Why is D700 double the price of D7000?!!

[Baseelo]

Hi everybody.

I might be a total novice. But I still don't think it makes any sense.

I was doing a side by side comparison between D700 and D7000 and looking at all the specs I don't really think it makes any sense that D700 is more that double the price of D7000. What is it that I am missing about the D700 that makes it worth the money?

 

[Patco]

Hi everybody.

I might be a total novice. But I still don't think it makes any sense.

I was doing a side by side comparison between D700 and D7000 and looking at all the specs I don't really think it makes any sense that D700 is more that double the price of D7000. What is it that I am missing about the D700 that makes it worth the money?

Not having the FOV of all you expensive wide angle lenses reduced by a factor of 1.5 would be a big plus to some people.

The D700 has a little better high ISO performance, and many say it provides better AF and metering.

--
Patco
A photograph is more than a bunch of pixels

 

[xenon-mkd]

D7000 (1100 euro)

+ 400 euro for FF sensor
+ 300 euro increased body size and construction costs
+ 200 euro buffer/internal electronic differences

= D700 (2000e)

 

[Fjrjacko]

You would have to ask Nikon

 

[donmcvee]

Because its twice the camera!. Full frame FX sensor for starters. More rugged build. Much more programmable with four shooting banks and four custom banks. Better high ISO performance. Read Thom Hogans review of both cameras. http://www.bythom.com .
--
It's all about light.

 

[stuntmonkey]

D7000 (1100 euro)

+ 400 euro for FF sensor
+ 300 euro increased body size and construction costs
+ 200 euro buffer/internal electronic differences

= D700 (2000e)

What xenon said. If you take into account that the mark-up on the pro level cameras are higher than on the D7000's, the extras that go into the D700 cost more to produce... and in the case of the sensor and the controlling electronics, a whole lot more. The cost to produce a full frame sensor alone is ten times the production cost of a DX sensor.

--
http://1000wordpics.blogspot.com

 

[lionel_UK]

It's also worth pointing out that the D700 is not made in Thailand like the D7000 but Japan where labour costs are higher.
--
http://liquoricepontoon.zenfolio.com/p672642468

 

[David V]

Professional build quality and features for one. A vastly superior auto-focus and processing engine along with better ISO performance. These things may not be as important to most people, so that's why Nikon produces high end consumer cameras like the D7000. Just different tools for different purposes. I am sure they will sell a ton of them.

That said, the images that I have seen from the D7000 (in capable hands) have been stunning, and it is a great photographic tool and incredible value, when you consider the quality of the images in relation to the cost.

The D7000 has certainly closed the gap from an image quality and dynamic range perspective, but the sensor in the D3/D700 is due for a refresh, and I suspect you will see even greater separation between the models again once that happens.

 

[Rob Adams1]

David,

Well said. The "leap frog" effect of newer technology has the D7000 looking great right now. I'm willing to bet the next 'pro' sensor series will increase the separation between pro and pro-sumer...

Till then, I got myself a d7000 and love it. Much better images than the D2x that I have just shelved.
--

Rob

 

[beshannon]

What is it that I am missing about the D700 that makes it worth the money?

http://www.bythom.com/nikond700review.htm

--
My photos http://brianshannon.smugmug.com/
My photo blog http://brianshannonphotography.blogspot.com/
My Flickr stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brian_shannon_photography/

 

[Baseelo]

But, what about the resolution thing?

D7000 is 16.2 megapixels and D700 is 12.2 megapixels. Or is that more than compensated due to the sensor's size? meanining that if we take the percantage factor (full to 2/3) we end up with a total 18 megs on the D700? is that a reasonable analysis?

Thank you.

--
Photography is the art of freezing light in the heart of the moment!

 

[beshannon]

But, what about the resolution thing?

D7000 is 16.2 megapixels and D700 is 12.2 megapixels. Or is that more than compensated due to the sensor's size? meanining that if we take the percantage factor (full to 2/3) we end up with a total 18 megs on the D700? is that a reasonable analysis?

Why do you assume (along with many other people) that more of anything means it is somehow better?

In this context I would rather have larger pixels that produce less noise and have more dynamic range.

--
My photos http://brianshannon.smugmug.com/
My photo blog http://brianshannonphotography.blogspot.com/
My Flickr stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brian_shannon_photography/

 

[stuntmonkey]

But, what about the resolution thing?

D7000 is 16.2 megapixels and D700 is 12.2 megapixels. Or is that more than compensated due to the sensor's size? meanining that if we take the percantage factor (full to 2/3) we end up with a total 18 megs on the D700? is that a reasonable analysis?

The cost to produce a wafer of semi conductors is fairly constant. The reason why computer chips keep getting less expensive is because they keep getting smaller, meaning that you can squeeze more chips out of a wafer. This is what has driven the so-called "Moore's Law" over the past decades.

That's not true for camera sensors. Since a DX or FX chip has to be exactly a certain size, the number of sensor chips per wafer stays constant. So, the cost of production does not go down as dramatically as with computer parts.

Once the sunk costs are down, there really isn't that much of a difference that extra pixels will make to effect the cost of the part. 12mp or 16mp, the sensor bed is etched in all at once.... there may extra tooling costs for the additional complexity, but again, the principle behind manufacturing the chips is the same in each instance.

So all told, a DX cvhip costs about $50USD to make a FX chip is about $500. The difference is practically the cost of a D3100. And as far as I am led to understand, all full frame chips must be "stitched" together during the manufacturing process, which keeps costs quite high.

There's also the matter of defect rate. If you average a certain number of defects per wafer, it's more costly doing the full frame chip run than for the DX chip because there are less chips to squeeze out per wafer.

The other thing is in the extra computing power that goes into a pro camera. Modern digital cameras are stuffed with circuitry... the D700 is bigger than a D7000 for exactly this reason. It focuses faster and more reliably because there are more brains driving the AF-system. More chips, more money.

If you dig through film cameras, there's a big difference in size between a Fm2 and an F5, even though they take the same film canister. All of of the extra size and cost of the F5 go towards the extra functionality... basically, if you want more, it costs more.

--
http://1000wordpics.blogspot.com

 

[tvnewsbadge]

The d700 is aimed at people who use the camera more as a tool and the D7000 at people who use the camera more as a hobby.
Tools always cost more than toys.

 

[Baseelo]

Thank you so much for the expalanation.

It makes a lot of sense and has definitely helped me understand the issue much better.

--
Photography is the art of freezing light in the heart of the moment!