Hi everybody,
With this post, I'd like to share with you my feelings after going for a full frame (FX) body (Nikon D700) from a DX body (Nikon D7000). What is the difference between FX and DX? Can a recent DX body compete with a four years old FX body? You won't find here lab tests or the perfect truth, but just my feelings about that change, for my use cases.
I bought my D7000 when it was released (end of the year 2010). Before that, I was using a nikon D3000. At this time, I bought the D7000 because I wanted a better image quality in terms of dynamic, high ISO and resolution. I wasn't really regardant of the build quality and ergonomy of a DSLR body.
After more than one year of using the D7000 mostly everyday, I always felt that something was missing when I was comparing my photos with others taken by FX bodys. At high aperture, the subjects always seemed to be more "detached" from the background. Everything also looked more detailed and clean. I'm not talking of a huge difference, absolutely not, but it attracted my eyes often. That's the main reason why I decided to try the full format, I wanted to get this little "plus".
I took this decision at the same moment of the announcement of the new Nikon D600 FX body. After the official presentation of the D600, I decided to find a (not so) used D700. You may ask me why? The D600 would potentially offer better performances than the D700: this is the new entry level FX body that benefits from the new technological orientation initiated by the D800 (better high ISO, better definition, better dynamic range, etc.). Yes it would. But what the D700 could do four years ago, it can do it now. Its performances and capabilities looked sufficient for my amateur use, and it offers better finition and ergonomy than the D600 does (which body is point-to-point similar to the D7000's, except few little details). I think my money is better spent this way: I got a used D700 (700 clicks!) for 1500€ with a one year warranty, where the D600 is 2100€, with surely better performances (but to what extent?) and "worse" finition and materials. After few times with the D7000, the D700's ergonomy seemed to be better to me...
So here I am, I just sold my D7000 and received my almost new D700. As expected (I wanted a pro-class camera), the body is much bigger and heavier than the D7000 was. I always used the D7000 with a grip in order to handle it better, I don't feel like I'll need a grip for the D700, it feels perfect in my hands. The finition is also much better, although the D7000 was already good on that point, but the D700 and its magnesium alloy body feels like a rock!
--> D700 wins
The other point that comforts me on my choice is the ergonomy and the buttons disposition: it looks more logical to me, more accessible and usable. It's easier to change your setting while having the eye on the viewfinder.
--> D700 wins
The viewfinder, this is maybe the only point that feared me: the D7000 has a 100% viewfinder where the D700 is 95%. I read many people complaining about it, that's not my case. The lost 5%, to my mind, won't change a photograph. At worst, a crop will bring you the desired result. At the contrary, the bigger viewfinder of the D700 is a real pleasure when you come from a DX body, a really good point to me so!
-->D700 wins
The reason why the viewfinder of the D700 dropped to 95% instead of 100% (compared to the D3 when it was released) is to include a pop-up flash on the body. That is a really important point to me because I use internal flash to control remote flashes.
--> No winner, D7000 also has an internal flash.
One option is missing on the D700: the U1/U2 user profiles proposed by the D7000. Back to the D7000, I often used this modes in order to take quickly 5 braketed photos with 1EV increments (for HDR processing). The D700, unlike the D7000, allows braketing like this, without tricks, so this is not inconvenient for me.
--> D7000 wins
By taking the decision to go from the D7000 to the D700, I also accepted the fact that the resolution is lower on the D700 (from 16MP to 12MP). Is it a drawback? It will depend of you, and your need for higher resolution or not. For the most common use, 12MP is high enough I guess. To my mind, the only advantage of a higher resolution is the flexibility you win for cropping...
--> D7000 wins
The autofocus on the D7000 was pretty well supplied, with 39 points. But the D700 is a king at that level, offering 51 points and focusing faster. I also noticed that the D700's autofocus module was sometimes more accurate, especially with the Nikkor 50mm f1.8G lens (from time to time, I had front and back focus issues with the couple D7000 - 50mm f1.8g).
-->D700 wins
After all, the main reason why I went FX is FX! The difference with a smaller sensor is immediately noticeable. My favourite lens on the D7000 was the fast prime Nikkor 35mm f1.8G lens, which is equivalent on the D700 to my Nikkor 50mm f1.8G. At f1.8, as expected, the depth of field looks deeper, and the transition between the different plans is smoother. It gives a nice volume to the overall, a depth to the scenes.
I like portraits and photography of details, working as soon as possible at the highest aperture. For these works, the result is more than convincing! The only thing I could regret, but this is normal, is the crop factor allowed by the DX sensor of the D7000 (x1.5). My 50mm was approximatively like a 85mm which was good for portaits. now I'll have to buy a real 85mm lens (I finally found a good reason to buy the excellent Nikkor 85mm F1.8G!).
In general, the image just looks better on FX than on DX, it looks more detailed and defined.
--> D700 wins but D7000 is interesting for its crop factor (sports or animals photography?).
More technically speaking, the difference between the two cameras, in terms of dynamic range and high ISO capabilities, is not huge. Back in time, I already had chosen the D7000 for its low light handling. After few tests, the D700 does better but not that much. I guess sports, show or animal photographer will be more demanding than I about it!
Concerning the image dynamic range, the D7000 seems to expose a bit better on difficult scenes, but the difference is not huge here again.
--> D700 wins for High ISO, D7000 wins for DR.
So, can I talk of upgrade when going from a new DX to an old FX camera? For me, the answer is yes.
If we only consider the image quality without acting like photo-geeks (by looking at 100% crops at 25600 ISO or else), the feelings can only be better on FX.
DX could be a really good alternative if you need very long focals, thanks to its crop factor. It is obviously interesting if you have a lower budget or if you're not that demanding with the final result.
The rest is just details and personal feelings, some people may prefere a lighter body with already a good image quality, others will look at the most fast and accurate autofocus system, or the best dynamic range.
I prefer to focus myself on the feeling that my work brings to me, and it looks better since this upgrade to the full frame format.
