Used D700 vs New D610

bigal1000 · Mar 16, 2014

I have been thinking of getting a D700 but used prices I see are almost what you can get a brand new D610 for,what gives with the D700 is that good vs the D610??

goodguy · Mar 16, 2014

I dont know the D700 too well but it used to be a professional camera while the D610 is not.
So the D700 has few functions the D610 doesnt but the sensor on the D610 is modern so on the D610 you will get better DR, better low light perfoamance and more MP.
D700 is considered by many still to be a good camera, me personally I would go for the D610 in a heart beat.

astroNikon · Mar 16, 2014

I had this same issue looking at the d700 and d600.
Both are great cameras
the d700 is a bit nicer with more pro features for quick access. I chose the d600 though due to having a newer expeed processor and higher 24mp. I had a list of goods/bads of both cameras at one time but it was really close between the two dependent upon which features you think are more important. but for the price I went with a d600.

you should be able to find a d700 for the price of a refurb'd d600, which should be much less than a d610.

KmH · Mar 16, 2014

No doubt the D610 has a newer image sensor that has more MP, but most people won't see any difference in image quality.

The D700 has feature the D610 does not have. The D600/D610 is essentially a D7000 that has had a DX image sensor crammed inti it.
The D700 is a prosumer grade DSLR, the D610 is an entry-level grade DSLR.
The difference between prosumer and entry-level grades is mainly about features, and functions that make a prosumer camera more usable than an entry-level camera.

The D700 has (D610 has)
A flash cable port for a PC flash sync cable. (D610 doesn't have one)
A 10 pin connector for a variety of accessories. (D610 doesn't have one)
full magnesium-alloy metal chassis (magnesium-alloy metal top and back plates)
8 frames per second in CH shutter mode. (6 fps)
1/8000 max shutter speed (1/4000)
up to 9 auto exposure brackets (2 or 3 AEB)
flash sync speed 1/320 (1/250)
51 AF points - 15 of them cross-type (39 AF points - 9 of them cross type)

SMNonPF · Mar 16, 2014

I faced the exact same decision last summer between the d700 and the d600. I ultimately choose the d700 and have been completely happy with it. The reasons were that 1) the AF system is significantly better on the d700, 2) it has a better buttons and controls, 3) my computer cannot handle the larger files from the d600, 4) I was scared of the oil spot issue on the d600, and, finally, 5) everybody raves about what a perfect camera the d700 is. Nobody raves about the d600 or 610.

I think these reasons are why the D700 remains very popular and why the prices are still high.

Derrel · Mar 16, 2014

You will IMMEDIATELY see the difference in image quality between a 12 MP and a 24 MP sensor that's eight years newer. Seriously. Not being able to see the difference between 12 and 24 megapixels? Not being able to see another MORE THAN two f/stops' worth of dynamic range? NOT being able to see the hugely increased shadow recovery capability? Uh....maybe if you're drunk all day long every day...

Nikon D610 versus Nikon D700 - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark

astroNikon · Mar 16, 2014

Fyi, the d600/610 is not a d7000 with a FF sensor
the bodies are similarly designed but different in size in all dimensions.
All i have to do is visually compare my d600 and d7000.

Probably more different than a d800 v d700 body comparison.

If the d600/610 is an entry level dslr. Nikon needs something to keep ppl ther vs a d800 so they kept out features that a prosumer doesnt need or want to pay for for a d700/800'. Im not sure i would ever use the pc Cable port. With radio triggers et all does anyone use those anymore?

then the d7000/7100 is an entry level dslr for at finger features.
then where does that place the 3x00 and 5x00 - are those pro level?
What basic features define a entry, prosumer and pro levels? And why is the d600 listed as a body for nikon pros?

I tried a d700 for a week. i LOVED it and would recommend it
but one thing, which Derrel mentioned in another thread
was that the d7x00. D6x00 d800 use the same battery. I. Really did not want to spend $$ for a couple d700 batteries and still have the d7000 batteries. Having one battery system helped sway me as i knew i wanted to keep both a FX and DX. And if i moved up to the d800 i was all set batterywise.

I do wish the d600 had the SAME features as the d700 or d800 or even the d4s ... But if they did then why would one buy a d4s when they could get the exact same camera for over half the price. You have to evaluate what features you need and make your choice.

Its all about what the market will buy and the d600 series was designed to get the d7000 ppl to move up without totally breaking the bank.

If the d700 was 16mp and the same price as a refurbd d600i would have bought it.

djacobox372 · Mar 16, 2014

Derrel said:
You will IMMEDIATELY see the difference in image quality between a 12 MP and a 24 MP sensor that's eight years newer. Seriously. Not being able to see the difference between 12 and 24 megapixels? Not being able to see another MORE THAN two f/stops' worth of dynamic range? NOT being able to see the hugely increased shadow recovery capability? Uh....maybe if you're drunk all day long every day...

Nikon D610 versus Nikon D700 - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark

I don't normally argue with derrel but I think your exaggerating here.

No in 98% your PRINTED photos you won't see a difference.

The dynamic range difference is not two stops, one stop if your being generous.

24mp is nice but rarely needed unless you print a huge.

Derrel · Mar 16, 2014

If you cannot see the increased acuity from a 24MP camera in 98% of your prints, you might want to work on your print sharpening routines. Or buy a better printer. Or print on smooth paper, not on matte paper, which mushes everything down to, well, mush. Or get some modern, high-resolving lenses designed in the digital camera era.

The dynamic range advantage the brand-new D610 has, according to DxO Mark testing, is 2.2 stops MORE DR for the eight years newer sensor in the D610, at base ISO.

A good comparison of the D600's 24MP performance, as it stacks up against the D700, and the D800e, can be found here, in Ming Thein's review of the D600.The Nikon D600 review: full frame for the masses? ? Ming Thein | Photographer

I currently shoot 24MP full-frame Nikon. With good lenses, its results are far superior to the 12.8 MP FF Canon 5D and the 12.2 Nikon D2x cameras, at EVERY single ISO value. I can see it on-screen, I can see it in prints, I can see it in web-reductions. Higher acuity, better detail, better dynamic range, just better at every ISO value.

One thing Ming Thein has is GOOD LENSES. VERY good lenses.

If one cannot SEE the differences between a brand-new 24-MP camera and one made when President Bush was still in office, it might be because one is using outdated lenses, like the 300/4.5 ED~IF, for example, or other old lenses. I mention this because multiple times on TPF I have seen you claim that the Reagan-era [early- to mid-1980's] Nikkor 300mm f/4.5 ED~IF is the equal of newer 300mm lenses...so...perhaps your conclusions are based on older lenses and what you happen to own?

For example, if a guy is still using an 85mm f/1.8 AF or AF-D, he'll think a 12MP camera and a 24MP camera are basically identical, because, frankly, the 85/1.8 AF-D blows.

JerryLove · Mar 16, 2014

Derrel said:
If one cannot SEE the differences between a brand-new 24-MP camera and one made when President Bush was still in office, it might be because one is using outdated lenses, like the 300/4.5 ED~IF, for example, or other old lenses. I mention this because multiple times on TPF I have seen you claim that the Reagan-era [early- to mid-1980's] Nikkor 300mm f/4.5 ED~IF is the equal of newer 300mm lenses...so...perhaps your conclusions are based on older lenses and what you happen to own?

This is an interesting claim.

Camera lenses in general, and SLR lenses in specific have been in production for more than a century; and certainly they have improved over that time. The claim that the improvement has been stark in the past 8 years stands out to me as a bit extraordinary.

Even granting that sensor tech has been improving markedly in that time, and so the lenses would be put under higher scrutiny; but I believe 35mm film was considered 16MP? Were the lenses incapable of keeping up with the film throughout the entire life of SLRs? That seems hard to believe.

goodguy · Mar 16, 2014

Derrel said:
For example, if a guy is still using an 85mm f/1.8 AF or AF-D, he'll think a 12MP camera and a 24MP camera are basically identical, because, frankly, the 85/1.8 AF-D blows.

Sheesh, thank god I bought the 85mm 1.8G and not the older D model

coastalconn · Mar 16, 2014

Don't forget to throw the D3 in the mix too. Cameta has them refurbished for 2K... just saying.. Nikon D3 Digital SLR Camera Body - Factory Refurbished includes Full 1 Year Warranty

robbins.photo · Mar 16, 2014

Ok, a couple of thoughts on this one. From personal experience having gone from a 16 mp sensor to a 24 mp sensor it does make a noticeable difference in image quality even before you print. It also makes a very large difference when it comes to cropping photos as well - in some cases a huge difference. So the notion that 24 mp is only useful for printing large images simply isn't true. The better sensor and larger image files give me a lot more options in post.

Also I can attest to the fact that lenses and lens quality also make a big difference in the final results, and some lenses will work better with various camera bodies better than they will work with others for a variety of reasons. I'm a big fan of my Sigma 70-200 mm, on my DX format body it works wonderfully. But I've seen samples shot on FX and because FX uses the entire lens rather than the much better center portion of the glass it does make a significant difference. But if I took my Nikkor 85 mm AF-S G 1.8 and put it on an FX body the lens itself wouldn't have a huge impact on image quality, it would be about the differences in the camera bodies themselves that would really make the difference.

Things like that have to be taken into account when considering one camera body vrs another and talking about image quality, because they do have an impact.

astroNikon · Mar 17, 2014

oh I forgot. At that time the memory card made a difference for me too. My d7000 took the SD cards, and the d700 took the CF cards. I also didn't want to have 2 memory card setups for both cameras (my laptop had a built in SD slot too).

Also the d700 low ISO was 200 (100 can be attained with a EV setting) where as the 600 has a base ISO of 100 with ISO 50 capable.

And the one thing that basically killed the d700 for me was lack of Video. I use it from time to time in my kids sports. If it wasn't for the lack of video the other things were a bit more minor to me.

So if you ever think about using video or have used it in your current camera, the d700 lack video.