expert advice needed! (body upgrade)

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

expert advice needed! (body upgrade)

(61 posts) (17 voices)

Tags:

12 3 Next »

HankThePigeon

new member
Joined: Feb '12
Posts: 3
offline

Hello all! I'm new here, and I have come in search of some much needed expert advice.

I've been shooting a D40 for about 3 years now and it's served me well, but I'm looking to upgrade. I'm having struggles deciding between a D700 or a D7k. I know the benefits of FX, as I mostly shoot natural light portraits with a shallow depth of field. I also know that FX means expensive glass, and CF cards.

All of my current lenses are DX, except my 50mm 1.4 AI-S
I've always been told to invest in glass because camera bodies are frequently replaced. But it seems to me like FX bodies last and the price of a used D700 looks good right now.
So thats where I'm struggling. One part of me feels like I should make the most of my investment and skip right to FX. But the other part of me says continue with a DX body and continue to invest in FX glass, (i.e - 85mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4)

Any advice or feedback would be greatly appreciated! I'm a little lost and feeling discouraged at this point.

Posted 1 year ago #
zlik

senior member
Joined: Dec '11
Posts: 88
offline

What DX lenses have you got? I wouldn't recommend switching to FX if you don't have FX glass. Get the D7000, slowly upgrade your lenses to FX, and when you're ready, get a FX body. The difference between the D7000 and the D40 is huge, you won't be disapointed.

Now if you have lots of cash, go buy the D700 + FX glass ;)

Posted 1 year ago #
sevencrossing

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 1,265
offline

As Zlik say the difference between the D40 and and the D7000 is enormous

Unless you are a full time professional, make very prints or need the other feature found on a D700. The D7000 is going to be better value for money

Unless you are a professional, photography should not be about investment, it should be about fun

Posted 1 year ago #
msmoto

big gun cougar
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 2,736
offline

HankThePigeon said:
Hello all! I'm new here, and I have come in search of some much needed expert advice.

Any advice or feedback would be greatly appreciated! I'm a little lost and feeling discouraged at this point.

OK, I have shot DX for years on a D200, D90. In the past year I have accumulated FX lenses, in preparation for a new D4 body. If you are shooting a D40, I am assuming you may wish to maintain some control on the cost factor.

Well, my accumulation of FX lenses are an enormous investment. All, totally unnecessary. Check out the Photo-A-Day for "msmoto" and you will see every photo on the post is done with the DX format. Go to Flicker by clicking on one of my photos and looking at the results. Look at all the fantastic work on the Photo-A-Day by others using DX format. If you really want to invest the $10,000-20,000 for a nice FX set up, go for it. But you might find, if you are not a professional, the quality from DX is phenomenal and the difference in DX and FX is only seen under very close scrutiny.

Hope this is useful.

Posted 1 year ago #
spraynpray

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,514
offline

and you may want to visit dofmaster dot com to get the real heads up on depth of field differences, it isn't like you think!

Posted 1 year ago #
enigmeow

member
Joined: Dec '11
Posts: 43
offline

I have to +1 everybody here so far.

I've spent two years trying to talk my father out of a FX camera (I shoot with a D700, have a D4 on order, and regularly print poster sizes of my pictures) but with him, it just has been a dream to own a "pro" canon camera.. The costs are huge for the glass.. The zoom issues are huge (you will be startled at the FX lens required to take a well composed picture of your subjects who might be 20 feet away from you).. depth of field issues.. AND, even if you solve all of these issues, the setup is so physically large that most people end up leaving most of it at home

The D7k is a amazing camera and can take amazing pictures with a total setup costing less then my 70-200mm lens. AND, its low light is great!

Posted 1 year ago #
jonnyapple

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

msmoto said:
...But you might find, if you are not a professional, the quality from DX is phenomenal and the difference in DX and FX is only seen under very close scrutiny.

I think you might find that even if you're a pro. ;-) Another vote for the D7000.

Posted 1 year ago #
HankThePigeon

new member
Joined: Feb '12
Posts: 3
offline

You guys rule, thanks for the quick responses!

My DX lenses are the 35mm 1.8, 18-200mm and the 85mm macro.
I guess I'd never truly given FX a thought until people pushed it, knowing I shoot natural light.

Photography is a hobby I really enjoy, and stressing over it takes all the fun out.

Thank you again for the help :] D7k it is.

Posted 1 year ago #
jonnyapple

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

Good luck, HankTP. I'm sure you're going to love it. The D40 is a great camera, but sensors have come a long way since then.

Consider the D5100 as well, which has the D7000 sensor but at a lower price and easier to find right now. If you can, try them out at your local store or something. You may not miss some of the D7000's advantages over the D5100 coming from a D40.

Posted 1 year ago #
msmoto

big gun cougar
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 2,736
offline

HankThePigeon said:
You guys rule, thanks for the quick responses!

My DX lenses are the 35mm 1.8, 18-200mm and the 85mm macro.
I guess I'd never truly given FX a thought until people pushed it, knowing I shoot natural light.

Photography is a hobby I really enjoy, and stressing over it takes all the fun out.

Thank you again for the help :] D7k it is.

I think you said it all in that we want to have fun, pro or not. Upgrading to one of the new bodies with a newer technology sensor will get you a long ways.

Posted 1 year ago #
sevencrossing

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 1,265
offline

enigme said:
I've spent two years trying to talk my father out of a FX camera (....) but with him, it just has been a dream to own a "pro" canon camera..

My dear Dad was the same
Only for him it was Leica IIIg
which was replaced with a Bolex H16
He never used the latter, as he could not afford the film
Thanks for bringing fond memories :)

Posted 1 year ago #
jonnyapple

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

I'm imagining what to do with your money, Hank (it's a character flaw of mine). Here are some ideas for the difference between a used D700 at $2000 and a D5100 at $750.

A nice tripod (maybe you have one)
SB-700 (no need to be a natural light snob every day—no offense)
Wireless remote (I have the phottix plato and it's nice)
A studio strobe setup (alien bees?) with a nice softbox
More lenses

Posted 1 year ago #
Henrik1963

member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 40
offline

The two best DX cameras right now: D7000 and D300s. But both of them are getting old and ready for upgrade.

D7000 has better iso performance and better DR at base iso. D7000 has 16 MP where D300s has 12. D300s is build like a tank and has better AF and higher frame rate. What is important to you?

D5100 is a cheaper version of the D7000. D90 is a cheaper version of the D300s.

All of these cameras will be better cameras than your D40 but in different ways and at a different price point.

D700 will be a better camera than all of the above.

Tell us a bit more about what it is you want out of your camera and we can give better advice.

Posted 1 year ago #
HankThePigeon

new member
Joined: Feb '12
Posts: 3
offline

Henrik1963 said:

Tell us a bit more about what it is you want out of your camera and we can give better advice.

Well, let's see. I volunteer some time at local animal shelter events, so I'd like a camera that performs well in low light. I shoot quite a lot of portraits so I'm not too concerned about AF...but with that being said I don't want the poor AF of sayyy, the 5dmkii :P

I guess I'd just like a camera that I can grow with, and learn inside and out like my D40. The poor thing has really been a champ.

And JonnyApple, I've been considering getting into studio work with artificial lighting! I have been a natural light snob for awhile and it's beginning to hold me back.

Thanks again for all the feedback, you guys are really a helpful bunch!

Posted 1 year ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

Considering how long it seems you hold onto your equipment and your desire to grow, I say go for the D7000. It is 100x more than you had, and probably more than you will know what to do with it. That together along with the build quality, it would allow you to learn any aspect of photography you choose (even video if you want), and will last you for many years.

Posted 1 year ago #
Danny Ocean

senior member
Joined: Nov '11
Posts: 57
offline

msmoto said:
OK, I have shot DX for years on a D200, D90. In the past year I have accumulated FX lenses, in preparation for a new D4 body. If you are shooting a D40, I am assuming you may wish to maintain some control on the cost factor.

Well, my accumulation of FX lenses are an enormous investment. All, totally unnecessary. Check out the Photo-A-Day for "msmoto" and you will see every photo on the post is done with the DX format. Go to Flicker by clicking on one of my photos and looking at the results. Look at all the fantastic work on the Photo-A-Day by others using DX format. If you really want to invest the $10,000-20,000 for a nice FX set up, go for it. But you might find, if you are not a professional, the quality from DX is phenomenal and the difference in DX and FX is only seen under very close scrutiny.

Hope this is useful.

You should advice donaldjose so he understands why a DX with a pro body has a market segment and shouldnt be forced to FX. :P

Posted 1 year ago #
Henrik1963

member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 40
offline

There is very little the D7000 can't do well. It is by far the best bet in DX right now - that is if you don't need fast AF. Don't get me wrong the AF is by no means bad on a D7000. The AF will be spot on. But kids and dogs - to name two common subjects - are moving fast - often faster than AF on a consumer camera can track.

Only real downside to being in the market for a D7000 right now: They are in very limited supply i.e. no good deals. If you can wait till Nikon get their production up and running you will get better deals.

All the best

Posted 1 year ago #
kyoshinikon

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

I just shot a Pro basketball came and have got that. Its side to side AF is great but it's 3d tracking sucks compared to the D300s

Posted 1 year ago #
msmoto

big gun cougar
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 2,736
offline

OK, this is only 600 Px wide, taken with a D200

BUT, click on it and go to Flicker and it is still looking like a D3s, at least at this size... well, maybe not quite like a D3s, but close

Posted 1 year ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

D300 with a Tokina 300mm F2.8

Need FX whaaaat?

There are a few things FX can do better when shooting at the extremes but really DX is just as good in typical shooting.

Posted 1 year ago #
zlik

senior member
Joined: Dec '11
Posts: 88
offline

Hey, at 100 ISO, the D7000 beats the D3s !!! ( I own both)

Posted 1 year ago #
Henrik1963

member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 40
offline

Hey Zlik: It is a bit like saying: My Ford Fiesta has a bigger trunk than your Porsche.

My take: Hmmmmmmm never mind the trunk - I´ll take the Porsche.

But you are right there are many ways to compare different cameras. And OP needs to know what is importent to him. At base iso the D7000 has more DR than D3s.

My take: Hmmmmmmm ............. I want that Porsche

Posted 1 year ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

zlik said:
Hey, at 100 ISO, the D7000 beats the D3s !!! ( I own both)

there's no iso 100 on d3s :)

Posted 1 year ago #
zlik

senior member
Joined: Dec '11
Posts: 88
offline

adamz said:
there's no iso 100 on d3s :)

I know ;)

I should have said that the D7000 is better than the D3s at base ISO. For studio, landscape and architecture, the D7000 at ISO 100 is better than the D3s at ISO 200. More DR and more pixels. From 200 ISO and above, the D3s takes the lead.

Posted 1 year ago #
zlik

senior member
Joined: Dec '11
Posts: 88
offline

D3s + D7000 = D4 ! The D4's biggest advantage over the D3s will be that it goes down to 100 ISO with 16mp. Fixes the "weak point" of the D3s (which doesn't mean that you can't get amazing studio and architecture pictures with the D3s).

Posted 1 year ago #