Looking for friendly Nikon upgrade advice!

Should Andrew get a D700 or a D700

  • D700

    Votes: 38 79.2%

  • D7000

    Votes: 10 20.8%
  • Total voters
    48
  • Poll closed .
Andrew_S

Andrew_S

Suspended / Banned
Messages
94
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,

First of all hello to all of you from a new poster. :) I'm a long time lurker on certain parts of this forum.

Basically I'm looking for a bit of guidance and it appears that this place is filled with knowledgable people. Last Xmas I was bought my first DSLR (a D3100), after borrowing my Dad's old Nikon for a few months. I now really want to upgrade and use that as a back up/second camera on certain outings. I shoot an awful lot of motorsport and I also cover football for a non league side. Adding to this I'm looking to get into other things and have a gig as a karate photographer lined up for when I want it. I've also been asked to shoot my girlfriend's brother's band at small pub gigs. For the indoor low light stuff I know I'm going to need to add a lens or two and I'm also looking to add a f2.8 lens for floodlit football matches. On the camera side of things though, which Nikon body do people suggest I get? I'm not looking to spend thousands! As previously mentioned I know I need certain lenses, so I have to take that into consideration. Would the D7000 be a good choice for me? Or would pushing the boat out a little extra for a used D700 be a better idea?

Any help would be hugely appreciated. :thumbs: :)

Thank you to all in advance.



EDIT - For some reason, my signature hasn't shown, so just to say the lenses I currently use are:

Nikon 70-300 f4.5-5.6
Sigma 120-400 f4.5-5.6
Nikon 18-55 f3.5-5.6
 
Last edited:
The D700 is a tried and tested DSLR used by many togs, pro and amateur alike ... you can't go wrong with a camera like that.
The D7000 is also a popular but cheaper camera.
 
Andrew_S said:
Cheers. Would a D7000 be a good choice, or would I find myself wanting to upgrade again sooner than I would if I went for the older, yet higher spec D700?
Click to expand...

The D7000 is a fine camera but the D700 is in a league above.... The D700 is a full frame PRO camera with metal body and is an absolute corker in low light!

Personally I would get the D700.......
 
if you can afford it, i'll stick my neck out and say get the D700.

the D7000 is a great body, but full frame goodness and build quality of the D700 would be hard to pass up
 
Last edited:
Andrew, I've just added a poll for your amusement :D
 
Put your money into better glass :)

Glass is forever bodies come and go with monotonous regularity. :)

Having said that if you can swing it get both.
 
Last edited:
As the poll asks: 'Should Andrew get a D700 or a D700' I guess it will have to be a D700! ;)

My 2pence worth would be get the D700 as you still have your D3100 for the advantages that a crop format has for your motorsport and football photography.
 
ralphmconger said:
I have used Nikon small handy came which was to much sensitive. But now i have D700 which is highly DSLR tested. It will be a good choice for you. Its a famous and cheaper camera.
Click to expand...

:shrug:

investigating potential spambot.....


GONE.
 
from what I've seen the D700 is a thing of beauty. all things to all men
FF, good focusing, great low light, rapid fire FPS,. etc
if I got on with Nikon kit I'd have one in a snap!

however, look at what is better for your prime photography passions.
I would like the range of a crop body but ultimately the FF D700 would give you better image quality
also it depends upon what glass you put on there.
any chance in your budget of a 70-200 f2.8 for football?

nothing here blows me away for the type of photography you describe.
Nikon 70-300 f4.5-5.6
Sigma 120-400 f4.5-5.6
Nikon 18-55 f3.5-5.6

I've shot a lot of martial arts, some outdoor spots for fun and lowlight gigs too
f2.8 or prime lenses are the way forwards (f1.8 or f1.4)
3rd party ones are good if you can't afford the pro-Nikkor stuff yet.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm...I'm going to throw a spanner in the works and at the risk of getting shot down;

If I were in your position I'd be thinking of extra reach in the DX vs the extra stop or so in low light perfomance of the D7000.

...having said that, you have the reach in your D3100.

Anyway, looking wrap your current lens lineup I would probably have to go with a second hand D7000 and a tamron 70-200mm.

Either way, I do believe you need a better body for what you are looking to shoot but I think glass is more important given your current situation.
 
Wow, cheers for all of the replies! I'm trying to digest everything in and take everything on board. :lol: Seemingly the D700 is the big recommendation though. I really appreciate all of the replies and I'm going to go through them all.

Just to throw a spanner in the works - Someone with their own business and a regular sports shooter today recommended a second hand D300s? They can be picked up for £700 or just over. What's the Talk World say to that..........? :)
 
Andrew_S said:
Just to throw a spanner in the works - Someone with their own business and a regular sports shooter today recommended a second hand D300s? They can be picked up for £700 or just over. What's the Talk World say to that..........? :)
Click to expand...

I'd be thinking more along the lines of D300 and not the s model has pants video.

I can only go on experience of my old D90 which has the same sensor.

I'd be fine using it up to any ISO including 6400 (the D7000 isn't THAT much better but the D700 will be THAT much better than the D300).

...so I'm glad I have the better model but could get by with the D300.

...I'd still be going down the lens department though :-)
 
I'd say that shooting sport & motorsport is quite specialised and is very dependant on good quality glass, so I'd start by getting a pro quality telephoto lens before upgrading the body.

The D700 is an excellent body though - I used to own one till quite recently and it's difficult to fault.
 
Can't go wrong with D7000 or D700, both will feel like a massive upgrade. D7000 has a more modern with its feature set and control layout (auto focus button, live view switch etc) but D700 is a classic, great build and awesome low-light. Whether there's a difference in image quality between them though, I'm not so sure.
 
For general shooting I'd always suggest the equivalent DX body before FX.

DX is a much more versatile format mainly because the gap between it and FX in terms of high ISO handling is closing, the sensors can capture fantastic detail, and you get more bang for your buck with long lenses.
 
Oh don't worry, I'll be getting glass before another body, although I just feel eager to get a better base to my photos rather than relying on the bottom end. I'm seriously considering pulling the trigger on a Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 AF-S that I've found a good deal on.
 
Andrew_S said:
Oh don't worry, I'll be getting glass before another body, although I just feel eager to get a better base to my photos rather than relying on the bottom end. I'm seriously considering pulling the trigger on a Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 AF-S that I've found a good deal on.
Click to expand...

That being said I'd go with the D700 any day then.

You have a DX body for extra reach.
 
Hi Andrew, and Welcome !
I have both the cameras you are thinking of, and I have to agree with the majority that the 700 is a league above the d7000.
Since getting mine my keeper rate has increased, the quality of the shots has improved, and like for like the D700 just produces "nicer" images !
For low light it is a vast improvement on the D7000 at high ISO.
The one benefit the D7000 has is the apparent "reach" over the D700 due to the narrower field of view using the same lenses. This will be an advantage for your motorsports etc.
As already said, good lenses + D700 = happy Andrew.
Also, as already mentioned, if you can keep your 3100, you will still have a DX for the times when you do need extra "reach"
Good luck in your decision.

Cheers,
Gary.
 
Take a look at Ken Rockwell's review of the D7000 - and summary comparison to other Nikons, including the D700. (Google "kenrockwell" and "d7000" and it'll pop up!)

You may not agree with everything he says, but I've found him to be pretty good in general.

The one thing I'm not keen on with the D700 is its lack of a SD card slot. As a computer techie I'd prefer that to Compact Flash... Otherwise v nice - if you have the cash!
 
It all depend on your budget. I would consider the following lens as well with the camera.

For DX body:
Tamron 17-50 f2.8 as a general lens and walkaround and low light mid zoom

Nikon 35mm f1.8 AFS or Nikon 50mm f1.8 AFD for your low light lens i would prefer 35mm personally. These primes would be good for your band stuff.

Nikon 80-200 f2.8 or Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM or Tamron 70-200 f2.8 as tele zoom for your sports shots. I favourite the Sigma for fast focus personally.

DX body wise i would consider a second hand D300 and these can buy bought within £450-500 range. D7000 is a great camera and good iso performance but for the stuff you shoot i would prefer D300 for the handling and build quality.

If you have a good amount of budget to blow then yeah the D700 is a league above both D7000 and D300 but then you need new glass for the D700. In that case i would get the 50mm f1.8 AFD, Tamron 28-70 f2.8 and Nikon/Sigma/Tamron tele zoom.
 
Thank you again for your answers!

I am still staring night after night at cameras and lenses! Unfortunately the fantastic deal on the 70-200 f2.8 went elsewhere before I could get it, but I'm still on the lookout.


I'm thinking now of moving the D7000 to one side and forgetting about that. I'm now fully pondering the D700 or D300s. The 300 is probably going to cost me just under half what a 700 would. That's a fair amount, so would the D300s be an excellent choice for me? I'm, unfortunately, not as clued up and completely understanding of the ins and outs of everything as you incredibly knowledgable guys are. It is my understanding that the 70-200 f2.8 and the 70-300 VR that I currently have are fully FX compatible for the D700? Is that right? So it's just the 400 Sigma that would be affected? Whilst if I bought the DX D300s, it doesn't really affect the lenses I will be using does it? Sorry for a questions! :lol: I appreciate all of the help, I really do.
 
It's interesting to see the (current) results of your poll - I wonder how many people voted for the D700 because it's FX (and therefore more desirable) and how many voted because they truly believe it's the best choice?...

Just as a little insight into the D7000 from someone who uses one professionally (and to even out the thread :lol:), it's a lovely piece of kit. Nikon-wise, I used a gripped D200 and then a pair of D2x bodies. The D2Xs are amazing cameras but are showing their age, which is why I moved to the D7000 (better AF, better high ISO, a few more megapixels, dual card slots, big rear LCD). The other reason why I went for it was it was the best body for video without spending mega-bucks.

The handling is excellent for a small body, although compared to the D200/300-sized bodies (including the D700) and the D2/D3 series it's very small. But it's logical in its layout.... the essential buttons are all int he right place, the menu system is easy to navigate but you aren't needing to delve into it because there are enough buttons on the body to deal with major controls. Yes, viewfinder is small compared to FX (but bright and clear) and it doesn't quote have that feel of the Dxxx series. However, compared to the 60D that I have access to in the office, it feels like it's been designed for busy amateurs and pros who want a cheaper body. The SD card bay door doesn't have that belt & braces double-lock that's on the D2/D3 but as of yet in four months of use it's not opened inadvertently.

The D7000 is ungripped at the moment, but there's one on the way and I think it'll be essential (IMO anyway) because for vertical/portrait orientation shooting its smaller size makes it hard (especially with long lenses) to shoot comfortably for long periods of time. However, I feel that about the D200/300/700 series also, which was why I went for a D2x all those years ago.

Anyway, as far as my job goes (angling photography) I obviously won't be doing much high-speed shooting aside from power casting, so the accuracy of the AF-C setting isn't something I can comment on. However, for general shooting it's superb. The one lens that I own that still hunts is the 60mm AF-D, which is a bitt of an old dog anyway and not any fault of the camera.

ISO performance is excellent; ISO 800/1600/3200 is great - ISO 6400 is noisy but it's not horrific noise full of chroma flecks, which I'm happy with.

It probably needs a buffer upgrade to be considered as a full-time sports camera but again, when I've shot bursts of power casting and fly fishing it's never let me down when teamed up with high-speed SD cards.

Plus, as I mentioned previously, you get that extra 'reach' from DX, which IMO makes financial sense if you're working to a tight budget; it's cheaper to buy an UWA that's good for DX than it is to buy a good 300mm+ lens for FX.

Plus, price-wise it's a steal at the moment - £700 new at the moment and I've seen them with a few thousand clicks for sale in the TP classified for as little as £565.... that's a lot of camera for little money.

It's very easy to get drawn into the allure of FX, especially when there are obvious benefits of the FX sensor, but I do feel there are lot of folk who'll recommend an FX body like the D700 (which is very, very good value these days) just because it's FX and it's seen as 'the done thing'.... :)
 
Last edited:
I went from D300 to D700. The D700 is superb but I'd be struggling to tell you that it is worth the extra. You get into a world of diminishing returns at this level. Being totally honest, a D300 was already more than I needed, let alone a D700. Very nice to have though! Can't honestly say what the correct decision would be. Neither would be a disappointment, I do know that!

By the way, have you considered the D300 over the D300S? It's basically the same camera as the D700 but crop sensor. Would save you a few quid.

Your 70-200 and 70-300 will both work well on FX or DX. Which 400 Sigma is it? I'm guessing that will be FX too.
 
Thanks specialman, I really appreciate an insight from someone that owns one of the considerations! I suppose I'm trying to weigh up which will have the longer life with me, as I don't want to be having the urge to upgrade again too soon.


gad-westy said:
By the way, have you considered the D300 over the D300S? It's basically the same camera as the D700 but crop sensor. Would save you a few quid.

Your 70-200 and 70-300 will both work well on FX or DX. Which 400 Sigma is it? I'm guessing that will be FX too.
Click to expand...

I suppose I focused on the 'S' as it was the one recommended to me and it was the latest version.

The Sigma is the 120-400mm F4.5-5.6 DG APO OS HSM.
 
D300 is a lot of camera. and bloody good too!!


That said, low light and cropping you'll probably be happy with the d700.
D7k is really good too.

Have you handled them to compare size and weights?


I voted d700 as although ff is going to reduce your reach, cropping and low light will work well with it.

Post up once you've purchased! :)
 
Andrew_S said:
Forget the what, sorry?

Not that it matters too much as I won't be shooting video!
Click to expand...

Other than video (as phil says D300S video is terrible anyway), the D300S has dual memory cards and a couple of other more minor improvements. D300S over the D300 is a lot extra to pay unless you really need any of the changes. Mostly they're identical. If you want to buy new though, a D300S is your only option as the D300 is long discontinued.

Your sigma 120-400 will be fine on FX as far as I know.
 
Phil Young said:
Andrew forgive me if I'm stupid but haven't seen so far...

Do you have a budget to stick to?
Click to expand...

You are not, as I haven't said anything. My budget, to be honest, is my conscience. I haven't got a set amount, but I don't want to spend too much if I can help it. The cost of a used D300s would suit me more than that of a D700, but I don't want to be in the position where I'll feel the need to change again in a year or two....Hence why I was pondering above.
 
used D300 will save you even more penny to invest in better glass or into other accessory like spare battery and battery grip etc
 
Andrew_S said:
You are not, as I haven't said anything. My budget, to be honest, is my conscience. I haven't got a set amount, but I don't want to spend too much if I can help it. The cost of a used D300s would suit me more than that of a D700, but I don't want to be in the position where I'll feel the need to change again in a year or two....Hence why I was pondering above.
Click to expand...

Well then I stick by my original answer which is the D700 but you have to buy decent lens(es) with are FF compatible so you will inevitably looking at close to £2k at least I would have thought.
 
I have both the cameras your considering. The D7000 gets used less and less apart from the odd bit of long lens work because of the extra 'reach'. The D700 is a joy to use and if you can afford it go for it, its a different league. The anticipated D600 sounds like a full frame D7000 and may well turn out to be the camera you're looking for. I'd hang fire and see if thats announced this month as anticipated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top