There are probably more discussions online about DX vs. FX than there are about Canon vs. Nikon.

I just finally made the jump from DX to FX (I was always convinced the price difference wasn't warranted). Just got the camera yesterday though, and I have yet to test it out in the real world... There are tons of people on here (like Mark, JT, Alexzilla, etc.) who've had and shot full frame for years. They can better describe the real world differences. Atomic 80 really sold me on the virtues when I was up in Seattle.

The primary selling point for me was the much larger sensor's ability to capture a clearer image in more diverse conditions. Take for example this quick 100% crop I did. Same lens (105mm 2.8 micro), same lighting (my computer monitor in an otherwise pitch black room), same ISO (1600), no flash, etc. The left is the FX and the right is the DX. Clarity, noise, etc are noticeably better. Not a scientific test by any means, but a good idea.



Now the DX I shot with was my few-year-old D90. The newest D7000 is a significant jump in technology. If you read reviews online, most people will say "buy the D7000, don't waste your money on an FX camera". This is probably true for most people looking to get a very good camera - I think Barrister just bought one, and I can guarantee he loves it. And honestly I'd probably be happy most of my life with the D90 or D7000 or whatever future versions there may be.

I don't know if it's a legitimate analogy, but it's probably similar to the difference between a Carrera, a 4S and a Turbo or GT2 (or in Mark's case, CGT). Simple to justify any of the choices if you really want to, and one would (or should) be happy with either as they are all excellent machines.

If your primary purpose is to take snapshots of family and action and vacations and stuff, I'd borrow someone's D7000 and try it out - right out of the box it actually shoots more FPS than the 700 (without the MB-D10, of course ). It has the features, versatility (video!) and quality that almost anyone would be more than happy with. And it's definitely not "old technology". I'd also see if you can borrow a D700 or D3 and test it with the same lenses and stuff and see if you notice a difference. At the end of the day that's what matters.

I'm really trying to stretch what and where I shoot, and wanted the best tools that I could meagerly afford (no D3x for me!). I'll still be carrying my D90 in my bag to use with certain lenses - it's still a great camera, and I keep a Canon P&S in my pocket too. I've got an old D100 too, but that's pretty painful to use considering the newer technology.

Sorry this is so long winded, but I'm the kind of guy who really looks around, researches, tests, tries, talks and compares before I pull the trigger. Truly the best thing to do would be to test them all out - the difference may or may not be justifiable for what you need, and you may actually find you prefer the feel and features of (say) the 7000 vs. the 700. I know this is counter intuitive to post on a luxury forum, and for that I apologize

 

Or just get a 50MP x 4 Hasselbad...

Hasselblad H4D-200MS Digital Camera 70490520 B&H Photo Video

 

If you were thinking the D700...

If you can wait a month for some more news from Nikon that would probably be best.



From what I have read there was supposed to be a D800 announcement last month. Unfortunately for us the factory is under several feet of water and Nikon is not announcing anything new until they have a new plan.

Underwater Nikon Factory

 

There's been an "imminent" D700 replacement for a couple of years now... There's a lot of speculation as to what the specs may be. More MP with the same sensor? Video? Will it be more of a D700s than a complete retool? How dramatically different can it be, and at what price point? When will it even actually come out?

Those are the questions I axed before pulling the trigger and promising myself no remorse for at least a year or two

 

Actually, I agree with Charlie. Hold out til at least the end of the year. You'll either want to get the D800, or the D700 will get a little cheaper. It's a win/win either way.

 

Good point... I'll sell you my D700 in a couple of months

But honestly, I would also still seriously consider the 7000 for what you want it for.

 

The 7000 is a great camera! Definitely worth the $$

 

I bet I've never posted but 5 pics I snapped with my d3. They are all from my cell phone. Everyone!

 

But why? What is the big deal with a FF camera vs 1.5 crop? You can go wider, that I get. What else?

I have a deal pending on a like new D300s (4,300 clicks), 2 extra batteries, RSS L bracket and grip for $1050.00. He has a great rating on FM and he is local to me. At that price, I think I am staying with crop for now.

Talk me out of it! I don't want to make a mistake but well used (15,000 click) D700's are still $2k+ without all the extras.

 

My last post was before I saw that there were 2 pages of posts. D7000 is too menu driven for me, I like the traditional feel of the D200, 300, 700, 3 and so on.

Evo, you make some great points (thank you for the detailed post). I think if I were looking at a new body the price point would be a little closer but with the price point of the D300s in my last post, I almost feel like I can try it and see how I like it. Then if I sell the D200/D300s, 17-55 at the same time, then I can make the jump to FF without getting too hurt on the D300s. The 17-55 is actually worth more used today then when I bought it new, I had no idea until I started searching used prices tonight.