d700 or d7100?

[willie_901]

😀 You've gotta love it when somebody has an opinion..... Want to elaborate? Current Canon sensors aren't up there with Sony, but back in the D700/5D2 days, they were comparable. I can't see any other reason to "stay away from Canon".

Canon has very odd, nostalgic approach to digitization. The result is a significant disadvantage in analog signal-to-noise ratio and dynamic range. In fact at native ISO the Canon EOS 5DS R has about 1.7 stops less DR than the D810 (the SONY 7R, 7RII is identical to the 810 BTW.). The 1D X is about 2 1/2 stops down. To be complete, by ISO 800 the DR decreases such that Nikon, Canon and SONY have similar values. The data can be seen here.

I understand Canon makes excellent lenses.

Low light performance and dynamic range are only two aspects of camera usage. For me, I would never consider Canon until they modernize their data stream technologies. If I had curated a Canon lens collection I would feel differently.

 

[css9450]

DX are really consumer grade construction. D3. D700 are tanks by comparison.

How does the construction of the D7000/D7100 differ from that of the D700? Besides the obvious DX/FX differences of course.

 

[Keith]

How does the construction of the D7000/D7100 differ from that of the D700? Besides the obvious DX/FX differences of course.

There's a lot more plastics and composites in the DX cameras .... the D700 has an alloy chassis from memory which gives the camera much better thermal stability.

 

[sevo]

There's a lot more plastics and composites in the DX cameras .... the D700 has an alloy chassis from memory which gives the camera much better thermal stability.

Nope, the thermal stability is worse - metal does shrink and expand more with temperature variation than the reinforced plastics used for camera chassis. I'd probably pick plastics if I had to carry a camera to extreme temperatures. Arguably plastics will melt earlier, but that is beyond the point where the electronic innards of either camera would be destroyed.

Metal cameras are more rigid and from a better researched material (the used plastics compounds usually will be relatively new, so there is a margin for error regarding how they will age past a horizon of a decade or two). And as plastics don't hold screws as well as metal, the makers are tempted to use glue and snap-in systems in assembly, so plastics cameras often need factory spares to replace parts destroyed in disassembly, which limits their long term maintainability.

As far as DSLRs go, the difference probably is irrelevant - there is enough plastics even on a metal core Nikon that it is subject to all limitations that apply to a all-plastics camera...

 

[Keith]

Nope, the thermal stability is worse - metal does shrink and expand more with temperature variation than the reinforced plastics used for camera chassis. I'd probably pick plastics if I had to carry a camera to extreme temperatures. Arguably plastics will melt earlier, but that is beyond the point where the electronic innards of either camera would be destroyed.

Metal cameras are more rigid and from a better researched material (the used plastics compounds usually will be relatively new, so there is a margin for error regarding how they will age past a horizon of a decade or two). And as plastics don't hold screws as well as metal, the makers are tempted to use glue and snap-in systems in assembly, so plastics cameras often need factory spares to replace parts destroyed in disassembly, which limits their long term maintainability.

As far as DSLRs go, the difference probably is irrelevant - there is enough plastics even on a metal core Nikon that it is subject to all limitations that apply to a all-plastics camera...

It depends on the alloy ... magnesium alloy is extremely stable thermally, which is why Nikon uses it over composites for their pro cameras.

 

[css9450]

There's a lot more plastics and composites in the DX cameras .... the D700 has an alloy chassis from memory which gives the camera much better thermal stability.

The 7000s though are supposedly made with the same alloy, at least that is what Nikon claimed in their advertising when the D7000 was introduced, with pics of the bare shells, claims of rigidity, etc. Sure, the lesser models (D40, D3000, D80, D90, D5000 etc) are probably much more plastic but I was asking about the 7000 series since that is what this thread was about.

 

[Keith]

The 7000s though are supposedly made with the same alloy, at least that is what Nikon claimed in their advertising when the D7000 was introduced, with pics of the bare shells, claims of rigidity, etc. Sure, the lesser models (D40, D3000, D80, D90, D5000 etc) are probably much more plastic but I was asking about the 7000 series since that is what this thread was about.

That's a plus for the camera if that's the case. I have nothing against plastics though ... they are a part of life these days.

 

[peterm1]

The D700 is indisputably a fantastic body, but it's also 8 years old. Personally I would be cautious buying anything digital that old, especially if you're after a workhorse.

Planned obsolescence is pretty standard practice in consumer goods and modern cameras aren't designed to last forever.

The good thing about them is that they have proven to be ultra reliable with no inherent faults that I am aware of. So they tend to be popular If you can pick one up with a low shutter count (not so hard when owned by shooters like me who don't shoot my camera like its a machine gun due to my film training) you will get a still excellent camera with years left in it and fantastic dynamic range and sensitivity up to ASA 3200. And now days they are relatively cheap. For sure if you can afford it get a later model camera (I would advise full frame) but don't be put off by the age of this camera its a beast and a workhorse still.

 

[giganova]

I've been using a D610 and D810. Both are fantastic cameras and the image quality if top notch. The D810 36Mix are actually overkill. Even though the D610 is not advertised as a "pro" camera, the body is very sturdy and can take a rough beating without breaking.

If I had to buy a new DSLR, I'd get a D750.

 

[Addy101]

I have as much fondness to Nikon as I do to Olympus. Much more so than to Canon or Sony. I know 5D MK2 well (a couple of close friends have used them professionally for years) and just like the overall feel less than that of the D700. Subjective personal preference, nothing else. I have considered a X-T1 plus adapters though and it may happen, but would prefer a one, proper system, compatible between film and digital bodies.

If you don't like the feel... well, that is a good reason.

Canon has very odd, nostalgic approach to digitization. The result is a significant disadvantage in analog signal-to-noise ratio and dynamic range. In fact at native ISO the Canon EOS 5DS R has about 1.7 stops less DR than the D810 (the SONY 7R, 7RII is identical to the 810 BTW.). The 1D X is about 2 1/2 stops down. To be complete, by ISO 800 the DR decreases such that Nikon, Canon and SONY have similar values. The data can be seen here.

I understand Canon makes excellent lenses.

Low light performance and dynamic range are only two aspects of camera usage. For me, I would never consider Canon until they modernize their data stream technologies. If I had curated a Canon lens collection I would feel differently.

That is NOW, but when you look at the time when both the D700 and 5Dii were current, Nikon and Canon were comparable. And before, back when the Canon 5D was current and Nikon didn't have a full frame camera, Nikon needed to modernize their technologies. Sometimes Nikon is better, sometimes Canon - did you go Canon back when they were clearly better? :angel:

Canon indeed makes some nice lenses!

 

[f16sunshine]

You owe it to your OM kit to try a Canon.
I use a 5Dii with my OM's and Zeiss Contax lenses as well as M42's.
The adapter solution for the OM's is especially simple. One adapter goes in and changes the mount to OM until you remove it.

The Canon lenses are great and seemingly less expensive than the Nikon Counterparts.
Personally I don't care for the Nikon DSLR interface. It's not as fluid as the Canons in use.
Admitedly I have not tried a Nikon since the D300 was new.


Zuiko 2/28 on 5Dii from 2010 (could stand a re-process with later RAW converter)
Sheet mulching session by Adnan, on Flickr

 

[Frontman]

You owe it to your OM kit to try a Canon.
I use a 5Dii with my OM's and Zeiss Contax lenses as well as M42's.
The adapter solution for the OM's is especially simple. One adapter goes in and changes the mount to OM until you remove it.

The Canon lenses are great and seemingly less expensive than the Nikon Counterparts.
Personally I don't care for the Nikon DSLR interface. It's not as fluid as the Canons in use.
Admitedly I have not tried a Nikon since the D300 was new.


Zuiko 2/28 on 5Dii from 2010 (could stand a re-process with later RAW converter)
Sheet mulching session by Adnan, on Flickr

I think the Canons are great performers, though I disagree about the interface, I like the controls on the D700. My favorite thing about the D700 and other digital Nikons is the variety of lenses. My favorite lens has always been the 50-300 ED zoom, and I like that I can mount this lens on any Nikon body from '59 until now with absolutely no fuss.

I borrowed a 5d MKII for a week, but couldn't bond with it.

 

[Addy101]

My favorite lens has always been the 50-300 ED zoom, and I like that I can mount this lens on any Nikon body from '59 until now with absolutely no fuss.

Well, this simply isn't true. It is an Ai lens and that means no metering on modern D5x00 and D3x00 cameras or on consumer grade AF cameras like an F80, F75 and F65. Also, no matrix metering on D1, F5, F90, F100 and most other (semi-) pro film cameras.

Put the same lens on ANY Canon EOS camera with an adapter and it meters just fine. With the Sony's or Fuji's it is even easier.

re. handling: I guess it is what you're used to, both systems are well thought through.