jeffryscott Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
matthewsaville wrote:
I'm surprised we got all the way through this without anybody asking what Jeff what he shoots, ?
The D700, IMO, would be a hands-down winner for challenging situations such as weddings, portraits, low-light sports, etc. I'd rather have a D700 that I know is well-maintained and unlikely to go kaput mid-wedding, with something super-cheap like a D90 as a backup, than two D7000's.
Then again, if I shot in pretty much ANY other environment that doesn't demand 90% of my images to be shot at ISO 3200 and with flagship-grade autofocus accuracy, ...a pair of D7000's would be sublime!
=Matt=
I'm a former newspaper photographer (25 years), so shoot just about anything in any environment - thus my interest in the D700. That said, I'm not shooting professionally right now, but wanted to get back to DSLR for sports that my kids are involved in, often in dimly lit venues - hoping to maybe share my skills with other parents in exchange for cash.
But, since the D700 deal fell through, looking at a second D7000 or maybe a D300. The D300 is the D700 equal in build quality and speed, but not the equal in image quality at high ISO. The D300 is a better sports camera than the D7000, but the D7000 is a better high ISO camera. That is the reason I was excited by the D700 prospect - it does all of those things really well. That said, a D7000 and D300 may balance each other nicely as they each have their strengths, and it provides a backup body for a safety net.
Ultimately, my decision will partly be based on what is available here when the cash is available, probably early this week.
|