A Full Frame Dilemma! « Nikon Rumors Forum

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

A Full Frame Dilemma!

(22 posts) (14 voices)

Tags:

No tags yet.

zak

junior member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 5
offline

Hey everybody! This is my first post on this forum after spending quite some time reading everything I could.

A little about myself, I'm a 23 year old university student and my experience with cameras is limited. Other than an entry level Canon DSLR and a P&S I haven't done much photography at all. Recently I spent some time shooting with a Nikon D700 and it was absolutely incredible. I love taking GOOD pictures but have always felt that it was something best left to the pros with their proper equipment and years of experience. I never felt that I was doing anything justice when I took a snapshot with my POS camera.

Well, it turns out that it's not as difficult as I thought and now I would like to invest in a proper camera setup.

My main goal is to photograph sports events, and other types of general photography.

Initially I was thinking I'd go with the D300/D300s and a good set of DX lenses... Then I got to thinking, do I really want to invest in DX lenses?

Looking at the difference in prices I realized that I could easily pick up a D700 with a lens or two (thinking maybe a 24-70mm 2.8 to start). My only problem is that I'm pretty sure we're going to see a replacement for the D700 in the next few months. Is it better that I wait until a possible announcement?

My other consideration is to go all out and just buy a D3s. I'm pretty sure that if we see a D700s then it's going to be similar to a D3s but not better otherwise Nikon is going to piss off a lot of people. If we see a D700x or similar then it probably won't be as good in low light or for action shots as the D3s.

Thanks in advance for your help!

Posted 3 years ago #
tai

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 315
offline

I wouldn't go straight for a D700 or D3s. I'd start with a D90. If you're worried about building a worthless lens collection, then simply buy full frame lenses to use with it. With the money you save by buying a D90, you'll have a much better start on your lens collection, and glass means everything.

Posted 3 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

I'd get a D90 and a 70-200 2.8 if you're looking to shoot sports. Well, I guess I should ask what kind of sports since, say, volleyball and baseball have different requirements. If it's one where you're going to be away from the action, you'll probably want a longer lens than the 24-70 even on a DX sensor.

Besides, I have a feeling the 24-70 2.8 is going to be updated this year along with the D700. They put VR in the just-announced 16-35 f/4, so it seems like a cert that they'll put it in the 24-70 soon. Maybe this is just me being hopeful, though, since I'd order one the day they announce it. I was going to wait for the D700 replacement, but now I'm thinking I'm going to invest in lenses and keep my D90. It's a really great camera.

Posted 3 years ago #
zak

junior member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 5
offline

Thanks for the replies so far!

Mainly I shoot motorsports and football. I was planning on getting the 70-200 VR2 as my second lens then save up or rent the 300mm 2.8 when I need it.

I might just end up getting a cheaper body for the time being, although my birthday IS coming up so that opens up some options :P

Posted 3 years ago #
Meinrad

preferred member
Joined: Nov '09
Posts: 137
offline

With more than 40 years of film experience, I jumped into the digital age half a year ago with both feet. I got myself a D700 plus lenses from 14mm through to 300mm.
It's been a great experience, and I took some shots that would have been absolutely impossible with my previous gear (mostly in next to no light), but I do have a word of warning: FX gear is heavy. And I mean heavy!! That 14-24mm zoom is a heavenly lens, but it helps me lose weight - just by lugging it around.
If you go for DX, you will be closer to film gear - weight-wise.

Posted 3 years ago #
jbl

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 266
offline

Like some said, get a used D90 body and start with the great lenses... I'd start with the 70-200 f/2.8 + 50mm f/1.4.. that would cover the long end for both DX and later FX so you don't have to sell your lenses..

Then you could get the new 16-35.. on DX its not that wide but once your upgrade to FX you'll be set.. if you think the 16-35 isn't pro enough (because it's not) you could get the big 14-24.... that's the best wide angle there is...

That would give you a good set to start with and ready to upgrade to FX as soon as you're ready... that means you could wait for the D700s or D700x or D900 or whatever.. Sell back the used D90 (you'll lose like what? 200$ or less?) and there you'll have the dream kit.

Posted 3 years ago #
Newfie

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 186
offline

First off, I haven’t met many university students with your discretionary income. A D700 or D3s plus any pro level 2.8 lens is a big investment. The best philosophy is but the best you can afford. Personally I’d have a go at the D300s, it’s close in functionality to the D3s and virtually identical to the D700. For sports I would definitely get the 70-200 2.8 + the 1.7X tele-converter. Worse case scenario, you don’t stick with photography and you are out less than $5K (a lot less actually when you consider that you can sell it all for a good price). Best case…you love it and move to pro level gear simply by buying a new body.

Posted 3 years ago #
zak

junior member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 5
offline

Yeah, I might take the advice given here and buy either a D90 or D300s. I'd probably just end up keeping them long run and use them as a second light weight body for when I'm cycling and weight's an issue.

The D300s seems like a better option even with the higher price, the increased FPS would be really nice plus I can use the MB-D10 battery grip for more shots.

Posted 3 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

zak said:
The D300s seems like a better option even with the higher price, the increased FPS would be really nice plus I can use the MB-D10 battery grip for more shots.

Battery life really isn't a problem with the D90 or the D300s even without a grip. I've shot 8-hour events (1000-1200 shots) on one charge with a D300 and with a D90—both without a grip.

FPS could be an issue for sports, and one I had forgotten about when I replied. 4.5 on the D90 is okay, but after using the D300 and grip (8fps) it really does seem slow. I think the best thing would be to try both bodies out that you're considering—either at a shop or, better, from a friend so you can use it in something closer to real life shooting.

edit: one more thing to consider is that the D300s would give you better peace of mind in bad weather if you were shooting sports. The D90 isn't weather sealed like the D300s is.

Posted 3 years ago #
kyoshinikon

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 1,200
offline

jonnyapple said:

edit: one more thing to consider is that the D300s would give you better peace of mind in bad weather if you were shooting sports. The D90 isn't weather sealed like the D300s is.

Although I don't recommend it I have dragged my D90 into the rain many times and have never had a problem. I think the D90 or D700 is the better buy.

Posted 3 years ago #
smarterchild

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 678
offline

I didnt think i was going to get into photography farther more then getting my D90, but after using that camera, i felt for what i needed i would need a full frame. If you want a d700, just look for a factory demo D3 on ebay. itd be about the same cost of a d700 and battery pack. If you think that you will use this camera for years to come and plan on ultilizing its functions then go for the full frame. You wont be disappointed, i wont ever go back to Dx format unless neeeded the extra reach. Look into the 24-70 and 70-200 with the 1.4 tele extender. 50mm 1.4g is amazing along with it

Posted 3 years ago #
SquamishPhoto

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,076
offline

It sounds to me that money is not a huge issue for you, so I would highly recommend the D700 over the D300s. I have both(300s is for video/wildlife/backup) and the difference between them is significant and worth the extra $1000. Especially considering that you're planning on keeping the setup for the foreseeable future.

Posted 3 years ago #
zak

junior member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 5
offline

SquamishPhoto said:
It sounds to me that money is not a huge issue for you, so I would highly recommend the D700 over the D300s. I have both(300s is for video/wildlife/backup) and the difference between them is significant and worth the extra $1000. Especially considering that you're planning on keeping the setup for the foreseeable future.

This is true... I'm just not into wasting cash if I can help it. If they update the D700 in the next few months and I decide to sell my used D700 I'm wondering what I can expect to get for it.

Posted 3 years ago #
PB PM

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 2,217
offline

If you want to have the latest and greatest, then wait, don't buy now.

Posted 3 years ago #
SquamishPhoto

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,076
offline

If they replace the D700 with a 24mp camera then its not going to be in the same $2500 price range of the D700 and unless you are blowing things up bigger than your wall I can't see any reason to wait around for it. Save the cash and buy some really expensive glass . Then wait a few years for Nikon to make something that renders the D3X as obsolete as the D2X became after the D300 and D3 were released. Considering that you can buy a D2X for the same price as a D90 I think its worth the patience. The D700 could be the last camera I ever own and I would be more than happy with it.

Posted 3 years ago #
zak

junior member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 5
offline

I'm less worried about it getting 24mp than I am it getting a D3s like upgrade! That's basically why I'm so tempted by the D3s, that camera is absolute gold!

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

Why do people think that a 24mp D700 replacement will cost more? The sensor is getting "old" already and so cheaper to manufacture. Sony offers the "same" sensor in a $1999USD model so why can't Nikon give us the same price as the current D700 with more megapixels? A totally new "one-of-a-kind" sensor 18 or 20mp would be more expensive but not the same 24mp found in so many other cameras already.

Posted 3 years ago #
SquamishPhoto

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,076
offline

I say that based entirely on the astronomically high price of the D3X. Im not saying it would be justified, just that its likely that it'll cost more.

Posted 3 years ago #
kanuck

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,405
offline

The D700 is a wonderful camera and I don't regret getting mine. However, I believe the D700 body will be upgraded before the D90 this year so maybe wait or pick up the D90. I also like the point JBL made which was buy good glass and skip out on the DX gear. They weigh a ton more but can be used on any Nikon body. Lots of older classics are great such as the 17-35 or 70-200 VR I. The 17-35 is supposed to be better on film bodies, but I have tried a few nice samples and liked them. Maybe look at a few primes? 50mm, 28, 35, 85, 105, 135 etc?

Being fairly new, you should go slowly though until you find the focal lengths you use the most often. I found using a nice zoom to be useful for this. Shoot a lot and then check the data of your pics. You'll probably find a lot of shots in a particular range. For me it was always 18-52 DX crop(12-35FX). When I jumped to the D700 fullframe I bought a 28, 35, 50 and use them 70% of my shots now.

Posted 3 years ago #
Jeff H

member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 49
offline

Buying now is a great idea! Get the D700, use it for a month. And when the D700s / D800 / D900 comes out you can sell your old D700 to me for $1500.

Posted 3 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

Good luck with that, Jeff. ;-)

Posted 3 years ago #
ted2001

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 726
offline

I'd recommend the D90, 70-200/2.8 VRII and a 16-85. The D90 is inexpensive, the 70-200 is the world standard for sports (other than long lenses) and you have a decent general purpose lens in the 16-85. If you choose to get a full frame camera in the future, you can use the 70-200 with that (and tc if needed) and use the D90/16-85 as back-up second body. Even if you choose all FX in the future, the D90/16-85 package is either a nice small, light-weight option or a down payment on a loooong (300/2.8-500/4) lens.

Posted 3 years ago #