Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Nikon D700 or D7000

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

johnmac
johnmac  491 forum posts
19 Feb 2012 - 10:45 AM

Hi all, I'm sure this question has been asked before and if it hasI can't find it. I'm undecided which one to get? With the 800 out now I'm guessing the 700 may come down in price? So I'm hoping one of you have tried both or own both. I know they are both great cameras but in your view which is the best camera and best to buy. I'm a bit of a all rounder, I like action and landscape photography and I know for the 700 I will have to buy decent glass and will be more expensive but once purchased they'll last me a lifetime.

Look forward tou your replies

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
19 Feb 2012 - 10:45 AM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

GarethRobinson
GarethRobinson e2 Member 8995 forum postsGarethRobinson vcard United Kingdom2 Constructive Critique Points
19 Feb 2012 - 12:07 PM

If you need the reach go dx, if its just landscapes and portraits go with fx.
For fast action shooting i would skip the d7000 as the buffer fills to quick and you will miss shots waiting on it clearing. so a D300s is the better option in that respect. Or wait for the d400. The d7000 is the replacement for the d90 not Dxx series which some people thought it was.

Last Modified By GarethRobinson at 19 Feb 2012 - 12:07 PM
User_Removed
19 Feb 2012 - 12:37 PM

....but don't hold your breath for price reductions on the D700. Nikon have stated that they intend to continue manufacturing it alongside the D800. I would think that the street price of new D700s will stay around the 1700 mark for some time yet, with good "mint" secondhand examples continuing to get 1200-1300. At that sort of money, it might, indeed, be worth waiting a couple of months to see if a D300 replacement does materialise.

AndyMurdo
AndyMurdo  833 forum posts United Kingdom6 Constructive Critique Points
19 Feb 2012 - 12:37 PM

High Johnmac,
I think that the equation here is relitively simple to an extent. Image quality verses portability and overall cost savings. The larger sensor will generally give better quality at larger print sizes if you need that, so long as you have the better glass, which you seem to be aware of. The DX sensored D7000 will enable you to take advantage of the lighter DX dedicated glass as well as maybe saving some weight on the body as well, the difference in image quality will be most noticeable when and if you print large (A3 and above)! The D7000 has the more upto date image processing and DX lenses can give excellent results depending on which ones you go for, if top quality is required for a chosen type of photography that you do a lot of, then you can still plumb for top flight glass for that need if you wish. Ask yourself this, what is my real photographic ambition? Do you wish to aim for turning pro say,or entering a lot of print competitons, or frequntly printing large? If not (I don't know all the spec that is imortant to you) then the D7000 may give you more advantages, and a system that includes 3 or 4 lenses etc; can be a pain to carry far. Hope this helps a little, good luck, Andy M

cameracat
cameracat  108578 forum posts Norfolk Island61 Constructive Critique Points
19 Feb 2012 - 12:46 PM


Quote: I'm a bit of a all rounder

Then its got to be the Nikon D700.

It is a great all rounder with enough frame rate for most jobs, You can crank up the frame rate with a battery grip to 8 FPS, If your into machine gun tactics.....Grin

As for the reach thing and a DX option, I prefer the D700 FX with a longer focal length lens, Or get closer to the subject.....Grin

AF speed and lock on....D700 is mighty fast, Most if not all of my head on fast cat & dog images where taken using a D700 with a Nikon 70-300 VR ED lens ( so nothing horribly expensive in the way of glass ).....!!!!!!

The High ISO performance of the D700, The only camera that really beats it is the D3S, But up to ISO 3200, The real world results would be hard to distinguish the two, The images from ISO 6400 images are stellar to....Smile

Lastly the D700 is not " Bogged down " with video options and buttons, A big bonus in my book, My D700 has been in constant use for almost 3 years, It has never misfired, Never had an " Error code " of any sort, It just works and works supremely well, Should last until the D900 makes an appearance, When it might be time to look at retiring it.....!!!!

Wink


Quote: but don't hold your breath for price reductions on the D700

Absolutely true, Price reductions even on outgoing models ( Especially the more sought after models ) Never drops by much, If anything at all.....Grin

Last Modified By cameracat at 19 Feb 2012 - 12:51 PM
johnmac
johnmac  491 forum posts
19 Feb 2012 - 7:35 PM

Thanks everyone you've given me sound advice. I'm going for the 700, it will last me for a long time and won't need to change.

Thanks again all.

Johnmac

User_Removed
19 Feb 2012 - 7:55 PM


Quote: Thanks everyone you've given me sound advice. I'm going for the 700, it will last me for a long time and won't need to change.

Thanks again all.

Johnmac

You are right when you say that you won't need to change.

But I bet you want to change within a year.

That's just the way it is - and it would be the same whichever you chose now.

Smile

johnmac
johnmac  491 forum posts
19 Feb 2012 - 10:29 PM

You may well be right there LeftForum. D4 & 800 sound nice but I have to draw a line somewhere. Now I have decided to get 700 I have to decide between 16-35 or 24-70 2.8 lens. It'll more than likely be 24-28mm. I could do with a nice lottery win that would help.

Bluke
Bluke  9303 forum posts United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
19 Feb 2012 - 11:18 PM

Love my D700 it works well with 24-70mm2.8....also with the 70-200 mm 2.8...But about not needing to change... Well I haven't looked at another since I got my 700 when it first come out but I have had a little peek at the 800 ... Wink ..cant afford it but if I sell some of the kit I haven't used in a long time I just might get half of the cash together......Good luck ...

User_Removed
20 Feb 2012 - 11:25 AM


Quote: You may well be right there LeftForum. D4 & 800 sound nice but I have to draw a line somewhere. Now I have decided to get 700 I have to decide between 16-35 or 24-70 2.8 lens. It'll more than likely be 24-28mm. I could do with a nice lottery win that would help.

I have both those lenses and, if I had to select one only, then it would be, by a large amount, the 24-70mm. It is a superb lens in very respect.

I chose the 16-35mm as my wide-angle rather than the 14-24mm as the latter does not have a filter thread. But the 16-35mm does have a wee bit of distortion at the edges and also has a max aperture of f/4.

I mainly shoot landscapes and there are three lenses that I tend to use more than others:

The 24-70mm f/2.8 (maybe 60% of the time)
The 70-200mm f/2.8 (maybe 30% of the time)
The 16-35mm f/4 (only 10% of the time)

779HOB
779HOB  21021 forum posts United Kingdom
20 Feb 2012 - 11:33 AM

As we are talking lenses;

I just got a 700 and am really happy with it. I only have the Nikon 50mm 1.4 for it but for what I do that's great for now. I expect the 80mm will be my next purchase.

With regard the 16.35mm lens, what is, a part from the obvious, the difference between it and the 17-35mm lens which I have read is a fantastic lens.

Railcam
Railcam  7479 forum posts Scotland
20 Feb 2012 - 6:59 PM

the 16-35 lens is f4, whereas the 17-35 is f2.8. Consequently the f2.8 lens is much bigger, heavier and costs nearly twice as much. A cracking lens but expensive for an extra stop.

Given the high ISO ability of the D700 the f4 of the 16-35 should not be a problem.

779HOB
779HOB  21021 forum posts United Kingdom
20 Feb 2012 - 7:30 PM

Thanks Railcam - that makes sense. It does seem a big price to pay for one stop, but I often work in very low light and don't use flash at all so might be worth it for me. But I am some way off having enough spare to get one.

johnmac
johnmac  491 forum posts
20 Feb 2012 - 9:24 PM

LeftForum many thanks for that info on the lenses especially 16-35 distortion at the edges. I use Photoshop and Lightroom, Lightroom is fantastic in lens correction and removing noise, just wondering if the lens correction would remove the 16-35 distortion at the edges?

User_Removed
20 Feb 2012 - 9:41 PM


Quote: LeftForum many thanks for that info on the lenses especially 16-35 distortion at the edges. I use Photoshop and Lightroom, Lightroom is fantastic in lens correction and removing noise, just wondering if the lens correction would remove the 16-35 distortion at the edges?

I use Lightroom and the lens correction is certainly enough to remove any distortion to the extent that it might be noticeable in landscapes. In architectural photographs you might need to do a bit of extra correction manually.

But, of course, much of that problem can be obviated by framing the shot a wee bit "large" and then cropping to remove the edges.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.