what should i do. new camera body d700 or d800.

[matthewo]

i have a d7000 that i have right now and want to keep it as a backup and for use with wildlife photography and my sigma 150-500 where extra reach is needed.

i have a few options, as far as getting an fx body. i have a 18-200mm nikon vr II im probably going to sell to help fund the new body. that would probably bring around $600, then i have set aside another $900 or so. that will get me pretty close to the price of a used D700. if i was to get a d800, i would probably need to wait longer and save more money.

i think the d800 is a great camera from the tests and reviews i have seen, but im not sure i really need it, i think i would be good with the 12 mega pixels and high iso capabilities of the d700 sensor, and that may be more important to me then the 36mega pixels of the d800.

i really wanted to keep the 18-200mm vr II, for a general purpose lens, but i do have a 50mm 1.8d i can keep on the d7000 instead. cause the extra $600 if i sell the 18-200mm vr II would deffently help. option options. :0

 

[Mach0]

What's wrong with the d7000?

 

[vipgraphx]

Or you could wait for the D600, It supposed to be 24mp FX body. However it wont be announced until the summer and then who knows how long before you can get your hands on it. Even the D800 is hard to get a hold of right now.

I chose the D700 as I really did not want the D800 for a few reasons. Money was not an issue with me it was more about what I needed and did not need.

Pros D800 - 36mp can make mile long prints......1080p video with auto focus.

Cons- 36mp means huge files and you will need lots of storage and more memory cards and a upgraded computer if you process a lot regardless with what some say.. You will kill your Computer processing those large files. Some may not see it now but they will in a few months or a year or so when there computers are sluggish.

SLow FPS....if you want faster you have to shoot with a battery grip and DX mode. Whats the point right?

D700- Pros -more than enough mp for me as I am not blowing up huge size prints. It will go as big as I need right now. 8fps in FX mode with a battery grip. I don't shoot video with my camera.

thats what my deciding factor me. Everyone is different and will put value where they need it one over the other.

 

[matthewo]

What's wrong with the d7000?

Nothing at all, thats why i want to keep it. But even with 2.8 glass i sometimes feel i need more light. And dont want to use flash and high iso on the d7000 gets noisy fast. I would like the higher iso capabilites of a full frame.

 

[matthewo]

From the look of it the d600 may skimp on features to keep the price down to the entry level fx market. And i may not be able to wait that long and or fight for it. The d7000 does good enough video for me. I think the d700 is for me. While my computer is new with 6 cores and 16 gig ram, i still think 36mp files are overkill unless cropping extremely or printing posters

Or you could wait for the D600, It supposed to be 24mp FX body. However it wont be announced until the summer and then who knows how long before you can get your hands on it. Even the D800 is hard to get a hold of right now.I chose the D700 as I really did not want the D800 for a few reasons. Money was not an issue with me it was more about what I needed and did not need. Pros D800 - 36mp can make mile long prints......1080p video with auto focus. Cons- 36mp means huge files and you will need lots of storage and more memory cards and a upgraded computer if you process a lot regardless with what some say.. You will kill your Computer processing those large files. Some may not see it now but they will in a few months or a year or so when there computers are sluggish. SLow FPS....if you want faster you have to shoot with a battery grip and DX mode. Whats the point right?D700- Pros -more than enough mp for me as I am not blowing up huge size prints. It will go as big as I need right now. 8fps in FX mode with a battery grip. I don't shoot video with my camera.thats what my deciding factor me. Everyone is different and will put value where they need it one over the other.

 

[CheezyCheeto]

I went from a d90 to d700 mostly because of pricing. I didn't need the extra mp and video from the 800. What would you use your 800 for if you got it? Realistically, if you're on the fence of whether you need the 800 or not, you probably don't need it. Either way you'll be happy with what you get :thumbup:

 

[jaomul]

i think the d800 is a great camera from the tests and reviews i have seen, but im not sure i really need it, i think i would be good with the 12 mega pixels and high iso capabilities of the d700 sensor, and that may be more important to me then the 36mega pixels of the d800. :0

You answered your own question here

 

[SouthwestDreams]

Read Rockwell latest blurb on the D800. He is not typically a Canon fan boy and yes he is often all over the map. The points he brings up yet again are points that I too find myself not liking about the D800.

I'm on the fence with both. D700 used are way, way overpriced and new, when you can get one, are too close to the D800 price.

 

[rpm]

i got a used d700 recently. worth every penny and ill be able to skip this generation or wait out for a camera more in line with what the D700 (a hopeful D4 baby)

 

[EchoingWhisper]

D800 actually have better high ISO performance than D700. It is better than D700 in everything except file size. File size isn't an issues. The HDD price is starting stabilize, and it'll drop dramatically soon when demand is lesser than production. SSD price is also at all time low. Moreover, processing speed isn't an issue. I can't remember, but in another thread I read, it would cost you less than $500 to upgrade your computer to be able to handle the files if your computer is not very very old. And if you have the D800, you don't even need the D7000 for reach. The D7000 practically has no ups compared to D800 except maybe slightly larger viewfinder in DX mode if you're using it as a back up body..

 

[rpm]

does it have better before or after down sampling and reducing the MP count of the output image? cause thats slightly unfair comparison in that regard. I'm sure the D700 could achieve the same thing but what you're left with is a very small image resolution wise. Thus the 36MP count is its saving grace in that regard but natively if i'm not mistaken both share very similar ISO performance. which is a testament to how well the sensor fairs despite its high MP count...

 

[EchoingWhisper]

You don't need to downsample at all, just print at a higher PPI.

 

[matthewo]

Hmm better iso with the sane size sensor but 3x the pixels crammed on it. Are you sure consumer grade sensors improved that much in a few years

 

[rpm]

You don't need to downsample at all, just print at a higher PPI.

I might be wrong in saying this but that's wiggle room due to the pixels available similar to how down sampling gives you extra wiggle room. Natively though both are pretty much dead on ISO wise however as I said before that's no small feat given nearly 3x the extra pixels on the same sensor size.

 

[Ebvette]

I own both the D800 and D700, and they are simply tools. If you take photo occasionaly, the D700 is a fantastic camera. The D700 is a proven well respected and has very high performance. The D800 is on another level all together, and is much more advainced with many other features besides just the pixel count. Pixel count is NOT everything. I enjoy both cameras, and have many of the FX lenses that make it much more enjoyable, but I will tell you, the D700 is still a far great camera and I still use it take photos of auto races and times I need a faster response (I have the battery pack, which I highly recommend you purchase of you do get a D700.) Many of the people who have the 700s are not giving them up rite away, even though they have the 800s, many are still holding on to them. If you take an average of 100 photos a week, I would recommend upgrading to the D800, of you are a week end photographer, you will find the D700 more the adeqaute for you photo taking.. I would invest in GLASS, more then a camera if you go to the FX side. Hope this helps.