Does D700 have enough edge over D7K?

[ZerocoolAstra]

I hope this is not your personal attack on me because I respect you as a senior due to your over 6,000 posts in this forum.
My comments in this thread is not to defend anything but to let the TS know that D700 is still has an edge over D7000 in many areas besides ISO performance although the gap becomes smaller now between DX and FX. I would say I never say something opposite to the facts.
Yeah, I jumped from D90 to D700. So what's wrong about it? How about those jumped from compact LX3 to D7000? :dunno:

firstly, I apologize if my comments were taken to be a personal attack.

secondly, post counts in no way signifies seniority, or skill level. It just means that I post a lot :bsmilie:


My observations from this thread and a few others across this forum, is that people who have recently bought D700 seem to put on a defensive stance, trying to belittle the D7000, which seems to have gotten "rave" reviews (justified or not, up to personal opinion) from a large portion of the photography community.

Comments to the effect of "FX is definitely superior to DX" are not substantiated. These are personal opinions, not facts. Almost all of us here are not high-level staff in camera R&D. Besides rumour mills and company announcements, we know little about the future of camera technology. So it's all guesswork. I'd rather not make such bold claims and have to eat my words should it prove errenous in the near future...

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

If I had recently bought a new camera, I would not be bothered to make comparisons with other recently-launched models.
Comparison breeds unwanted traits like jealousy, etc...


as Leong23 rightly said, in the end it's abot the photography, not the gear...

 

[daredevil123]

If I had recently bought a new camera, I would not be bothered to make comparisons with other recently-launched models.
Comparison breeds unwanted traits like jealousy, etc...


as Leong23 rightly said, in the end it's abot the photography, not the gear...

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Smiles88]

If I had recently bought a new camera, I would not be bothered to make comparisons with other recently-launched models.
Comparison breeds unwanted traits like jealousy, etc...


as Leong23 rightly said, in the end it's abot the photography, not the gear...

If everyone chases gears, the camera makers will be laughing their way to the banks.

 

[icarus]

I own the D700 and had tried the D7K extensively. Not much difference under normal shooting situations. Personally, I still prefer the D700 simply because it's has a much better wide prime lens selection over DX.... But if Nikon comes up with a series of small wide DX primes or, i will get a D7K/D3100 immediately for the compact size.

 

[dw8888]

of course.

Apart from ISO performance (which D700 still still slightly better), FX gives you a much wider Dynamic range.

Dynamic Range is important for people who shoot Zone. :think:

 

[kentwong81]

I believe the people who bought D700 recently never started a thread to ask if D700 is better than D7000 or D300s in terms of high ISO performance or whatever. At least I can't find such a thread in this forum, right?
However, I've seen enough of threads started by D7000 enthusiatists to say/ask D7000 is better than D300s and D700 in this forum recently. I believe they did so to justify the price they pay for the newly launched D7000. Or no?
Yes, D700 is two-year-old model, but it is still in production. As common sense, Nikon won't make a DX camera to kill D700, but they will make the gap smaller and when the D700 replacement comes out, the gap is bigger again. That's the 2 years cycle. Chasing gear or not, it's upto individual's pocket depth and priorities in life. Some people can spend 40k in car COE, so what justify about it?

firstly, I apologize if my comments were taken to be a personal attack.

secondly, post counts in no way signifies seniority, or skill level. It just means that I post a lot :bsmilie:


My observations from this thread and a few others across this forum, is that people who have recently bought D700 seem to put on a defensive stance, trying to belittle the D7000, which seems to have gotten "rave" reviews (justified or not, up to personal opinion) from a large portion of the photography community.

Comments to the effect of "FX is definitely superior to DX" are not substantiated. These are personal opinions, not facts. Almost all of us here are not high-level staff in camera R&D. Besides rumour mills and company announcements, we know little about the future of camera technology. So it's all guesswork. I'd rather not make such bold claims and have to eat my words should it prove errenous in the near future...

 

[daredevil123]

Dynamic Range is important for people who shoot Zone. :think:

Yes it is.. I'm not saying D7k is better than D700. I am just pointing out to people that the gap is not that big, despite their claims.

 

[scubagolfer]

I think 7D is better :bsmilie:

 

[daredevil123]

I think 7D is better :bsmilie:

LOL :bsmilie::bsmilie::bsmilie:

 

[Jacobs]

I think 7D is better :bsmilie:

Wah lau..you "Tor Kong"..:thumbsup:

I "十扑" you..:devil:

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

I believe the people who bought D700 recently never started a thread to ask if D700 is better than D7000 or D300s in terms of high ISO performance or whatever. At least I can't find such a thread in this forum, right?
However, I've seen enough of threads started by D7000 enthusiatists to say/ask D7000 is better than D300s and D700 in this forum recently. I believe they did so to justify the price they pay for the newly launched D7000. Or no?
Yes, D700 is two-year-old model, but it is still in production. As common sense, Nikon won't make a DX camera to kill D700, but they will make the gap smaller and when the D700 replacement comes out, the gap is bigger again. That's the 2 years cycle. Chasing gear or not, it's upto individual's pocket depth and priorities in life. Some people can spend 40k in car COE, so what justify about it?

Firstly, I never said anything about D700 owners starting threads.
Secondly, regarding your comments in bold, are you in a position to make such statements? Are you the Nikon CEO? Or the head of R&D...? We are all just guessing, am I right?
My point is: Why bother to even make such statements to compare? To feel good inside?

 

[daredevil123]

Wah lau..you "Tor Kong"..:thumbsup:

I "十扑" you..:devil:

Hahahaa... i go ask mimik to come here to post... and say 5Dm2 best... :sticktong

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

I think 7D is better :bsmilie:

no... sony alpha beats everyone!

 

[akerue]

no... sony alpha beats everyone!

:sweat::sweat::sweat:

 

[Jacobs]

no... sony alpha beats everyone!

Arrh.. be careful bro, don't start another fire point..:sweat:

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

Arrh.. be careful bro, don't start another fire point..:sweat:

i know... just kidding!

 

[jopel]

The D700 is quiet ancient in its technology liao. D7k has to be much better in image quality, low light capability, better tonality, and dynamic range as it has the latest technology. In make no sense for nikon to make something that has no advanced improvement.

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

The D700 is quiet ancient in its technology liao. D7k has to be much better in image quality, low light capability, better tonality, and dynamic range as it has the latest technology. In make no sense for nikon to make something that has no advanced improvement.

well, but on the flipside, it is targeted at a different segment of the market.

If you believe in the 'you get what you pay for' theory, then just looking at selling price of the 2 cameras.... [form your own conclusions]

But to me, the difference between these 2 cams is a lot more than comparing the specs.
If I had enough cash for either, and the willingness to spend it, my heart (for whatever reason) still says "D700 FX"...

 

[kentwong81]

I think what you said below is bold too. It's not fair for the users of D700 who expressed their user experience here, based on your pure observation.

......
My observations from this thread and a few others across this forum, is that people who have recently bought D700 seem to put on a defensive stance, trying to belittle the D7000, which seems to have gotten "rave" reviews (justified or not, up to personal opinion) from a large portion of the photography community.
...

Okay, based on your statement, we Clubsnappers here are better not to make any comment on any camera model because only the brand CEOs and R&D Head have the rights to comment(I believe neither coz they work for shareholders only, not consumers).
And now I have realised there is no common sense as everyone can make their own sense. You have your sense and I have mine. You can't say me wrong and I can't say you wrong too.

Regarding your last question, you also can ask those D7000 buyers who have made comparison against D300s and D700 whether they want to feel good inside. I believe I've made my points clear enough.

Firstly, I never said anything about D700 owners starting threads.
Secondly, regarding your comments in bold, are you in a position to make such statements? Are you the Nikon CEO? Or the head of R&D...? We are all just guessing, am I right?
My point is: Why bother to even make such statements to compare? To feel good inside?