studio460 said:
I wouldn't agree with that at all. Few shooters need all three f/2.8 zooms.
Agreed, the point I was trying to make is to take advantage of a D700/800 you do need some quality glass
D400 vs D800
(79 posts) (26 voices)-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
Drdobs said:
The decision to go FX is tough,OK a bit of help
If you make, or hope to sell, very large exhibition prints, go for FX
Do you want the best possible quality go for FX
Do you often crop and enlarge a portion of the image, consider, FX
Do you use a 400mm or 600mm but nearly always use a small part of the center of the image, consider DX
Do you normally just look at your photos on a lap top, consider DX
Do look at the total budget INCLUDING lenses
if you are not, or are not aspiring to be a proffessional, consider DXPosted 2 years ago # -
-
sevencrossing said:
OK a bit of help
If you make, or hope to sell, very large exhibition prints, go for FX
Do you want the best possible quality go for FX
Do you often crop and enlarge a portion of the image, consider, FX
Do you use a 400mm or 600mm but nearly always use a small part of the center of the image, consider DX
Do you normally just look at your photos on a lap top, consider DX
Do look at the total budget INCLUDING lenses
if you are not, or are not aspiring to be a proffessional, consider DXThis is quite helpful, thank you for breaking this down... I'll give you my answers.
#1) Don't necessarily plan to do very large prints and convinced that if I needed to stretch my pixels, Photoshop does a nice job of doing that. 16Mp on either D7000 or D400 should be plenty sufficient.
#2) Of course I *want* the best quality, but the question is, is at what level of quality improvement am I getting at what cost... Do I spend an extra $5,000 (body+lenses) to get a 5% increase in quality, or is it more like spending an extra $3,000 for a 25% increase in quality? The answer to that is what I'm trying to determine.
#3) See #1, not a big issue for me.
#4) Don't shoot at those lengths and could frankly never afford it. I won't be on the sidelines of a major sporting event and not much of a nature photographer.
#5) I look at my photos on a pair of 24" monitors and then also look at them on my iPhone and facebook.. :)
#6) I am trying to take FX lens cost into consideration, and also noting that if I want quality, lenses are key regardless of format. I presume the 24-70 2.8 or the 70-200 2.8 are great on either DX/FX... Good lenses will be had regardless of the format...
#7) I am a bit of an aspring professional photographer. Frankly, I'd like photography to pay for the hobby.. Back to that question, if I go FX does that 'enable' me the ability to shoot professionaly? If I go DX does it not?
Jon
Posted 2 years ago # -
As already mentioned, I have not used a D7000 and needles say nor or a D400 or D800
but I found an order of magnitude difference when changing form a D90 to a D700
(I am comparing a 24- 120 f4 VRII with the D700 and a 20-200 VRII with the D90)For some unknown reason, the camera you use does affect your photography and I am not talking about IQ. The D700 just "feels" nice, it "feels" professional. That said, I know a full time wedding photographer who uses a D90. He says his clients would not pay any more if he used a D700 so he would make less money
IMHO the 70-120 would be wasted on a DX but that just my opinion
One thing about becoming a professional , a Nikon rep assured me a D3s with a big lens is the best press pass you get ;)
My advice, go for the "feel good factor". Stick with the D90 and waite for the D800 (assuming we ever get one )
Posted 2 years ago # -
Drdobs said:
#7) I am a bit of an aspring professional photographer. Frankly, I'd like photography to pay for the hobby.. Back to that question, if I go FX does that 'enable' me the ability to shoot professionaly? If I go DX does it not?Jon, what do you think most Nikon pros shot before the D3 was announced? Hint: it wasn't FX. ;-)
Shooting DX and being a pro are not mutually exclusive, and shooting FX doesn't make you a pro. I like sevencrossing's point about the D3s, though. And my D7000 passes the feel good test. It is one solid machine even if smaller than the DXXX bodies (not always a bad thing).
I think the real question you should ask is this: "In what way do I feel limited by my gear right now?" If that question doesn't have obvious, specific answers then you're better off spending your money elsewhere or saving it until you know where best to invest it (and it may not be in a camera body or lenses).
Posted 2 years ago # -
Your points and opinions are truly appreciated.. Despite my anxiousness to buy new gear in an attempt to "improve" my photography, I think I will exercise discipline and push my photography to the point where I can justify my D90's limitations with my work before I step up and upgrade... And who knows, maybe by then I will be able to buy a D4! :)
Thank you!
Posted 2 years ago # -
I cant wait to see your first d4 capture=)
Posted 2 years ago # -
kyoshinikon said:
I just tried out the 14-24mm f2.8 at samys on my D90 (I know but i dont own a ff and wanted to see its effect on a dx body)Try the 10-24mm on the D90; this is a better choice for much less money unless you are planning on going full frame in the near future. What Samys do you go to?
Posted 2 years ago # -
For those of you truly waiting to buy the D800 - Would you be a bit unhappy if Nikon decided to not put a pop-up flash on this camera as has been rumored? I'm asking because I might eventually want to move to FF and realizing that pop-up flashes aren't the best it still gives you something to work with when needed.
Posted 2 years ago # -
The main problem with the lack of in-camera flash is that then you have to buy something that can do CLS commander mode if you like to use that. Other than that, it's useful for fill if you set -2EV flash compensation.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Rx4Photo said:
For those of you truly waiting to buy the D800 - Would you be a bit unhappy if Nikon decided to not put a pop-up flash on this camera as has been rumored? I'm asking because I might eventually want to move to FF and realizing that pop-up flashes aren't the best it still gives you something to work with when needed.I dunno, for me that is a complete non-issue. The reality is that if I spend $3000 - $4000 on a body, I should be using a real flash anyway.. That's just me...
Posted 2 years ago # -
I don't think I have ever used the pop up flash
for CLS i now use the Nikon pocket wizardPosted 2 years ago # -
-
Drdobs said:
are you referring to the MiniTTL 1 or FlexTT5?Yes Both
The main problem is having more "boxes" and even more switches plus another 3 or 4 batteries to check
but it does not matter if the flash is hidden inside a soft box, behind the subject, behind the camera or in a different room. IT FIRES
My big wish for next generation of CSL will be a radio rather than IR connection
Posted 2 years ago # -
Ok yes, I was thinking the same... it is such a pain in the butt to have more things to have to keep track of during shoots, etc. If flashes and cameras had this technology built in, oh my goodness.. that would be great!
Jon
Posted 2 years ago # -
I've gotten "suggestions" that this thread has nothing to do with the D400 or D800. Let's get back to discussing potential specs of the D400 versus D800. Otherwise I'll just rename this thread as another general FX versus DX thread for future searches.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Henry Nikon Fan said:
Try the 10-24mm on the D90; this is a better choice for much less money unless you are planning on going full frame in the near future. What Samys do you go to?The One on fairfax. I already tried the 10-24mm and not only was disappointed in its sharpness and fringing but in its build and slow f-stop. I plan to go Fx when I can and all of my lenses are fx (excluding the crummy 18-70mm and the specialized 10.5mm). I also shoot tons of film still so it is fine with me.
Back on topic I assume the D400 will have the same sensor as the D7000 just in the body of a D300 with a Liveview switch. I assume both it and the d4 will have more cross type sensors and a much wider AF system. also Im guessing the D4 to be either 18 or 24mpx judging by the last 2 body conflicts...
Posted 2 years ago # -
Can we assume full weathersealing on the D400 as well as faster burst shooting rate? I would think using the D7000 sensor would be just fine, but does that then mean it won't have any better ISO performance than the D7000 or do you think they could eek out another stop of low noise performance in the more 'professional' oriented D400?
Posted 2 years ago # -
what are the chances of getting neither ?
e.g if you a posumer the best you are going to get is a D7000
if you are a professional its straight up to a D4
I think we may get a D400 but im not sure about the D800
Now might just be a good time to buy a D700Posted 2 years ago # -
So you didn't go far?
Why would there not be a D800? The only reason I can think of is if the D400/500 is fullframe and it actually replaces the D700. In which case something else (D9000?) replaces the D300.
Posted 2 years ago # -
NikoDoby said:
Why would there not be a D800?Just a suggestion frm a Nikon rep ,that Nikon want to reduce their range. If we got all the improvements everyone wants in the D800 would anyone buy a D4
The D400 would have the advantage of size and would temp buyers who have a range of DX lens
The D700 was great for people who switched to digital from film, did not want video and already had FX lenses but that market may have died
Posted 2 years ago # -
@ sevencrossing: Nikon has 3 FX bodies, all in different segments, D700 lighter, D3s for more pro-FX and low-light and D3x for studio etc.
Why should they downsize to just one FX which would't suit anyone just right? Main competitor, C, isn't exactly holding back on new bodies either.....
No, I'm quite sure they will continue with 3 differntly spec FX or maybe later on 2 FX and one MX (replacing the "D3x").
Futheron I'm sure the D800 will be presented in March or April.
So my advice is to put D700 purchases on ice and wait for the D800.Posted 2 years ago # -
Sevencrossing you honestly believe there is no market for a D700 replacement?!
According to your logic, why did Nikon make a D700 if it took sales away from the D3 AND D300?
Posted 2 years ago # -
I don't think Nikon mind too much if a D700 sale replaces a D300 sale. More upfront money and the requirement for more expensive glass in the long term.
I'm not even sure that the D700 took away too many sales from the D3. Perhaps professionals who took a D700 as a second body instead of a second D3. But I'm not sure that many amateurs would purchase a D3 if no D700 existed. A D700X would probably have had much more of an impact on D3X sales which is why it never appeared.
But one thing you're missing ... the D700 (and a subsequent D800) does take away production capacity from the D3 and subsequent D4. And Nikon needs to balance margins against volume to see which makes more sense to them.
I personally don't see a D800 anytime soon unless it is little more than a D700s ... which would be something on an anti-climax. A D4 (FX) \ D400 (DX) combo before a D800 (mini D4) would make more sense to me.
Posted 2 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
