Is a Nikon D700 a worthwhile upgrade from a D7000 for full-frame shooting?
Asked 3/28/2013
3 views
2 answers
0
I currently use a Nikon D7000 and am considering moving to full frame. A D600 is more than I want to spend, so I’m looking at a used Nikon D700.
From what I understand, a D700 would give me:
- full-frame field of view, especially at the wide end
- shallower depth of field for the same framing
- a larger/brighter viewfinder
- stronger build quality and weather sealing
- better autofocus
- a larger buffer for continuous shooting
- up to 8 fps with the MB-D10 grip
Compared with the D7000, I know I’d give up:
- video recording
- some resolution
- some reach at the long end due to losing the crop factor
- dual card slots
How do the D700 and D7000 compare for overall image quality, dynamic range, and high-ISO/low-light performance? Is moving from a newer DX body to an older FX body a sensible upgrade?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
13y ago
2 Answers
5
You'll also lose the dual card slot, if that's important to you. The D800 and D600 have it, but the D700 did not.
If you want full frame, then it's certainly not a bad upgrade to go from a D7000 to a D700. Along with FX, you do get better AF and build quality.
You talk about the coverage at wide-angle. True you don't have the crop factor, but there is a 12-24mm DX lens available, whereas most FX lenses start at around 16-18mm, so you're almost as wide on DX really.
DxOMark rates the two sensors about equally, the D7000 having better dynamic range, and the D700 having better low light performance.
The D600 trumps both cameras - better dynamic range and high ISO performance than either of the other two. Here in New Zealand a used D700 goes for almost the price of a grey market D600.
I moved up to a D700 from a D90, but that is a bigger step than from a D7000. I felt it was well worth it, and I love FX. I think if I were you, unless there was something about the D700 I couldn't do without, I would hold on to the D7000 and look at something in the D600/D800 range when I could afford it. It also depends on if you have a number of DX lenses to replace if you move to full frame.
Originally by user4191. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user4191
13y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Yes—if your priority is full-frame shooting, the D700 can be a sensible upgrade from a D7000. Its main advantages are the FX field of view, shallower depth of field for the same framing, stronger build, better autofocus, and faster/buffered shooting.
Image-quality-wise, they’re more of a tradeoff than a clear win. The D7000 is generally stronger in dynamic range, while the D700 is generally better in low light / high ISO. Overall sensor performance is broadly comparable rather than dramatically different.
A few practical points:
- You will lose the D7000’s dual card slots.
- You also lose the crop-factor “reach” at the telephoto end.
- Wide angle is better on full frame, but DX can still get very wide with lenses like a 12-24mm.
- For the same angle of view, FX gives access to faster effective lens options and shallower depth of field.
So: if you want full frame mainly for depth of field, viewfinder, AF, and body handling, the D700 makes sense. If dynamic range, newer features, or maximum value matter more, the jump may feel less compelling.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI13y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Do larger DSLR sensors produce sharper images when everything else is equal?
Used Nikon D3/D700 vs D7000/D300S for stills: what do you give up with the older full-frame bodies?
Is a Nikon D700 a worthwhile low-light upgrade from a Nikon D70?
Why do many kit zooms start around a 24mm full-frame equivalent, and why are wider lenses more expensive on larger sensors?
How do I match APS-C and full-frame field of view when choosing Sony FE primes?