Thank you very much. I have a D7000 and I am very happy with it but need to add a second camera and I am debating between getting a used d700, d7000 or possibly waiting for the new d800.
I have a d7000 as a back-up to my d700 and I haven't been happy with it. I feel like it has trouble focusing sometimes. I am planning on purchasing another camera body to replace it as a back up.
charlandk wrote:
Thank you very much. I have a D7000 and I am very happy with it but need to add a second camera and I am debating between getting a used d700, d7000 or possibly waiting for the new d800.
Well.....that's a debate better held after a D800 is announced
my d7000 focuses well with my 70-200 and my 17-55 but I have noticed some slight delays when using my 50 1.8. I figured it was a lens issue as I bought that one used.
Thank Shane. My biggest set back for the d800 would be the amount of space I would use with such large files. I'd imaging the image quality will be fantastic and the high iso imaging should be great, but storage space will be a minor issue.
lisy78 wrote:
D700 is better than D7000 in all categories except:
1. Price
2. Weight
3. Available Video
4. Available dual slot (SD, not CF)
Hope this helps!
Everything else being equal I generally prefer a Full Frame sensor, so my nod goes to the D700.
I have 3 of that and one D7000.
so glad you chimed in since I was curious what you are shooting now I am all too well stocked up with Canon gear right now, but I am curious to try this camera
I use the 700 as primary and 7000 as secondary. I noticed some intermittent issues with focusing last year so I sent it in for warranty repair. Came back much better, but still no where near the 700, that one is just amazing.
I used a D7000 for a while. There were significant back-focusing issues which required each of my lenses to be micro-adjusted. Never had any such problems with the D700.
The build quality on the D7000 also felt inferior to the D700.
I would not use a D7000 for professional use again.
ShaneMD wrote:
I'm glad someone else statred the topic and a D800 was mentioned.
Any wedding shooters really considering it? Based on rumors 36 MP?! That seems pretty crazy.
Just wondering what wedding shooters will have to say about it.
The D700 is prety awesome CharAndK
Assuming this whole 36 MP "nonsense" is real, it ALL depends on how Nikon plays it's cards.
If Nikon is smart then the camera will have the ability to output a 36MP RAW file, or a TRULY PIXEL BINNED 18MP file (where 18 could be 20, 18, 16, 15.734 whatever...).
Canon SORT of did that when they came out with the 5D2 and the SRAW options, but the implementation was STUPID... The SRAW levels were stupid (too small) and while there was never a disclosure by Canon as to what was going on in the creation of the SRAW files, nobody was ever convinced that they were doing effective pixel-binning. My own tests showed SRAW files having no noise advantage over their RAW counterparts.
An effective implementation by Nikon would result in one or more SRAW levels, with the largest being SUPER-D700 resolution (ideally 16-18MP) and with D3S-BEATING high iso performance WHEN USING THE SRAW files.
THAT would tickle my interest, and should be totally possible.
If they really wanted to DOUBLE DOWN on the epic they would also provide a DIGITAL TELECONVERTER SRAW option... Get an 18mp raw file not by pixel-binning but by cropping the sensor to DX no matter whether you're using FX or DX lenses.
I am all too well stocked up with Canon gear right now, but I am curious to try this camera