upgrade dilema

[j819l67]

hi everyone, long time lurker. I have a d40 and a d90, 18-105 mm lens, 55-200mm lens. i am really leaning towards selling all and upgrading to a d700. i like to shoot landscapes, portraits and some night shots. I m a bit scared to switch from dx to fx and start over again, but i think i will appreciate the 700 more in the long run. I really want a d3, but out of my budget for the forseeable future. Your thoughts are appreciated
Jeff

[OsmosisStudios]

Why do you want to go to FX? There are a lot of advantages, but unless there's something very very specific, there are more pitfalls ready to eat you (and your wallet) alive.

[j819l67]

really, call me nieve, but i thought going to an fx camera was the best upgrade towards a pro body(and no i do not earn from photography, just a hobbyist) hmmm, what am i missing?
Jeff

[ravncat]

depends on what you mean by pro-body. I think bob krist had been using a d90.. There are alot of people waiting for another "pro-body" dx - something like the venerable d2x body.

D300 has a much more rugged build than the d90/d5000. the Fx cameras are certainly all rugged builds - the d700 body being very similar to the d300. Course - the d90 already has a really good imaging system.

Is there a reason you need a stronger body? I think going Fx or Dx in nikon - is alot like choosing between Canon and Nikon. You`re kinda locked into the mount - and it is important to look at the lens options for each. The application of your photography should be important here too. The Dx advantages are nice - sweet spot fx lens use, smaller lighter cheaper dx glass, 1.5 crop factor and it`s implications

If you go Fx what kind of glass do you want to use? Fx glass is generally, larger, more expensive or not a zoom. Are you just looking to upgrade image quality? I think a technique upgrade or lens upgrade (or both) would yield more of an advance than going to the Fx body. - Especially with a d90 generation sensor. Course it`s the need vs want scenario, do you need to upgrade? do you want to upgrade? - Why do you want to upgrade? Do you have needs that the d90 cannot accomplish? Do you have needs that your lenses cannot accomplish?

I suspect if you can answer those questions you`ll be able to know what upgrades to make - of course if you want to upgrade to a d700, well, that`s up to you I don`t discourage you from going Full Frame. - I just hope you don`t overestimate the differences.


You want to do portraits and night shots? I think, a tripod and/or flash(es) and some faster glass will get you there for less money and very similar quality. D90 has quite good high Iso. D700 will get you 1 - 3 stops higher iso, depending on your quality standards. a 1.4 prime lens will get you about 2.5 - 4 stops more light, a 2.8 zoom will get you about 1/2 - 2 stops more light.... (depending on your focal length and considering your glass is from F 3.5-5.6)

[sk66]

I do not recommend FX if you are not a "pro" and yo are budget conscious. I'm not a "pro" and I switched to a D3...To get "the same" pictures I was getting with a D300 and 500mm f/4.6 I spent way too much..The D3 was several $k as was the Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6...I wound up with a slower lens on a faster body; a wash.
Add me to the list of those wanting a D2 with current DX sensor/processor....I've actually been considering buying a D2xs.

[j819l67]

very good points that i havent considered, thank you. i was thinking of a d 300s considering i dont need to dump all my lenses, I guess I haven't given all thought to my original decision for why i want full frame over dx. now i m even more perplexed lol
Jeff

[Nicole]

I guess similar to everyone else my first question would be: why the new body rather than some new / better lenses? A nice prime for portraits, a good ultrawide for landscapes if you like that kind of shot, A wide aperture prime for evening shots (or a good tripod if you're doing long exposures)... my opinion would be that all of that would give you better results than a new body unless you have some real reason for getting a different body.

[kirbinster]

I find the move to a D700 gives me much more exposure lattitude. I typically take shots from my car in the morning, when the light is low. Since I don't have plans for specific shots I typically take a slow 28-300 zoom lens, the high ISO capability of the D700 lets me get shots that I just could not get with my D300. Here is one from yesterday taken at ISO 3200:


Camera Nikon D700
Exposure 0.003 sec (1/320)
Aperture f/5.0
Focal Length 42 mm
ISO Speed 3200

[daft_biker]

If I shot mostly landscapes I'd want full frame so I had access to high quality standard and wide lenses aswell as fisheye. Even for portraits a 200mm would probably be enough and the larger sensor would allow for even shallower DoF effects.

I use a cropped sensor for macro but would rather use a bigger sensor for bigger subjects.