Why is Nikon D700 more expensive than Nikon D7000?

Why is the Nikon D700 full body camera better than the Nikon D7000. When looking at the specs you would think that the Nikon D7000 has more pixel than the D700. I that one camera is full body and the other has a CMOS sensor. What's the difference.

It's the full-frame sensor.

Sensors are expensive to make, that's why cheap cameras have such small ones, cropped-sensor DSLRs are an order of magnitude more expensive than all but high-end compacts, and full-frame prices are shocking.

Try looking at medium format prices sometime.

Well let me explain it to you does a camera on any phone take the same quality of photos and give the same performance in lowlight and different conditions to that of a crop - sensor or any other digital camera sensor, no way at all. Why is this because the camera sensor is very small and big mega pixel is not about good photography if you think like that for example look at the 40 something megapixel phone camera sensor they released last year you might think it was great but it doesn't give good image quality. You can't compare a full frame (d700) to a d7000 it is not the same. There's a lot more to explain about sensor's read this - http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/...r-size.htm

The full frame sensor is the main reason. It has about 2.2 times more surface area than the image sensor found in the D7000. Also, the body is full pro build. The D7000 is not.

pixel counts are not a measure of image quality, never have been, never will be.

the full frame sensor in the D700 blows the D7000 away in low light at high ISO.

A used full frame D700 from Nikon is one of the best deals out there when it comes to image sensor performance. The image sensor in the D700 was first used in the 5, 000 US dollars Nikon D3 in 2007. The next year Nikon released the D700 with the same sensor in a smaller body, missing a few features for about 3, 000 US dollars.