# d7200 vs d700 compare but cant made up my mind..



## gtrgodzilla66

hello guys , i am looking to upgrade my camera from d5200 , the reason i make this thread is to ask for your opinions and most base on your experience with these two cameras 
 i mostly shoot automotive photography and landscape and some portrait shot with bokeh , i am undecided between d700 or d7200 . As far as i understand the 7200 score higher then anything that d700 , except in low light , i understand that the d700 have a full frame sensor and d7200 have dx sensor and to be honest i quite really dont care about full frame or or ASP-C, , Unless the FX format have higher image quality then the d7200 , then im sold but at the same time the d700 is 8 years old and the d7200 is the newest things , i dont really care about wifi , or gps , or VIDEO !!!! ( i dont do videos ) but what i am after is that , will fx have more quality images then dx ever will ? and my price range for upgrading is 900-1000 , i can get a new d7200 for around that range but for the d700 i have to pay above my range, but i dont mind the extra bucks if it worth upgrading to FX , the d700 score everything lower then d7200 but the only thing that it score higher then d7200 is IMAGING Categories . so which one should i upgrade too, 

ps, sorry for the bad english , is close to 1am here but i just wanted to get out of my mind the UNDECIDED FACTOR OF BOTH CAMERAS..


----------



## jaomul

I have a d7200 and like it. A friend recently got rid of his d7200 and bought a d700 and prefers it. It's hard to say though.

A d7200 will be very similar in images quality to your own d5200, the improvement will probably be not noticed. The d7200 has better control and weather's seals etc, but not much in the way of image improvement


----------



## PaulWog

Take into consideration the lenses that you have, and the lenses that you will want. The D7200 is the safe bet if you already have DX lenses, and you do not have a budget to purchase FX lenses.


----------



## Solarflare

The main advantage of having a full frame sensor is having a lot more lenses available.

That will make sense, anyway. Certainly you can get the mighty 14-24mm f2.8 and put it in front of your APS-C camera ... but it will be an effective 21-36mm zoom, and a very expensive, large, and bulky one at that.

Using full frame lenses makes sense for 50mm and above - below its stupid.

And these full frame lenses are overall better optical and build quality, too.

The main disadvantage of full frame is also the lenses. They are larger, heavier, more expensive, and while you wont have much issue to use a full frame lens on a half frame sensor, the other way around means your viewfinder will look funny because the lens can no longer fill the whole area with light, plus your effective resolution will plummet. For example a D750 will turn into a 10 Megapixel camera, or a D810 into a 15 Megapixel camera.

In short, you really cant use a half frame lens on a full frame camera, except if you do it only rarely.



So about your question: D700 or D7200 ? Apples and oranges, really.

The D700 is a great tool for example for portraiture work. The large sensor will give you good small depth of field, the large pixel sites will give you very low light noise (noise from the fact that light isnt perfectly distributed, but distributed in a completely random fashion, thus the more light you record the less such natural noise you will get). You will however most likely need new glas.

The D7200 on the other hand is a crippled sports camera. Crippled as in, well the autofocus is really good and the buffer isnt bad either, but the fps are surprisingly low for this kind of camera, a professional will prefer a D500 or one of the D3*, D4* or D5 cameras, because fps gives them better chances at catching the right moment.

Which would I prefer ? The D700, without a moment of hesitation. People are my main interest, not sports. Or macro, or wildlife, for which the D7200 would also be the superior choice.


----------



## astroNikon

If you are looking at a d700 then you should also consider a much more modern d600/d610.
I was in the same situation as you, though low light is of prime importance to me.

When I had my d7000 though I bought only FF lenses, mostly AF-D for low cost entry.  Then later looked at the d7100 vs d600 refurb / d700, and went the d600 route.  I already had the lenses, so no other costs there.

It all depends upon your entire "package" and budget and what you want to use everything for.


----------



## Braineack

trying to figure out why youre not looking at a D610?


----------



## gtrgodzilla66

oh wow...im so glad that i have checked out the d610...have everything that d700 have and d610 it just better...wow


----------



## goodguy

Braineack said:


> trying to figure out why youre not looking at a D610?


EXactly what I was thinking!

I would go for the D610 over the D7200 or the D700
D7200 might have little advantage for sports and wildlife due to superior AF system but the D610 AF system is plenty good.
Sensor on the D610 is better then the one on the D700 or D7200


----------



## Derrel

Braineack said:


> trying to figure out why youre not looking at a D610?





Braineack said:


> trying to figure out why youre not looking at a D610?



I quoted him doubly because his point slaps me in the face every time I look at D610 images....it might be the single BEST camera buy around...the sheer quality of the D610's images is *impressive*. The D700 is nowhere near as impressive. YES, it was a good camera in its era, but the D600 and D610 have just totally beautiful image quality, as does the D750, but it costs a lot more money.

Have you seen the gorgeous images Braineack makes with his D610 every time he shoots it? Have you seen what an ***astounding** studio flash camera it is?

The D7200 is a good camera too.


----------



## Braineack

to be fair, my images only look good cause I own a really nice camera.

Otherwise I might have to blush at the compliment.


----------



## fmw

You haven't expressed why the current camera is unsatisfactory and what you expect the new one to do to improve it.  Would it make sense to nail that down before you go shopping?


----------



## gtrgodzilla66

thank you guys. for your input..and..as much as i read the ocmment i would just do it and buuy the d610..but for narrow it down .. i haven seen raw unedit picture kf d610 yet...but i seen plenty of.d700 raw unedit images..cause my frjend hve a d700.. and his master also does.....and his master told him to.het d700 so.he dd..and now ny friend is giving me a glimps at the d7pp unedit picture and i love it...it look almost as good as edited picture .

TO FMW : reason why i am upgrading.because d5200 is awesome..and i use it alot..since i.brok my d3300 shutter at 350k picture actuations , but th d5200 raw unedited picture doesnt come anywhere near the d700 raw unedit images (let just pretend i never asked about d7200)..so tgat why i am.looking into the d700 ..cause i just fall in love with it when i look at my friends raw nef unedit files. 

will someone post up osme raw unedit d610 picture sample ? 

PS ; does the d610 havr the oil sulhutter and dust particle problem still ?


----------



## goodguy

D610

1.Oil/Dust problem was a D600 thing, D610 solved this issue!
2.D610 has better dynamic range then D700
3.D610 has better low light performance then D700
4.D610 has double the resolution then the D700

Dont have RAW files but its just a better camera then the D700, its using a better sensor, better processor, its newer and better.
The D700 has pro body but the D610 is far from being a toy itself, many pro's use it as first or second body camera.
And its got video while the D700 doesn't if that's important at all to you.


----------



## gtrgodzilla66

thank good guy... for replied.. no.i dont do video.....i hate doing it..dont know why..i have a buddy that doing vidro only and hate videos..and usually when my crew want to shoot they usually clal me and if making video they call my friends.. so video doesnt care for me....

and how small is the d610 .. but it also a full frame pro camera... dont know why nikon make it small for


----------



## gtrgodzilla66

i was decidi g to sell my d5200 to a girl i know as she want a fun camera to shoot around...but now i dont know if i shohld or keep it as a spare camera


----------



## gtrgodzilla66

after seeing this... this is what i wanna get the d700


----------



## gtrgodzilla66

this is my sister that my friend shot on his d700 ...this is why i wanna shoot the d700


----------



## gtrgodzilla66

this one also


----------



## gtrgodzilla66

can someone check and see if he shoot in jpeg or RAW


----------



## PaulWog

If you weren't so set on getting a new camera, I would say stick with the D5200 and start learning a lot more. Every single one of those shots can be done on the D5200 just as easily as on the D700. The D700 doesn't "create" the photo you see. That's new photographer mistake #1: They see a photo they like, and they assume that makes the specific camera good. That is absolutely, 100% not the case.

*DO NOT* purchase a camera based on photographs that impress you. That would be like

Whether he shot in JPeg or RAW is somewhat irrelevant as well, given the context and open-ended nature of your question. Shooting in JPeg will reduce how much editing you need to do, but it will also significantly reduce the amount of editing that you can do. Shooting in RAW will always be the superior option. Regardless, I assume you're looking to capture photographs that look like what you see, and so you're trying to copy the camera, and the settings... and it's not that simple.

Based on everything I have read in this thread, I think the D700 would be an absolute mistake for you to purchase. The D610 will have much better resale value... that's going to be an important factor. The D610 will also perform better. I say go for the D610, since I figure if you get the D7200 you'll want to upgrade to FX after that. The quick assumption often is "Well, I didn't get the better FX camera, so that's why my images just don't have that oomph". That would be an incorrect assumption for most photographers.


----------



## Watchful

I'd take the D500 over the 610, 700, 7200 or even the 810D.
Expeed 5 image processor.


----------



## PaulWog

Watchful said:


> I'd take the D500 over the 610, 700, 7200 or even the 810D.
> Expeed 5 image processor.



I'm not really sure how this helps or applies to the OP?


----------



## astroNikon

There's many Pros here that have shot with the D700 and can give input into them.  They'll also probably tell you that the newer Nikon FF/FX cameras offer much more Dynamic Range, etc as mentioned above.  There's many threads in the past about these two cameras.

I also shot with a D700 while trying to compare the d700/d6x0/d800.  I loved it.  I also did not do video.  But looking at all the updated technology (processing chips, etc) in the D6x0 camera I ended up opting for the d6x0 camera.  It's only a little smaller but nothing like the d5x00 which is very small by comparison.

Keep in mind. If you took a shot with the d700 and d6x0 side by side at the same time, with the respective similar settings the d6x0 will have better dynamic range and improved color from all the newer electronics.  (can't be exact, as an example the d700 only goes down to ISO 200 where as the D6x0 down to 100 and 50).

The camera is the tool.  The model's body position/ expression/ etc, lighting, etc is learned technique, skill, experience and knowing how to use the camera, lighting and setting up the scene.

Myself, after fussing so much I opted for the d600.  But, you seem set on the d700 as your friend and his mentor has.
This may be a case where I might recommend the d700 only because if that d700 support group you'll have as the d600 has a different button layup and many more features in the menus.


----------



## astroNikon

here's one thread ==> Another D700 thread


----------



## goodguy

gtrgodzilla66 said:


> thank good guy... for replied.. no.i dont do video.....i hate doing it..dont know why..i have a buddy that doing vidro only and hate videos..and usually when my crew want to shoot they usually clal me and if making video they call my friends.. so video doesnt care for me....
> 
> and how small is the d610 .. but it also a full frame pro camera... dont know why nikon make it small for


D610 is small ?
Its about same size as the D750 and D7200/D7100


----------



## goodguy

gtrgodzilla66 said:


> View attachment 120977
> this one also


I believe you are confusing skills and camera performance.
Camera+lens+other accessories and a potential nothing more!
The photographer is the one that brings the picture to life, the shot of the girl on ledge is lovely but the credit here goes to the one who shot it and not the camera, I promis you let your buddy use the D5200 and the results will look same!


----------



## goodguy

Watchful said:


> I'd take the D500 over the 610, 700, 7200 or even the 810D.
> Expeed 5 image processor.


Thats your opinion and yours alone!
D500 is a wonderful camera, best DX in the world but its a spots camera, you are paying a whole lot of money to many features that many will not need if they dont do heavy sports/wild life photography.
I rather get a D7200 with good glass then D500 with crap glass and in the money difference between these 2 great cameras you can get a lot of good glass.
Also comparing the D810 to the D500 is a bad joke, these are 2 whole different beasts, studio/ landscape camera vs sports camera is like comparing a Ferrari with a Mercedes S550
And BTW I would take the D810 over the D500 in a frick'n heart beat but that's my opinion.


----------



## Braineack

Here's a few RAW d610 files when i was comparing my 85mm to my 70-200:

Dropbox - Tests


I like to use selfie as an example of the why I like this sensor:

All sizes | Self Portrait | Flickr - Photo Sharing!


----------



## goodguy

Braineack said:


> Here's a few RAW d610 files when i was comparing my 85mm to my 70-200:
> 
> Dropbox - Tests


Just wondering which lens did you like better ?

I got my new Nikon 85mm 1.8G a little over a month ago for portrait work, until then I used my Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 for portrait but the sheer size and weight make long sessions of portrait a pain for me.
Anyways I was super impressed with my 85mm obviously its smaller and lighter but optically I found it to be even sharper then the already excellent Tamron.
I LOVE both lenses but for portrait work I will only use my 85mm from now on


----------



## Braineack

Both are great, but the 85mm has a bit smoother transitions and blurred BGs.  Obviously it's smaller and lighter and easier to wield.

But my 70-200 is still the go-to.


----------



## gckless

A lot of good information here. I'm in the camp of not understanding why you would not take a D610 over a D700, other than simply local support. But I think the envy tables would turn if you had the D610 in your hands and showed your friends the images.


----------



## Braineack

if the concern is IQ, then you'll pick the D610 over the D700 every time.


just look at the dpreview studio comparison:






do you want to see individual strands of feather, or blurry mush?






do you want to see detailed etching marks and texture, or a blurred face?


----------



## sleist

I shoot with a D700 and a D7100.
My next camera will be the D500 and I will give the D7100 to my son.

There is nothing magical about the D700.  If you feel the need to shoot FX, every other FX camera is technically better than the D700.

When I add the D500 to my D700 I will have the perfect pair of cameras for me.
At least until Nikon puts the D5 sensor in the D500 body and calls it a D900.
Then I will retire my D700.

Until then I will suffer with my D700.


----------



## sleist

To be honest though, it really doesn't matter what you shoot with because 90% of what you shoot will be total garbage regardless of the camera and the remaining 10% will be awesome because of you - not the camera.  Buy what you can afford and what makes you happy.  If you aren't printing big, then the pixels really don't matter.  A technically perfect, boring shot is still a boring shot.


----------



## lance70

Good advice above and all the camera bodies mentioned will work great....One will have the ISO advantage, another will shoot at higher FPS, better weather sealing, but in the end as many people pointed out it's the person using the equipment and what type of lens you attach to your body....I have friends using the D300, D90 & D700 with amazing shots. You can't go wrong with the D700 or D610 body but it will be up to you on the results you get. The pics I have on here in my gallery were taken with everything from a D90, D7000, D7100 & D610.  The only equipment constant would be the lens I used.


----------



## fmw

gtrgodzilla66 said:


> but th d5200 raw unedited picture doesnt come anywhere near the d700 raw unedit images (let just pretend i never asked about d7200)..



I can't help but wonder if you aren't confusing "doesn't come anywhere near" with subtle.  There are advantages to a larger sensor but if the difference in size is only 50% it is a subtle difference from my perspective.  If the difference were 200% you might be getting close to "doesn't come anywhere near."  I'm curious how you compared the raw files and what specifically made such a large difference.


----------



## robbins.photo

Well I'm guessing since the thread is 3-4 months old the OP has probably made a decision on this already.. but ok, sure...


----------



## coastalconn

It's funny this thread re-surfaced today. I just bought a D700 for a back up to my d500. IQ on the D600 is phenomenal, but it doesn't drive my 500 F4 very fast.  Figured I would change it up since the D700 is so cheap now..


----------



## astroNikon

coastalconn said:


> It's funny this thread re-surfaced today. I just bought a D700 for a back up to my d500. IQ on the D600 is phenomenal, but it doesn't drive my 500 F4 very fast.  Figured I would change it up since the D700 is so cheap now..


Which 500 do you have?
I know the built in body focus motor is stronger on the d700 than the d600.
But I thought your 500 was AF-S so I'm curious what you mean by it driving the 500mm?


----------



## coastalconn

astroNikon said:


> coastalconn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny this thread re-surfaced today. I just bought a D700 for a back up to my d500. IQ on the D600 is phenomenal, but it doesn't drive my 500 F4 very fast.  Figured I would change it up since the D700 is so cheap now..
> 
> 
> 
> Which 500 do you have?
> I know the built in body focus motor is stronger on the d700 than the d600.
> But I thought your 500 was AF-S so I'm curious what you mean by it driving the 500mm?
Click to expand...

I have the 500 F4 VR G(so yes it is AF-S).  On the D500 it is wicked quick, on the D600 it is slow and sometimes just stalls.  I vaguely remember the same experience when I had the Tamron 150-600, it was faster on the D7100 and D800 then it was on the D600.  It might be the AF module is more sure footed?  I'm not really sure.


----------



## robbins.photo

coastalconn said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> coastalconn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny this thread re-surfaced today. I just bought a D700 for a back up to my d500. IQ on the D600 is phenomenal, but it doesn't drive my 500 F4 very fast.  Figured I would change it up since the D700 is so cheap now..
> 
> 
> 
> Which 500 do you have?
> I know the built in body focus motor is stronger on the d700 than the d600.
> But I thought your 500 was AF-S so I'm curious what you mean by it driving the 500mm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have the 500 F4 VR G(so yes it is AF-S).  On the D500 it is wicked quick, on the D600 it is slow and sometimes just stalls.  I vaguely remember the same experience when I had the Tamron 150-600, it was faster on the D7100 and D800 then it was on the D600.  It might be the AF module is more sure footed?  I'm not really sure.
Click to expand...


Strange... I've tried lenses both with and without focus motors on my D600 and D7100, never really saw any appreciable difference in speed between the two.  I wonder if maybe your 600 might need servicing?


----------



## DarkShadow

I put my sigma 150-600 on the D7000 AF 39 point system and the same thing the AF gets there but slowly and on the D7200 Af 51 point system its there in a blink of and eye.


----------



## coastalconn

robbins.photo said:


> coastalconn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> coastalconn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny this thread re-surfaced today. I just bought a D700 for a back up to my d500. IQ on the D600 is phenomenal, but it doesn't drive my 500 F4 very fast.  Figured I would change it up since the D700 is so cheap now..
> 
> 
> 
> Which 500 do you have?
> I know the built in body focus motor is stronger on the d700 than the d600.
> But I thought your 500 was AF-S so I'm curious what you mean by it driving the 500mm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have the 500 F4 VR G(so yes it is AF-S).  On the D500 it is wicked quick, on the D600 it is slow and sometimes just stalls.  I vaguely remember the same experience when I had the Tamron 150-600, it was faster on the D7100 and D800 then it was on the D600.  It might be the AF module is more sure footed?  I'm not really sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strange... I've tried lenses both with and without focus motors on my D600 and D7100, never really saw any appreciable difference in speed between the two.  I wonder if maybe your 600 might need servicing?
Click to expand...


Back in the day it was a different D600 body that belongs to my friend.  I'm have the shutter recall done now and the camera is at Nikon so I can't try any other lenses.  But there is a very noticeable difference with my big lens...


----------



## robbins.photo

coastalconn said:


> Back in the day it was a different D600 body that belongs to my friend.  I'm have the shutter recall done now and the camera is at Nikon so I can't try any other lenses.  But there is a very noticeable difference with my big lens...



Whacky.  Never saw much difference in  the AF speeds between my 7100 and the 600, but the longest focal length I was using at the time was 400mm.   Might be interesting to poke around a bit and see if anyone else had similar experiences with a longer focal length.


----------



## astroNikon

coastalconn said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> coastalconn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny this thread re-surfaced today. I just bought a D700 for a back up to my d500. IQ on the D600 is phenomenal, but it doesn't drive my 500 F4 very fast.  Figured I would change it up since the D700 is so cheap now..
> 
> 
> 
> Which 500 do you have?
> I know the built in body focus motor is stronger on the d700 than the d600.
> But I thought your 500 was AF-S so I'm curious what you mean by it driving the 500mm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have the 500 F4 VR G(so yes it is AF-S).  On the D500 it is wicked quick, on the D600 it is slow and sometimes just stalls.  I vaguely remember the same experience when I had the Tamron 150-600, it was faster on the D7100 and D800 then it was on the D600.  It might be the AF module is more sure footed?  I'm not really sure.
Click to expand...

It's not your imagination.

When I got my d750 the AF drove me nuts as I was used to my d600.
The d600 is great on subjects in lower contrast subjects, such as when I was taking pics of aircraft up about 7+miles away.  This is using center focus point.
The D750, well, it just didn't like that.  It wanted more contrast.

This drove me nuts for a while as I was trying to use the d750 just as I use the d600.
If i move the d750 focus point out of the center area then the d750 could focus quick on those aircraft.

Conversely, bring the subject much more to the ground and the AF on the D750 is faster than the D600.  on higher contrast subjects it locks on much quicker.

this is using the Tamron 150-600 f/8 which you're familiar.

I moved up from the d7000 to the d600.  I didn't notice much of a difference though my skill at that time was less than now.  The d750 is a recent addition after the d600 mount got broken and I was camera-less for a bit.   I tried the d500 too and loved it but needed the FX.


----------



## coastalconn

astroNikon said:


> coastalconn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> coastalconn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny this thread re-surfaced today. I just bought a D700 for a back up to my d500. IQ on the D600 is phenomenal, but it doesn't drive my 500 F4 very fast.  Figured I would change it up since the D700 is so cheap now..
> 
> 
> 
> Which 500 do you have?
> I know the built in body focus motor is stronger on the d700 than the d600.
> But I thought your 500 was AF-S so I'm curious what you mean by it driving the 500mm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have the 500 F4 VR G(so yes it is AF-S).  On the D500 it is wicked quick, on the D600 it is slow and sometimes just stalls.  I vaguely remember the same experience when I had the Tamron 150-600, it was faster on the D7100 and D800 then it was on the D600.  It might be the AF module is more sure footed?  I'm not really sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not your imagination.
> 
> When I got my d750 the AF drove me nuts as I was used to my d600.
> The d600 is great on subjects in lower contrast subjects, such as when I was taking pics of aircraft up about 7+miles away.  This is using center focus point.
> The D750, well, it just didn't like that.  It wanted more contrast.
> 
> This drove me nuts for a while as I was trying to use the d750 just as I use the d600.
> If i move the d750 focus point out of the center area then the d750 could focus quick on those aircraft.
> 
> Conversely, bring the subject much more to the ground and the AF on the D750 is faster than the D600.  on higher contrast subjects it locks on much quicker.
> 
> this is using the Tamron 150-600 f/8 which you're familiar.
> 
> I moved up from the d7000 to the d600.  I didn't notice much of a difference though my skill at that time was less than now.  The d750 is a recent addition after the d600 mount got broken and I was camera-less for a bit.   I tried the d500 too and loved it but needed the FX.
Click to expand...

So you think the D750 drives the AF noticeably faster than the D600?  Buydig via ebay has refurbs for 1400, but I just don't think it is the right camera for me...


----------



## jake337

OP, stop making decisions based on your friends images.  He created them with the camera not the other way around.

Used D610,  Df or D750.


----------



## jake337

fmw said:


> gtrgodzilla66 said:
> 
> 
> 
> but th d5200 raw unedited picture doesnt come anywhere near the d700 raw unedit images (let just pretend i never asked about d7200)..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help but wonder if you aren't confusing "doesn't come anywhere near" with subtle.  There are advantages to a larger sensor but if the difference in size is only 50% it is a subtle difference from my perspective.  If the difference were 200% you might be getting close to "doesn't come anywhere near."  I'm curious how you compared the raw files and what specifically made such a large difference.
Click to expand...


I've used the D90, D7100, D610 and Df.

These is a noticeable difference in each body past a certain ISO.

Maybes he is looking at RAW images shot at ISO 800 and up.   It may be possible that he's is comparing his images to his friends images but is not taking into consideration that hiss friuend knows how to expose images better giving him better RAW files to work with.


----------



## astroNikon

coastalconn said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> coastalconn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> coastalconn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny this thread re-surfaced today. I just bought a D700 for a back up to my d500. IQ on the D600 is phenomenal, but it doesn't drive my 500 F4 very fast.  Figured I would change it up since the D700 is so cheap now..
> 
> 
> 
> Which 500 do you have?
> I know the built in body focus motor is stronger on the d700 than the d600.
> But I thought your 500 was AF-S so I'm curious what you mean by it driving the 500mm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have the 500 F4 VR G(so yes it is AF-S).  On the D500 it is wicked quick, on the D600 it is slow and sometimes just stalls.  I vaguely remember the same experience when I had the Tamron 150-600, it was faster on the D7100 and D800 then it was on the D600.  It might be the AF module is more sure footed?  I'm not really sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not your imagination.
> 
> When I got my d750 the AF drove me nuts as I was used to my d600.
> The d600 is great on subjects in lower contrast subjects, such as when I was taking pics of aircraft up about 7+miles away.  This is using center focus point.
> The D750, well, it just didn't like that.  It wanted more contrast.
> 
> This drove me nuts for a while as I was trying to use the d750 just as I use the d600.
> If i move the d750 focus point out of the center area then the d750 could focus quick on those aircraft.
> 
> Conversely, bring the subject much more to the ground and the AF on the D750 is faster than the D600.  on higher contrast subjects it locks on much quicker.
> 
> this is using the Tamron 150-600 f/8 which you're familiar.
> 
> I moved up from the d7000 to the d600.  I didn't notice much of a difference though my skill at that time was less than now.  The d750 is a recent addition after the d600 mount got broken and I was camera-less for a bit.   I tried the d500 too and loved it but needed the FX.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think the D750 drives the AF noticeably faster than the D600?  Buydig via ebay has refurbs for 1400, but I just don't think it is the right camera for me...
Click to expand...

I think the AF module on the d750, especially the center cross type points are superior in gaining a focus faster than the d600.   On the outside non-crosstype focus points I think the focus speed is similar.

If you ever wander to my area, I'd let you borrow my d750.


----------



## coastalconn

astroNikon said:


> coastalconn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> coastalconn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> coastalconn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny this thread re-surfaced today. I just bought a D700 for a back up to my d500. IQ on the D600 is phenomenal, but it doesn't drive my 500 F4 very fast.  Figured I would change it up since the D700 is so cheap now..
> 
> 
> 
> Which 500 do you have?
> I know the built in body focus motor is stronger on the d700 than the d600.
> But I thought your 500 was AF-S so I'm curious what you mean by it driving the 500mm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have the 500 F4 VR G(so yes it is AF-S).  On the D500 it is wicked quick, on the D600 it is slow and sometimes just stalls.  I vaguely remember the same experience when I had the Tamron 150-600, it was faster on the D7100 and D800 then it was on the D600.  It might be the AF module is more sure footed?  I'm not really sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not your imagination.
> 
> When I got my d750 the AF drove me nuts as I was used to my d600.
> The d600 is great on subjects in lower contrast subjects, such as when I was taking pics of aircraft up about 7+miles away.  This is using center focus point.
> The D750, well, it just didn't like that.  It wanted more contrast.
> 
> This drove me nuts for a while as I was trying to use the d750 just as I use the d600.
> If i move the d750 focus point out of the center area then the d750 could focus quick on those aircraft.
> 
> Conversely, bring the subject much more to the ground and the AF on the D750 is faster than the D600.  on higher contrast subjects it locks on much quicker.
> 
> this is using the Tamron 150-600 f/8 which you're familiar.
> 
> I moved up from the d7000 to the d600.  I didn't notice much of a difference though my skill at that time was less than now.  The d750 is a recent addition after the d600 mount got broken and I was camera-less for a bit.   I tried the d500 too and loved it but needed the FX.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think the D750 drives the AF noticeably faster than the D600?  Buydig via ebay has refurbs for 1400, but I just don't think it is the right camera for me...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the AF module on the d750, especially the center cross type points are superior in gaining a focus faster than the d600.   On the outside non-crosstype focus points I think the focus speed is similar.
> 
> If you ever wander to my area, I'd let you borrow my d750.
Click to expand...


Thanks! Well I was having a hard time with the refurb D750 at 1400 on fleabay, but I sold the D600 this morning and now I am probably going to return the D700 and wait out until I get a really good price on the D4.  The D4 probably makes the most sense because the controls will be the same as the D500 and I just really dislike small bodies like the D600/750/7200 etc.. They just don't balance well with the 500 F4 even with grips...  Plus for what I shoot 5/6 FPS feels so slow...


----------



## astroNikon

coastalconn said:


> Thanks! Well I was having a hard time with the refurb D750 at 1400 on fleabay, but I sold the D600 this morning and now I am probably going to return the D700 and wait out until I get a really good price on the D4.  The D4 probably makes the most sense because the controls will be the same as the D500 and I just really dislike small bodies like the D600/750/7200 etc.. They just don't balance well with the 500 F4 even with grips...  Plus for what I shoot 5/6 FPS feels so slow...


I know what you mean about the 5/6fps.  I tried the d500 at BestBuy.  wow.
I also tried a d700 w/grip in the past and that was fast too.

But the D4 for FPS probably is your best bet, unless you just stick with the d700 w/grip at 8fps.


----------

