Is it Going to be D90, D300 or D700?

[arun_seetharam]

<p>This is not a camera comparison or a better value thread, this is just about a better option.<br /> <br /> Tax return time!! I have 2500 on hand. Thinking of another good body. Just one, cant carry any more on my back. <br>

Some info for you.<br>

My entire lens arsenal is full frame except the 12-24, which is the only DX lens I have. <br /> I do wide range of photography, landscapes, architectures, street, sports, people, wildlife, love nightscapes too<br /> I am a technologist and not a photographer 'professionally' (may be make a little bit of money out of photography)<br /> Have a D200, D80 already along with a couple of film cameras<br /> Shoot atleast 100 a week. <br /> I am so leaning towards a full frame camera. But some thin thread is holding me back. May be I am wrong.<br /> <br /> So, is it going to be a D90, D300 or a D700? A 4th option is always welcome.<br>

Thank You folks!!</p>

 

[joe_a2]

<p>D700 and one more deduction on your W-4 in 2009. Maybe two.</p>

[kuryan_thomas]

<p>Ditto on the deductions. The government is keeping your money and not paying you interest. Save the same money yourself and you'll have even more.</p>

<p>Oh, right, the camera - since you alreadyhave two good DX systems, the 700 seems the logical choice.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>The D300 or D700 would feel immediately familiar, if you're used to using the D200. Provided you don't need the video features on the D90, I'd stick with the more rugged, external-controls design of the higher end of those bodies. The big issue is FX or DX. Your nocturnal habits will be better served by the D700. Your recent experiences with two DX bodies will make the D300 a more natural fit for instictive use of the same lenses you're used to using on the same format lately.<br /><br />Having recently retired a D200 to backup position, with a D300 doing most of the work now, I can say that it's a substantial improvement. The D700 would kill me on lenses right now, so I'm really not missing it, and am content to let things evolve for a while more in the meantime. The D300 is a wonderful camera. The D200 served me well, but I have experienced tangible, real-world improvements D300, enough to justify it for purchase. But: I waited until I could get my hands on one for considerably less than the going price early in its life.</p>

[bruce_margolis]

<p>IMO, the biggest thing you compromise with the D700 will be the sports/wildlife stuff. OTOH, you get a body that will really excel in the other areas. </p>

<p>If you have the money and it won't break the bank, go for it. Then you have the best of both worlds..... DX for your sports/wildlife (maybe landscape) and FX for everything else.</p>

 

[arun_seetharam]

<p>Wow you guys are funny.....God forbid, if I did some wrong calculations somewhere......on the returns.<br>

Knowing the MP myth and reality well, I seem to think 12.1MP is a bit smaller for a full frame sensor, isnt it? I mean the image definition is not so fine grained to see the sharpness it can teall produce within that area........somewhat like a 5MP picture taken on a FX with a DX lens. You know what I mean?<br>

Shouldnt 15MP or more like it on a camera like D700? Is that why sports and wildlife could be compromised on D700?<br>

:-)</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>I upgraded from a D200 to a D700 last year. I use focal lengths from 20 to 500mm. If you need the high ISO at shorter focal lengths then I suggest a D700. If you use longer focal lengths more and have a 70-200 f2.8 I think a D300 would fit better. I use only one body, if I could have two then a D300 would be permantly attached to my 500mm. You need to decide which side of the compromise is most important to you. I don't have any issues's with 12meg files quality wise from my D700. I might be interested in a little larger, much slower and greater latitude sensor for landscape but that is not available and really not that important to me. Your 12-24 may still be of use in the high range if you go FX. I have not tried this though.<br>

And yes you would be much better off using the governments money thoughout the year instead of this way. Its a very poor way of trying to save money. I prefer to pay a little in taxes every year instead of getting a refund. You lose the chance of any interest being made. Pennies do count just ask an accountant (my wife).</p>

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p>Arun,<br>

didn't I meet you with my friends at White Point Nature Center while you were shooting some Kestrels the other week? You should have gotten the male Kestrel handing over a jummie lizard to his mate?<br>

Anyhow - go for the D700 - you will soon see what camera you'll be using. Stimulate the economy. :-)<br>

Lil :-)</p>

[williamting]

<p>Sports/wildlife could be compromised since you know longer have the 1.5x effect from the cropped sensor size.</p>

<p>The D700's crop mode simply takes pictures at FF/35mm length and crops it down to 5.1MP.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>How about this 4th option: buy no new DSLR?</p>

<p>As usual, I would ask whether there is something insuffiicent in your D200 and D80 so that you need a new camera? Obviously it is your money to spend, but my suggestion is that if you cannot quickly point out a few reasons why the D200 is not good enough, I would say keep the money in the bank.<br>

If anything, adding a new lens will have a more lasting effect, unless you have compelling reasons to upgrade the body.</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong: if there are good reasons that you need to upgrade the body, by all mean go for it. But may I ask what those good reasons are?</p>

[arun_seetharam]

<p>hey hey!! I messed it up a bit Lil.....I would've expected better than that from myself on that kestrels.<br>

I know....the feds want to put money in our hands and we put the same money back in their hands, both to stimulate the economy?? Huh.....<br>

Thats quite interesting isnt it?<br>

I know Carl, this is one way to pull a faster one on my accountant. Otherwise you think she would approve a D700 sometime else?? Ow man....No way!!</p>

<p> </p>

[arun_seetharam]

<p>Shun, you always come out with cool stuff. Thats not a bad option at all. The only problem with that is, I cant get the money back from my accountant later. :-)<br>

You know.....D200 is a really nice camera. I really like it. So, is D80 with occasional blown highlights. The problem with both are, even at 600 ISO, pictures seem grainy at 100% crop. 800?? forget it!! Especially with flying birds and wildlife action. I need some 1/1500 shutter speeds. High ISOs have killed me.and of course indoors. Faster autofocus is the other thing I have been hearing (with D300 and 700)<br>

Other than that I seem to just fancy a better one. Thats all...</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Arun, if your problem is having too much money, I'll be happy to give you my PayPal account number so that you can transfer it over. :-)</p>

<p>If you shoot a lot of sports and wildlife, I would say go with the D300. The D700 would be better if you need ultra wide (14-24mm, although the new 10-24 is changing the picture too), PC-E lenses or super low-light capability.</p>

<p>I suggest spending as lilttle money on the body as you can get away with, although I have a lot of different bodies myself.</p>

[arun_seetharam]

<p>Ha! Ha! Sure Shun.<br>

Yea I know.....with such fast paced electronics industry.....I am thinking myself spending 2500....for another body. I am sure Nikon will make me regret in a few months.<br>

Thank you...</p>

[david_peterson9]

<p>Arun - It also depends on what kind of sports you like to shoot. The D300 is great when you have reasonable light and need longer reach. I have been wanting a D700 for fast paced indoor sports where reach is less important, but high ISO capability is a big plus (basketball, wrestling, tennis, hocky, etc.). The D700 gives you the ability to capture very nice shots up to ISO 3200 where the D300 is great up to 1600 and declines quickly after that. I use my D300 at ISO 1600 to 2500 regularly in these situations and the pictures are very usable, but the improved capabilities of the D700 would be a big plus. </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>the biggest gotcha with the D700 IMO is the need for Fx lenses. second-biggest gotcha is the loss of the 1.5x mag factor, which becomes an issue with longer focal-length lenses. so if you shoot a lot of sports and wildlife, a d300 makes sense, especially if you already have a d200 and are used to the control layout. OTOH, if your main limiting factor right now is ISO capability, a d300 would give you about one more stop, and a d700 would give you about two more stops of low-light ability.</p>

<p>shun makes a good point that the other main selling point of a d700--ultrawide capability with compatible FX lenses--has been mitigated somewhat by all the wide DX options. with a d700 you earn the "right" to spend even more $$ on a 14-24, which only gives you 1mm over a 10-20 or 10-24 on DX. </p>

<p>but if your excess cash is burning a hole in your pocket and you don't have to also buy all-new lenses, why not get a d700? IMO that extra stop of ISO weighs heavier than losing the 1.5 mag factor, but then i don't shoot wildlife with long lenses.</p>

<p>here's a thought: what about selling your current bodies and getting a d700 and a refurbished d90? you could also sell the 12-24 and pick up a 14-24 or sigma 12-24 for the wide end.</p>

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p>Arun,<br>

sorry to hear that - - but they're still around from what I hear so come on back up here. :-)<br>

I want you to know that the D700 is doing a great job for me with the wildlife shots. Granted there are times I need the crop factor - but I find myself using the D700 more & more as my primary camera.<br>

I know we can all say - keep the money in the bank etc. Lenses - since I'm not sure which lenses you have I can't say where you'll potentially lack. I was lucky - I was already ready for the D700 with my lenses & so there was no issue for me. So - I can't say where you'll potentially need to "fill in & fix" with lenses. But the 12-24 can be used in DX mode on the D700 - - or as you're keeping the D200 - - just shoot all those landscapes on the D200.<br>

I love my D300 & D700 - - from a pp point of view I think I like the D700 the best.<br>

Sorry your shots did not turn out of the Kestrels. Steve Wolfe's came out nice & Stephen says his aren't good enough to post on FM or anywhere. I don't think I got anything......... Sigmonster takes too long to set up.<br>

Lil :-)</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>Arun, I know something better will come out later. I just decided to go with what seemed to be the best value for me when I choose the D700. I was bottom feeding and always wanting. I hope to wear it out before replacement but I only take 5-6k shots a year. Trying to justify to the better half is a totally different ball game. Good luck. Still its better IMHO to owe a small amount then have someone else use the money for a year.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>There is one more major gotcha in addition to those Eric mentioned. The D300, D700, D3 and D3X use exactly the same AF module, the Multi-CAM 3500. On the D300, those same 51 AF points cover a very good portion of the frame. On FX, you have a lot more "outside" areas that are not covered. At least to me, that is a very annoying feature for FX.</p>

<p>Nowadays I use both the D300 and D700 depending on the situation. For anything indoors, I opt for the D700. For outdoor sports and wildlife, the D300 is the easy choice. If I need super wide or PC-E, I use the D700 ....</p>

<p>Once again, I would suggest spending as little money on DSLR bodies as you can get away with but not too little. If you can wait, wait as long as you can. I would expect Nikon to replace the D300 some time this year, perhaps to add some video feature and maybe a swivel screen, but I have no insider info. That is also something to keep in mind. Meanwhile, all that money isn't exactly burning a hole in your pocket (or bank account), is it?</p>

[photo5]

<p>Having owned a D300 and a D700, unless you think you absolutely have to have full frame, I'd recommend the D300. It is considerably cheaper and offers near identical performance, albeit in the DX crop format. The D700 is not only a thousand dollars more for the body, but it is heavier and chunkier than the D300, and not as comfortable to hand hold. The thing I really loved about the D300, and what I did not like on the D700, was that the D300 has very close to a 100% viewfinder, and the D700 has about a 90% viewfinder. This doesn't sound like a big deal, but it really is something you notice at times and can be a pain when you're trying to compose carefully to leave distracting elements out of the frame.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Out of curiosity, you D700 users, does the Live View on that FX body show the full frame (unlike the optical finder)?</p>

[photo5]

<p>Matt, I believe it does. This is one redeeming feature of Live View for the D700. For architecture or landscape using a tripod, I would use it often.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Live view should always show you the entire frame. It is like the final image is always the entire frame. (Perhaps except for some Sony since they use a 2nd sensor for live view.) The non 100% view is strictly a viewfinder issue.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>"Having owned a D300 and a D700, unless you think you absolutely have to have full frame, I'd recommend the D300. It is considerably cheaper and offers near identical performance, albeit in the DX crop format."</p>

<p>this is good to know, but again, only the d700/d3 (currently) gives you that extra stop of high ISO for low-light work. it can be a bit frustrating, even with a d300, to run up against that limit when shooting events--especially when there are 5D shooters lurking--but if you're not doing professional concert photography and/or a lot of "look, mom! no-flash" stuff, the d300/d90 are fairly clean at ISO 1600, unlike the d200. and there are other ways to achieve better low-light performance, such as 1.4 lenses...</p>

[timothygrayphoto]

<p>Why not go back to shooting film? You can pick up a gently used Nikon FE2 + a few lenses + a Nikon Coolscan 5000 and be money in the bank. Not only does an FE2 with 50mm lens weight at least a pound less than the D200 (or two less than the D700), but the scans you'll get form the 5000 will blow the doors off of anything you'd shoot with a D700, AND you'll be able to produce larger prints.</p>