Nikon D7100 or D700 for low light?

discoman

discoman

Messages
140
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
I have a d90 at the moment and looking for a camera thats better at low light than the d90. Would a D7100 be that much better than a D90 and if yes it was, which I think it is. Would the d7100 with its newer technology, be better than a D700 in low light.

Thanks
 
I came at it from a different angle. I had a D7000 as my main and a D90 as back up. Intended buying the D750 but then went a different way while I get the money together. I now have a D700 and the D7000 is now my back up, the D90 has been sold. I can't really comment on the D7100 because I didn't see it as a worthwhile upgrade for me and talking to people that have made the switch between the D7000 and D7100 the general opinion is that the noise levels are about the same on both cameras.
I now have the best of both worlds DX and FX.
It still stuns me when I use the D700 at just how clean the images are even at very high ISOs but that's not to say that the D7000 is bad, because it isn't, the D700 is just better. They are both very capable cameras and even though they are both getting on a bit now in technology terms, both have very much more to offer than I have explored yet and I have no where near reached their limitations.
The D700 is also far laid out in terms of controls etc, everything just falls to hand.
I suppose really you need to look at what lenses you currently own and can they be used on an FX body, if not and you would need to upgrade lenses too, then maybe you have your answer.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the replies guys. Thats interesting, while I did suspect that the D700 would be better in low light, I am surprise that the AF is better.

In that respect then, I should think that the only thing you would lose with a d700, is the crop factor.
 
My personal view is that you don't lose anything. You do, however gain a little weight.

Crop factor is all well and good but on safari I much preferred the images from my D700 (often cropped) than I did from my D3200 (which is basically the same sensor as the D7100).

By modern standards the D700 lacks a little resolution but the only things I've seen come close to in in IQ are more recent full frame cameras.
 
Gary Coyle said:
Except AF speed and tracking, weather sealing, build quality, ability to shoot 8fps with grip, ability to use EN-EL4 batteries, placement of dials/buttons etc, etc.
Click to expand...

I said that matters - in my world NONE of that does :D

Landscape & Brides rarely need tracking, fast AF is a relative thing and the D7100 is easily fast enough - faster than fast enough is irrelevant, weather sealing not needed at all, build quality is irrelevant as if 8fps as for being able to use a battery and where the buttons are - well that's just really clutching at straws !!!

I'll take twice as many pixels, dual card slots and much better dynamic range any day thanks :)

Dave
 
D700 no contest...

E2A: Except a D3,D3s.D4,D4s
 
Last edited:
but what if more pixels, dual card slots and more dynamic range aren't important to the OP and low light performance is? :exit::LOL:
 
I had a D90 and upgraded to a D700 3 yrs ago and still love/use the D700. I also bought a D7100 last year and gave up with it after 8 months - too often I found the AF hunted/hesitated in poor light and was completely underwhelmed by it's overall IQ.

I mainly shoot people and found the D7100 produced inaccurate skin tones - everything seemed so dark (compared to the D90) with an orange colour cast (like shooting permanently in shade WB). I was expecting really crisp shots (without the low pass filter) - only time it managed that was when the sun was out and right on my subject. The D7100's AF is fast enough, but it's nowhere near accurate enough - especially when shooting moving subjects. Sometimes in high contrast scenes it wouldn't even focus at all and I've read of others with same issue. It may have the 51pt AF system on paper, but it doesn't perform like the one on the 4 year older body. I really wanted to like the D7100 but just couldn't. Perhaps I was just too comfortable having used a full frame for 2 years and my expectancy levels were too high. Out of the 4 Nikon's I've owned (D60/D90/D700/D7100) the D7100 was the one I regretted buying the most and I swore I would never buy a Nikon DX again after my experience with it.

My final assumption between D700/D7100...
D700 out performs D7100 on AF, skin tones, speed, smaller files and overall superior IQ. D7100 out performs D700 with a better LCD screen, quieter shutter, more resolution, video, 2 card slots and better DR at low iso's (but not beyond iso 500). Sharpness on D7100 starts to drop beyond iso 400 - on D700 it starts to drop around iso 1000 but the files on the D700 clean up much nicer.

At the end end of the day the D700 will give you more keepers than the D7100 and that's the most important factor;)
 
Last edited:
Depends on what you mean by low light performance, what sort of work are you doing ?

As a music photographer I am permanently shooting in low light. I've found the D7100 can shoot at ISO 2000 or even 2500 and I get better results than I was with a D7000 at ISO 1600.

But I guess some of it depends on lenses, I was shooting with a 17-55 F2.8 but now have 14-24 f2.8 and 24-70 f2.8


I doesn't say much for Nikon if a camera released in 2008 is still 'better' than a camera released in 2013
 
NeilMc said:
I doesn't say much for Nikon if a camera released in 2008 is still 'better' than a camera released in 2013
Click to expand...

Not really, we are comparing a full frame camera to a cropped sensor camera, FX v DX, personally the D700 will beat any DX offering for me, simply by virtue of the bigger brighter viewfinder.

At the time the D3 & D700 were hailed as being way ahead of their rivals with regard to image quality at high ISO.

The output from the D700 is still excellent, that will never change ... if somebody cannot get a first class image from a D700 the shortcoming is with them and not the camera.
 
D700 was and still is an awesome camera, the fact that its a few years old is irrelevant. I don't have a D7100, but do have a D7000 that I use occasionally, for portrait and wedding work there's no contest between the two for me.
 
Having had both a D700 and a D7100, i would say there was very little in it in terms of High ISO performance, if anything the newer tech in the D7100 clinches it

My upgrade path was as follows, D300 - D700 - D7100

The D700 was a big leap up from the D300, but the lack of reach when shooting wildlife really put a dampener on the D700 for me, and i cannot afford a £3000 fast telephoto lens, so i went back to crop to gain reach and have noticed very little difference between the D7100 and the D700

Bearing in mind the D700 is 6-7 year old technology, also the increased cost of buying new lenses

I am much happier with my D7100 than i ever was with the D700............... but that is just me, and as far as i am concerned, Full Frame isn't all it's cracked up to be






Awaits a flaming :nailbiting:
 
Is "low light" the same as "high ISO" ……… or are we discussing the abilities of the sensor?

are we comparing a cropped D700 image down to DX size with a D7100 using the same lens?

doesn't it depend on the specific shooting conditions and the type of shots that you take

does the ability of noise reduction in post influence the comparison?
 
Last edited:
Some good points there Bill, i suppose i associate low light with High ISO, but the OP might mean something different

The main reason i went to FF was i was doing a fair bit of Gig photography so the high ISO, low light performance of the D700 over the D300 was a revelation, but then when i went back down to crop with the D7100 i could get the same image quality at the same field of view repectively with the D7100, i could even push the ISO up another gear with the D7100 over the D700

But that all means nothing as it really needs a bit more detail from the OP as to his specific shooting requirements
 
A lot of my stuff is on a tripod with a long lens - I have both the D700 and D7100 as well as a D300

For birds I always seem to grab my D7100 ….. no matter what the conditions ….. based on the thousands of images that I have taken

For general shots in any light I use the D700 with say the 105mm f2.8VR, 70 200mm VR and say a 50mm …… the D700 seems to have it's own style …. which I find attractive

I find the D700 cleaner in general shooting no matter what the ISO …….. but with crops I prefer the images from the D7100 …… but with crop you get noise and the tighter you crop the more noise you get especially in the blacks, bg and shadows …….. the D7100 can respond well in post to noise reduction ……. but then again you loose detail

I'd say it depends on the type of photography that you are interested in - the D700 is a marvellous camera and (I find) it quite different from the D7100 ….. they are both good in their own way …….. but if you want super high ISO performance the latest technology in say the D750 or D810 has improved this significantly, (so I have read and so I am told).

If my main interest was NOT birds and insects ……. I would favour the D700 ………. just my opinion based purely on the images I have taken and from using both on an almost daily basis

If the OP is looking at prices, the D700 has stood up well in the used market, but the D600/610 new can now be had for a really good price …… check out the high ISO performance on that ……. it has a far more "modern" sensor
 
Last edited:
Just like to thank everyone for their comments.

Just to fill you all in a bit more.

I am into general photography, however the main reason for lowlight, is that I am a mobile dj and I like to take photos of the gigs that I do, to put them on the website or pass on to the client. I like to try and do this without the flash, yes I know it's asking a lot.

The D90 which I do like, does not handle the low light well at times.

Now I am in a position to get a newer camera. So I was wondering if a d700 would fit my main photography more than a d7100, hence the question.

I should just add that the lens I have are Tamron 24/70 f2.8, nikon 70/300 vr2 and the nikon 50/f1.8.
 
BillN_33 said:
A lot of my stuff is on a tripod with a long lens - I have both the D700 and D7100 as well as a D300

For birds I always seem to grab my D7100 ….. no matter what the conditions ….. based on the thousand of images that I have taken

For general shots in any light I use the D700 with say the 105mm f2.8VR, 70 200mm VR and say a 50mm …… the D700 seems to have it's own style …. which I find attractive

I find the D700 cleaner in general shooting no matter what the ISO …….. but with crops I prefer the images from the D7100 …… but with crop you get noise and the tighter you crop the more noise you get especially in the blacks, bg and shadows …….. the D7100 can respond well in post to noise reduction ……. but then again you loose detail

I'd say it depends on the type of photography that you are interested in - the D700 is a marvellous camera and (I find) it quite different from the D7100 ….. they are both good in their own way …….. but if you want super high ISO performance the latest technology in say the D750 or D810 has improved this significantly, (so I have read and so I am told).

If my main interest was NOT birds and insects ……. I would favour the D700 ………. just my opinion based purely on the images I have taken and from using both on an almost daily basis

If the OP is looking at prices, the D700 has stood up well in the used market, but the D600/610 new can now be had for a really good price …… check out the high ISO performance on that ……. it has a far more "modern" sensor
Click to expand...

Owning the same cameras as Bill, I would echo these sentiments almost exactly. The D7100 sensor has more bite and acuity for birds and wildlife, the D700 is still my first choice for people and places
 
Thanks Dillp - I thought that the D750 etc., were far better in low light and at high ISO's
 
I would say that the D610 is about a stop better than the D700 but the real difference is the noise floor level - you can boost exposure/shadows from the D610 to ridiculous levels without seeing any artefacts, much more so than the D700 and to be fair, the D700 was no slouch here (and still better than any Canon I'm aware of).
 
Subjectively based on lots of photos.

I recently had a fun afternoon looking back at high ISO shots from all my previous cameras. In many ways its amazing how much sensor technology has moved on yet still by an absolute country mile the over riding factor is the ability of the person behind the camera.

This was spurred on by getting an Olympus EM10 and I was comparing its high ISO performance vs full frame and APSC - it holds up amazingly well.
 
D700 better at high ISO than the D7100?

You sure about that?

I disagree completely. I've used both and found the 7100 to be at least as good, if not better. The RAW files you can download from DPReview seem to back this up too.

Click images for full size.

D700 @ 6400
TJfwkAB.jpg


D7100 @ 6400
m7Rb02m.jpg


D700 @ 25600
vlmjJQB.jpg


D7100 @ 25600
2qz6O7X.jpg



Sure... the D700 is pro build, better weather sealing, better rear control layout, better AF. However... the AF on the D7100 is absolutely fine for the vast majority. The rest is something that's hardly a deal beaker. The D700 is getting on for 8 years old, and is 12MP.. which is crap.. by anyone's standards. I wish people would just let the D700 die with dignity and move on. It was a great camera.. still is in many respects, but just accept that it's utterly outclassed in one oh so weeny little area... the IMAGES it produces.
 
Last edited:
I thought so too but as these are very heavy crops I wonder how much difference would show up in real world pictures of the type the OP's wants to take?

discoman said:
Just like to thank everyone for their comments.

Just to fill you all in a bit more.

I am into general photography, however the main reason for lowlight, is that I am a mobile dj and I like to take photos of the gigs that I do, to put them on the website or pass on to the client. I like to try and do this without the flash, yes I know it's asking a lot.
...
I should just add that the lens I have are Tamron 24/70 f2.8, nikon 70/300 vr2 and the nikon 50/f1.8.
Click to expand...

If starting from scratch I think I'd go for the APS-C system as you'd get deeper depth of field at the same camera settings for what could be the same (or very near) image quality if those crops are anything to go by but as you already have a couple of lenses maybe they'd be better suited to a FF camera?
 
Last edited:
I had a D700 a couple of years ago and sold it thinking that I needed a newer camera. What a huge mistake that was!

Since then I've been through a lot of cameras ranging from 5dmkiii to m4/3 and a whole lot in between.


Lately I've been hankering for FF again and a couple of weeks ago I bought a D700, and to be honest irregardless of how old it is,or what people say about resolution or IQ, the simple fact is that it still produces stunning images.

I didn't consider the D7100 because I knew I wanted FF. I'm sure it's a great camera, but I seriously doubt that anyone who buys a D700,especially coming from a crop will be in any way dissapointed.

Of course the D7100 may be a better choice for some,but I think a D700 at the current SH prices they go for is an absolute steal.
 
Last edited:
I did the same test from RAW and a different crop at ISO 6400. My view is that the D700 has less noise and better colour. I think there's a 150k file limit which means the crops below are horribly compromised, but I can still tell the difference. Still not bad for a cropper!

D700

View attachment 31519

D7100

View attachment 31520
 
D700 kicks the arse off the D7100, ive OWNED both side by side not just USED one of them

David, all those images what you put up is CLEARLY show the D700 is better, you say 12mp is crap, yet i could point you to hundreds of your own posts which says 12mp is more than enough for most peoples needs (i wont because you will just go off on one)
 
Last edited:
Gary Coyle said:
D700 kicks the arse off the D7100, ive OWNED both side by side not just USED one of them

David, all those images what you put up is CLEARLY show the D700 is better, you say 12mp is crap, yet i could point you to hundreds of your own posts which says 12mp is more than enough for most peoples needs (i wont because you will just go off on one)
Click to expand...

I've always said It is more than enough if you don't ever print anything, sure... anything is more than enough if you don't print anything.

You've posted two images that don't rely much on shadow detail, and you've posted them up at 100%, so the D700 images are a great deal smaller. If you were to print the D700 file though, it would require more enlargement than the D7100 file to reach the same size... hence... I showed you what it would look like printed at the same size.


D700 @ 25600
vlmjJQB.jpg


D7100 @ 25600
2qz6O7X.jpg




I think you're all in denial here... the D7100 is clearly cleaner, with less noise, and smoother shadow detail. I wonder how many people denying what they see here are D700 owners.
 
Pookeyhead said:
You've posted two images that don't rely much on shadow detail, and you've posted them up at 100%,

I think you're all in denial here... the D7100 is clearly cleaner, with less noise, and smoother shadow detail. I wonder how many people denying what they see here are D700 owners.
Click to expand...
First off David, and is the usual for you, you dont even take full notice of whats been posted, I HAVEN'T POSTED UP ANY IMAGES

Second point, i was right, you have gone off on one.

Final point, ONLY YOU see the D7100 as being better at noise control at High ISO
 
Gary Coyle said:
First off David, and is the usual for you, you dont even take full notice of whats been posted, I HAVEN'T POSTED UP ANY IMAGES
Click to expand...


Misquoted.. meant manualfocus-g



Gary Coyle said:
Final point, ONLY YOU see the D7100 as being better at noise control at High ISO
Click to expand...

You all need your eyes testing.

How is this....

01Tcm1Y.jpg


Less noisy than this?

UaXoMbJ.jpg
 
Do you like to pixel peep more than take photographs pookeyhead?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top