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.
What do you recomend? D3X or D3S ??
(38 posts) (17 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
What? You can't feel good roll'n in a Toyota Poster? Oh, Unintentional Sudden Acceleration. That's right, not good then ;^)
Posted 3 years ago # -
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.
Posted 3 years ago # -
It's not quite as fun as spontaneous human combustion. Now THAT'S living on the edge mofo! ;^)
Posted 3 years ago # -
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...).
Posted 3 years ago # -
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! ;^)
Posted 3 years ago # -
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
Posted 3 years ago # -
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.
Posted 3 years ago # -
+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.Posted 3 years ago # -
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.
Posted 3 years ago # -
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.
Posted 3 years ago # -
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.
Posted 3 years ago # -
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
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
