D700 or D7100

One thing you might like to think about is how much you have already invested in DX glass ?
 
This is a pointless question that no one can answer without much more information from yourself- what you need to answer is what must the camera do and what are you looking to achieve? If you want it to take movies then the D700 is hopeless for that despite being a great camera. On the flip side if you are continually hitting the ISO ceiling then maybe the D700 is the solution.
Don't be fooled into thinking FF is the panacea for great photos- far too many people think like this- crap photos can be shot on anything.
 
Dr_O said:
This is a pointless question that no one can answer without much more information from yourself- what you need to answer is what must the camera do and what are you looking to achieve? If you want it to take movies then the D700 is hopeless for that despite being a great camera. On the flip side if you are continually hitting the ISO ceiling then maybe the D700 is the solution.
Don't be fooled into thinking FF is the panacea for great photos- far too many people think like this- crap photos can be shot on anything.
Click to expand...

Well that is the question really. Could I potentially shoot weddings, portraits etc with a non full frame camera? Or do you think that Full frame is a must?
 
Badger8 said:
Well that is the question really. Could I potentially shoot weddings, portraits etc with a non full frame camera? Or do you think that Full frame is a must?
Click to expand...
Weddings have the potential to be shot in some dark and dingy places, the D700 will be far far better for this than the D7100, it has far superior AF and far superior ISO handling, not to mention excellent weather sealing.
 
There are still plenty who shoot weddings and portraits with APS-C cameras. With portraits- certainly indoor, you have full control of the light so it wouldn't be an issue at all using a D7100. Clearly with a wedding there are more variables- venues, rules around flash, weather etc so you have less direct control over lighting and you may find needing better high ISO and AF which the D700 would offer. It can be done on the D7100 but you would have more leeway with the D700. Hard to judge where the point where it wont cope is. People still shoot weddings with 40D's and D300's and there ISO range is about the same as the D3100.
 
I find one of the main appeals of fx digital compared with dx is consistency with shooting 35mm film as i use my same ai glass on both my fm2 and my d610 with no crop factor to take into account
 
I use two D7000 cameras for Weddings - so is the D7100 with more pixels, a better dynamic range and slightly better high ISO good enough? Too bloody right it is :thumbs:

I wouldn't touch a D700 now, but in its day it was the go-to cheaper FX camera. Just one card slot though - the paranoid types crapped themselves at every Wedding with that 'issue' :D

In over 6 years of shooting Weddings I've hardly ever had to push beyond 2000 ISO and only once to 3200 ISO, the resulting images IME never make for double-page spreads so even though there's noise its not an issue anyway

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
I use two D7000 cameras for Weddings - so is the D7100 with more pixels, a better dynamic range and slightly better high ISO good enough? Too bloody right it is (y)

I wouldn't touch a D700 now, but in its day it was the go-to cheaper FX camera. Just one card slot though - the paranoid types crapped themselves at every Wedding with that 'issue' :D

In over 6 years of shooting Weddings I've hardly ever had to push beyond 2000 ISO and only once to 3200 ISO, the resulting images IME never make for double-page spreads so even though there's noise its not an issue anyway

Dave
Click to expand...

You wouldn't touch a D700 yet are happy to use vastly inferior cameras for professional use. Seems a bit bizarre.
 
Gary Coyle said:
Weddings have the potential to be shot in some dark and dingy places, the D700 will be far far better for this than the D7100, it has far superior AF and far superior ISO handling, not to mention excellent weather sealing.
Click to expand...

When i compared my d7100 to my brothers d700, the results showed them to be very close, with the d7100 sometimes edging it when viewed at the same viewing size. And the 51 point af is certainly comparable to the d700. Twas a very good camera indeed. If only Nikon made high quality dx lenses to go with it....
 
f/2.8 said:
You wouldn't touch a D700 yet are happy to use vastly inferior cameras for professional use. Seems a bit bizarre.
Click to expand...


Why would you say that the D7100 is vastly inferior? Isn't this what this threat is about? Discussion on both cameras? Why don't you try to explain your post rather that a needless swipe at a poster who is trying to help.
 
Badger8 said:
Why would you say that the D7100 is vastly inferior? Isn't this what this threat is about? Discussion on both cameras? Why don't you try to explain your post rather that a needless swipe at a poster who is trying to help.
Click to expand...

It really depends on your intended use and output, just comparing the D7100 to the D700 with your existing 70-200mm 2.8...

D7100 - The range of the zoom will be what your used to on your D3100, the image quality at base ISO will be better but at high ISO only slightly better.

D700 - The range of your zoom will now be wider due to the lack of crop factor, your image quality at base ISO will be a bit better, at high ISO it'll be a lot better.

The end result would be that the D7100 would give you more tele range and likely better image quality at base ISO(somewhat debateble), the D700 would give you better image quality at high ISO and more ability to control depth of field at the same angle of view. The D700 would have a larger brighter viewfinder, the D7100 100% framing, the D700 will also have a tougher body mostly made of metal vs the D7100's metal/plastic mix.
 
Last edited:
D700 is an utterly superb camera but like any technology, things move forward. I am pretty sure the D7100 is more than capable of pro work and has a few benefits like live backup. With that said I own 2 cameras and one previously that have the facility and I am yet to use it. Top end memory cards usually suffice.

Personally I would go for the D700
 
Badger8 said:
Why would you say that the D7100 is vastly inferior? Isn't this what this threat is about? Discussion on both cameras? Why don't you try to explain your post rather that a needless swipe at a poster who is trying to help.
Click to expand...

I didn't the guy above said he wouldn't use a D700 but said he is using 2 x D7000's professionally, I was comparing the D700 to the D7000.
 
It really comes down to what you mean by "make money" Badger, is it photographing events? is it taking portraits? selling art prints?
 
The D700 doesn't have the features I need for shooting Weddings compared to the D7000, thus making the choice a no brainer

That at the time it was twice the price and required that I swapped 2 of the best lenses available at a cost of upwards of £1,000 for no benefit other than they'd then fit the FX was also a no brainer

I think people need to remember that not long ago (when I started with a pro spec digital) the D100 was AWESOME and the D2Xs (my first full pro spec camera) was the World's best at the time. It was hailed as having more pixels than anyone needed too and a much better dynamic range over the D100, yet above 800 ISO it was awful and noise reduction software wasn't as good as it it today. The D7000 is far superior in many ways to the D2Xs so how can it not be good enough is beyond me

Of course if I fell over £12,000 in the street - and my wife didn't find out lol - then a brace of D4s and the Holy Trinity of lenses would replace what I have now (same range), but in the real world would it be 'better' ??? It'd certainly be a bit different, but better is a harder argument and as a business decision any improvement just doesn't make financial sense

When I see more of my fellows, and many respected (read expensive) Pros, also moving into using the little Fuji and Olympus mirrorless cameras for Weddings the idea that you NEED an FX system for Weddings is blown !!!

I fully accept that the D700 can take more dust & rain than my D7000s, that dropped it'd bounced better, that at 6400 ISO its still easily good enough; but I have more dynamic range, I have the safety of twin card slots and I have an IQ that is as good or better for 1/2 the price. So do any of the D700's areas where it is superior matter to me - nope - not one bit, but where the D7000 is superior to the D700 does matter to me - a LOT

The new D700 v D7000 argument is with the D610 v D7100, they both have all the features I'd want, and they are very similar in many ways too, but one is about twice the price and the cheaper one fits the £3,000 of lenses I already have. If I was to 'upgrade' I'm sure you can figure out which I'd buy :)

Guys - please stop silly pixel-peeping and being won over by silly spec differences that the marketing people sell you on and which don't matter in the real world. There's a very similar analogy for cars... a Mondeo can be around half the price of a similar sized/spec Merc/BMW. Yes there are many aspects of the more expensive cars that are 'better', but the Mondeo is 95% or more as good where it matters on a day to day basis, and what's more important still is the driver. A good driver can extract every drop of performance from the cheaper car that a poorer driver can't get close with in the 'better' one. Similarly, there are plenty of photographers who have the latest/greatest gear and can't shoot for shh*t - being a good 'driver' is more important that what you're driving :)

I'm outta here now, but feel free to PM me or even ring me up if you want

Cheers

Dave
 
And now I'll try and add something constructive Tim.
This may seem basic but bear with me.
Cameras are tools, if it does what you need it's the right tool. Dave (above) has the tools that he needs in the form of the D7000 and they make him money.
That makes his opinion valid.
Here comes a curved ball.......have you considered a used D600?
Very good low light performance, enough mpixies to allow you to crop in tight for distant subjects, enough "width" for group shots at functions, manageable file size, under a grand, and finally now Nikon have removed their heads form wherever they put them, dependable.
Plus it'll hold it's value until you reach a point where you find it doesn't do what you want it to - then you can trade it for a tool more specific to your needs.
It probably won't do everything brilliantly, but it'll certainly do most things really really well.
And I think it'll make you smile and that's important too.

Just my 2c - good luck!

cheers, cw
 
DG Phototraining said:
The D700 doesn't have the features I need for shooting Weddings compared to the D7000, thus making the choice a no brainer
Click to expand...
The features the D700 has makes it a much better choice for working wedding pros.

I have 2 D7000s, they're OK but they are not a better choice if I was doing weddings all the time.

ISO, DOF, AF, sealing, buffer, VF, fps, button layout all make the D700 a MUCH better choice than the D7000 for intended use.

What does the D7000 have that's more useful? Really? ...quiet mode. Arguably twin SD. These are minors.

You can achieve good shots with the D700 but if I stuck my 70-200mm on a D700 I would wager all the money I have that I could produce better images. They would be cleaner, more pleasing on the eye with the reduced DOF and sharper.

The D7100 is the D7000 with more megapixels, therfore, I vote D700.
 
Phil Young said:
...if I stuck my 70-200mm on a D700 I would wager all the money I have that I could produce better images. They would be cleaner, more pleasing on the eye with the reduced DOF and sharper...
Click to expand...

Easy tiger, that's potentially a good way to get poor really quick:p
 
Phil Young said:
The features the D700 has makes it a much better choice for working wedding pros.

I have 2 D7000s, they're OK but they are not a better choice if I was doing weddings all the time.

ISO, DOF, AF, sealing, buffer, VF, fps, button layout all make the D700 a MUCH better choice than the D7000 for intended use.

What does the D7000 have that's more useful? Really? ...quiet mode. Arguably twin SD. These are minors.

You can achieve good shots with the D700 but if I stuck my 70-200mm on a D700 I would wager all the money I have that I could produce better images. They would be cleaner, more pleasing on the eye with the reduced DOF and sharper.

The D7100 is the D7000 with more megapixels, therfore, I vote D700.
Click to expand...


Ok - not gone yet lol - but about to :D

Your parameters are different to mine, which is fine :)

But re the bold bit - no, you couldn't or at least not in a way that anyone could sensibly notice - it'd look a bit different, that's all

Everyone makes their own mind up - but there are NO 'bad' cameras any more, only some poor lenses and bad users

Dave
 
Everyone makes their own mind up - but there are NO 'bad' cameras any more, only some poor lenses and bad users

+1
 
Phil Young said:
What does the D7000 have that's more useful? Really? ...quiet mode. Arguably twin SD. These are minors.
Click to expand...

I would say (comparing D7100/D700)
- dual card slots with backup function is actually very useful
- quiet shutter speed (and I don't mean just the Q mode, but the actual loudness of the shutter/mirror slap)
- native ISO 100 vs 200 (major advantage when using flash outdoors with fast glass like many wedding photographers do)
- Related to the above. The D7100 has about two stops better dynamic range at base ISO ( it could be much less challenging to get well exposed white bride and dark groom on the same picture on these new sensors).

My choice would be a D800 which is arguably the best blend of old and new. But I am absolutely sure either D7100 or D700 is fine as well.

The guy I hired for my personal wedding 2 years ago used a Fuji S5 and his pictures were exceptionally good. I could hardly imagine I would be able to capture something close to that with my x-times more expensive gear.

Skill and craft is more important than gear
 
Last edited:
Dave, how do you manage to keep below ISO2000 at weddings. I've been known to use 6400 in dark churches :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top