d600 vs d700 vs d7100

JamesMichael

JamesMichael

Messages
15
Name
Jamie
Edit My Images
No
I am not sure which Nikon camera to buy now. The D600, D700 or D7100. I would like fx but can live without it if the D7100 is a much better camera. The D610 is a little outside my budget. I realise the D7200 might be similar price to the D600 used. I suppose I am thinking I can save money going for the D7100.

I do mostly portrait work and some street photography. I mostly shoot outdoors and occasionally indoors using natural light. None of my glass is DX only although to be honest, I haven't invested much in glass yet.

Also, the issues with the D600, if I get a used one over a certain shutter count is it safe to assume no oil problems. I would buy it used from mpb in the UK.

Maybe some of you have or do use more than one of them. Thanks a bunch!
 
Last edited:
•


I would definitely go for the D700 and
expand eventually the FX range!
 
I've owned a D700 and a D610.

You can think of the D600 and D7100 as the same camera but one has a FX sensor in, both are nice.

The D700 is a pro camera, the build quality, controls and AF are much better than the other two cameras but you have an older (but still good) sensor and it is bigger and heavier and it doesn't have some of the more modern features such as tunable auto-ISO.

Personally if I were going DX I would go for a D7000 (which is a bargain price) or a D7200 (which is significantly better than both the earlier versions). For FX it is less obvious as it depends on your priorities - better sensor or better everything else...
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't bother with a D7100 of the three, D700 would be my choice ... as above, a solid pro body and produces excellent results.
 
gramps said:
I wouldn't bother with a D7100 of the three, D700 would be my choice ... as above, a solid pro body and produces excellent results.
Click to expand...

This, I've owned a couple. Superb camera.
 
Nawty said:
I've owned a D700 and a D610.

You can think of the D600 and D7100 as the same camera but one has a FX sensor in, both are nice.

The D700 is a pro camera, the build quality, controls and AF are much better than the other two cameras but you have an older (but still good) sensor and it is bigger and heavier and it doesn't have some of the more modern features such as tunable auto-ISO.

Personally if I were going DX I would go for a D7000 (which is a bargain price) or a D7200 (which is significantly better than both the earlier versions). For FX it is less obvious as it depends on your priorities - better sensor or better everything else...
Click to expand...

Hi Nawty

May I ask, I hear people say the resolution is not too good on the D700 compared to the D750, for example. Do you think it's acceptable to get paid something to shoot with an older body like that? Does it matter? I don't plan on printing large. Thanks
 
JamesMichael said:
Hi Nawty

May I ask, I hear people say the resolution is not too good on the D700 compared to the D750, for example. Do you think it's acceptable to get paid something to shoot with an older body like that? Does it matter? I don't plan on printing large. Thanks
Click to expand...

Difficult to answer this definitively as I assume that there are certain agencies or particular jobs that may for whatever reason require more than native 12mp. But my two penneth is that the D700 resolution is no real barrier for almost anything. I've printed close to A1 size from a 12mp image. Looks pretty good to me. Also, although 24mp is double the amount of pixels, that actually only equates to 1.4x resolution on each edge which isn't exactly game changing.

To play devils advocate here though, there are some distinct advantages of the 24mp sensor. Firstly, more room for cropping which can be handy. The newer sensors are also amazing in terms of clean shadow recovery and shooting at high ISO. The D700 is no slouch at all in that area but you can see a real improvement.
 
I went from D700 to D750 and there is a leap in DR but not too much in IQ.

The D700 would be fine, in fact some pros are still making good money with them.
 
JamesMichael said:
Hi Nawty

May I ask, I hear people say the resolution is not too good on the D700 compared to the D750, for example. Do you think it's acceptable to get paid something to shoot with an older body like that? Does it matter? I don't plan on printing large. Thanks
Click to expand...


For me it is less about resolution, 12mp is more than anyone really needs but as already said, the shadow recovery on the newer sensors is absolutely incredible (as was the D700 when it was new but things move on...).
 
I would get the D600 (if having a return policy as I had an early D600 camera that was affected by the well known issue).

I love handling and AF of the D700, but the Sony sensor in newer cameras is just too good to ignore (megapixels, dynamic range, highlight/shadow recovery, noise performance).

I no longer have D600 or D700, but at least for my subjects and workflow, when I was shooting them side by side, the difference when imported RAWs to the Lightroom was very obvious. For me the step from 12mpx->24mpx (and to lesser extent to 36mpx) was a big step up. I loved my D700 (and D2x, D300 and other 12mpx cameras I was using over years), but hell no I wouldn't want to go back to 12mpx.

Perhaps some don't need the resolution or exposure latitude of modern DSLRs, but you certainly don't need to print huge to appreciate it. In fact I hardly print anything these days. There is a number of other good reasons why extra pixels are desirable. It is crazy to realise that technically the D700 doesn't have enough resolution to produce pixel perfect wallpaper to my iMac these days :)
 
Last edited:
d700 fx 1st class camera forget the 600 610
if you can afford 2 bodies then club the money and get the 750 what a leap in technology brilliant in dark situations
 
The idea of clubbing the money together would be OK but I can get the D700 and D7100 for less than 1000 whereas the D750 is 1300 used as far as I can find. The D800 might be cheaper but has very big files. Not sure I want or need. Also I'd like two bodies. They both offer different things...
 
D700, there is something about the images it produces ( and the D3 ) that to my eye just isn't matched by other bodies.
If you were going for a 2nd dx body, look for a d7200, just my tuppence worth from having used both.
 
I was still shooting with D3 and D700 2 months ago. No longer using it now, not because it is not good, i just downsize and move to mirrorless.

I choose d700 anyday.
 
If you're going to lug around a DSLR you might as well get one that feels just right (let's be honest, most modern cameras produce the goods IQ wise).
The D700 feels just right.
 
D700 would be my first choice I won’t part with mine even though I have a D810 and also a D3 it still capable of capturing extremely good images.
And it’s a joy to use with or without a grip.
Don’t see anything wrong with the D7100 either if you like the idea of two bodies although I tend to pair my D300 up with the D700 as they are so very close in set up and use,and share the same batteries.
 
FWIW I have a D600 and it's a great camera. Excellent image quality, feels quick, isn't too bulky. I also have a D800 for comparison and though I've not used a D700 I'd likely take the image quality and size of the D600 over the D700.
 
The price difference between a d600 and d700 isn't that huge, so I'd go for the more modern camera. I think full frame has a certain look to it that is worth the extra cash and rather than buying two cameras, it would be more sensible to buy the best one you can afford. After I got the D600, I never touched my D7000 again, so it's now off to a happy new owner.
 
JamesMichael said:
May I ask, I hear people say the resolution is not too good on the D700 compared to the D750, for example.
Click to expand...
12mp is more than enough. The only reason for more MP is if you want to crop heavily or print huge.

Do you think it's acceptable to get paid something to shoot with an older body like that?
Click to expand...

As long as you as a photographer get good shots what you have shot these with does not matter (within reason of course)

Does it matter?
Click to expand...
That it's old? Not one bit
That it 'only' has 12MP? No. You can print poster size and it will still look good (don't forget it's also about viewing distance). Another example is a 4k TV, this can only show 8.3MP so again a 12MP has this covered.
 
My mate I shoot with took his d810 and d700 to the wedding we shot a few weeks ago. Unless he needs to crop there is little difference between the two at normal viewing.
 
I think I'm the only person in the world who doesn't like the pics from a D700. I've had one for 7 years and just can't grow to love it.

I'm currently shooting a D610 and a D7200 which I can't seem to part with.
 
You want to shoot street and portrait work, so you don't need a super-fast AF system that will track rapidly moving objects. A less bulky camera would be easier to carry & less obtrusive, and having less high ISO noise and better shadow recovery would also be an advantage. If image quality is important, I can't see what advantage being a 'pro' camera can bring to the party for this application unless a slightly different control layout will be beneficial. I'd suggest D600/610 over the D700 or 7000/7100.
 
Hmm interesting one.

In camera terms I would take the D600, wouldn't even consider a D700, too old, too low megapixels etc. Sorry just couldn't touch it with a barge pole when better cameras are available. Of course imo and I fully appreciate ymmv.

Talking about mileage...

Now I'm the opposite when it comes to cars. Would rather have a much older, more prestige/ faster car rather than spend the same money on a newer low emission economical better in all the boring ways... car
 
Last edited:
Brazo said:
Hmm interesting one.

In camera terms I would take the D600, wouldn't even consider a D700, too old, too low megapixels etc. Sorry just couldn't touch it with a barge pole when better cameras are available. Of course imo and I fully appreciate ymmv.

Talking about mileage...

Now I'm the opposite when it comes to cars. Would rather have a much older, more prestige/ faster car rather than spend the same money on a newer low emission economical better in all the boring ways... car
Click to expand...
Why do you need high MP for portraits and street?
 
ancient_mariner said:
Cropping. But TBH more pixels is the last reason to choose a better sensor.
Click to expand...
Exactly, and for portraits and street there's not a lot of cropping if any (y)
 
snerkler said:
Exactly, and for portraits and street there's not a lot of cropping if any (y)
Click to expand...

I'd agree about portraits, since you can control framing, but not so sure about street since that can be decisive-moment stuff.

An example of the benefits of cropping: the first is already cropped a bit, but the second is cropped quite hard - I couldn't get away with this so cleanly on APS-C.
Tornado-3759 by Toni Ertl, on Flickr

Tornado-3759-2 by Toni Ertl, on Flickr
 
ancient_mariner said:
I'd agree about portraits, since you can control framing, but not so sure about street since that can be decisive-moment stuff.

An example of the benefits of cropping: the first is already cropped a bit, but the second is cropped quite hard - I couldn't get away with this so cleanly on APS-C.
Tornado-3759 by Toni Ertl, on Flickr

Tornado-3759-2 by Toni Ertl, on Flickr
Click to expand...
I think my posts are being slightly misunderstood. I perfectly understand the benefit of cropping, and I crop a lot especially with wildlife. However, for portraits and street not so much (y)
 
snerkler said:
I think my posts are being slightly misunderstood. I perfectly understand the benefit of cropping, and I crop a lot especially with wildlife. However, for portraits and street not so much (y)
Click to expand...

I understood (I think) hence the explanation above the posted images & below the quote. The pics were for the OP's benefit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top