D90 or D700?

<p>I am new here and thought I would ask for an advice.<br />I am switching from Canon system to Nikon.<br /><br />I am looking to buy a camera body and am just torn between the choices.<br />The budget is under $2000 or so, give or take. But I am trying to spend less if I can find a way that meets my needs.<br>

I have a 4 year old kid that I shot a lot of photos of, and he is constantly on the move. I also liker portraits, and do occasional nature shots.<br>

<br />I have already acquired the following lenses: Tokina 28-70 2.8; Nikkor 50 1.8, and older Nikkor 70-210 3,5-5.6<br /><br />I would love to get the D700, but it is on the more expensive side of my range and I am not sure I would enjoy carrying it, as it is quite weighty and substantial. <br /><br />I have large hands and therefore, find small grips very uncomfortable. <br /><br />I could just buy a DX camera, but do not want to loose the wide angle with the DX camera, even though I am open to investing into another lens that would give me the equivalent of 28mm. unless I find a cheap lens that is a great value due to its optical quality. I know Ken Rockwell raves about the cheap 18-55.<br /><br /><br />Any recommendations on what I should do? Which body would suit my needs with smallest expense?<br>

I was just offered a d90 at $680 and wondering if it could be good enough in my situation.<br>

I could get a 18-55 VR lens or nikon 20 2.8 prime to go with it. <br>

Would it be fast enough to photograph my constantly moving 4-year old?<br>

By the way, I haver never printed anything larger than 8x10. So this low noise offered by FF might not be necessary for me.<br>

Please share your thought.</p>

<p>If you don't print above 8 x 10 and 11 x 14 a lot, you should, imho, just save the money and get the D90. Bottom line: If you don't KNOW you need FX... you probably don't.</p>

<p>I'd get the D90 with a 16-85 VR lens (both together WAY less than a D700). Then I'd consider dumping the 28-70 (a Tamron 17-50 or Nikon 17-55 --both f2.8-- would be way better match for D90--28 at the wide end is too long for DX) and the old 70-210 (unless it's the "D" lens, in which case keep it).</p>

<p>Honestly, a D90 with a 16-85 VR lens will be all you need for a LOT of what you do, and that combo can keep up with a kid moving around quite well. I'd get an SB600, too. Great addition. Great "kid" flash.</p>

<p>I'm curious, why switch from Canon? They make great cameras? What didn't you like?</p>

<p>I had an old Rebel, and it did not keep up to my moving kid in terms of focus.<br>

And yes, 70-210 is D version. I already got the SB600 flash as well.<br>

Is the cheap 18-55VR not such a great lens as Rockwell makes it to be?</p>

<p>The D90 will make gorgeous 12x18 prints. It is a superb camera. Unless you NEED to have a full frame camera, like if you need to shoot at ISO 6400 a lot, get the D700. Otherwise the D90 is the better choice. The D700 is a fairly specialized camera body and it is not for general purpose photography. You'll enjoy the D90.</p>

<p>You can, if you understand how focus works and learn the different modes, keep up with a kid with the D90. The 18-55 is a fine lens, but Ken over-dramatizes its qualities and value. Keep in mind that his site is, by his own admission, a goof, and for entertainment only (those may be, as I recall, his exact words). You need to take much of his stuff with a grain, nay, with an entire shaker full, of salt.</p>

<p>The 16-85 is an AWESOME lens, almost a one-lens solution, for that camera. I have the older 18-200, which I love, but the 16-85 is better in every way.</p>

<p>And the 70-210 D will, from what I've heard, focus very fast on that camera.</p>

<p>Go someplace where you can hold both cameras in your hands. I have large hands and the D90 feels uncomfortable to me when I hold it. I can use it in a pinch but the D300 feels much better in my hands. I think the D300(s) and the D700 are very nearly the same size.</p>

<p>this is kind of a no brainer because you can't really afford a d700. if you spend $700 on a body, that leaves $1300 for additional lenses. you can easily get an ultrawide & a 35/1.8 for indoor/low-light, and still have $$ left over. i'd also think about maybe getting something a little faster on the long end, like the sigma 50-150 or tokina 50-135.</p>

<p>Okay, I will then go ahead and but a D90.<br>

As far as lenses are concerned.<br>

I will use my 50/1.8 for portraits. I can get and excellent 35/1.8 for most general use. The only thing I am missing is the wide angle. Is there a great prime that is a great value for the value that I can buy? Oldere lenses are fine with me too.<br>

Or maybe a wide angle zoom that is the great bargain for the money?<br>

Is 16-85 better than 35/1.8 and 50/1.8!???</p>

<p>I can't speak highly enough of the 16-85 lens. I went through a number of mid range zooms (so much that I am sure the local retailer was tired of seeing me) until I settled on the 16-85. What really sold me on it is the light weight, compact size, useful (for my shooting) room range and FAST autofocus. <br>

It teams very well with the D90 and I think I could happily shoot with this combo for the rest of my life. (with an SB-600).<br>

I suggest you also pick up the 1.8 35mm when funds allow as it will give you some low-light capability which the 16-85 lacks. I have the 1.8 50 but find the field of view a little narrow when I shoot indoors.<br>

Ya, I love the D90 and 16-85.</p>

 

<p>I purchased my D50 with the 18-70 lens and loved it. I then realized I needed faster glass and purchased the Tamron 17-50/2.8. I love this zoom lens. I can take pictures of my grandchildren indoors and outdoors with out changing the lens.</p>

<p>This sort of thread is really weird. I mean you can compare/contrast D300 or D300s with a D700. But to compare the D90 with the D700 is kinda meaningless.</p>

<p>As an analogy, if someone tells you he's confused about whether he wants a BMW 5-series or a Mercedes Benz E-class, then that makes sense. But if he asks your opinion on whether he should get the BMW or a Honda Civic, then it's a rather pointless discussion.</p>

<p>Or maybe I am missing something here because this type of apples and oranges comparisons pop up quite often.</p>

<p>Nish -- it's an unsophisticated question, perhaps, but a very reasonable one. The man wants a Nikon. The very best ASP-C camera offered is the D90 (I know the D200 and D300 folks will be appalled at this assertion but especially for the difference in price, it's hard to see why one would need a D300 over a D90 -- heavy duty construction? It's certainly not a matter of image quality.) The only full sensor for his budget is a D700. He knows the D700 is BETTER: he's asking us to tell him how much better, or how much will he "lose" with a D90. For what he wants to do, he'll lose nothing. Siimple question, now answered<br>

And yes, the 16-85mm is about five times better than the 18-55. The Tamron 17-50 is also better and it's about the only really good f2.8 zoom I know of at an affordable price. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well put that way, I suppose it does make sense.</p>

<p>Well, I don't have the D90 vs D700 problem. I have the D90 and love it. But this thread has confirmed something for me at least; that the 16-85 VR is a superb lense. I've almost exclusively been using the 70-300mm VR, another superb lense, but I'd like to go a little more wide angle at times. I've considered both the 16-85 and the 18-200, but think that with the 18-200 there is too much overlap with what I already have. Looking at reviews I also get the impression that the 16-85 is a slightly better lense overall than the 18-200. </p>

<p>Well, I don't have the D90 vs D700 problem. I have the D90 and love it. But this thread has confirmed something for me at least; that the 16-85 VR is a superb lense. I've almost exclusively been using the 70-300mm VR, another superb lense, but I'd like to go a little more wide angle at times. I've considered both the 16-85 and the 18-200, but think that with the 18-200 there is too much overlap with what I already have. Looking at reviews I also get the impression that the 16-85 is a slightly better lense overall than the 18-200. </p>

<p>Is it safe to get 16-85VR used?<br>

Is there a cheaper alternative in Tamron/Tokina/Sigma that is just as good?<br>

Or should I just bite the bullet and get this Nikkor 16-85 and not look back?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The D700 is a fairly specialized camera body and it is not for general purpose photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's true that the D700 is notably more expensive than the D90, but it's about as general-purpose as cameras get. When the F100 was new, you wouldn't have called it a specialized camera, not for general photography -- you would have called it a very capable camera that could do most everything you might ask of a 35mm SLR, short of some of the specialized features of an F5.</p>

<p>A D700 is very much like a digital F100, and it works nicely as a no-nonsense camera that will work with a wide variety of Nikon lenses to most anything you would ask of a 35mm-format DSLR. It's not specialized, but merely very capable.</p>

<p>I am actually looking to buy the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF to go with my D90<br>

There is this version. And there is also one for sale that is <br>

<strong id="mainContent" >

<h1 >Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 LD SP XR Di II IF Non-BIM Nikon</h1>

<p>This one on eBay has no built in focus. They guy claims it is faster focusing as oppose to the newer version that has a built in focus.</p>

<p>IS THIS TRUE?</p>

</strong></p>

 

<p>The D90 is an excellent choice. You won't be disappointed. (Check out my page.)</p>

<p>An excellent wide-angle zoom on DX bodies is the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 - works out at about a 16-24mm equivalent.</p>

<p>I would then look at the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 as your normal, walkaround zoom. Excellent in its old form, you don't really need to splash out for the image stabilized version.</p>

<p>You may also want to look into ditching your old 70-210 and look at the Nikon 70-300mm VR - it's cheap and not a bad lens at all.</p>

<p>Happy shooting!</p>

<p>Igor, if you want a 3rd party alternative to the 16-85 (which is too expensive, considering it's nothing more than a kit zoom with more metal parts in the construction) the best comparable is the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.0 OS. I used to use the previous (non-OS) version of the lens and it's extremely sharp - it's as good as my father's 16-85, and adds close focusing.</p>

<p>Less expensive than that, the D90's own kit lens (the 18-105 VR) is also just as good as the 16-85, for less money, but with the drawback that its mount ring is made of plastic. Very strong plastic, mind you, and I don't know anybody who's broken one, but it is possible to break it.</p>

<p>I think your other question is answered - the D700 is more of a specialized item and the D90 is fantastic for most uses.</p>

<p>I think this link might be of some help to you. I can relate so much to this, starting from the point-and-shoot then to a d50, d80 and now a d90. I plan on getting the d700 this Christmas but had I read this post I would already have it.<br>

<a href="http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/05/letter-to-george.html">http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/05/letter-to-george.html</a><br>

best regards,<br>

Matt</p>

<p>D90 much beautiful camera. Visit my homepage to see why. I victor like Nikon because it has special qualities other dont have.</p>

<p>Being a BMW driver and D700 owner, I know the answer to both questions......</p>

<p>Thank you all.<br />i just ordered the D90 with Tamron 17-50 2.8.<br>

Hopefully I will be happy with this combo.</p>

<p>By the way, I hear there is quite a bit of inconsistency with Tamy lenses. I have a 14 day exchange with B&H on it.<br>

Is there a good way to determine whether my copy is sharp or not? What kind of test would you run with it? Once the test are done, how would I know. It is not like I have another one to compare it against. In terms of point of reference.<br>

Any thoughts?</p>