NikoDoby said:
That's true Pierre...if we were discussing which car is best for a race, but in this case the question was more like which car do I buy to take my kids to school, a Corolla or a Ferrari ;^)

OK my racing season starts this weekend so please excuse my analogies :^)

On the other hand, if I were taken to school in a Ferrari, that would probably make me the coolest kid for that day. I've actually seen some kids being driven to school in a Porsche 911 Turbo. Now that's pretty cool. :D

I guess if I had unlimited cash, I'd get the D3s, but also a D700 and D300s. Might as well have all options available. I haven't listed the D90, since I already have one.

That's kind of what I was thinking, Rob. Starting with a D3s isn't the most financially efficient way to go, but one of the first things in the OP was that money was basically unlimited. In that situation, it's hard to argue that it would somehow hurt your photography to have the D3s. It's probably what I would do.

Well, the OP got what they wanted, and if they have the money to burn, all the power to them. Heck, if I could afford a D3s, 24-70 and 70-200 VR, oh and throw in a 500mm F4 VR too, I'd buy them in a second. I say that without hesitation because I need fast shutter speeds in dim light, since most of my subjects are most active within a few hours of sunrise or sunset.

+1 ted
I will only add, that on trips to remote areas (i.e. china) You want to have Your camera and lenses literally glued to Your butt, so going light is a very reasonable idea. ted's kit gonna weight app 5lbs - and it's gonna fit in a nice, rather small kidney bag. I have to disagree that You will sacrifice on photo quality, hello? did d90 stopped taking pictures? I remember the first time I went to India, I had only my minolta 505si, lot's of velvia and provia slides and two kit lenses.... and they delivered (we are talking iso 100), on d90 You can safely go to iso 1600 - this + 35/1.8 makes Your camera a small brother of the Lord of Darkness.

I agree with keeping it light, but I hate not having the right focal length. One of the reasons I like DX (and my D90) is because with 3 lenses (10-24, 16-85 and 70-300VR) I have tremendous range with enough overlap to avoid changing lenses too frequently. I usually add a macro and either the 35/1.8 or 10.5/2.8 and still have a fairly light and portable kit. I have not shot with any of the FX bodies, but find the image quality of the D90 to be more than sufficient for my needs.

Ditto on weight, keep it light, or you are just going to hate it. Not to mention worrying about getting it stolen.

And I second what Niko said Nikon needs to introduce fullframe D90 or a D300.

or hey if you want the best quality you should shoot everything in RealRaw, I hear it's the bee's knees

Hmm that's a tough one Pierre. My experience has been the less you carry the better. Meaning two lenses tops. I'd definitely take the 24-70 but I'm not sure about the 70-200. I'd think I'd rather sacrifice distance for low light. I would take something like the 50mm 1.4 for the low light stuff.

As for camera body, I'd still take the D700 over the D90 since you mention you want top picture quality. So think about your choice in lenses in saving weight rather then camera body.

This would be so much easier to answer if Nikon had a full frame D90 with the D700's sensor in it! ;^)

I have the money to go for the D700 + AF-S 24-70mm f/2,8G and the 70-200 2.8 VR2 but while waiting for the D700 replacement, my reading here got me worried about the weight of such a set.

I am preparing a trip to China and plan to take the best landscape/buildings/peoples/no-flash-museums pictures I can and do lots of walking, would a D90 with proper lenses kit be such a weight advantage to justify taking a hit on picture quality? What would be that kit and what should I expect as the weight/quality differential?

I know this is a bit funny to ask and there are so many variables but again, I keep having top picture quality in mind, so light but lousy would surely not make me happy (I know, poster kind of answerd but still...).

It's not quite as fun as spontaneous human combustion. Now THAT'S living on the edge mofo! ;^)

I bike and use the subway Niko. I am humble like that.

Don't know Niko, sounds like a great feature. Is it new? I like living on the edge, spontaneous acceleration sounds pretty fun. Imagine getting out of the speeding ticket.

What? You can't feel good roll'n in a Toyota Poster? Oh, Unintentional Sudden Acceleration. That's right, not good then ;^)

You would probably be good with the D90 and these lenses (27-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8). Anyway, Berry I like how you roll. Wish I could roll like that too. Must feel good.

That's true Pierre...if we were discussing which car is best for a race, but in this case the question was more like which car do I buy to take my kids to school, a Corolla or a Ferrari ;^)

OK my racing season starts this weekend so please excuse my analogies :^)

Just for the sake of arguing or make a point with more metaphors, a professional racer can surely get more out of a Ferrari then most of us could, and that same racer most likely would win over most of us with a Corolla even if we were driving Ferraris. That being said, most of us would do better racing with a Ferrari then with a Corolla.

Does that make any sense?

Pierre

On the other hand Berry, buying "high quality" surgical instruments doesn't make you a surgeon. Or working with "expensive" brushes/canvas doesn't make you da Vinci. But anyway good luck with your D3S and have fun taking snap shots of your family :^) Post some of your photos in our flickr group or in the photo-a-day section.

To the point,...if I sell a surgeon "Lower Quality" surgical instruments,...his/her work will not be as precise. Davinci did not work with "cheap" brushes/canvas. My point is I want to purchase the best I can get. I would hate to buy a D40 then wish I would have purchased a D3S/X. Just my thoughts when I started the post.

I have listened to what you all have said and THANK YOU very much for your good advice. I ordered the D3S.

lol, that might be going a little far, but point well made poster. I wish I'd started with a D40. My sister has one, and it is such a fun little camera.

I agree with everybody here.

Get a D40.

Paul I totally agree with You, the thing is that I've seen a lot of users, who not knowing anything about photography wanted to get the newest/most expensive gear only because they though that it will make their pictures look more professional, I've also seen ppl using D3 with kit lenses from d40, c-z they spend all they money on body and didn't have enough cash to get a good lens. I'm not saying this is the case over here, it's just boils my blood when I see a sentence that states that a better camera will get you better pictures.

This began as a discussion of cameras. Now it is a discussion of words. Semantics. A good photograph (always a subjective opinion) will benefit if it has more pixels. That is basic mathematics. However, more pixels will not make a less than good phortograph better. The quality of the shot begins with composition, lighting, choice of subect, etc. If these all line up, then more pixels will improve the image. However, beginining with the notion that more pixels will improve an image before over other variables is akin to suggesting that, for example, a coat of paint will beautify a house to the point that its design features can be ignored. Shiney paint won't = a kitchen that is in better proximity to the dining room, or give you an extra bedroom. For those of you not minded in metaphores, in this example, shiney paint represents pixels in the photograph.

Another example comes to mind when I think of cycling (bicycling - the ones with the pedals). A light bike will not make an ordinary rider significantly faster. But a very fast rider will benefit from a very light bike. Just like: An ordinary photograph will not be improved by more pixels, but a very good photograph will be.

I can't help but notice that it is usually the slower, more overweight bicycle riders who are more interested in the lightest bicycles.

Cheeers, Paul.

AaronFoto said:
Actually, if you have money to burn, a bigger better camera alone will get you BETTER pictures... not a guarantee for good pictures though.

But I would spend the money on the glass. The D3S isn't the greatest value at this point (but a D700S will be, hopefully).

sorry Aaron but that's a bullshit, if You have no experience with shooting even the best, biggest and most expensive camera will not do the job.

Bingo, the camera, if you know how to use it, will help you be a better photographer, but not make you one. I could take good pictures with a 4MP point and shoot, but having the D300 allows me to take higher quality, good photos.

That's like saying buying a Ferrari Enzo makes you a better driver. I don't think so.

Actually, if you have money to burn, a bigger better camera alone will get you BETTER pictures... not a guarantee for good pictures though.

But I would spend the money on the glass. The D3S isn't the greatest value at this point (but a D700S will be, hopefully).