Is d7100 to d700 an upgrade?

[gustafson]

I currently rock a d7100 with a d3300 as backup. My interests are mainly bird & wildlife photography and occasional BIF, and smaller critters (macro), and occasional family / kiddo portraits. And there will be the occasional kiddo sports game or theater performance.

Have been eyeing a fullframe to try out on a limited budget ($500), which limits my options to a used d700 (or a beater d600, but leaning toward a d700). TBH, my needs seem to be covered well by my current rig, but I’m just curious to see if adding a d700 would let me do things (i.e. get aesthetically nicer photos, or enable getting into other genres of photography (low-light, landscapes, astrophotography) that are beyond my current rig. *As I type this, my self-diagnosis is a severe case of NAS, but as they say, always good to get a second opinion*)

Wondering if others have made a similar jump in the past and can share your experiences to help me decide whether to make the plunge or hold off. Thanks in advance!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Don Kuykendall_RIP]

A full frame camera would require new lenses probably. If all you present lenses are DX then stick with what you have


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bikerbrent_RIP]

I agree with Don. It appears you have mostly DX lenses and a few very old FX lenses. Plus, for your wildlife photography, a DX camera is the preferred choice since a 200mm lens on FX becomes a 300mm on DX.

 

[gustafson]

I agree with Don. It appears you have mostly DX lenses and a few very old FX lenses. Plus, for your wildlife photography, a DX camera is the preferred choice since a 200mm lens on FX becomes a 300mm on DX.

Thanks,@dkuykendall and @Bikerbrent, for the input. Sounds like I should suppress my NAS and stick with my current rig until I have a more solid reason to consider FX




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Danno_RIP]

I will chime in. This spring I only had a D7200 with no backup camera. I had an opportunity to buy a D700 and I did buy it. My intent was to use it IN low light and just some landscape. Most of my lenses were FX with the exception of two. If you want to try out FX I would recommend the D700. I use mine much more than I thought I would.

The D7200 is used for Birds and the like with my 200-500 mostly and the 700 ends up in my bag for church photos and such where there is low light. I also have done some Senior photos and Engagement Photos with the 700. I just like the camera. I am happy with my sunrise results, but I will warn you that it does make you hungry for lenses.

It is not a 750 But I have been really pleasantly surprised. I think you might like the results f some of your primes.

 

[lokatz]

I own both, the D700 and the D7100. The D700 is a nice camera with a good sensor, though the resolution is dated and can't keep up with newer bodies. Usability-wise, it has a few kinks (that it shares with the whole D3/D300 lineup) to which I can't quite get used, but that may be a matter of personal taste. Agree with Danno it is a better low-light performer, so it definitely has its place.

If you can find a cheap one, I'd say you have enough lenses to equip it with. Realize, though, that it will only be useful for some of your kiddie and theater shots but not for anything else you shoot. For wildlife/BIF/sports, a D500 would put you on a whole different level but unfortunately is in another price range.

 

[Marcel]

From what I see from your signature, you have plenty of nice older nikkor lenses that you could use with the d700. The D700 has a great sensor and is great for low light and manual focus lenses. If you can afford it, go for it. It might not be the latest, but it's a great capable camera. You can always get a newer model later.

 

[Nero]

It can be, if you don't mind replacing some of your lenses with full-frame ones.

 

[gustafson]

@Danno, @lokatz, @Marcel, @Nero: thanks for chiming in in favor of the D700. I think y’all undid the good work of @dkuykendall and @Bikerbrent Jokes aside, would be helpful to hear of your favorite lens(es) to use with your D700.
@lokatz: could you elaborate on the usability issues you have encountered? And you’re right, a D500 would be nice, but can’t justify getting one yet when I haven’t really hit the limits of my current rig. Also, I’d have liked a d750 or a d6x0 (due to their similarities with the D7100), but they’re quite a premium (over the D700) for just dipping my toes in FX


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lokatz]

D700 usability: on the D300/700/3/3S/3X, Nikon implemented a few button changes that were reverted again on all of its later models. Instead of the AF/M selector with an extra push button that is common to other models, there is a M/C/S three-way switch, which in my view makes switching from single to continuous focus much more cumbersome than it should be. Similarly, the metering mode selection on these cameras is done via a three-way switch (matrix/center-weighted/spot) on the back of the camera, which I find less practical than the way it is implemented on other bodies. Neither of these is a show stopper, but they do bother me when switching between my D7100 or D500 and the D700.

My D700 is glued to my 50mm lens, just like the D500 only gets the long lenses. D7100 takes care of everything else just fine.

 

[Danno_RIP]

I do a lot of sunrise shots and landscapes in general. I have a 14-24 now that I use quite often, but I like the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 a lot as well. My other favorite is an older Tamron 70-200 2.8 without VC. I like it but I am saving for the newer version. I also have a friend that has an 85mm 1.4 D that I borrow that I love. I had first shot at that lens, but let him have it.

The controls take a bit of getting used to because they are different than the D7100 or 7200 and the menu is a bit different but only a little. I shoot in manual so it is not really that much different once you get used to the minor changes. I like the dedicated AF- ON button because I use back button focus.

I have found it to be a good camera to get my feet wet in full frame. I use both cameras. I love the 7200 for distance shots and birds with my 200-500 and I use it if I go to my niece or nephews ball games with the 70-200. It has turned out to be a good combination.

 

[hark]

Could you elaborate on the usability issues you have encountered? And you’re right, a D500 would be nice, but can’t justify getting one yet when I haven’t really hit the limits of my current rig. Also, I’d have liked a d750 or a d6x0 (due to their similarities with the D7100), but they’re quite a premium (over the D700) for just dipping my toes in FX.

I don't have a D700 but have heard good things about it. It's a workhorse of a body, and if the price is decent, then you should consider getting it. Some of your current FX lenses will work although many of what you have are manual focus. If any of your manual focus lenses are macro, keep those for now since focusing with a macro lens tends to be more accurate when manually focusing anyway. You can always sell some of your other lenses.

A few lenses to consider down the road are the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR. The lens appears to be discontinued but a preowned copy should work quite well. I own this lens, and although it's a tad soft at 300mm, I tend to zoom to 280mm. I love this lens.

The Nikon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 VR I *think* was a kit lens for some bodies a while back. I've never used one but have read terrific reviews on it. If you've ever heard of Bryan Peterson who authored many photography books, this is a lens he used. His photos taken with it are stunning even though it isn't a constant f/2.8 aperture.

Another sleeper lens is the Nikon AF 300mm ED lens (I think it's referred to as a screwdrive lens). Not sure if the hyperlink will show up from the site I linked. I bought a used one from them but upgraded the next day to the AF-S version. The linked version is very, VERY sharp although the AF is slow. You can't use a Nikon teleconverter with it although it's possible a Kenko teleconverter would work (don't know for sure though). And their price of $399.99 is less than some of the prices at well-known stores.

These are just a few suggested lenses to keep in mind if you go FX. You could sell some of your DX lenses, but if you do, I'd suggest keeping the 18-55mm for now. It's still a good lens to use on your DX body due to its being 18mm. Most FX glass wider than 24mm tend to be a little more costly. Just keep in mind that even average priced FX glass tends to be better made than average priced DX glass. Many FX lenses have a metal mount while lots of average priced DX lenses have a plastic mount. And even the older AF and AF-D lenses (not the G version that has focus motors) are very well made. Since these older lenses lack focus motors, that's one less thing to break or wear out.

Good luck with whatever you choose! :encouragement:

 

[gustafson]

I do a lot of sunrise shots and landscapes in general. I have a 14-24 now that I use quite often, but I like the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 a lot as well. My other favorite is an older Tamron 70-200 2.8 without VC. I like it but I am saving for the newer version. I also have a friend that has an 85mm 1.4 D that I borrow that I love. I had first shot at that lens, but let him have it.

The controls take a bit of getting used to because they are different than the D7100 or 7200 and the menu is a bit different but only a little. I shoot in manual so it is not really that much different once you get used to the minor changes. I like the dedicated AF- ON button because I use back button focus.

I have found it to be a good camera to get my feet wet in full frame. I use both cameras. I love the 7200 for distance shots and birds with my 200-500 and I use it if I go to my niece or nephews ball games with the 70-200. It has turned out to be a good combination.

Thanks for the lens suggestions, Danno! That’s the holy trinity, isn’t it? Boy, I’m gonna be so broke


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gustafson]

I don't have a D700 but have heard good things about it. It's a workhorse of a body, and if the price is decent, then you should consider getting it. Some of your current FX lenses will work although many of what you have are manual focus. If any of your manual focus lenses are macro, keep those for now since focusing with a macro lens tends to be more accurate when manually focusing anyway. You can always sell some of your other lenses.

A few lenses to consider down the road are the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR. The lens appears to be discontinued but a preowned copy should work quite well. I own this lens, and although it's a tad soft at 300mm, I tend to zoom to 280mm. I love this lens.

The Nikon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 VR I *think* was a kit lens for some bodies a while back. I've never used one but have read terrific reviews on it. If you've ever heard of Bryan Peterson who authored many photography books, this is a lens he used. His photos taken with it are stunning even though it isn't a constant f/2.8 aperture.

Another sleeper lens is the Nikon AF 300mm ED lens (I think it's referred to as a screwdrive lens). Not sure if the hyperlink will show up from the site I linked. I bought a used one from them but upgraded the next day to the AF-S version. The linked version is very, VERY sharp although the AF is slow. You can't use a Nikon teleconverter with it although it's possible a Kenko teleconverter would work (don't know for sure though). And their price of $399.99 is less than some of the prices at well-known stores.

These are just a few suggested lenses to keep in mind if you go FX. You could sell some of your DX lenses, but if you do, I'd suggest keeping the 18-55mm for now. It's still a good lens to use on your DX body due to its being 18mm. Most FX glass wider than 24mm tend to be a little more costly. Just keep in mind that even average priced FX glass tends to be better made than average priced DX glass. Many FX lenses have a metal mount while lots of average priced DX lenses have a plastic mount. And even the older AF and AF-D lenses (not the G version that has focus motors) are very well made. Since these older lenses lack focus motors, that's one less thing to break or wear out.

Good luck with whatever you choose! :encouragement:

Cindy, thanks for the recommendations! Wasn’t aware of the 24-85 f3.5-4.5 being a well-regarded lens, thanks for the heads up.

As for the 300 ED-IF, I bought it based on your recommendation and have been mostly happy with it based on my limited use. The AF is a bit slow, and I get the occasional pic that’s not as sharp as I’d like, but it could be my technique. Need to field test it more thoroughly to form a definitive opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Patrick M]

see this: Nikon D7100 vs Nikon D700 Detailed Comparison
i'm a big fan of the D7100. I'd possibly go to a D750, but the D700? its an FX sure, but very old now, and half the pixel count... i know FF are larger, however, you're gaining nothing as far as I can see with the D700.
I don't think the D750 would have been a good upgrade for me personally --- i do a lot of landscape and also wild life. I'm hoping that there will be a new upgrade to the D750 soon....i can't afford the D850 :-(

 

[gustafson]

see this: Nikon D7100 vs Nikon D700 Detailed Comparison
i'm a big fan of the D7100. I'd possibly go to a D750, but the D700? its an FX sure, but very old now, and half the pixel count... i know FF are larger, however, you're gaining nothing as far as I can see with the D700.
I don't think the D750 would have been a good upgrade for me personally --- i do a lot of landscape and also wild life. I'm hoping that there will be a new upgrade to the D750 soon....i can't afford the D850 :-(

Thanks for the response. You raise some good points. I’ve been wanting to dip my toes in full frame, and the D700 seems to be the cheapest way in. The main advantage is the full frame sensor and its attendant benefits: lower noise at high ISO, better subject isolation (thinner DOF) at the same Fstop, etc. The lower pixel density is a liability in some situations, but is supposedly more forgiving to older lenses and shooting technique than the d800 series.

As for the d750, I’ve read great things about it - aside from the recent shutter recall issues - and would personally go for it if I had the $. What’s holding you back?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Patrick M]

Thanks for the response. You raise some good points. I’ve been wanting to dip my toes in full frame, and the D700 seems to be the cheapest way in. The main advantage is the full frame sensor and its attendant benefits: lower noise at high ISO, better subject isolation (thinner DOF) at the same Fstop, etc. The lower pixel density is a liability in some situations, but is supposedly more forgiving to older lenses and shooting technique than the d800 series.

As for the d750, I’ve read great things about it - aside from the recent shutter recall issues - and would personally go for it if I had the $. What’s holding you back?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I didn’t see enough advantage in the D750, and as it’s over 3 years old I’m really hoping that an upgrade may follow. If not, then next May (2018) I will get the D750 .... my birthday treat lol


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[gustafson]

I didn’t see enough advantage in the D750, and as it’s over 3 years old I’m really hoping that an upgrade may follow. If not, then next May (2018) I will get the D750 .... my birthday treat lol


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I’m going off second hand knowledge, but I believe the d750 is quite a step up over the d7100 sensor in terms of lowlight performance. There are some here that have used a D7100+D750 rig (@HoroscopeFish, for instance) who could confirm if that is really true.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk