Waited for prices to come down and I've changed my mind since this last post. More or less decided to go with the 5D Mark III now. I've seen lots of D800 video footage with noise creeping in from as low as 2500ISO. Don't fancy constantly having to deal with that in post. A touch of sharpening of Mark III footage will be easier and quicker and I can now get it for £2399 locally. Also need a truly quiet shutter. Sad to miss that Nikon picture quality but Nikon won't cater for all-rounders in the smaller body.

I think sevencrossings is giving very good advice!

But the DX advantage is NOT just cost. I have just calculated what adding a D800 and the 24-120 VR Nikkor would be for me right now. About $4,200. The D7000, D300, D90 I am using all work quite well. The D700 was SOMEWHAT better in low light. I sold the D700 as I really needed video also. The BIGGEST advantage of DX over FX is weight in the field. If you were working (using gear that weighs more than camera gear) the addition of yet a BIGGER camera to do documentary shots really is not justified.

In my mind if you are using FX pro gear, photographing is ALL you better be doing. Which to me means you'd better be a photo PRO or you are just a tourist. I do not go places as a tourist. Nikon is taking a huge gamble by leaving such a hole in their DX lineup to push FX all this much. And this is from someone who used very large format cameras in the field for years. I am not going back there. FX does not have such a clear advantage over DX. MOST people taking photos are doing it with much smaller sensor cameras than DX DSLR. IF I WERE NIKON I damn sure would be paying attention to that fact!!

msmoto said:
Another new member, leinadbc,"...............

I have a little money to spend................."

the very big advantage of Dx (D7000) over FX ( D700) is cost

so keep the D7000

I am certainly an advocate of the new 85mm f/1.8G. One of the best bangs for the bucks Nikon has to offer.

As to going from a D7000 to a D700...this is almost a sideways shift. The problem comes in the enormous cash outlay for all the glass...I think instead I might get either the 85mm or possibly the 105mm or 135mm f/2.0 as this would be good for concerts and the local scene. The ISO is the same for the D700 and D7000 so the advantage of the crop sensor is one can use a 135mm f/2 on the D7000 and have the same image size as the 200mm f/2.0 on the D700....only a savings of about $4600!

But if you have that kind of money, well, it just keeps going on and on and on.....

Keep your D7000, grab some new glass, and show us some photos on PAD...

In reply to leinadbc...

I wouldn't say that any camera is going to give "better" pictures but from a technical image standpoint, it really depends on the look you want with the photos.

The D700 has the bigger sensor being full frame so you'll have the advantage (or disadvantage depending on how you look at it) of a narrower depth of field when shooting wide open at 1.8. Honestly from a technical standpoint, I think that's the only advantage you're going to gain from the D700 over the D7000 as far as what the final image may look like.

If you're doing mostly outdoor or studio controlled shots, I'd just suggest buying the 85mm 1.8 for the D7000. The older 85mm 1.8D is my primary portrait lens right now on a D7000 and it's excellent. I've heard nothing but good things about the G version as well so you can't go wrong.

If you do a lot of indoor shots in random environments then the D700's ISO performance may benefit you but you already have a great camera in your hands.

My two cents... :)

Another new member, leinadbc, is asking

"Hello, I'm currently using a nikon d7000 with a 50mm 1.4 and use it for portraits mostly, I also have a 80-200 2.8 that I like to use for concerts but is too heavy for doing everyday portraits, I have a little money to spend so I was wondering if a D700 with a 85mm 1.8 would give me better pictues than my D7000 with the 50mm, I also like having the ability to take pictures in lowlight situations like local bars, thanks for your advices :)"

@sevencrossing +1 I think if one is spending £3000 on a camera, the idea of the D800 is really the way to go, with one exception. The issue of shooting motorsports, and the need for a long lens, big ISO, one may want to go currently with the D7000 and such as the 70-200 w/ converter, and a shorter lens as well. But, the "gold ring" Nikkors, and a D800 is the quality way to go. And as pointed out, the D600 does not have a track record as yet and when it arrives is unknown.

crude said:
How about this guys,
i wait for the d600, and get the 24-70 f2.8 (this should be around the £3000 mark
keep what i have and use it with the d600 in dx mode until i have enough to get a fx prime and 70-200

crude

Re the 600 I cannot comment on a camera that does not exist and I have not used

But I had to wait 2 years from the time the D800 was first rumored to actually getting one

The 18-200 f3.5-5.6 would be waste on a Fx body

If you like this lens but are concerned about low light situations just get a D7000

and save £2000

The big advantage of DX is cost with the D7000 you get a lot of bangs for your bucks

The big advantage of the D800 is quality, that cannot be equalled, but it come at a price and you need one of Nikon's Gold ring lens

The only person in the world, who not happy with his D800, is Ren Crockwell

Get the D800 and the 24 -120 or the 24 70 and be amazed at the quality of your photographs wait for the D600 you wish you had bought the 800 today

PS with inflation you might not even be able to afford a 600 when if /it comes out

mark wilkins said:
I don't know, I can't recommend that someone get a 24-120 in good conscience except for travel. Between vignetting, geometric aberrations that vary at different focal lengths, softness at the corners, and the other issues that go with such a wide zoom range, it's just trying to be too many things, plus since low light performance is the OP's concern, it's likely to be slower than he'll need.

Mark, have you tried the 24-120 ?

vignetting,and geometric distortion can easily and automatically corrected in post production

The D800 works fine at ISO 3200 and with VR11 you can use a fairly low shutter speeds of 4 is fine in nearly all situations

Yes it may be it is a tad soft at the corners, but if that is critical, a prime lens such as the 105 macro can be added later. The 24-120 it will certainly be a lot sharper than the 18-200 that crude is using at the moment

if it going to just on lens, the 24-120 is Nikon's best allrounder

If you are going to shoot mostly clubs and bars I would suggest that you factor in a good flash unit as well.
What ever lens you get should have VR.

Wataru said:
D800, 50 1.4G, 85 1.8G. Or d800 and 85 1.4G.

Not for £3000 he can't!

D800, 50 1.4G, 85 1.8G. Or d800 and 85 1.4G, and buy other lenses later. I've got a lot of lenses, but the 50 and the 85 get used most, more than the zooms. Since you already have a 35, which is wide on an FX body, you should take a close look at primes.

The 85 1.4 is amazing, but if you can't afford it now, look at the 105 2.8 micro VR.

crude said:
How about this guys,
i wait for the d600, and get the 24-70 f2.8 (this should be around the £3000 mark
keep what i have and use it with the d600 in dx mode until i have enough to get a fx prime and 70-200

crude

That would be where my £3000 would go. We obviously don't know what the D600 is going to be like, but I'd definitely wait and find out if I was jumping in to the FF market for the first time with your budget. If you buy the 24-70 you'll never regret it IMO.

I don't know, I can't recommend that someone get a 24-120 in good conscience except for travel. Between vignetting, geometric aberrations that vary at different focal lengths, softness at the corners, and the other issues that go with such a wide zoom range, it's just trying to be too many things, plus since low light performance is the OP's concern, it's likely to be slower than he'll need.

crude said:
How about this guys,
i wait for the d600, and get the 24-70 f2.8 (this should be around the £3000 mark
keep what i have and use it with the d600 in dx mode until i have enough to get a fx prime and 70-200

crude

OK, D600 is £1150, but instead of the 24-70mm f/2.8, get the 24-120mm adds only £800, then an 85mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.4 adds another £300 or so, and for £2250 a great set of lenses and body....

How about this guys,
i wait for the d600, and get the 24-70 f2.8 (this should be around the £3000 mark
keep what i have and use it with the d600 in dx mode until i have enough to get a fx prime and 70-200

crude

tcole1983 said:
Hmmm, you must be a super-slick lens swapper if you can do it quicker than grabbing a second camera seven... :-)

Not at all :) For capturing "the decisive moment" one camera, one lens ( 24-120 f4)

spraynpray said:
Hmmm, you must be a super-slick lens swapper if you can do it quicker than grabbing a second camera seven... :-)

This...
I think I would be more comfortable with multiple bodies. Each with a different lens. If I were going to do it with what I have I would shoot my 17-55 F2.8 and my 105 F2.8 on separate bodies. I have even thought about this recently with the D5100 being very cheap.

sevencrossing said:
Sorry to disagree Spray., On the rare occasions I use two cameras, that "Cartier-Bresson moment" always seems to occur when I am changing cameras

Hmmm, you must be a super-slick lens swapper if you can do it quicker than grabbing a second camera seven... :-)

spraynpray said:
IMHO you need TWO bodies with two different lenses if you are shooting moments as opposed to poses.

Sorry to disagree Spray., On the rare occasions I use two cameras, that "Cartier-Bresson moment" always seems to occur when I am changing cameras

IMHO you need TWO bodies with two different lenses if you are shooting moments as opposed to poses. With your budget perhaps buy used D5100's, 24-70 f2.8 and the 14-24 2.8 f2.8 and you are sorted. The bodies are DX but are cheap enough that if you decide you really need FX later it isn't the end of the world.

I'd go for:

D3200 (£530)
14-24/2.8 (£1300)
24-70/2.8 (£1200)

(Pricing is from amazon.co.uk)

First rate lenses that will still be first rate in 10 years or when you get an FX body, and a basic camera that will do everything you need for almost anything a serious amateur would care to do (plus lots of nice features not even conceived of when your D60 came out.)

Edit: yes, I mean skip the FX for now. Better lenses will do a lot more for your photography, and the D3200 will be a big step up from the D60 in image quality. Note that you'll get very solid ISO 6400 performance from the D3200, which will address the low light issue nicely, your 35mm lens will still be an excellent fast normal lens, and the extra stop or so on the pro zooms will be a huge help for both AF performance in low light and pushing farther into darker environments. Finally for a LONG lens you can use your current zoom, though it's very rare I'd go past 70mm on DX for the photography you're doing, including portraiture. If you need a long lens, the 70-200/2.8 is an option later on.

Here are the reasons to go for a full-frame sensor:

Shallower depth of field effects (though this is very subtle coming from a DX sensor)
Access to very wide angle lenses (though current lenses are much wider than they were a few years ago due to DX popularity)
Better extreme low light performance (though going D60 -> D3200 and going for 2.8 zooms will get you most of this advantage too.)
Pro features like older lens compatibility. (which are mostly just nice to have and not going to be make or break for you.)

I personally went for a full-frame camera only after having pretty much all the lenses I wanted, and mainly because my lens choices were mostly made when I was shooting film. Plus, I love wide angle photography and my widest lens was a 17-35/2.8 zoom. I could have gone for the 14-24/2.8 to address that, but given the whole picture it made sense to go for a D800 instead, particularly since almost all my lenses were from before AF-S became common.

TL;DR version: FX sensors are great, but top end lenses and an inexpensive modern DX body will get you farther for less money.

No one suggesting holding off for a while and seeing how the D600 pans out?

@crude - I ordered my D4 and then got an offer for my D3S that I could not pass up, so I sold it. I thought the D4 would arrive quickly and it didn't. The body I planned to use while waiting left me frustrated (I wanted higher frame rates) so I went looking for the best value FX body I could find. I ended up getting a almost new, used D3.

I'd consider the D3 and go with tcole1983's lens suggestion:
D3
24-120 F4
85 F1.8G
28 F1.8G

Although msmoto's idea of a D3 and 24-70 has merit as well... it all depends on your usage.

Disclosure: My D3 with under 10k clicks is up for sale. PM me if interested.

msmoto said:
$4700 USD.... D800 plus 24-120mm f/4.0 VR Nikkor. .

I am assuming crude is not VAT registered so D800 plus 24-120mm = £3,428 including VAT

but crude, if you can afford the extra £428 get the D800