Should i get d7000 or d700

After shooting a combined total of over 60 days in the dark lit by some professional film lights we're talking about lights that by themselves rival the cost of the D3s and are big enough for me to sit in , sometimes by LED lights from home depot, sometimes LED lights strapped under a dashboard in several lengthy in car scenes, and sometimes just by a flashlight. We shot explosions, action scenes with stunts, and all sorts of crazy things. I'm sure I'm forgetting a few lenses but that's most of them.

We never went above ISO because both camera's look very poor and are completely unacceptable in video mode video's noise is much more annoying and present and harder to process than stills. Although Above ISO in movie mode the D preformed noticeable better, that is in noise amount, but a slightly softer image, Of course our images are 2MP on the D, 1MP on the D3s, so detail, although obvious on full size stills from both cameras, is greatly reduced by the video resolution limit thereby making the resolution loss of the D negligible.

That being said at ISO , the D preformed much better. What was interesting is the D seemed to have an auto noise reduction, which would produce really clean blacks and very clean "lit" areas.

However transitional "grey" areas showed a considerable amount of nasty color grain it is much more apparent and annoying than on stills because its moving , but if lit properly and kept at a minimum, very impressive. I'm thrilled because the resolution isn't high enough that detail is lost, but produces a much cleaner image. The D3s on the other hand, although noisy all over, produced a very natural, film looking grain that was not colored, by far the best I've ever seen from any film camera, although I have yet to try out some of the better high camera's like Arri's Alexia.

It was actually very pleasing from an artistic standpoint and it played well and did have a charm of its own slightly sharper than the D in trade for much more natural noise. Of course grain or noise is very key in how a scene is lit, and not all by your camera's sensor. I've shot stuff at and it was perfectly acceptable to be blown up for professional use, and I've shot stuff at I would be embarrassed to post on the web. Its not what camera you are using, DX or FX, its how you light your scene and control your highlights, shadows and transitions and as some people have pointed out how you post process.

Also I want to point out that difference between FX and DX should never be viewed as a quality one, but as artistic opportunities, and I'm not talking about making teles longer and wides wider, that's a obvious technical point, but for an example, I would put a 24mm on a DX sensor to get a close up. Why not put a 35mm on a FX? Because close up, the 24mm has a certain "wide" quality that lets me see the area around the actor in a different way than a 35mm on a FX would let me see.

It makes a close up not so personal, on the other hand, I'll use a mm on FX for the opposite reason, rather than use an 85mm on a DX and get a better quality image because I don't have to worry about the corners and the faster speed , because I want to make something very personal and want the audience to focus in on only what I'm showing them, and get no sense of the world. Y'all are so focused on quality you've completely ignored new ways to capture images with the tools in your bag.

And they are just that, tools for you to use to expand your creativity, we are aren't all submitting our images to some ISO beauty pageant here people. The D isn't quite as good as the D3s? Shame on all of your pixel peepers, start using your DX and FX camera's for your creative potential and as old friend of mine says, shut up and shoot! Skyler, I very much appreciated your post.

I love film production or the idea of it! I can prove it, too - should I start a new thread, perhaps in the Casual Conversations forum? Karim Ghantous , Sep 18, Sounds great Karim, I am very interested to start a discussion on such!

In my comparison's between the D3s and the D there was nothing from a sensor size point of view that would have made me shoot the D over the D3s strictly on a sensor size. I am a very firm believer that the Alexia is truly in a class of its own, the first true digital cinema camera, nothing in the DSLR realm, or film realm, or RED realm, or any other camera even comes close, except maybe the Sony F23, and even then its very dated now.

Things like RED suggesting that EPIC should be taken seriously, and even going so far as saying it will reinvent the DSLR world, has me laughing at RED so hard, I have a very hard time taking them seriously in the professional camera market, either as video or picture.

Karim Ghantous , Sep 20, I shoot both D and D I have been a professional photographer since I love film and only went, reluctantly to digital, which I have now come to embrace. I use D and D for my Nikon equipment. Take a look at this shot at on a D I also shot a raw version which is actually a lot cleaner and has more detail in the shadows. In the raw you can see all the detail in the hair, and their is less noise, but this is great for this illustration.

I used the mm DX lens. I often use an FX lens on this camera. Oops -- here is that photo I meant to include One more try Not bad for DX.. If I hadn't been lazy I would have carried the f2. Yes, I prefer slower ISOs, but more importantly, getting the photo is what counts in the end The detail in the raw image is much more impressive The build quality and stability of the D are so much better then the D Is it true or not?

I personally wouldn't buy a d right now with a replacement right around the corner I don't NEED to buy a body right now. The OP does and if he has the bucks, he should go for the d as it's probably more in line with his current skill level.

Thanks to all for your comments. I'm not seeking further suggestions. I think I will stick with the D and wait few months if a new camera comes out. Nickaro Thanks for the review of my photos on Flickr but don't rush with conclusions. Photography is only a very part-time hobby for me at this stage but I did study for 1 year in professional courses and own various books. It;s true that I shoot P in most cases, in part because I know what is the setting the camera is going to choose due to available light and mounted lenses.

In part also because I'm a bit lazy, but if I don't like the outcome I switch on manual. On Flickr I only post 0. Not sure about it being unforgiving at all. I seem to get sharp pictures without a fancy tripod or changing my style since using a D I've never been shown what the correct method for holding is either, and i switched over to the D without any issues at all.

I feel like my technique has improved since owning this camera. And yes, It needs good glass to perform well. Sadly, my Tokina 2. Well I don't think so.

I've been told that particular photo is plenty sharp. So it must suck". I get terrifically sharp images out of the D Just look through this group's stream, blow images up to full-size, and see how sharp they are.

Are you gonna believe a bunch of tire-kickers on the internet, or your lying eyes? Dave, totally agree with you. I own a D and the D plus other equipments, but the D7K it's amazing. Lately I'm doing all my reportage with the D7K and everyone it's happy about my results. D7Kographer Posted 11 years ago. Edited by D7Kographer member 11 years ago. So it must suck" LOL what a joke, if your going to make a statement like that back it up with a few facts In my reply you will see references to Thom Hogan who in my opinion has some of the most detailed reviews, the best guides, advice etc about Nikons on the planet.

The D is better in so many respects to the D Many Pro's are using the D as their main camera or at the very least a backup camera. In saying that I see no reason why the D can't be used as a Pro camera, however it does have its limitations, for example Fac-mans excellent comparison of the D and D used for sports photography www.

It's not perfect, nor is it a D, let alone a D3s. But it's better than a D90 or Ds in the same situation, and clearly so. Edit - Thom Hogans resume if your interested, as well as that he's an excellent photographer. Try it before you say it. I own the D and owned the D Nikon 50 Yes that cheap little plastic lens Nikon or Nikon 35mm DX.

Nikon 50 Portrait Nikon mm. Tamron mm Nikon 2. Wanna buy? Soft focus, I don't believe. I have put an and a on it and both produce sharp images. The difference between the D and D is strictly preference! Only that! Not the lens or camera. If you think the D is a better camera, then that's your preference. It's what you would like to shoot with. I have explained above what I love to use and why. I am sorry, but when you ask a question like the OP did, you begin to wonder if he knows what his D is capable of.

Their cameras were fine. When you read threads like these, you're gonna assume your D has a focus problem. I have handled many 7K's and not one issue with them. Why to buy a D or D? If the answer to the three questions is yes, then you should go out and buy what you want to. I'm waiting for the hate emails to roll in :. No hate emails, but if you have the money, buy the best you can.

I wasted a lot of money over the years buying gear that I had to replace as my experience and goals changed, only to have to upgrade because my situation changed and my gear no longer fitted my pistol.

I think the kid is making a BIG mistake buying d so late in Nikon's upgrade cycle, but it'll suit him perfectly fine.

Wade Bryant Posted 11 years ago. Edited by Wade Bryant moderator 10 years ago. I sold my D after getting my D and I made the right choice for me. Things I prefer about the D - More rugged body, FX crop, way more forgiving in terms of lens quality and holding the camera still.

I sometimes miss my D for shooting handheld in low light but this has nothing to do with ISO noise it just is more forgiving of slow shutter speeds about 1 stop difference for handheld shots. If I shot indoor weddings and events I'd prefer the D For my mostly outdoor shots and night shots on a tripod the D does everything I need it to do for less money and less fuss. I came across these inspiring images that speak for themselves about D sharpness www.

Everyone has to think they have to have the newest thing on the block. No camera is obselete. They always serve a purpose. My wife still takes great shots with my first digital camera D and Nikon It still works fine! I bought my D because I wanted a smaller camera to carry everywhere, and it goes everywhere. It is my first small camera. It will last for a long time. Zeroneg1 11 years ago. For me the lack of p is a deal breaker for the D MikeBehnken 10 years ago. Please don't compare both cameras, the D trounces the D in image quality.

I wouldn't worry too much about it tho. If you want the D, just wait for the next FX camera. I am sure its just around the corner and prob the same price as the D anyway. Given the D has a sensitivity of around ISO 14K when set to 25K, and a D is at high 22ks I do not understand why the view of a D being one stop faster prevails.

No doubt this will be "corrected" when the new FX models are launched. The current FX range seem to be optimised and "show their legs from ISO upwards real not what the dial on the body states. All Nikons recent launches D D D now seem to have aligned the actual sensitivity with the published standards within the standard tolerances. For a given engineering and design state, FX v DX is academic, if you put enough pixels on the FX you have the same engineering challenges.

So if the D came out at low 30s MP using D technology Unfortunately the earthquake and tsunami bowled everyone a googlie as the D makes the current prices being charged for a D and DS unjustifiable, but the consequences of this terrible disaster mean these old models are having to coexist with the D generation of technology for much longer than anyone planned I am sure. Buttons and switches and full metal bodies are not of consequence to me.

I enjoy interacting with my D as much as my DS. Once the new FX bodies are launched the lanscape will be simpler for the buyer, assuming they do not cram too many MPs onto the sensor. I think it is a great problem in that you wouldn't end up with a "loser" on either choice.

Only an amateur here, but I had the same choice to make. I personally ended up picking the D and spending the difference on glass. Good luck and I think both either choice will serve you well. Get both. Upul R 10 years ago. D or D??? If someone posts that question in a public forum, my suggestion is to invest a fraction on study the subject first.

D and D belong to two different, un-comparable leagues. If someone doesn't know the differences and thinking about pro body, definitely need to get the basics first Fac-Man 10 years ago. I have the D, I have the D There is no point comparing them directly as they are very different cameras that produce very different results.

Its not just about image quality. Thats based on using both in similar situations. However, the D is a brilliant camera so stop comparing and get shooting. I just bought the D a few weeks ago along with owning the D Like Lee said they are really two totally different animals both are great in their own way. I have not seen the 1 stop advantage over the D at the higher ISOs. I actually feel the D is better but I haven't really done a enough real time shooting this is just my initial observation.

The thing I love about the D is the Full Frame field of view especially when using the and they are just a stellar combination!

Bottom line? Get good glass Of course it helps if you know what your doing Todor Jens 10 years ago. While I agree with the good glass thingie I would have to say that with a FX sensor you can do stuff that is impossible no matter what quality DX sensor you have. I changed my mind after getting my hands on a D and actually experiencing the differences. I would not go back Even if I wanted to get a second body it would be a second D or Ds with the current line up but most likely a second D Royally Morphed Pythons 10 years ago.

If my memory serves me correct, were you not the person who ended up with a faulty D, so you never really got a chance to use it properly? Hey Zubair. When u talk about an FX doing some thgs that a Dx can never do, what specifically wd U be referring to here? I am aware of the greater detail, dynamic range incldg color , etc.

Nikon Z9 pre-production sample gallery. See more galleries ». Latest in-depth reviews. Read more reviews ». Latest buying guides. Best video cameras for photographers in Best cameras for Instagram in Best drones in Best cameras for vlogging in Check out more buying guides ». Nikon Z9 initial review. Sony a7 IV initial review.

Nikon Nikkor Z mm F2. Sigma mm F Discover more challenges ». Nikon Z9 4. Popular interchangable lens cameras ». Popular compact cameras ». Shedding some light on the sources of noise. Mobile site. Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited. Flat view. Sold D, what now - D or Ds? Dec 4, Dec 6, Dec 5, Dec 7, Dec 9, The top 10 most popular cameras of according to our Instagram Dec 31, Nikon D6: initial sample images Aug 3, Nikon confirms first D6 units will ship out by end of May, after a brief delay May 7, Irridescent forks by microsurgeon from Cutlery.