Can't get pixel count out of my head - 12.1 vs 24.2

[dennybeall]

So, I'm looking at some cameras and a used D700 is available but so is a used D5300. One is full-frame but only 12.1 mp while the other is crop-sensor 24.2mp.
Many people say full frame is better but it would seem that twice as many pixels would be better. The used D700 is more than the new D5300 so what do you do???? and why?

 

[Derrel]

Have you ever picked up and squinted through a D5300's smallish pentamirror viewfinder system?

I would look for a used D600.

 

[pixmedic]

the D700 was, and still is, a formidable camera.
beautiful viewfinder coverage, built like a tank, FX sensor, great AF system, full compliment of accessible dials and buttons....
i would take a D700 over any D5xxx or D3xxx camera, 7 days a week, twice on Sunday.

in nearly the same price range though, you could also look at used D600's, which is exactly where I went when I upgraded to FX.
They arent built as tough as the D700's, but you get the benefit of a newer AF system and 24mp sensor.

 

[tirediron]

I still use a D700 on a regular basis, and it's yet to let me down. I can easily get a 16x20 out of it, even with a little cropping, and as Jason mentions, the build-quality is many, many orders of magnitude above that of a DXXXX body.

 

[Derrel]

Denny, this might be a case of where personal preference, habits, eyesight, carrying of the camera, and FX versus DX, and also sensor technology and allll those intangibles come into the decision.

The DxO Mark sensor comparison is pretty close in terms of dynamic range and color depth, but a good advantage to the D700 in lower light at higher ISO settings. The D700 being only about 12MP, has ~8.46 micron pixel size, the D3330 having 24 million pixels on a much smaller sensor, has pretty small 3.87 micron sized pixels.

If you go to Nikon D3300 vs Nikon D700 Detailed Comparison, you see the differences between the two compared in a body/size/feature/model vs model, feature-centric way.

From imaging resource's comparison page:Nikon D700 vs Nikon D3300

The 3300 can shoot 24P and 60P video, can do in-camera panoramics by stitching m,ultiple frames together, and it a lot lighter and smaller. A LOT lighter, over twice as light as the D700. The real issue though might be the viewfinder magnification figures for the D700 at 0.72X vs the much smaller, squintier D3300 at a rather dismal 0.57X magnification.

The D700 has 15 cross-type AF points, the D3300 has just one, right in the center.

The issue though as I see it is a compact, tiny, lightweight F-mount d-slr versus a mid-sized Nikon d-slr. Sort of 2-seater sports car vs family sedan.

 

[astroNikon]

There's not much to compare as all stated above.
Figure out what you want to use the camera for then make a decision.

back when i had my d7000 only I wanted more ... looked at the d7100 but it still wasn't great in lower light. So I looked at the d700. Loved the d700 .. tried one and still loved it.
But the D700 doesn't have video .. and I figured I might use video. So I looked at the d600.
D600 does video, was the same approx price back then. And it used ALL of my accessories from the d7000, and the same batteries. So I didn't have to replace anything that I was using.

So I went with a d600. Love it too over the d7000. Low light sports, extreme cropping of long distant images was better than the d7000, etc.

But d700 vs d5x00 .. I'd get the d700
UNLESS I wanted something small, more of a travel camera especially if I was going to use video a little. because the d700 CANNOT do video at all. But you can whack a robber in the head with it and the d700 would be unfazed.

And if you don't have any FF lenses .. think of that added expense of swapping out lenses for new ones. You can use older screw driven AF/AFD lenses to reduce costs.

 

[Dave442]

I would go with the D700.

 

[jaomul]

How BIG do you need to print???

 

[robbins.photo]

I guess the two things I would look at would be, what sort of format are you going to be using for output? If your looking at these primarily on a computer screen and don't need huge prints, the D700 might be the better option.

Second question I would ask, how much telephoto do you shoot? If you find yourself needing to crop photos a lot fairly often, then the higher MP sensor would probably be the better option. If you have more control over your shooting situations and can usually get close enough to what your shooting without difficulty, again the D700 might be the way to go.

However I'd price the D700 first - and compare that to maybe a D600, last time I priced them the D600 wasn't that much more, so that might be something to consider.

 

[dtmateojr]

the D700 runs circles around the latest and greatest full frames. Nikon got it right at that time. It was downhill after that. Get the D700 and you will have a camera that you could practically keep until it breaks.

 

[cgw]

D700? 2008 roll-out. Not so easy to find in nice, low actuation shape.

 

[pixmedic]

D700? 2008 roll-out. Not so easy to find in nice, low actuation shape.

Obviously you haven't been looking. Plenty on ebay come and go with low clicks from people upgrading.

Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk

 

[Derrel]

D700? 2008 roll-out. Not so easy to find in nice, low actuation shape.

yeah, it's getting more difficult to find low-click cameras from the previous decade. If a higher-sepc'ds model like a D700 was owned by a serious enthusiast, or a wedding shooter, or anybody else who might easily have used it hard, or shot a lot of frames, such a D700 bought at-random and not checked for shutter count and carefully visually inspected very critically before buying could easily be a super high-actuation body that could conk out at any second.

OTOH, who was it that bought a used D700 a couple months back from a private party shooter with 13,000 or so clicks on it and super-minty? There is also a very large segment of high-end and semi-pro Nikon stuff bought by well-heeled enthusiasts who don't shoot many frames, OR who gave away their primary camera to a family member who really didn't use it "back then" and is now getting rid of "dad's old camera" or "grandpa's old D700", etc..

One of the real caveats in the Nikon d-slr era: the camera body tops and bottoms and corners and prisms do NOT SHOW much wear compared to the degree we saw on older, metal body cameras...Nikon d-slrs tend to wear very slowly, and really almost hide their age, so you have to really,really look closely for wear on the rubber, and on the few points that really show handling/carrying wear. This is one area where buying condition makes a huge amount of sense to me, meaning Like New Minus is far safer bet than Excellent Plus, and Excellent Minus could easily mean 285,000 clicks...

 

[Braineack]

the D700 runs circles around the latest and greatest full frames. Nikon got it right at that time. It was downhill after that. Get the D700 and you will have a camera that you could practically keep until it breaks.

The D700 cannot render any of the detail the rest are showing. Youre also viewing them all at 1:1, view the rest at a 12MP size and they'll look much better.

look at the blue feathers above, the D700 is rendering them as a blur, the rest are picking up individual strands.

 

[goodguy]

Have you ever picked up and squinted through a D5300's smallish pentamirror viewfinder system?

I would look for a used D600.

Same here, check used Nikon D600/D610 you will get 24mp and modern sensor.

D700 vs D5300 too very different beasts, cant compare them, apples to oranges.
If forced to decide between these 2 cameras I would get the D700 if it was in excellent condition and very low shutter count.
If not then I would get a D5300, better a working new good camera then an old broken one!