Does D700 have enough edge over D7K?

[Gizmo]

D700 is FX... D7K is DX... Not apple to apple comparison... read up on the pros/cons of FX vs DX and make your decision...

Budget is the key factor as well... D700 body is almost 2x the cost of a D7K body...

 

[daredevil123]

Agree with most of the above. According to DxOmark, D7k has better dynamic range, while D700 does better for low-light. D700 will also have shallower depth of field and wider field of vision. Which camera is more desirable depends on your shooting needs/style

Dxomark do not measure dynamic range.. it measures noise.

 

[ovaltinemilo]

since nikon have made significant improvement over the DSLR range this time round, i think buying a newer model will be more beneficial than 3 or 4 years ago.

i think D700 replacement will be the most ideal DSLR for me and for some people lol.

I just feel some are really obssessed in FX, some in DX. For me, I would think D300S replacement will be the best out there for me..though I would gladly settle for a D7K with all issues resolved.:bsmilie:

 

[daredevil123]

D7000 is still miles away from D700. That's because it is a DX camera with a smaller sensor.
All this while D7000 is only selling its high ISO performance to attract new buyers. High ISO performance doesn't mean a good photo. Most of the time you will find that you don't shoot above ISO800. Will you still shoot above ISO1600-25600 under bright light condition to show high ISO performance of D7000?
And the richer colours, more details in the hightlights and shadows, faster focusing speed, much bigger and brighter viewfinder of D700 makes it superior to D7000.
But of course the gap is smaller now because D700 is already 2 years old. When the replacement for D700 is released next year, there is another story already :bsmilie:

Not miles away.

D7000 is almost on par with the D700 in ISO noise performance. with D700 having a slight edge (less than 0.5 stop).

D700 do have some edge in other areas as well. Slightly better detail retention in highlights and shadows (aka dynamic range), bigger viewfinder, faster operation. of course thinner DoF.

But saying they are miles apart, is too much of a stretch.

Some of my friends who work with both FX and DX day in and day out, have also been telling me that D700 focusing is slightly slower than D300s even. But compared to D7000, I don't know.

If you want fast AF.... D3 series is the way to go. fast as hell... hear the whirl of the in body AF screw just turns me on. :bsmilie:

 

[jeff7id]

has there been a proper dynamic range comparison on the net?

Some data (DXOMARK) says D7000 is better.

Is it possible that a DX camera has better dynamic range, compared with a FX camera ?

:think::nono:

 

[night86mare]

Is it possible that a DX camera has better dynamic range, compared with a FX camera ?

:think::nono:

why not?

because you say so? :bsmilie:

 

[Big Kahuna]

I am D700 user, if given a choice, I will go for D7k because of the size and the price :thumbsup:

If you are pro...most likely you are already on D700 or D3 when they fresh came out and will not bother to post this question....for casual user....Imo the new cam is about on par in term of image quality....however you'll need to consider the road map that you are on....FX...DX....SD or CF etc :thumbsup:

 

[coolthought]

D7K is the 1st amongst the next generation of Expeed processors. The technology will filter down to their revised product lines very soon. Do expect that the next replacement for D300s will trounce the D7K. The next replacement for D700 will trounce D3s and so on.

That's technology. You can't compare D7K with D700 cos they are a different generation.

actually D3100 is the first. Not much people bat an eyelid becos it is an entry level.

From what I look at it. Nikon marketing guys are doing a fantastic job. Slowly get the lower end out. Then the next higher one. Now with the D7K seeming doing a better job than the one above it. The wow and interest it generate from it. It just drives the fanboy running for it. When the replacement for D300 come out, the reaction it can create by being seemingly more superior than the D700.... and so on....

 

[kentwong81]

Yeah, D3100 uses the same new Nikon DX-format CMOS image sensor and new image-processing engine EXPEED 2 as D7000 but nobody "wow" about it.....why??

actually D3100 is the first. Not much people bat an eyelid becos it is an entry level.

From what I look at it. Nikon marketing guys are doing a fantastic job. Slowly get the lower end out. Then the next higher one. Now with the D7K seeming doing a better job than the one above it. The wow and interest it generate from it. It just drives the fanboy running for it. When the replacement for D300 come out, the reaction it can create by being seemingly more superior than the D700.... and so on....

 

[DrSpock]

Is it possible that a DX camera has better dynamic range, compared with a FX camera ?

:think::nono:

The answer to this question is Yes and No.

The ability of the photosites(a.k.a Pixels) to see a larger range of lights from white to black(a.k.a Dynamic Range) depends very much on the sizes of these photosites hence the larger the photosites the more light it can take in hence better sensitivity so call. As FX sensor is abt >2x bigger than the DX sensor similarly the FX's pixel sizes is also bigger than that of the DX's. So comparing the D700 12mp whose pixel size is, say >2x than that of the D7k's pixel hence, Yes, the D700 does have better DR over than that of the D7k.

However you may argue that D7k has 16mp hence higher resolution than the D700 but there is so much more to pixel density that Diffraction may set in at a mid f5.6 or thereabout as compared to a 16mp FX cam, which the pixel sizes is still bigger than a 16mp DX cam. Unless the replacement D700x/s (whatever they may call it) has a 36 or 48mp FX body and the pixel size of the FX now becomes smaller than the DX, then the DX will hv a better DR than FX.

 

[daredevil123]

Yeah, D3100 uses the same new Nikon DX-format CMOS image sensor and new image-processing engine EXPEED 2 as D7000 but nobody "wow" about it.....why??

different sensor. but probably similar image processing chip.

 

[daredevil123]

Is it possible that a DX camera has better dynamic range, compared with a FX camera ?

:think::nono:

The answer to this question is Yes and No.

The ability of the photosites(a.k.a Pixels) to see a larger range of lights from white to black(a.k.a Dynamic Range) depends very much on the sizes of these photosites hence the larger the photosites the more light it can take in hence better sensitivity so call. As FX sensor is abt >2x bigger than the DX sensor similarly the FX's pixel sizes is also bigger than that of the DX's. So comparing the D700 12mp whose pixel size is, say >2x than that of the D7k's pixel hence, Yes, the D700 does have better DR over than that of the D7k.

However you may argue that D7k has 16mp hence higher resolution than the D700 but there is so much more to pixel density that Diffraction may set in at a mid f5.6 or thereabout as compared to a 16mp FX cam, which the pixel sizes is still bigger than a 16mp DX cam. Unless the replacement D700x/s (whatever they may call it) has a 36 or 48mp FX body and the pixel size of the FX now becomes smaller than the DX, then the DX will hv a better DR than FX.

Size is not the only factor. But also the techonolgy of the photosites themselves and the image processors.

So yes. It is possible for DX to be better than FX. Especially if they are from different generations. And I am very sure the DX sensors 5 years from now will definitely be much better than the D700 sensor.

 

[kentwong81]

Yeah, 5 years :thumbsup:

Size is not the only factor. But also the techonolgy of the photosites themselves and the image processors.

So yes. It is possible for DX to be better than FX. Especially if they are from different generations. And I am very sure the DX sensors 5 years from now will definitely be much better than the D700 sensor.

 

[DrSpock]

Regardless, The FX will always (I dare say) have an edge over the DX in these two things;
1. Better bokeh due to tighter DOF (hence better for portrait)
2. Wide angle on a FX is actual wide unlike a cropped wide angle on a DX (hence better for landscape, only downside is vignetting issues)

I'll only use DX for that extra reach

 

[bornwild4]

If you want fast AF.... D3 series is the way to go. fast as hell... hear the whirl of the in body AF screw just turns me on. :bsmilie:

:heart: this words.
Hell is torture while heaven is cool

Just kidding

 

[george671]

of course.

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

Can you show me where that has been compared...Anywhere?:dunno:

 

[alantkh]

Can you show me where that has been compared...Anywhere?:dunno:

yup... a lot of comments are made by people who own only ONE of the cameras. I still cannot find much details from people who own BOTH.

 

[bornwild4]

yup... a lot of comments are made by people who own only ONE of the cameras. I still cannot find much details from people who own BOTH.

This is call fans promoting.
No need to compare

It did work rite :lovegrin:

 

[DrSpock]

Can you show me where that has been compared...Anywhere?:dunno:

yup... a lot of comments are made by people who own only ONE of the cameras. I still cannot find much details from people who own BOTH.

This is call fans promoting.
No need to compare

It did work rite :lovegrin:

Fellas, don't let this thread be shut down like the one previously at Re: D700 vs D7000 ISO 6400 with your personal bickerings.

Obviously you need to do a bit of research to find out why FX ISO is still an edge over DX ISO REGARDLESS of newer technology from these few(not limited)websites

http://artoftheimage.blogspot.com/2010/11/nikon-d7000-vs-nikon-d700-high-iso.html
http://www.dustylens.com/d7000_vs_d300_vs_d700.htm
http://ed.rosack.com/wordpress/2010...e-of-the-nikon-d7000-vs-the-d90-and-the-d700/
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=36630950

and many many more

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

why do people like to start threads like this?
To give themselves a big pat on the shoulder for buying "the right camera" which can rival the D700 in performance for much less $ ??
(my own interpretation of the words I'm reading)

or to defend their own choice of a D700 ?

So what if A trounces B or B trounces C ? Does one's life change significantly because of that? Why not just be happy with whatever camera you now own?