 2012)

greybeard said:


> Here is what Snapsort.com has to say about it.
> 
> Nikon D700 vs D7000
> 
> ...



I notice that this list leaves out the things that the D700 is better at (autofocus, ISO performance, larger viewfinder, weather sealing)

I also take issue with some of these line items:

Viewfinder coverage = the D700's viewfinder covers over 100% in DX mode (apples for apples), and is much bigger and brighter then the D7000

Shoots faster = they both shoot 8fps with a grip attached

Significantly lighter = could also be phrased as "cheaper materials/more plastic."

Significantly more lenses available = The D700 can use any lens the D7000 can, while it's true that DX lenses will operate at a lower resolution on a D700, it's also true that FX lenses will not perform fully on a D7000.

Video Autofocus = why not just list every video feature one by one to pad the list?


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Jan 14, 2012)

djacobox372 said:


> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> > Here is what Snapsort.com has to say about it.
> ...



The only thing better in D7000 is dynamic range, video and price. Size and weight is pretty debatable.


----------



## IgsEMT (Jan 14, 2012)

> [h=2]D7000 to D700 switch...will it be worth it?  ADVICE PLEASE[/h] 				   						 							 							 						 						 				 					 						I currently have a D7000, but want a D700.  Will it be worth  making the switch and spending the extra $$ to get one?  I have three  lenses with the D7000 and only one is a DX lens, so I will still be left  with a Nikkor 50mm 1.4G and a Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8.  Opinions PLEASE :/ 						​


My digital line up included D70s, D200, D90, D300s and D700. I was _anti_ Fx b/c of the price. Coming from medium format into digital Dx, I learned to make it work for me and for longest time it did. Few months ago, I bought d700. Just like number of people said it here, I thought it wasn't the BEST choice b/c a newer camera was around the corner. My d700 is for work(ish) only. On occasions I'll grab it to do something w/ my kids though. 
Anyways, compared to anything I owned before (except D3s (DA TANK) - when I used it) the *feel* of d700 is that you're holding a baby tank. Image quality is amazing (on computer, as well as in print). I do miss the video features (got spoiled by D90 and D300s) but that is why D700 is for work mostly. I did had to part with D70s and D200 when buying d700 but it was a minor loss and no regrets. 
When comparing D90 (older sister to d7000) with d700, aside from image quality, the feel is that you're holding a piece of equipment that is a work horse. In terms of IQ, after going Fx, I began shooting at higher ISOs that didn't imagine w/ Dx and LOVE IT. 
Just give you an example - the other week I was shooting a wedding, my room lights at the reception hall were giving my f5.6 on the background. Head waiter, aka @$$|-|ole, decided to turn off the outlets on one of the walls, and I was left with no backlight. I boosted my ISO, grabbed the portable sb800 as the back light, when later looked at images on computer, I LOVED the results. Not to say that I'll stop using my ABs, but having this ability to add 2-3 stops of light w/o sacrificing IQ is an amazing plus.
Few of my colleagues use(d) for work and their feedback was very mixed. Some loved what it was producing (on screen and on computer) and others hated IQ. 
What should you do? Depends what you are shooting, under which conditions and size of your checkbook. 

Good Luck


----------



## shaunly (Jan 15, 2012)

The D7000 is a terrific camera but if you think there's no difference in IQ on both camera, then you are seriously delusional. D7000 ISO does NOT compare to D700 200 ISO. 

100% cropped
D7000 left






The D700 image here has been UPSCALE to 16mp. Both shot at base ISO and the same 24-70/2.8


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Jan 16, 2012)

molested_cow said:


> My sister has D90 and when she saw my D700, she was like "it's so much more expensive and it's got no scene modes?????"
> 
> For me when I saw the D90 for the first time, I was like "WTF are these?????"
> 
> I've always used camera bodies that have no scene modes, so this was kinda new to me on a SLR.



Scene modes are for people who don't understand the exposure triangle.  IMO, when it comes to photography, "auto" is a curse word...


----------

