I see comments like this on different camera lines all the time. What exactly is the difference?
Does both not allow you to change aperture, shutter, ISO, go to manual mode, have the same lens mount, thus same lenses available, autofocus, manual focus, have focus lock, exposure lock, aperture priority, shutter priority, etc, etc?
You misunderstood me. Technically the D700 is a FX vs the D90's cropped sensor. The high ISO low noise blows the D90 out of the water. The FPS (with the right battery) destroys the D90. Someone mentioned the manual, but as an example, using a knowledgeable source of information for reference, Thom Hogan's book on the D90 touches something like 500 pages for the D90, yet the D700 has well over 875 pages. If there weren't
SOME differences, poor Thom would have 375 extra blank pages now, wouldn't he?
I would take the D300/700 as an overall better quality of camera, but what is it that spurs the comments that they have nothing in common over "entry level" cameras
I said totally different audiences, not that one doesn't have shutter... lol Whereas one is a good "prosumer" camera, the D700 is marketed by Nikon as a PROFESSIONAL camera. It caters more to people who need more, like the more enthusiastic, experienced amateurs and professionals. Most (but not all) professional photographers CURRENTLY could not care less about having video in their cameras. Nice to have? Sure. Would they prefer an extra 10MP instead of the HD capabilities in their camera? DEFNATELY! How about for the average consumer? Many will choose the D90 *just becuase* it can do video!.
I would not call the D700 an entry-level camera by any means and its NOT made for them either.
These comments make it seem that if I won the lottery tomorrow, and wanted to buy a new camera being new to a dSLR, I would be way over my head with a d700 even if I could afford it no matter what.
No one on this board is more against that sentiment than I am. My first dSLR was a D200 and people told me ALL THE TIME that it was too much camera for me. It was not... however, the pro end cameras are far more demanding than your D40-D90 because you have to KNOW what you are doing more than the average D40 customer knows to get the BEST out of the camera. The average D40 customer could not care less about D-lighting, the differences between front and rear sync, high-speed sync or testing for hours each little item in the entire menu. A professional would be vry interested to do exactly that. Not everyone is like me... however, I will say that my way of being is 1 out of a hundred. The vast averages don't NEED a D700 or D3, they may even do better with a lower model. Whether they can afford a D40 or a hundred D3s is not important from that point of view.
If I coudl afford a Veyron... would I be able to use it to it's potential? Not likely. Nice to have? Sure. Waste of a good car on me? Most definately. I do better with the Z06 Corvette in my driveway.
I have never seen this explained. I've only seen comments that the D700 or Canon equivalent would be too much for a beginner.
You now know my feelings about that. However, for the AVERAGE person moving up from a P&S to a D700, they would not have the knowldege, experience nor even the inclination to get 10% out of that camera that it could produce. In that sense, it is a waste of their money and time trying to. They are better off with something like a D90, that is made to hand-hold this average user through the process of giving them the best picture they can get beucase the average new user could not care less about learning precise PPing techniques to acheive ultimate results, they want that picture NOW and don't spare the ketchup.
Again, we are talking majorities and higher averages and this certainly doesn't apply to everyone... I am proof of that.
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/31/31044-cebde226a125a2fa016319847d0b37ed.jpg?1734159149)
