#1. "RE: Should I get the D7000 or D700???" In response to Reply # 0
First the easy question - is the FX chip significantly better than DX. The answer is no, but it depends a little on your planned use. The DX cameras are sold in much greater volumes as tehy provide light weight, lower cost, and pair with lower cost DX only lenses. The DX crop factor has some beenfits for situations where longer reach is desired. There is nothing wrong with a DX camera - and you can look at images in the National Geographic taken by Bob Krist with his D90 for proof (the Image Doctors podcast early this year with Krist was excellent).
The D7000 is roughly the upgrade to the D90 - with many features that equal or exceed the D300s. It is an excellent camera with the latest features and technology. With the DX body you can use DX lenses providing a lot of flexibility at lower cost and lighter weight than the FX alternatives. I own a pair of D300s and have ordered a D7000 to replace the D300 used by my wife. It's probably a good upgrade from a D5000.
The D700 does not seem to fit. It implies a completely different path into pro level lenses. While you get a full frame, you have roughly the same ISO performance as the D7000. For lenses you will need to replace all DX lenses with much more expensive FX models - each of which costs $1000 or more than their DX counterparts. What's more, the D700 is priced near $2000 because it is near the end of the product lifecycle. There will likely be a new model replacing it in some form or fashion before long. I just don't see any advantages of the D700 right now unless you already have the lenses for FX - and even then I can't think of a compelling reason (there are a number of small advantages with frame rate, AF system etc., but nothing truly compelling). I am planning on an FX camera (waiting for the successor to the D700 or D3), but I already have the lenses and will keep my D300.
You suggested a 24-120 lens with the D7000. I think the 16-85 is a much better choice to go with both the camera and the 70-300. I have a 24-70 and can tell you that 24mm is rarely wide enough on a DX body. I use a 12-24 and a 16-35 regularly, and would not carry the 24-70 without an ultra-wide. I don't hav ethe 24-120, but the reviews I have seen indicate the image quality is not as good as some of the alternatives. The 16-85 /70-300 would make a terrific kit - and is one I own.
#3. "RE: Should I get the D7000 or D700???" In response to Reply # 0
St Petersburg, RU
Eric provided an excellent overview. Both are very good systems but neither will have dramatically different image quality better than the D5000. The main differences relate to handling and operational techniques. The d700 is a really good camera when paired with really good lenses, as is the current DX models when paired with very good lenses. So which is right for you is going to be determined by your shooting operational preferences, long term budget and understanding that the camera body is the cheapest part of your kit. Good lenses for either DX or FX are expensive long term investments. I am probably not that much further along than you, having a DSLR for only 2 years but over that time, despite a very limited budget, by rearranging priorities have ended up with some good lenses: 70-200vr 2.8, 17-55 2.8, 85 1.4, 10-24, 10-20 3.5, Sigma 50mm 1.4,1.8, 35 1.8 which adds up to several times the camera cost. These are mainly DX so covering the same range with the same quality in FX is going to be a lot more. A 300mm 2.8 needed to get the same field of view as the 70-200 at the long end when mounted on a DX body is going to be really expensive, $5,000, for example. If you are prepared financially as well as physically to lug the high end high weigh lenses around, a D700 with 14-24 2.8, 24-70 2.8, 70-200VRII 2.8 is a good starting point unless you need reach for sports, wildlife or particularly birds in flight. Take a look at the lenses BIF shooters need to carry like 600 f4 is $10,500. Getting the camera, DX or FX, if you and your wife are serious, should be thought of as an entry point, from where the real investment starts. Stan St Petersburg Russia
#4. "RE: Should I get the D7000 or D700???" In response to Reply # 0
San carlos, US
My view is simpler for me.
I will buy the D7K (if I like the viewfinder) and use that with lenses from 10mm to 500mm and really enjoy the lighter weight, the improved low ISO performance (over my D200), the multiplier factor of 1.5 for nature. And 1 year from now, pick up a used D700 for $500 to shoot with some FX manual lenses or 14-28mm lense for the hell of it. The D700 will hit $500, just a matter of time.
#5. "RE: Should I get the D7000 or D700???" In response to Reply # 4
>I will buy the D7K (if I like the viewfinder) and use that >with lenses from 10mm to 500mm and really enjoy the lighter >weight, the improved low ISO performance (over my D200), the >multiplier factor of 1.5 for nature. And 1 year from now, pick >up a used D700 for $500 to shoot with some FX manual lenses or >14-28mm lense for the hell of it. The D700 will hit $500, just >a matter of time.
You are correct that it is "just a matter of time" before the D700 depreciates down to $500.00 for a used copy. I would not hold my breath thinking that the price will drop to $500.00 in the next year. Used D200 bodies are selling for more than that and the D200 has been out of production for three years and was only about $1300.00 or so brand new. Best guess would be you have at least a four or five year wait. Then again you might get lucky and find someone willing to sell it for that price. Good Luck and Enjoy your Nikons!
#6. "RE: Should I get the D7000 or D700???" In response to Reply # 0
Bay Area, US
There are many benefits the D700 has over the D7000, like a much larger view finder, more solid handling with more dedicated buttons and switches, and the ability to use fast primes like the 24mm f/1.4 at their full field of view. These are all indispensable to me but may not be to you. Image quality will probably be close. FX is generally superior at similar MP count, but the D7000 sensor is 3 years younger than the D700/D3 sensor.
Why are you upgrading from the D5000? If there are features you are missing, that will point you to the right upgrade path. Example: If you are mainly missing the focus motor to operate AF-D lenses, then the D7000 will be a perfect fit. If you don't know why to upgrade and just want a better and more capable camera, again take the D7000.
So I think the answer won't be all that hard. If you needed something that only the D700 provides, I think you'd already know and wouldn't need to wonder.
#10. "RE: Should I get the D7000 or D700???" In response to Reply # 0 Sun 10-Oct-10 09:57 AM by Ramesses
I cannot improve on Eric’s answer and completely agree with him. It is right on and I have the D700. I just sold the D5K after pre-ordering the D7K. However, let me say the following about the D700. Keep in mind that it is only my opinion and it is just me.
I cannot say that I like or love the D700 – it is part of me – I’m taking it to my grave. I might upgrade in the future, but my D700, no matter how obsolete it might become, will never be sold. It is the best camera I ever had. The others are not even close, imho.
#12. "RE: Should I get the D7000 or D700???" In response to Reply # 0
Colorado Springs, US
I'm not sure what FX and DX bodies some of these folks are using, but I don't share their opinion.
I have a D700 and have shot the D50, D80, D200 and D300s.
In my opinion, the FX sense is superior over the DX sensor mint eh following areas: Dynamic Rnage is a couple of stops greater - very noticeable DOF is shallower and smother - lens and aperture being the same ISO performance is better due to the larger sensor vs pixel density
Let me caveat this with the fact that the D7000 has not been officially released and cannot be accurately compared, but I have studied Chase Jarves' images and video.
Also, I have a D7000 on pre order. Mostly for the video, but it is a great solid performer and will do fine as a backup to my D700 should i need it... But honestly, I really don't see how the quality of a DX sensor is going to match the FX... At least not yet.
#13. "RE: Should I get the D7000 or D700???" In response to Reply # 12
I also have the D7K on Pre-Order. The sensor and pixel size are very important, but there are other factors. The D7K comes with the new Xpeed 2 processor and the 2,016-pixel RGB (3D Color Matrix) sensor. Now days, it is all about firmware.
Nikon has yet to introduce a “dog” for a camera. However, there is always a first time and we know nothing about the D7K. The Chase Jarvis photos taken with the D7000 are just ridiculous, imho. His pictures are supposed to extol the virtues of the camera and he takes one of a cowboy in a cloud of dust! Unbelievable!!!
If the camera is a dog, I will return it - have plan “B” in place. I will go straight to the Leica X1. When Leica announced the X1, I just finished purchasing the D-Lux 4 and D5K. They are both gone, now. On the other hand, it would cost me ~ $2,500 for the X1, viewfinder and extra battery – ridiculous! The recently announced Fuji X100 is a better camera for less than half the price of the Leica. However, it is the Leica colors that I’m after and the X100 does not have them.
If I had ~$22,000 I would go after the M9 and three lenses, but I don’t. Therefore, the only Leica I will ever be able to afford is the X1. I really hope and pray that the D7K works out.
#14. "RE: Should I get the D7000 or D700???" In response to Reply # 13
Colorado Springs, US
Oh, please don't misunderstand my comments... I don't believe this will be a dog of a camera or I would not have dropped my 1200 bucks... As a DX body I believe it will be awesome... My point was that comparing a DX to a FX is not fair... Not currently...
The question was "is the FX chip significantly better than the DX" - IMO yes, the FX is significantly better... And I stated why... That has nothing to do with the quality of the D7000.
#15. "RE: Should I get the D7000 or D700???" In response to Reply # 14
St Petersburg, RU
The only one of your 3 listed differences is actually inherent in FX vs. DX. In fact the Dynamic range, at base ISO is wider on the D90 than D700 or D3(s) but not the D3x. A lot of additional factors go into noise figures and there are major differences between cameras with similar sensors. With mods to the same density sensor, major differences can be found such as between the D3 and D3s. This means that changes in technology rather than sensor size is most consistent predictor of performance. DoF is dependent on sensor size as you state. This part of the refresh cycle means is that a lot of people are going to be carrying both DX and FX cameras with them, FX for wide and narrow DOF, DX for reach and not have too much to worry about resulting image quality from either because they will be close. Stan St Petersburg Russia
#16. "RE: Should I get the D7000 or D700???" In response to Reply # 12
>In my opinion, the FX sensor is superior over the DX sensor >in the following areas: >Dynamic Range is a couple of stops greater - very noticeable >DOF is shallower and smother - lens and aperture being the same >ISO performance is better due to the larger sensor vs pixel density
Only the second of those three differences is due to the physical size of the sensor. Dynamic range and noise are factors of the photosite size. A 10MP DX camera and a 23MP FX camera (using the same sensor technology and firmware generation) would produce the same DR and noise performance.
#17. "RE: Should I get the D7000 or D700???" In response to Reply # 16
Colorado Springs, US
I disagree - but I am not looking for a battle either. Everything I have read and listened to falls in line with what I have experienced with the bodies available to me.
Everything from sensors smaller then Micro 4/3rds to 4x5 - all experience basically the same characteristics. Yes, there are many different variables that can change the results, but for the kind of shooting that I do (apples for apples) in real-world scenarios, the larger sensors consistently produce better images.
#18. "RE: Should I get the D7000 or D700???" In response to Reply # 17
Without more detail, it's impossible to say whether you are comparing like with like.
An FX D3 has better DR and better high-ISO noise performance than a DX D300, but it's nothing to do with the physical dimensions of the sensor - it is simply because the photosites in the D3 are so much larger. That's not a matter of opinion - it's a fact.
#19. "RE: Should I get the D7000 or D700???" In response to Reply # 18
Colorado Springs, US
I'm not so sure that the larger sensor size doesn't play a role in the fact (as you have stated) that the D3 is better than the D300. I agree that "the photosites in the D3 are so much larger", the D300 is cramming a larger number of pixels (12.3 vs 12.1 million) on a sensor nearly 3 times smaller!
Again he is asking about the D700 vs a D7000 and FX vs DX, I know that we don't have data for the D7000 but at $1,200 I have to assume that it is not in the class of a D3 or even a D700 for that fact?
The photosites on the D7000 have to be tiny (compared to the D700) because they are cramming 16.2 million on a sensor (again) that is 3 three times SMALLER. In this case - I strongly believe that size does matter!
#20. "RE: Should I get the D7000 or D700???" In response to Reply # 19
I think you are debating something without having all the facts - facts that will be released shortly once we get the D7000 in member hands for some testing. Your comparison is a bit of apples and oranges. We all agree that larger pixel size reduces noise in low light/high ISO situations if all factors are equal, but all factors are not equal.
According to Nikon, the D7000 specs for ISO performance and noise are comparable to the D700. ISO noise is not even relevant for most images as most images are with ISO 100-200. In addition, the software makes a difference and we can expect that Nikon has tweaked the camera processor to further improve high ISO noise performance.
The D7000 does have 16.9 megapixels - which is a nice step up from all but the D3x. In some cases more pixels are better. The practical side of this is for most photographers the 12 megapixel sensor is fully adequate for prints up to 20 x 30.
#21. "RE: Should I get the D7000 or D700???" In response to Reply # 19 Mon 11-Oct-10 05:50 PM by briantilley
>Again he is asking about the D700 vs a D7000 and FX vs DX, I know >that we don't have data for the D7000 but at $1,200 I have to >assume that it is not in the class of a D3 or even a D700 for >that fact?
We don't know yet. But from past experience everything moves on - the "consumer" D90 considerably exceeded the sensor performance of the "pro" D1, even though the D90 had a much denser sensor and was cheaper
>The photosites on the D7000 have to be tiny (compared to the >D700) because they are cramming 16.2 million on a sensor >(again) that is 3 three times SMALLER.
It's 2.3 times smaller in area, and while what you say is true, the D7000 sensor is a couple of generations newer than the one in the D300, and the firmware has also been improved. It comes back to the point about making sure we are comparing like with like.
To reiterate - FX is not automatically better - it depends on the technology used and the pixel density.
#22. "RE: Should I get the D7000 or D700???" In response to Reply # 21
>To reiterate - FX is not automatically better - it >depends on the technology used and the pixel density.
And the people (few though they may be) who have actually handled the pre-production D7000 appear to agree that the D7000 sensor performance compares favourably to not only the D700 but the D3s as well.
This shouldn't be that surprising, it is not like there was a huge gap between the sensor performance on a D700 and a D90. The D700 was better in all cases, but not significantly so (it of course has a better DR). A few years later, technology advances and the new DX sensor has caught up.
#24. "RE: Should I get the D7000 or D700???" In response to Reply # 23 Sun 17-Oct-10 08:23 PM by Ramesses
Thanks for posting the link to the D7K review.
I have seen the softness or mushiness in the photos taken with the D7000 especially the Chase Jarvis’ ones. Mind you that Jarvis is a pro, working for Nikon, to extol the virtues of the D7K and the photos were not convincing. To me the new sensor with its small sized pixels was always an area of concern – not enough and yet too many to make a true difference.
I am very disappointed that the test did not include primes. When Nikon trotted out the D3x, their lenses of choice were the 24-70 and the Micro 60mm N. I do not think that they felt that the many of the other lenses could scale the new sensor. That is why I intend to use my three Zeiss ZF lenses as the main ones with the D7K. I believe that these lenses could scale the new D7K sensor, but I do not know for sure. The best photo, imho, was the one taken with the 24-70.
I’m inching closer to my “Plan B” and the Leica X1. If it came with a Summicron and not an Elmarit fixed lens, it would have been here, already.
#25. "RE: Should I get the D7000 or D700???" In response to Reply # 24 Sun 17-Oct-10 10:41 PM by Ramesses
I guess I won't be coming back to this forum ; I just ordered the Leica X-1, due to arrive this Wednesday. I made up my mind, for better or worse. I did get the grip and the compact Billingham belt case, but not the optical viewfinder. I will use the Hoodman Loupe, which I already have, instead.
I really wanted a serious Leica camera, for the colors, and the X1 is the only one that I can afford. As soon as I win the lottery, I will get the M9 and only three Summilux lenses. What about the X1? If I win the lottery, it does not matter . This reminds me that in order to win it, I have to play it, first .
That was a big decision - a massive one. I had the D300 and got the D700 as a back up. I stopped using the D300. Therefore, I got the D5000 to use it as a backup to the D700. When I sold the D5K, it only had less than 1,800 actuations. I was afraid that I would do the same thing with the D7K. I am at one with the D700 - it has become part of me. The X1 is different and humongously expensive. I really hope to have made the right decision - only time will tell. One thing is for certain, I did not rush into it. What about if Leica announces the X2. Too bad! Nothing I can do about it.
#27. "RE: Should I get the D7000 or D700???" In response to Reply # 26 Mon 18-Oct-10 09:38 AM by Ramesses
Thanks. It was a major decision and I hope it works out . When Leica announced the X1, I just finished purchasing the D5K and the D-Lux 4 and was stuck, then. They are both gone and I miss the portability of the D-Lux 4, but not the noise at anything over ISO 800.
I’m not fooling myself; it is not the M9. However, I cannot get to the M9. With the money I had for the D7K, the sale of the 16-85, and not buying the Tokina 11-16 – it is the X1. That is why I went for the $124 Billingham belt case – the X1 is not cheap. Billingham makes the best cases, imho, and this one is well padded inside!
I will keep people posted in the Non-Nikon cameras forum. In other words, this is my last post on the X1, here.
PS: I’m still shell-shocked at the amount of money I spent on the X-1 (camera + accessories = $2,400.) Yes, I’m getting my dose of buyer’s remorse. It is crazy and I know it. The Fuji X100 is a much better camera for less than half the price. However, remorse or not, I’m not even close to changing my mind, crazy or otherwise. After having crossed the proverbial bridge, I just realized how much I really wanted the X1, but could never overcome the sticker price until today. On the other hand, compared to a Leica digital alternative like the M8.2 or M9 with one lens, the X1 is dirt cheap. The beauty of the X1, imho, it is a fixed lens camera - I cannot go out to buy another lens, because I can't. The X1 will save me from myself.
#28. "RE: Should I get the D7000 or D700???" In response to Reply # 24
St Petersburg, RU
Hekter Did you also see the soft D90 and D3x images posted at first release before anyone knew how to use them? The D90 was panned for "soft" images in default settings. But after a week or so people figured out that Nikon was being overly conservative in its default sharpening settings. The same with the D7000, maybe more. Those who set it at 6 are showing images on other forums that are truly impressive with an obvious enhancement to the DR of DX cameras. If anything the IQ, when used correctly, of the d7000 seems to exceed the high expectations that focused mostly on high ISO. The DR difference in headroom is what is most impressive however. The D90 and 300 are essentially the same in these regards but I know my D90, even after 2 years experience with it and 45,000 could not come close to some images posted. Sure better cameras will come out, but as of now, when handled by people who know how to use it, the DX world a new top dog. Stan St Petersburg Russia
#29. "RE: Should I get the D7000 or D700???" In response to Reply # 28 Mon 18-Oct-10 08:21 PM by Ramesses
Thanks for your response and advice.
I have seen the test photos of the D300 before it was released, but not the D90. I’m still not convinced with the Chase Jarvis' photos of the D7000. However, my decision has little to do with the D7K; it is all about the X1, my obsession with the camera, and the Leica colors.
I exaggerated the final price of the X1 because I included accessories that I did not need for the Leica. The true price is more like $2,150. If I do not buy the D7K and sell the 16-85 it would be the equivalent to $1,750. Will I sacrifice the D7000 and 16-85 for the X1 for $400 extra? In a nano second!
The problem is from the financial point of view. I know that I’m losing my shirt with the X-1. Leica is going to get stiff competition from Fuji (X100) and the score of mirror-less cameras (EVIL System,) including Nikon that are coming in the next few months (some are here, already.) Either Leica will have to reduce the price of the X1 or introduce the X2. Otherwise, the sales of the X1 will be dead in the water. This is not the time to get the X1. However, having crossed the sticker price bridge, I will not return it or cancel the order.
I’m basically a Leica shooter without the resources to get the M8 or M9 and one lens (the 35mm would be the lens.) The X1 is better in photo quality, as I understand it, than the M8.2. Therefore, this is the only Leica that I can afford. I hate to be the poor relative in the Leica community, but the truth of the matter is that I am the poor relative in the Leica community.
With the Nikon D700 and the Leica X1, I will have, for me, the best of both worlds. For better or worse, I’m finally getting the X1, a camera that was a dream of mine, just two days ago. I know that it does not make sense, but I only live once.
#31. "RE: Should I get the D7000 or D700???" In response to Reply # 28 Tue 19-Oct-10 01:36 AM by Ramesses
I canceled the D7000 pre-order, today. I was always toying with the idea of going FF only. I hate to have DX and FX lenses. I just got down to 8 lenses, from 14, and two of them are macros. In other words, only six main ones and that is the way it will remain. It is opportunity of use and not the money – if I use one, I do not use the other. I made up my mind to go only FX with the Nikon system before ordering the X1.
#34. "RE: Should I get the D7000 or D700???" In response to Reply # 33
Sorry, but I missed the intent of your first message. I thought that you were trying to offer advice. Now that you made it clearer for me: “…my post was a gentle attempt to ask that you stop dragging us down off-topic sidetracks in this, the D7000 Forum,” I really appreciate your gentleness and tactfulness.
#35. "RE: Should I get the D7000 or D700???" In response to Reply # 6
>There are many benefits the D700 has over the D7000, like a much larger view finder, I provisionally disagree with "much larger" - I handled the D7000 about 10 days ago - and expect to test drive it tomorrow. Comparing D300s and D3s (I use both side by side) the D3 series have significantly more minus viewfinder magnification than the D300 series, reducing the apparent size difference to about 12.5%. The D300 series have viewfinders about a stop brighter than the D3 series. Minor differences are the viewfinder on the D3 series does not show brighter screen brightness or reduced depth of field than about f2.5 - slightly better than the f2.8 with the D300 series. Overall I prefer the D300 viewfinder. The D7000 seems to have the same viewfinder as the D300 series. The extra resolution (when needed) of the D7000, 100 base ISO, twin card slots and video are some factors to consider.
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.
#36. "RE: Should I get the D7000 or D700???" In response to Reply # 31
> I made up my mind to go only FX with the Nikon system What the OP prefers is perhaps more important. I regularly shoot DX alongside FX. I regard FX as best for about 10% of my photography - mainly high ISO work - though in the context of D7000/D700 there is likely to be little or know high ISO advantage. I regard DX as best for about 20% of my photography - mainly for macro and long lens work. For the other 70% (D300s/D3s) there is no difference between the formats. Going FX exclusive puts the majority who shoot where DX is the best option at a disadvantage. Digressing FX corner quality wide open at the wide end on lenses like the 14-24 and 24-70 is someway from spectacular. Although the angle of view is different on DX the corners upgrade to close to spectacular
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.
“I don't like "mixed" DX/FX systems for that very reason: you end up duplicating ecosystems (lenses in particular, but often other things like chargers, batteries, remotes, and so on).”
That is where I found myself with lenses (14) literally coming out of my ears. There were lenses that I took out because I had not used in moths or even one year. I had no idea if they were going to work or not. The problem is that it was usually a $200 DX lens. However, by using that lens I was not using a $1,200 one, for example. Why did I buy the latter to use the $200, instead? It did not make any sense. Therefore, I came in with an ax to reduce the number of lenses and that is why I was thinking of going only FX (D700) and not because I consider DX inferior. Most of my lenses were FX already. My new X1 comes with an APS-C sensor and I paid $2,000 for it.
Now to the D7000. When I pre-ordered the D7K, I took a big gamble by selling the DX lenses, except one (16-85,) and the D5000 not knowing that it was going to work out. Therefore, I had Plans “A-E” in place. “E” being the doomsday one, if everything planned went wrong (the purchase of the D3100.)
I never liked the photos taken by Chase Jarvis; there were something wrong with them, like they were “mushy” (I did not use that term at the time.) Mind you that this is the pro hired by Nikon to promote the D7K and not just any pro. When the review was posted, it addressed exactly my area of concern. Therefore, I started to look into “Plan B.” When I opened the box of Plan B, which had the X1 in it, the proverbial “Jack-in-the-Box” jumped out and could not put it back. Everything after that took a life of its own.
People might conclude that I went for the X1 because I thought that the D7K was not good. It had nothing to do with the camera, because I had time. It had everything to do with the X1. I could have even waited to get D7000 and evaluate it myself. If I did not like it, I would have returned it and then go to “Plan B.”
#41. "RE: Should I get the D7000 or D700???" In response to Reply # 40
I completely agree with Thom Hogan. I already had the D700 and knew that the D7K was not going to replace it, just back it up. In other words, I knew what camera to get or be the primary one.
I believe what Thom is saying is that if you do not know the answer to that question and then you should go for the less expensive alternative and grow into it, first, to put it politely. I think it is a “backhanded” slap type of comment that I would have never made.