Ken Rockwell has a series of D7000/D300/D3/5Dii comparison up on his site.
I haven't done a lot of shooting with my D7000 yet but I don't think it matches the master (D700) from my extremely preliminary use I tend to use each camera for different things so I don't have any comparisons yet.
Both DXOMark and Ken rate the D3/D700 better in the ISO department, particularly for detail.
I'd like to develop a strong sense of D7000/D300 differences too.
I have both the D700 and D7000. for landscapes i would always use the 700 over the 7000. The FX and the wider angle is worth it but the viewfinder is the most dramatic difference I think. The view through the 700 is fantastic. The 7000 is nice but not in the same class as the 700.
The D7000 has easily more resolution. Printing bigger than 12 inches at 300 dpi or 16 inches at 200 dpi relies on interpolation to "guess fine detail" from 12 MP. 16 MP goes to 16/20 inches before relying on interpolation. When landscapes contain very fine detail the D7000 shows more of it The D7000 is totally clean of noise as regards 20 inch wide prints at 1600 ISO - which is faster than most landscape shooters go, part because most use tripods and part because resolution falls with higher ISO's with any sensor. I do "not get" the claimed wide angle advantage of FX for landscapes in the sense that most landscapes are taken at smaller than f4. In the UK a D7000 with 10-24 DX costs slightly less than a D700. Nobody has mentioned diffraction yet. It sets in about 0.66 stops wider on DX, but DX has just over 1 stop extra depth of field for the same viewfinder crop. When shooting at the optimum aperture for the format DX has about half a stop more dof than FX - which can be useful. On screens my experience is different. The D7000 viewfinder is near identical to the D300. The D300 viewfinder is about 1 stop brighter than the D700. The apparent size of the D300 viewfinder is only about 12.5% smaller than the D700 - because the D300 viewfinder magnification is 0.94% and the D700 is inferior at 0.72%. Overall I prefer the D7000 brighter viewfinder to the apparently slightly larger D700. Summing up my advice for landscapes - first if you can afford it the D3x for 24 MP. Second the D7000 for 16 MP and good noise at normal landscape ISO's. Third - and only a contender for the few happy to sacrifice landscape detail for high ISO - the D700. My D7000 is on order for my landscape work - and I own a D3s
Photography is a bit like archery. A technically better camera, lens or arrow may not hit the target as often as it could if the photographer or archer does not practice enough.
>Summing up my advice for landscapes - first if you can afford it the D3x for 24 MP. Second the D7000 for 16 MP and good noise at normal landscape ISO's. Third - and only a contender for the few happy to sacrifice landscape detail for high ISO - the D700.<
> Whether any of his claims are accurate...well YMMV.
They almost certainly don't reflect the way most of use the cameras, that's for sure. I'd guess for example that 90% of D700 shots are raw.
He hasn't opened a raw file in five years, because "there's no reason to waste any time on that." So all of his shots are jpegs, with in-camera processing. How's he going to know how well the images post process? Right, he won't. (And even if there was no reason to waste time on raw processing five years ago, technology has moved on "just a little" in the intervening time.)
_____ Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!
An earlier post says "I haven't done a lot of shooting with my D7000 yet but I don't think it matches the master (D700) from my extremely preliminary use I tend to use each camera for different things so I don't have any comparisons yet". That's where I stand too. However, the D7000 allowing for all its hype can't be a D700 if one uses pro lenses against DX. My D700 for landscapes with my 14-24mm is without doubt a match made in heaven. On my D7000 it is of course 21mm at widest.
Basically, it's horses for courses. I use my D700 for land/sea scapes, architectural and group shots at weddings. My D7000 for wildlife and birds in flight where the crop factor beats the hell out of the D700 and I need extra reach.
Too early to tell re: image IQ, what I've shot so far I'm happy with, but both are fine cameras. Good luck with your decision.
Anyone: You are more than welcome to comment on my reasons in my blog, but not here, for obvious reasons.
I have no idea what is going on with the different reviews, diffraction, etc with the D7000 and here is my two cents worth. From where I’m sitting, an impartial chair, the D7K seems to be more than an excellent camera – it is a hell of a camera. Some reviewers have gone gaga over it (DXO Marks) and other not so (Thom Hogan.) However, they are just one of the many. In addition, I would be very careful what is said on the web, especially the negative reviews. IMHO, the D7000 dealt a severe blow to the Canon 7D and there is a lot of vested interests out there from Canon or just 7D owners with a wounded pride. Mind you that I’m talking in general terms and not addressing any review in particular, because I cannot get into people’s mind to know for certain what was in their mind. However, I would take everything with a pinch of salt. Diffraction and blah, blah, blah. It reminds me of corner-to-corner sharpness in a lens. The first thing I strive in a photo is subject isolation or bokeh – there goes corner-to-corner sharpness.
Regardless, congratulations and enjoy it – it is one great camera. If I had it, I would say, without any reservations, that it exceeded my expectations.
I own both and I don;t believe anything can match the D700 with 24-70 or 14-24. I am currently using only my 70 - 300 VR II on the D7000, though, as I bought it mostly for the reach (and I had a faint hope of using it for "snapshot" video, but that has mostly been dashed.) I make high quality 13 x 19 prints from my D700 on a regular basis and they are perfectly clean (Epson 3800). Haven't made any prints with the D7000 yet and until I try some of my other lenses on the D7000, I can;t make a judgment. With the 70 -300, it is in no way a match for the 700. Best, Dennis
#14. "RE: D7000 vs D700" In response to Reply # 12
I've got a d700 and love it. My plan was to hang on to it for a good five years, by which time (presumably) the 'next' d700 (d800?) would be out, and I'd invest in the upgrade and have a backup.
I was recently asked if I'd be willing to shoot local stock video (for MONEY!), and am interested in using the d7000 for that - and maybe for wildlife shots, to leverage the 'extra reach'.
For me, the question of 'is the d7000 equal to the d700' is this: I don't really have the money to just shell out $1200 bucks right now, even with the extra pay from the video gig (not to mention the add-ons to do video 'properly'). Should I SELL the d700 and down/cross grade to a d7000 for the time being, then jump back in to FX when the d800 comes out? I'm trying to shoot micro stock, architecture, macro, product, landscape and local 'slice of life', with some wildlife tossed in. I'd love to have both, but it'll probably mean selling some other toys to cover it. (of course, if I were REALLY serious about photography I wouldn't NEED any other toys, right?)
I've already upgraded my lenses to FX (14-24, 50 f1.4, 105 macro, 70-200). My wish list includes a 24mm and 85mm T/S lenses, and the 400mm 2.8 if I win a lottery. I like the idea of passing along the d700 while it's still in demand, and am excited at the prospect of using the SD card slot in my Macbook Pro instead of carrying a CF adapter, but fear I'll REALLY miss the d700 if I sell it.
#15. "RE: D7000 vs D700" In response to Reply # 14
I would really question whether you could do the video work you want with the D7000 - from my three weeks of experience, I would recommend against it and suggest you buy a nice Sony CX550 or some such. You will really suffer trying to do serious video on the D7000 withoutat least a follow focus knob, a Zacuto or similar stabilizer rig, a LiveView remote screen, and very steady hands. And still you'll have focus issues with any of your lenses. Take the gig but buy a Sony! Best, Dennis
I went to BestBuy, yesterday, to look at the D7000 for the first time. I played with it for about ½ hour. Here are my impressions:
The bad: The viewfinder; it is not even close to the D300 or D700. It looked like my old D5K viewfinder on steroids.
The good: Everything else. What a gorgeous camera: the feel, the weight, the size. It was a pleasure to play with. I must confess that I was tempted. If it wasn’t for the Best Buy employee that was standing by me all the time, I would have made a dash for it .
My conclusion: it is already a classic, imho. Period.
#18. "RE: D7000 vs D700" In response to Reply # 17
>The bad: The viewfinder; it is not even close to the D300 or D700.
I'm not sure why the D7000 viewfinder would appear worse than the D300/s - the two have the same frame coverage, eyepiece magnification, eyepoint distance and focusing screen. Of course, I've not handled a D7000 yet...
>Ken Rockwell has a series of D7000/D300/D3/5Dii comparison up >on his site. > I saw Ken Rockwell's review and have to point out that his "comparison" between the image quality of a D7000 vs D700 is of minimal value. He uses a 55mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkor on the D7000 and an 85mm f/1.4 on the D700. Why didn't he use the same glass and simply move closer? Or why didn't he use the same glass and engage the DX crop factor on the D700?
In comparing both cameras today with the Nikon Factory Rep at a local camera show, the D700 is by far a superior camera for several reasons: 1. FX format gives you much greater options with Depth of Field; 2. The D700 is more intuitive to operate; 3. The D700 is a pro camera and built to last; 4. The D700 is heavier and therefore more stable when shooting handheld.
Depth of field between DX and FX is reason alone for me not to consider another DX camera. I will only upgrade my D200 DX format to an FX format. I've had my fun with DX but quite frankly be able to shoot with a larger format on a similar sized body is to me, a no brainer.