Posted December 17, 2008 Share Posted December 17, 2008 <p>Oooohhhh............<br> My dilemma:<br> I´m going to India in the end of january 2009. My trusty D70 has got a deathsentence - some circuit(?) does´nt function well anymore according to Nikonreps. It does´nt yet show when using, but I can´t take the risk. So I´ve decided to upgrade anyway. If it was´nt for the Indiatrip, I would have stay put for a while in camerainvesting because:<br> 1. I´m not sure yet what´s best for me dx or fx. I can afford what I decide, but I want bang for bucks. I´m not professional, but am picky.<br> 2. I´m pretty convinced that within 1 year the D700 will be replaced to a 24mpx sensor - it´s not the right time to buy now<br> I own two dx lenses; the 18-70 and a 12-24. Works prefectly well for me. If staying with dx I want to buy a 17-55/2.8. I also own prime lenses; the AF versions of 24mm, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm. Today I not use them that much - I prefer simplicity.<br> What shall I do? I am pushed to decide something that doesn´t feel alright.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rene11664880918 Posted December 17, 2008 Share Posted December 17, 2008 <p>Have you thought about a D3 and D3x? They are perfect for India weather wise. You can use your DX and FX lenses. :)</p> <p>More than what lenses you have would be more helpful if you tell us what you like or shoot more. Landscape, macro, wildlife, etc. Then we can see which camera is better for you! D3 or D3x! :)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Brennan Posted December 17, 2008 Share Posted December 17, 2008 <p>Bengt,</p> <p>A 24 MPix D700x defeats the purpose of the D700 - excellent high ISO noise control. Why wait for D700x or a 24 MPix D800 - what specific advantages will it offer you?</p> <p>If the 18-70mm DX and 12-24mm DX 'work perfectly for you' then why replace with a 17-55mm DX - compared to the much lighter 18-70mm DX it is a very heavy travel zoom by comparision.</p> <p>If you are looking for simplicity and requiring a forced upgrade from your trusy but now faulty D70 body and you have the lightweight zooms aforementioned then the D90 will reprecent a fine match for your Indian travel plans and will be a fine general purpose camera for after you travels. The D90 will represent a significant boost in performance over the D70. Unless you specifically want a faster AF system the D300 / D700 might be superfluous to your needs.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_martin9 Posted December 17, 2008 Share Posted December 17, 2008 <p>I think the first thing you have to realize is that no matter which way you go it will be a substantial improvement over the D70 in terms of high iso performance, speed and ergonomics. If low light, high iso performance is not a major concern, than there really is no reason to spend the extra money on the D700, especially when you have DX lenses. The only caveat is if you plan to shoot alot of wide stuff, than the FX format is 100% for you.<br> I would not purchase a D300 when you can get a better performing camera in the D90 for less money and a D400 is probably about to come out.<br> The D700 being replaced with a 24mp D800 is really irrelevant imo. I subscribe fully to the megapixel myth.<br> I am in the same boat sort of. I shoot a D200 with a 17-55 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8. I am about to dump the 17-55 because it is a beast and buy some primes and trade the D200 for a D700 because I mostly shoot theatrical stuff.<br> Good luck and enjoy India.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posted December 17, 2008 Author Share Posted December 17, 2008 <p>I´m using my camera in my everyday-life. That includes everything from landscape to lowlightsituations. I prefer the ordinary angles - no supertele or superwideangle. I just want it to work, but I want reliability and quality. <br> I really don´t like the feeling to be pushed like now of the situation.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rene11664880918 Posted December 17, 2008 Share Posted December 17, 2008 <p>Bengt... if that is the case..... we all think different BUT IF IT WAS ME! i would go for a D300. Here is why:</p> <p>either one of those 3 cameras will be a really good upgrade from your D70 BUT when i look at the price of the D300 and D90, the difference is so minimal and what you get for a D300 is so much more. better built to start with and access to the menu right on your finger tips not like a D90 that everything is in the menu. Those are the 2 main reason why I upgraded from a D80 to a D300. Now you will ask, why not a D700? well, the crop factor 1.5 that you get on a DX camera is so useful to me. Tele lenses are more expensive than wide angles. i like shooting birds and the longest lens I have is a 300 but the crop factor it becomes a 450 mm lens. I can't expend 8 K on a 400 mm lens so the crop is a blessing. same goes when you shoot macro. <br> The FX camera will be helpful on the wide angle side BUT you can go really wide on DX too. I have a Tokina 11-16 (16-24 on FX) and that is wide enough for anyone. I think an FX camera is more useful to professionals than to people like me who shoot just for fun.</p> <p>I am sure others will give you their ideas and at the end you will have to figure it out by yourself! good luck! </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posted December 17, 2008 Author Share Posted December 17, 2008 <p>Thank you all!<br> It´s very easy to be blind by all facts and figures these day - the options are too many!</p> <p>I´ve been thinking of buying a new camera for a year or so, but the "why fix it if it aint broken"-stylish way of thinking I have did delay the process. When the D300 came I was much interested. The D3/fx did´nt give me a feeling of something I needed at all, perhaps the price? I don´t know. I read all threads on the net on how all people was excited over the fantastic D300. I thought "hey, I wait a little while, but I will get myself a D300"!</p> <p>Then, suddenly, came the D700/fx out of the blue. And, suddenly, all the threads was filled with people convinced that fx was all that they had been waiting for. The dx was something for amateurs, all too noisy etc etc. Fx will fix everything, including peace on earth! (well, perhaps not exactly, but.....) In half a year!! Give me a break!</p> <p>I must admit that I was influenced by all this too. But today, when I have to decide, I try to come to my senses again. And what I´ve found this far is that it is complex decition to make. Thas why I wrote to you guys.</p> <p>Is fx the answer to everything? Why did so many people change their point of view concerning the D300/dx almost over half a year? Did I miss something?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
www.roelandebruijn.nl Posted December 17, 2008 Share Posted December 17, 2008 <p>I have a D300, it is brilliant. Better (much) then the D200 I also own. People just want to own the best and newest toys. It is NAS (I have/ad it too)<br> Magnificent camera. Handle the D300 and the D90, to see which feels better in your hands. Take in consideration in what way you will travel. Walking around, maybe the lighter D90 is the way to go, shooting sports, action in low lighting and dirty environment: D300.<br> Good luck</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stwrtertbsratbs5 Posted December 17, 2008 Share Posted December 17, 2008 <p>I went with the D700 because of its high ISO performance. Even ISO 3200 shots are remarkably clean. I have no need for more resolution. And I have no regrets in buying the D700.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck_arkens Posted December 17, 2008 Share Posted December 17, 2008 <p>I have the D300. I use it everyday in all conditions. The first thing I did was to place body armor on it for some extra crash protection. If you can only take one camera with you take one that will work in as many different conditions as possible. I believe that is the D300. Enjoy your trip to India and don't forget to take an extra battery or two.<br> Take Care and Enjoy<br> Chuck</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl_becker2 Posted December 17, 2008 Share Posted December 17, 2008 <p>I upgraded from a D200 to a D700 last month. I wanted the best high ISO performance I could get. I am very pleased. I much prefer the control set of the Dx00 bodies over the DX0 bodies. You have lenses for either body already. If you want simple zoom get a D300 and keep your current lenses. If you need better ISO performance get a D700. Personally I don't have any interest in bigger files and very much like the clean images and speed of the D700.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mightypir Posted December 17, 2008 Share Posted December 17, 2008 <p>Get a D300. You dont have any FX lenses and would need to invest quite a bit to get high IQ with the D700 in your current state.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_in_PA Posted December 17, 2008 Share Posted December 17, 2008 <p>You also have to ask if you NEED 24MP.</p> <p>How do you use your photos? How big do you print. I think this is more important than what you shoot in many cases. For most of us who rarely print bigger than 8 x 10, there is no substantial difference between 6MP and 24MP, outside of cropping.</p> <p>I'd get a D300.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam_erdman Posted December 17, 2008 Share Posted December 17, 2008 <p>I'd rent another camera for the trip (any of the camera's you mentioned would work - or another d70) then decide if you want to buy it or wait to buy the next model when you get back. Ask the store if they will take the rental cost off a purchase if you decide to purchase upon return.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph_smith3 Posted December 17, 2008 Share Posted December 17, 2008 <p>Get a D 300 for the reasons Rene mentioned. You have two great lenses for it, especially for travel. I know a Nikon Pro whose kit consists of this camera and these two lenses. Joe Smith </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertbody Posted December 17, 2008 Share Posted December 17, 2008 <p>D3 would be too heavy for walking around with... that's what I tell myself but i still want to get it someday :-) [more so than D700, which might be better for me because of size and long run]. I had F5 for year back in 1999 and when I sold it, it was because of th size and weight, and I got F100 which i had for the following 6 years.<br> Now I have D300 after D200, and I like it, but there are days like recently when I do want to use my 17-35mm as the ultra-wideangle it should be... on a D700 or D3.<br> D90 is a compromise, D300 is more of a long term investment and with more "pro" feel and features. D700 could be the optimal choice but the appeal of 1.5x of D300 could outweigh it. Personally I would like D700 for the 1.0 multiplier and to use my 17-35mm.... and there was a posting in the past how a D700 with cropped (in photoshop) image was still just as good or better than 100% image with D300... 12 mpix on a D300 sensor or the bigger D700 sensor makes a difference.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertbody Posted December 17, 2008 Share Posted December 17, 2008 <p>I forgot to add that you should either go to a store to examine the cameras in store [and on several different days is even a better idea], and better yet if you could rent one for a day...</p> <p>to get a real feel of the difference between them, and which choice you could live with for the following year or more. When I got my D300 in april 2008, I wished for D700 just a month later, but I can enjoy my D300 for another year, until the shutter count goes up high and i approach that 100,000 click count, then it will make sense to get something else....... D3 maybe</p> <p>but not D3X becuase while 24mpix sounds nice, already with 12mpix i am looking at about 1TB (terabyte) of pictures in the past year [a lot to store and backup, or to go through to erase], and more importantly i do want to enjoy [and do more of] night photography and low light, and a picture like this at ISO-1600 with D300 is not quite to my liking. I already find the colors to be dulled at ISO-1600 and i have seen serious quality loss with it too, so I would pick D3 over D3x for it's low light ability.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timopro Posted December 17, 2008 Share Posted December 17, 2008 <p>I had the same problem, D300 or D700??<br> So I bought the D700!!<br> I do a lot of Theatrical pics! and I have some AF lenses, so I decided in it!!<br> What I can say is I like this camera!!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posted December 17, 2008 Author Share Posted December 17, 2008 <p>Thank you guys for your respons to my dilemma!<br /> I still really don´t know my way further on, but at least I know that I should rule out the D90. I´ll check my finances and look for the best deal on both the D300 and the D700 and then I´ll decide. Lucky me to have saved my good old AF primes. The investment will be only the camera and that´s not a bad position to start from.<br /> Whatever it´ll be - I will publish pictures from my trip next year!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo5 Posted December 17, 2008 Share Posted December 17, 2008 <p>I've seen used D300's going from reputable dealers on ebay for a little more than $1,000.00 on the auction site, a real bargain if you ask me. If you can bear with having to shoot the 1.5x DX crop, and more noise at high ISOs, the D300 is still an excellent camera. I upgraded to the D700 from the D300 and love it, but it's quite a financial comittment.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martin_aspeli Posted December 17, 2008 Share Posted December 17, 2008 <p>Based on the types of lenses you have (DX, not the super-expensive-pro kind) and the fact that you want something that just works, is practical and gives excellent results, I'd suggest a D300. A D700 is a lot of money, and with a DX lens you're getting lower resolution (5Mp instead of 12Mp) which may matter at least if you're trying to print. The D300 is an amazing camera, and I doubt many people need 24Mp (jebus). Also, you're used to Dx, and the D300 will be better if you're mostly shooing in that format.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stwrtertbsratbs5 Posted December 17, 2008 Share Posted December 17, 2008 <p>"Get a D300. You dont have any FX lenses and would need to invest quite a bit to get high IQ with the D700 in your current state."</p> <p>Silly statement. You can buy some excellent FX lenses for very little money. THe 50/1.8 will set you back about $100. The 85/1.8 is also excellent. Or you could get the 80-200 f/2.8 ED for about $800 new. And there aree many older MF lenses that are superb.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posted December 17, 2008 Author Share Posted December 17, 2008 <p>Hey guys - I have primes; the AF-versions of 24, 35, 50 and 85mm.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave wyman Posted December 17, 2008 Share Posted December 17, 2008 <p>> Lucky me to have saved my good old AF primes. <</p> <p>> also own prime lenses; the AF versions of 24mm, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm. Today I not use them that much - I prefer simplicity.<</p> <p>Make up your mind. ;-)</p> <p>Bengt - it doesn't matter which camera you get. They all involve trade-offs which, in the grand scheme of things, are meaningless. Me, I have DX cameras and I see no reason to switch for now.Like you, I have several primes with large f/stops which I can use as required and an 18-200 which provides flexibility when I want it. <br> If I were to start over, I might go FF because it works better than DX in low light situations, as far as limiting noise. On your trip, if you're allowed to photograph inside a temple in India, being able to use ISO 3200 might come in handy. But it's kind of like a dog chasing its tail - there's always going to be something better to buy six months or a year later, and there's always going to a room too dark, even for and FF camera and a 1.4 lens. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posted December 17, 2008 Author Share Posted December 17, 2008 <p>Dave, I guess you´re right - I have to make up my mind :) And I really don´t want to chase my tail..........<br> It´s a hard decision, mostly because I don´t like to get stuck upon technichal issues but still do just that.... hmmm.<br> I´m most happy when I have my things in order, taking my pictures. And I´m a little of a cheapskate, that doesn´t make it easier.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now