Updated (August 2010): Compare the Nikon D3100 vs Nikon D700

Nikon D700 vs Nikon D3100

Winner
Nikon D700

96

Nikon D3100

57

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Nikon D700

Low noise at high ISO
Low light performance
2,303 ISO
Large viewfinder
Viewfinder size
0.72x
Weather sealed
Weather sealed
Shoot in extreme weather
Great viewfinder
Viewfinder
Pentaprism
 

Reasons to buy the Nikon D3100

Supports 24p
24p movies
For that film look
Thickness
Thin
2.9"
Sensor cleaning
Self cleaning sensor
Avoids dust in your photos

galleries

Explore our gallery of 48 sample photos taken by the Nikon D3100.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Nikon D700.

competitors

Nikon D700 Competitors

Nikon D750

Nikon D750

Pro DSLR

$1,399 - $1,797 body only

$2,297 with 24-120mm lens

HDR Has in-camera HDR
Overall image quality Significantly better image quality
Viewfinder size Smaller viewfinder
Nikon D7200

Nikon D7200

Entry-level DSLR

$789 - $997 body only

$1,076 - $1,297 with 18-140mm lens

HDR Has in-camera HDR
Screen size Significantly larger screen
Low light performance Significantly more noise at high ISO
Nikon D610

Nikon D610

Pro DSLR

$1,497 body only

$1,997 with 24-85mm lens

Overall image quality Significantly better image quality
HDR Has in-camera HDR
Shutter lag Significantly more shutter lag

Nikon D3100 Competitors

Canon EOS Rebel T5

Canon EOS Rebel T5

Entry-level DSLR

$310 body only

$348 - $399 with 18-55mm lens

Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
True resolution Higher true resolution
Color depth Worse color depth
Nikon D3300

Nikon D3300

Entry-level DSLR

$460 body only

$369 - $447 with 18-55mm lens

Dynamic range More dynamic range
Overall image quality Significantly better image quality
Thickness Thicker
Nikon D3200

Nikon D3200

Entry-level DSLR

$350 body only

$390 - $409 with 18-55mm lens

Dynamic range More dynamic range
Overall image quality Significantly better image quality
Thickness Thicker

discussion

Nikon D700
D700
Nikon

Report a correction
Nikon D3100
D3100
Nikon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments