New to Digital and Looking for an FX

<p>Ok do not slam me too hard on this question. I am a newbie to Digital and looking to upgrade from film to digital. Photography is a hobby and I mainly am looking to take pictures of my son in sports (mainly indoor Hockey at this point) and family, outdoor events such as airshows and maybe some landscapes. The choice is duanting and there are a lot of opinions and to what camera. So I am coming from an F3 and so have a few pieces of glass although not a lot of expensive stuff. 200 F4 AIS, 50 F1.4 AI and a 70-210 AF forgot the f stop on this but its 4.5-6.5(?).<br>

So now the question: What will be best for me?<br>

Refurbed D700 or new D600 or Refurbed D600, I am trying to stay around 2k. <br>

Thanks in advance for you opinions.</p>

<p>The D700 is fairly old technology. If you indeed want FX, a new D600 is probably the best approach. However, something like a D7000 or D7100 is great also for a lot less money.</p>

<p>I would look into updating some of your lenses too. Digital, especially 24MP, is going to be a lot more demanding on your lenses than 35mm film.</p>

<p>The D700 may be older but it is still a fantastic digital camera. I have had one for about 3 years (it was actually my first DSLR) and I have used it both for my own personal images as well as for professional images as well. I use AI and AIS Nikkor exclusively with it with superb results.<br>

I honestly don't see me upgrading any time soon.</p>

 

<p>If it were my choice I'd go with the D600. The image quality is nothing short of fantastic, and the high-ISO performance (important for indoor sports photography) is wonderful. I have one- my 2nd digital SLR (had a D200 for years, which is also a great camera but the high-ISO performance falls far short by comparison. Fortunately you have a 70-200 AF which should match the sports application. Good luck!</p>

<p>Sam, concerning the D700, which I reviewed for photo.net back in 2008: <a href="/equipment/nikon/D700/review/">http://www.photo.net/equipment/nikon/D700/review/</a><br /> And I still own one today.</p>

<p>This was what I wrote about how it could be improved back in June 2011: <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00Ytvg">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Ytvg</a><br /> See my post from 5:55pm from June 16, 2011. Keep in mind that was two years ago already. Technology has moved much further forward since then.</p>

<p>Hi Sam. Spending someone else's money is a very easy thing to do, but only you know whether you're the sort of person who'd remain happy for long with an "old" D700. If you are, then I'd strongly recommend that you go for that. The glassware that you have will be fine on the D700, but the D600 will definitely show up the shortcomings of the 200mm f/4 and most likely the AF 70-210 as well. Although your 50mm f/1.4 should be good enough stopped down a little.</p>

<p>What I'm saying is that if you go for the D600 you'll really need to budget for better lenses as well, if you're to get the best out of its 24 Mp sensor.</p>

<p>Sam,</p>

<p>Based on the fact you are coming from an F3, you don't seem to be the kind of guy who has to chase the newest technology and will count the pixels while zoomed in or take pictures of brick walls and examine any lens distortion. So, I would suggest you don't NEED to jump to a new D600, because I don't think you NEED 24Mp. </p>

<p>Let me ask this .... are you sure you need to go to an FX body ? You don't list any wide angle lenses, so you won't miss much with a DX sensor camera. Get a 35mm to get back the field of view your 50mm gives you and you may find a D7000 or the newer D7100 gives you what you need. That saves a chunk of money that could be used to buy new lenses ! <br>

<br />I came from an F4, which I still have, and I am thinking about looking for a good deal on an FX body someday, but I have a 24mm that isn't so wide and scenic on a DX camera. I have a 35-70 zoom that isn't in the wide-normal range anymore either, which is what I used it for on my F4. </p>

 

<p>My former camera was a D70. I got a D600. I think that FX is nice if you wanna use the same lenses and if you do high ISO regularly. What I seen on the D7000 just off others, so not side by side analysis and all that technical jargon. The newish DX and FX cameras over the D70 is the 10yr in R+D that is most apparent in the initial image for me colorwise and white balance wise. Esp on a cloudy day and on a cloudy day with the curtains open in the dining room, the D70 looked more greyish and it had less dynamic range but all newish dSLRs have improved on those now. </p>

<p>How I see it IMO. I don't pixel peep side/side with other cameras. If you are making the use DX zooms they are fine with a DX camera. You will have a ultra wide zoom and a mid zoom sorted but if you plan on using primes and want wide angle DX haven't caught up yet other than maybe some 3rd party who offer a few solutions. </p>

<p>From a cost point of view a D7000 and a Tamron 17-50 2.8 is quite a bit cheaper than the FX route. Also you have some AIS lenses do you plan on using those on the digital camera? What I do myself is that with a digital camera I use zooms mostly or AF primes, haven't gotten much zooms yet, rather $$, but I intend to use manual lenses on my FM2N and not even on my F100.</p>

<p>All,<br>

Thanks for the input, I really value the responses. So lets talk a good all around Lens to go with a D600 for the type a work I mentioned in the original post. I would have to start with 1 lens and later maybe I could add. I think there may be better choices than the "kit" lens.<br>

Also one of the reasons I mentioned the D700, is that it just feels great coming from an F3. I am real fond of metal in a camera, but is pure preference based on my past. I am sure the D600 would be plenty durable.</p>

<p>The two issues I would have with a D600 are (1) AF is not Nikon's best by any means (2) cost. A D700 might actually be a better match, and leave some money left over for lenses. If you were just wanting to know what would work best for the money, I'd suggest a D7100 with the Nikon 70-200mm f4 lens. It has faster AF than the D600, will focus in dimmer light than the d600, and the upgrade to the 70-200mm f4 VR will give you nearly instant focus on fast moving hockey players. As for ISO, I would bet you aren't shooting more than ISO 800 right now with your film camera. The D7100 is pretty clean up to about ISO 2000. This is the combo I'd choose for indoor hockey. With the D7100 you also get a 1.5x crop on your lenses, making the 70-200mm f4 perform like a 300mm f4. That would be super for your air shows! I think the real choice for action shots for you comes down to a D7100 or D700. I've tried a D7100 and d600 side by side and the AF on the D600 just isn't as good. For indoor hockey the difference would definitely be noticeable.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>If you really want FX, the D600 would be very nice.</p>

<p>However, given your interest in hockey and air shows, a DX camera (D7100) and a long lens might be a better investment. The extra "reach" of the crop sensor will be helpful. DX cameras are absolutely fine for landscape photography as well.</p>

<p>Crop sensor landscape example - not too horrible!</p><div></div>

<p>The D7100 is outperforming the results I used to get shooting 645 medium format, with the bonus of nearly instant autofocus and the ability to shoot cleanly up to about ISO 2000 (3200 if I'm not being really picky.) I'll add that . the D7100 and D600 share the same body/platform. If you like the way the d600 feels, you will like the way the d7100 does.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Either way you'd need fast zoom like 70-200/2.8 or Sigma 100-300/2.8. As far as the Sigma is concerned, the later version suppose to be better (faster focusing, etc). It's a toss IMO between D7100 and D700. The latter will give you couple extra frames per second (w/batt holder). You can progress to D3s or D4....still more fps.</p>

<p>Someone mentioned air shows. Well, I don't want to start political debate, but many of the shows are trimmed due to related costs.<br /><br /></p>

<p>Les</p>

 

<p>Oooopser, I may have spoken too soon...that's a 120-300/2.8.</p>

<p>Les</p>

<p>OK. I'm going to hold you to your $2000.00 budget.</p>

<p>Right now if you buy a D600 your range of lenses are 50-210. The highly technical term for this is yuck. The only autofocus you have is a 70-210 and it will be very slow at that. No matter what camera you get you will have excellent autofocus. But you will be largely unable to use it. With the exception of the 50 f/1.4 all your lenses will be challenged by your new camera optically and once you get used to autofocus you will definitely want it.</p>

<p>Now. Your lenses also are not good for sports. If you put the 70-210 on the camera to shoot from the stands it will be bordering too short and too slow for fast moving hockey. Especially on the D600. You want to do landscape but have no wide angle no matter which camera you choose.</p>

<p>So here is the answer. You buy a D7100 with the kit 18-105 AFS VR lens. It is an acceptable lens and will get you wide through midrange (35mm equivalent of about 27 through 158. It is not fast but the camera will easily shoot at 3200 ISO so you need not fear that. Now you would be at $ 1500.00. Add to your kit the 70-300 AFS VR refurbished from Adorama at $359.00. That gives you 105 - 450 in 35 mm terms and you have enough money left for your 4 nice fast Lexar 16 GB 90-mbs cards. And that is all for $2000.00. The cost of the D600 body. And you get a bonus. You remember those nice bright day airshows you mentioned? The 70-300 in crop mode gives you 600 mm F5.6 at 7 frames per second using the 1.3 crop mode. Care to guess what glass that would get you to 600 F-5.6 would cost you in FX? You don't want to know.</p>

<p>Now what about FX. If you stick with your story you can't afford a refurbished D700 because it is over budget at $2200.00. You will have to buy used and even then you will be near your budget. You will have 12 MP resolution and no video. Your D600 is $2k new but you could get a refurb for $1600 at Adorama. That would leave you $400.00 for lenses and cards. You can get the cards but about the best you could hope for adding a lens is the 35mm F/2 d. Or maybe a used 28mm F/2.8. Better but still pretty yuck..</p>

<p>So given just what you have told us, and holding you to it, the D7100 is right in your wheelhouse. It has potentially the fastest frame rate. You will have wide angle for your landscapes. Long and stable for your Hockey and handy and light for chasing around your family. And scary good for your airshows. It shoots full motion high resolution video. And take this to the bank. You will not be able to tell the difference in image quality from any of them. Not at all unless you make really big enlargements or crop like crazy then the D700 hits the pavement. You won't be able to tell the difference unless you become a pixel peeper. Pixel peepers lack a rich inner life and we don't like them much at all.</p>

<p>Now you can change the rules and tell us what you are really willing to spend to get FX. You won't get a better camera. In fact you will get a less capable one but tell us the truth.....what is the real budget. ;)</p>

<p>There is no question. Your should buy a good used D700 from Adorama, B&H or KEH. I have had two of them and the current asking price is around $1400 from the above.</p>

<p>12MP is way enough pixels to make metre-wide prints and don't listen to anyone who denies this. The pixel sites in the D700 are nice big fat ones and produce less noise than higher density ones, and thats why the D700 is so good. Otherwise you can get a refurb D600 for about $1600. But once you have felt the pure pro in the D700, the D600 will disappoint. You also get 51 point AF, backwards compatibility with all Nikon lenses since the 70's and 100% viewfinder. Its a D3 in a compact package.</p>

<p>If you want to migrate your older AI/AIs lenses its a no brainer. The D700 and all semi pro bodies have the in-camera AF focus motor, so you can used amm the AF and AFD lenses as well. I went from a F4s to a D700 and it was easy as. Download the recommended settings from Nikonians for portrait, landscape, sports and a couple of others and you are set to go with 4+ presets. Use the same settings you were using in film...maybe start using manual only to begin, or put it in P mode and off you go.</p>

<p>Ok a couple of things. First the D7100 solution might be in the cards as well, ao I will consider that for a minute. I can get the D7100 body and a Nikon 24-85 f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S VR and a Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR for just under 2,100 with the current Nikon promotions. I looked at that to avoid the DX lenses in case I go FX down the road.<br>

Going back to the D700, I can get a refurb from OneCall for 1,700 and use my current lenses until I can afford to upgrade. Also that goes for the D600 refurb and $1,600.<br>

Thanks for the input, I greatly appreciate all the help.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that because of its slow aperture, it may be difficult to shoot indoor hockey with the 70 - 300 mm lens (it would not be my first choice). It is a great lens and value otherwise. Of course, it depends on the venue's lighting.</p>

<p>The affordable 50mm f1.8 lens (AF-S version only) may be a good choice for hockey (and other low light applications) until your budget increases.</p>

<p> Take it from me with exactly 46 years of photography behind me, NEVER buy new. The depreciation on DSLRs is brutal. If you park on DX for a while you will lose all that field of view experience you've had from film because its all different. You have to reteach your eye for the scene, and then you have to undo it all to get back on FX again.</p>

<p>Most of the proponents for DX argue for it to justify their own decisions. The most vocal argue in favour because they need the 50% crop factor to give them more reach for birds etc. Read what Shun says. He will give you the best advice.</p>

<p>$1700 is too much for a D700, or a 5D2 for that matter. You can buy a near new D600 for that. Stick with the big guys with their, no questions asked returns policy. I have been buying all my gear from them for years, at 4 days delivery to Australia and Singapore. Forget the rest.</p>

<p>Also these two big fat zooms you are thinking about...are going to be a pain. The 70-300 is capable but only between 100-250. Its weak at both ends and is a horrible big tube of grey plastic. The 24-85 is loved and hated by about the same number of people. Do some more research.</p>

<p>Watch out for the fan boys. Have a look at some well known photographers who shoot what you want to. See what they use. Don't buy second rate staff just to cover all the focal lengths. Go slow with lens purchases. You don't want to be on ebay in a year looking at a 50% drop in value.</p>

<p>Do what I did. I bought an 18-35 and an AFd 80-200. Add a 50 1.8 and your done. If that three lens spread is good enough for the pro's then it should be good enough for you. The 18-35 is worth $400 and if you want to upgrade to say a 2.8 17-35 or the F4 version, you will get your money back. The 50 will cost you $150. Same about resale. The 80-200 is a $500 lens and a pro workhorse.</p>

<p>Anyway. More research</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I support the above. Over here in NZL, the kit lenses do drop by half easily and incl other non pro lenses too. If you wanna buy, buy it somewhere else on travel or whatever import it may be cheaper. I got a brand new D600 close to a refurbished price in Asia with a Japan warranty card which I got checked out when I was there 2 weeks ago. The shutter count was #2 on my first frame :)</p>

<p>Think you do envisage a kit lens for a while? Or maybe would it be better with a 50 or so ... that you may be using it in the future so you maybe can use that for the time being and upgrade lenses in a later time. IMO if you wanna keep the costs down you may only need 2 or 3 lenses and maybe 1 more for a special purpose if you like the portrait shots or macro etc ...</p>

<p>Those lenses drop so much and you cannot do anything about it b/c there are so many of them online and now and then you have a desperate seller who drops the price even more. Like I've seen the 18-200VR the latest version over here where I am sell for $1 start auction and finally for about $250US. I managed to sell my mint first version for the same price to just one bidder.</p>

<p>If you have a budget, I might say DX and if you don't shoot much at ISO 1600 and up. FX do have more lenses and works without the 1.5x but IMO most people that is from a hobby don't really need to spend that much on lenses, it would be nice to have zooms, primes, special lenses, old version, new version haha but it's not needed. </p>

<p>D7100 - Shun's review is precise - and points out camera's strengths and weaknesses...I am testing this camera for a friend in Thailand...have used Canon for the last three years but previously the Nikon series including D2X and D300...so I know FX and DX bodies well - and Nikon,</p>

<p>The D7100 is great value - AF is superb (better than my Canon 5D3) - and ISO excellent to 800 at least...If I were getting a new Nikon today it would be the D7100 for action type photos (sports; birds in flight) or the D800e for landscapes...</p>

<p>One other recommendation: purchase your lenses used - but in mint condition from reputable people here and on other sites. You will save much money. Take a look also at third party DX lenses by Tamron and Sigma and Tokina too - in other words do your research before purchasing - there are superb third party lenses out there (and some awful or so-so ones as well) - but you can save a lot of money and get great equipment if you do the research...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So I am coming from an F3 and so have a few pieces of glass although not a lot of expensive stuff. 200 F4 AIS, 50 F1.4 AI and a 70-210 AF forgot the f stop on this but its 4.5-6.5(?).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The OP is coming from an F3, which is a manual-focus camera. Two of his three lenses are manual focus; the other is non AF-S</p>

<p>I don't think top-of-the-line AF capability is a high priority for him, so far.</p>

<p>I own a D700 and D7000 as a backup body. I shoot sports, stage, general events and studio. The D700 is my goto camera without fail. Why? Great AF and High ISO. I shot a charity golf event yesterday w/ a 70-200 on my D700 and I had 3 of 200 frames out of focus (about 2%). Obviously not all we're keepers for a multitude of other reasons, but the AF is so much better than the D7000. I select my focus point, so the AF problem is not just about number of points. When I shoot with my D7000, my percentages of out of focus shots are closer to 15% overall.</p>

<p>Since the D700's shutter is loud, two weeks ago I had to shoot a section of a live orchestra performance. I took out my D7000 w/ my 70-200 and put it on quiet mode. ISO was an issue, but so was AF (a very challenging shoot for any camera), but life is sometimes a compromise and thats what I had to work with. I got what I needed out of it and don't get me wrong, the D7000 is a good camera, but when given a choice I will still swap lenses onto my D700.</p>

<p>Since my D7000 is depreciating in the bag, I'm swapping my D7000 out for a D7100. I agree the D700 is getting long in the tooth otherwise I would get another D700 as a backup. I want a backup that I'll also want to use. DX with a little extra reach might also be handy. I'm not sure about 24mp, but I'm very excited about having a backup that has great auto focus. I thought about the D600, but the the autofocus scares me and I'm not going to fork over for a D800 right now. Hope my story helps.</p>

 

<p>For your budget and subjects I would get the D7100, Nikon 18-55 DX non-VR, and a used Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 ED <strong>AF-S</strong>. </p>

<p>If you go with the D600 or D700 then opt for a used Nikon 180mm f2.8 ED AF for hockey (keh.com has a beater for under $200 USD). Use your current 70-210 AF when you need a zoom. Another option to replace both would be a used Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 AF D ED Macro one-touch zoom.</p>

<p>Your 50/1.4 AI will do great on any of the above bodies.</p>