- Dynamic range! The D7000 offers 13.9 EV of dynamic range (only beaten by the Pentax K-5 with 14.1 EV at the moment - in fact, these two cameras with their APS-C sensors leave ALL the other cameras behind, dynamic-range wise. Including medium format and the D3x!). And I've always cared a lot more about dynamic range than anything else - it was the reason why I went with the Fuji S5pro (at the time when I reached some limitations of my first DSLR, the D70s.) I just don't like fiddling around with ND grad filters, I prefer to expose to the right without blowing the highlights and then work on the shadows in post.
- Weight and size of the body. The D700 fits my hand nicely, I really like the handling - but the weight of that thing, combined with the glass... man, it certainly sums up.
- Money. Yes, it's that simple. Full frame glass simply costs a lot more money than DX glass. My current lens setup is nice, but to be really happy I'll need two more lenses: the 16-35/4 (which, unlike my Sigma 12-24 can take filters, and has VR) and the 24-120/4 (which has VR, meant to replace my Tamron 24-135 which is terrible in backlight situations) - and both of them together will set me back over $2k. Ouch! It's not that I really need these lenses right now, but on the other hand, Shuwen and I already have almost the exact same lens setup for DX! (and a couple of lenses are dupes at the moment...)
- More Tele! Darn, I can really tell how much I miss that crop factor when I mount my 70-300mm lens on the D700.
- 100% viewfinder. You'd really think that this is not really important, but damn I can tell you it's just plain annoying to compose a scene and then find that a stupid twig or a persons head or something is sticking into the frame. I don't like throwing away resolution in post to remove elements that I did not see in the viewfinder.
What will I lose?
- As it seems, just one stop of usable ISO. This wouldn't hurt me much - my always-on lens is the Tamron 24-135 at the moment and it's not stabilized. My photography doesn't require a fast shutter and I benefit a lot more from stabilized lenses (VR) than I do from high ISO.
- A separate AF-ON button on the body. I never use the AE-L button on my D700, so I might just as well reconfigure the AE-L button on the D7000 to be my AF-ON, just like I did on my old old D70s.
- The charming lens performance on the 12mpx FX sensor of the D700 with it's huge pixels. The D7000 crams 16mpx of resolution on a sensor thats less than half the size. To fully utilize it, you need to both work more carefully and have good glass. This one indeed keeps me thinking.
- The big viewfinder of a full frame camera. Oh yes. I know this would hurt.
- The fast 35mm lens. I'll need something like a fast 24mm prime to get the charming 35/85mm combination on DX (24/50mm sounds reasonable.)
- Memory cards, spare batteries, and accessories like the cable release.
If anyone of you has any thoughts on this, please share them with me. Just leave a comment. Thanks!
I got this close myself to adding the D7000 as a second body to my D700 (hell, I actually sold my D300 after getting the D700). My main motivation points were "More Tele!" as well but mainly wanting to get into serious video shooting using my nice FX lenses. But Nikon just still has to convince me about their video offerings. They still have to catch up with Canon's multi-decades of more experience in that sector. I finally put the idea to rest when I read that you can't even swivel out the LCD viewfinder. Heck, even my old Olympus C8080Z was able to do that. Otherwise, the D7000 seems to be a fine DSLR.
ReplyDeleteFor the moment, I've abandoned the idea. :P The D700 has one major bonus: pixel quality. The combination of full frame sensor and (relatively) low pixel pitch is very very pleasing. The D7000 with it's higher pixel pitch is much more demanding. I still have a DX body - my S5pro. But really usable ISO ends at 800 with that one...
ReplyDelete