Upgrade to D700 or no?

<p>I am using Nikon D90 with 18-200 VR, 50 f/1.8, and 105 micro f/2.8. I am contemplating some upgrade in 6 month's time. Should I go for D700 with 24-70 f/2.8 or keep D90 and acquire 17-55 f/2.8? Of course, I would sell off 18-200 if I go full frame.</p>

<p>What is wrong with your D90? Is there something the D700 will do for your photography that your D90 cannot? I can't answer your question without more insight.</p>

<p>Based on the fact that the OP even needs to ask this question in the first place, the answer is very obvious.</p>

<p>Apurva,</p>

<p>If you take lots of hand held photographs in dim light with your D90 then the D700 will give you even more low noise / high ISO performance than your current D90.</p>

<p>I have checked out your photo portfolio here on p.net, apart from some indoor travel shots and some indoor Cathedral shots and some worthy still life work I see you travel a bit and shoot mainly outdoors. You have taken some very nice photos with your current combination, I can't see where it might be holding you back.</p>

<p>The D700 will offer a slightly better auto focus unit which may assist with wildlife photography - maybe a D300 (which shares the same AF unit as the D700) might suit you better if you are happy to retain the 18-200mm super zoom which you appear to favour for travels.</p>

<p>If you wait 6 months the D700 might be "old hat' and superceeded by another camera in the FX entry level class........</p>

<p>Nobody ever asks how big you print.</p>

<p>If you don't print above 8 x 10, you will not see a difference between a well-shot image on FX vs. DX. Most people who want FX don't need it.</p>

<p>If you are generally happy with the images you are getting, you really don't need FX.</p>

<p>In short... if you don't <strong>KNOW</strong> you need FX you almost certainly <strong>don't</strong> need it.</p>

<p>If you use a lot of telephoto, you are better with DX.</p>

<p>If you have money to blow and just want to have fun, well... if that were me, I'd have a D700 if only for the bigger viewfinder. But I don't have money to burn. </p>

<p>Thanks Matthew for some informative and to-the-point answer. The rest of you, thanks for taking time to read my question but your answer is hardly any answer. <br>

All that the OP is asking is 17-55 on D90 is as good as 24-70 on D700? I would be most obliged if someone gave me some fact or opinion based answer rather than going into my motives and wondering about my cedentials. <br>

Of course there in nothing wrong with D90, but then Nikon should stop making new bodies. And none of the photographers in this world should ever get a new camera if he/she has D90 or anything like it!<br>

And suppose I have money to blow, any problem out there?</p>

<p>Apurva - both the 17-55 and 24-70 have been reviewed at http://www.photozone.de/</p>

<p>I find this site's graphs to be very useful in evaluating lens choices for Canon. I'm sure you can get a solid idea of performance on these Nikon lenses.</p>

<p>Naturally you should check out the 24-70 on full frame review since that's how you plan to use it. Remember that you cannot compare the absolute resolution figures between different senors, but the graphs are labeled good/very good/excellent, and you can compare those labels to get an idea of how these lenses compare.</p>

<p>Part of the reason you got the answers you got is because you did not specify your shooting style or needs. It's hard to answer your question without knowing these things.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

<p>The reason you didn't get answers you like is because your original question was "Should I go for the D700" without telling us what types of photos you shoot. If all you are going to do is use the equivalent midrange zoom in good light and print 8x10 then you won't see much difference between the 17-55 on DX or the 24-70 on FX because both lenses are good and both the DX and FX sensors are good in good light. I think the lenses choices you want to use should drive the sensor size you pick. If you plan on a lot of telephoto stick with DX. If you plan on very low light, extreme wide angles or PC/tilt lenses then go with FX. </p>

<p>Personally I have a D3 that I use in low light with 28, 50, 85 f1.4 primes. The D3 also gets used for sports where I need the fast AF. I also have a D90 that I use with the 12-24, 18-70, and 70-300 consumer zooms for travel.</p>

<p>Apurva, I upgraded from the D200 to the D300s this year after several years of D200 ownership. The momentum from the buzz surrounding the D300s (and a new lens purchase) has me shooting a lot more now than I did last year. If it were me, I'd buy the D700.</p>

<p>I don't have any of the lenses in question nor have I used the 18-200mm. I suggest you check Bjorn's site as well for your research. <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html">http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html</a><br>

I would say the D700 with 24-70mm is the best combonation but you pay considerably for that last percentage of improvement which may be hard to see.<br>

I do think you have left out details of your needs for asking a question like this. If your NAS has an itch then by all means scratch it. I did even though a D300 would have met most of my needs. I do enjoy using it and will use it until it wears out, a personal requirement I set before purchase. One of the reasons I choose the D700 was to use manual wide primes as well as zooms. If you need the extra stop then go for the D700. If you travel alot then I would look closely at the Tamron 18-50mm f2.8 and get a great light tripod to carry also. Currently my D700 with the Tamron 28-75mm weights 4 pounds then add another two pounds for extras. That is 20 percent of my total overnight carrying weight including what I wear, glasses, shoes, socks, wallet, etc when hiking. I would be better off with a D90, 16-85mm weight wise.</p>

<p>One of the attraction for D700 for me is its capability of throwing the background out of focus better than APS cameras. Another is its low light capability. Above all, the almost sentimental feeling of getting the original 35 mm size back! <br>

I consider Fx bodies as almost equivalent to medium format quality of film times from the reports that I have been reading.</p>

<p>I've been happy enough with Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 on a D300. I'm a night photographer and am very picky about lenses. I have tried a D700 and 24-70mm f2.8 for a few weekends. I didn't see enough difference to make me want to switch at this time. I won't sell more photos because I have a different camera.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

<p>Apurva, you simply will not see much of a difference between the D90 image quality and the D700 image quality until you get up to around ISO 1600 or higher. Certainly one could argue that there are noticeable differences starting at ISO 400, but those are slight indeed. One thing you might miss after upgrading from the D90 to the D700 is the handling. The D700 is a heavy, chunky camera in your hand. It is more like a 645 medium format SLR than a 35mm camera like the D90. That was one thing I noticed right away going from the D300, which handles much like the F100 film SLR. As for throwing the background out of focus, any good f2.8 DX zoom as others have mentioned, will do this for you on DX format very well. The Nikon 35mm f1.8 DX AF-S prime will also do this very well. You try it and see! FX format has a long way to go, the D700 is merely the first generation of sensors for Nikon. I went back to the D300 after shooting with a D700 for six months. It was great but the D300 is the best one for me. I have a D80 before that, and I loved the handling of that camera in my hand. </p>

<p>Apurva, as far as I can tell, you are merely trying to come up with justifications for another camera. If you indeed need low-light performance and shallow depth of field, I would add to your lenses first, such as a 17-55mm/f2.8 AF-S DX or a 35mm/f1.8 AF-S DX.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As for throwing the background out of focus, any good f2.8 DX zoom as others have mentioned, will do this for you on DX format very well.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>On DX, f/2.8 will "throw the background out of focus" about the same amount as f/4.5 on FX. Since you can also get f/2.8 lenses for FX, that lets you throw the background more out of focus. If you want that subject isolation with some of the shorter lenses -- 28mm, 35mm, or 50mm -- there are f/1.4 and f/2 lenses for FX that are hard to match with equivalent lenses for DX, as far as speed and DOF.</p>

<p>Apurva, as Shun suggests, it sounds like you're looking for justifications, but if you have an almost sentimental feeling of wanting FX, what else are you going to do? Wanting less depth of field and better low light capability are legitimate reasons to want FX, so you may as well try it. </p>

<p>I am a fan of FX, but consider that a 33% crop from the D90 or D700 is still 4 megapixels. This is pretty good at A3 but 8mp which you would get from a D3X would be even better. I would look at the Sony A850 or Nikon's next high rez FX sensor as an upgrade, but the D700, not so much. And I agree with you about the importance of backgrounds, but you can do better with them in your software than your lenses.</p>

<p>Apurva, if it seems like I, and others, said you don't "need" FX, or maybe I only implied it, but consider this analogy. (Note: I still don't think you necessarily "need" FX).</p>

<p>I am a musician (a church musician by profession as a matter of fact) and my main instrument is guitar. A really good guitar costs about a thousand bucks and a really good amp about 600 or 800. My main guitars cost 3 times what a "really good guitar" costs and my main amp costs about double what a "really good amp" costs. They probably sound no better to almost everybody, but there is a difference in workmanship, in appearance, in playability to a certain extent... and the fact is even though most musicians can't tell the difference (let alone just music listeners)... they're worth every penny. I play way better with my 4,000-dollar Anderson guitar than I did with a 1,000-dollar Fender.</p>

<p>worst case scenario... a D700 and 24-70 zoom takes the same exact photos (in appearance in print) as a D90 with a 17-55... but let's say you enjoy shooting with the D700 way more... you enjoy it so much, in fact, that you spend more time taking pictures and hence, take better ones. (For me, I'd be happier spending the amount you'd spend on a D700/24-70 on a D90 with a whole bunch of cool lenses... I think... doesn't matter, I can't afford a D700, I spent all my money on my guitars...)</p>

<p>If you can afford it... go for it... just the fact that you enjoy it more should be enough justification. Otherwise, how many cameras would Leica sell?</p>

<p>If the money isnt a problem, get the D700. Its a wonderful camera with a lovely feel to it, get the grip as well. The ISO settings arent just for really low light, you can shoot f/8 in average light with ISO 1600-3200 with very little noise. It gives you more options and handles beautifully. Everyone talks on these forums about the best value for money - a lens or camera upgrade and for me that is important, and i made a concious professional choice to get the D700, and reap the reward of the pictures. BUT theres plenty of people for who the money isnt an issue. The D700 is 95% of the D3 for about half the price, and much less than half the price of the D3s. Get the camera and the best lenses.</p>

<p>yes.</p>

<p>To address Apurva's follow up question about the comparison between 17-55 on DX and 24-70 on FX. Yes, the results are comparable. Both of them are killer sharp. This is a subjective evaluation. But I have used the 17-55 on the D300 (same sensor as D90, I think) and the 24-70 on the D700. And I'd say the 17-55 is the way to go.</p>

<p>Peter Hamm brings up that a D700 is more satisfying to use than the D90. If you are taking that into account, then the D300s is the body to get with the 17-55.</p>

<p>The D700 is the way to go only if you are doing low light photography and need the sensor with the extra stop of light or if you are doing wide angle and need the full frame for that. Otherwise, the D300s is pretty much the same as the D700 and gives you video and dual card slots.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=3736516">Matthew Brennan</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub3.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 08, 2010; 04:51 a.m.<br>

If you wait 6 months the D700 might be "old hat' and superceeded by another camera in the FX entry level class........</p>

<p>That is unlikely to happen. Perhaps I just mis-read what you said, but the D700 is hardly "entry level", it is full blown professional level.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you very much all of you, taking time for a healthy discussion. Now, suppose I go for the D700, is Canon 5D II worth a consideration? Is it better? I know I would have to overhaul all the lens collection for that.</p>

<p>I'd like to chime in here, since I am in the same position as Apurva. I have started doing a lot of 13"x19" prints for exhibition and I notice that noise levels in ISO 400 and above are very noticeable and sometimes require me to run Noise Ninja, which also robs me of some detail. Will there be a considerably lower noise level in ISO 400 on the D700? How big is the difference? One ISO stop or more?</p>

<p>Oh the old canon 5D II vs D700 question!!</p>

<p>in very short</p>

<p>d700: Better focusing especially important for shots with action and movement, <em>marginally</em> better ISO performance (but they are both excellent), and many people think better ergonomics and design.</p>

<p>5D II: significantly higher resolution</p>

<p>so whenevery you see tests done comparing the two, you end up with the canon looking much sharper in close detail, as the the nikon shot has to be enlarged losing detail. This is a little misleading. The nikon is fantastic at 12mp. If you print huge prints then there is an advantage in the canon, but they would need to be fairly large to render a visible difference. If you only have the shots on your computer and printed smaller than A3 or so (95% of people) then you dont need the canon MPs. I shoot happily with my D700 and can print as large as i need to, if i needed to cover the side of a bus for a job, i would hire a MF camera. The high MP in the canon require very sharp lenses and often a tripod to translate into sharp shots.</p>

<p>BUT the MP are very useful for cropping, you can take quite a small section out of the shot and it is still large enough to be printable. So thats the very brief and as unbiased as possible from a D700 owner. For me, the focusing of the D700 far outweighs the MP of the canon, especially if i have to lug a tripod around everywhere, and 12mp is more than enough for me, i probably dont need more than 8-10mp and i make my living of this camera.</p>

<p>Lars, regarding noise the D700 is over a stop better than the D90, ISO 400 on the D90 is roughly equal to ISO 1000 before any noise reduction, see http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/%28appareil1%29/296|0/%28appareil2%29/294|0/%28onglet%29/0/%28brand%29/Nikon/%28brand2%29/Nikon</p>

<p>Apurva, Canon's 5D Mark II is a very different camera from the D700. The Canon has more pixels and video capture but is generally slower, has an inferior AF system and not as well built. There are already tons of threads comaring the two. However, IMO your real "problem" is NAS, which will not be fixed by getting another camera.</p>

<p>Lars, if you have excessive noise at ISO 400, most likely it is due to underexposure. The D3/D700 should give you an extra stop of high ISO result than the D300/D90/D5000, and the D3S is yet another stop better. But if you underexpose, you can get excessive noise at the base ISO on any camera.</p>

<p>Given that the PMA is merely a little more than a month away and pre-PMA product announcements are already coming in, at this point I would wait a couple of weeks to see what Nikon has to introduce. The D700 is 1.5 years old and based on the D3's technology, which is no longer state of the art.</p>