Upgrade to D700 or no?

[idl]

<p>Hello Apurva, I am sorry but when you brought the canon into the picture, I think you are just having us on. Great fun to see these answers that take you seriously and good advice to. Buy the D700 and whichever lens that is convenient for that one. Stick to D90 for telephoto. I have a D700 and D300 and I love the D700, ( it's just a feeling ), and I like the D300 alot. I also love to travel with one camera in my hand and the other in a slingshot on my back. For an old photographer doing this for years, I find this a good solution for me. Good luck buster.</p>

[phialv]

<p>Apurva, I see two dimensions in your question. The practical view, reflected in the above responses, is that your current kit is fine and you don’t need to upgrade to the D700. The spiritual dimension is harder to address, as it speaks to your desire to work with the best equipment. A ‘vision quest.’ The images you obtain with a D700 may not appear all that different from those you currently get with your D90, or they may be of an entirely new level because you have accessed something inside you that you previously couldn’t reach. But the question cannot be answered by others, only you. For me personally, I use the D90 and am quite happy with it, but I lust for the D700 for entirely non-practical reasons. If I could afford it, I would buy the D700 with a 50mm f/1.4 lens and not look back. Good luck and kind regards, Phil</p>

<p > </p>

[luisarguelles]

<p>Apurva, my radar screen for the market says that all the major manufacturers of DSLRs will move to full frame 35mm format. Moving to a D700 is a wise step, although I forecast the existence of 1,000$ full frame bodies for 2012.</p>

 

[lars_forslin]

<p>Richard: Thank you for the very informative link. The noise characteristics sounds very promising for D700. If I can only get it at the right price... <br>

I probably exaggerated the D90 noise problem at ISO 400. As you say, it's mainly in underexposed shots it is visible in prints, but sharpening also worsen it. If the light is dim, chances are that you try to get a shot, slightly underexposed, just to get the shutter speed down. In my prints, it is not really a problem until ISO 800. But being able to use that ISO level should really increase the number of usable exposures. Many of our best shots are taken in low-light conditions when the light is exciting, so this is important.<br>

But, as Ivar says, keeping the D90 for telephoto is tempting, but that solution will be more expensive. We'll see...</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Lars,</p>

<p>I'll bet you your problem was with under-exposure, not ISO noise endemic to the camera. So, yes, you probably exaggerated the noise issue.</p>

<p>Put it this way. An underexposed shot on a D90 at any ISO will look worse than a properly exposed shot at that same ISO on my D50. I've discovered recently that properly exposed high-ISO shots on that old camera can be stunning at any size. I bet a properly exposed shot at ISO 3200 on a D90 will be way cleaner than an under-exposed shot at ISO 800 or even 400.</p>

[sasvata__shash__chatterjee]

<p>How about first getting the 24-70mm to use on the D90? Sure, it will not be as wide as the 18-200mm you'd be replacing, nor the 17-55. But, do you use the wide end that much? If you don't, then you'd be getting a lens that will provide better IQ than the 18-200mm, and get you ready for the eventual FX body that you crave for DoF reasons. However, just because the 24-70 f/2.8 allows wider apertures than the 18-200mm, you'd be better off in the shallower DoF arena anyway even without the D700.</p>

[wiley_rittenhouse2]

<p>I recommend that you read Thom Hogan's article "D3 or D300?" Much of what is said there would equally apply to the comparison "D90 or D700". See http://bythom.com/d3ord300.htm</p>

 

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Sasvata,</p>

<p>Have you actually used a DX DSLR with a lens that only went out to 24? For most of us, that would simply be frustrating and annoying. It's not wide enough.</p>

<p>Wiley, I forgot about that article. It's a good one.</p>

[lars_forslin]

<p>Regarding underexposure on the D90: what is underexposure, really? Is it underexposure if I turn the exposure down by 1.67 eV just to get the lighting of an evening scene correct? Yes, in that case I underexpose a lot. But what are you supposed to do in a situation like that? Expose correct and adjust lighting in the computer?</p>

[sasvata__shash__chatterjee]

<p>Hi Peter,<br /> <br /> Sure, I have a D300 and the 24-70mm and I use that combination all the time. I do not have a FF DSLR, but I do use that "G" lens on my N70 in shutter-priority mode. I am not that much of a wide shooter, and this lens works fine for me for people photography at events like parties, I do not find I am shooting too much with "my back to the wall". Even at 24mm, i.e. 36mm FOV equivalent on FF, I find that there are beginnings of perspective distortions that I don't like for people photography, and would not want to go wider. For rare occasions where I want to go wider (usually architecture or landscape), I find that I want to go ultra-wide for the peculiar perspective such focal lengths provide, and for that I do have a Tokina 12-24mm.<br /> <br /> In any case, it is not about what I like or others like. It will depend on whether the OP uses the wider end much on his DX body or not.<br /> <br /> Shash</p>

[dan_south]

<p>I can't answer the OP's question, but here are a few things to consider.</p>

<p>(1) The D90 is a very nice camera - small, lightweight, versatile, excellent image quality.</p>

<p>(2) The 17-55 f/2.8 DX is a lot less expensive than the 24-70 f/2.8 G.</p>

<p>(3) The combination of D700 and 24-70 is (a) expensive and (b) very heavy. I have no idea how strong you are, but I'm a relatively large person and that combination gives my arms and shoulders a real workout.</p>

<p>(4) The 24-70 is extremely sharp up close, but it impresses me less when I shoot objects that are some distance away. If you're shooting weddings and events, it's amazing. If you're shooting mountains and cityscapes, it's less impressive.</p>

<p>(5) If you want the D700 primarily for High ISO shooting, it's an ideal camera. If you want it for high resolution capture, there are better cameras on the market.</p>

<p>(6) You just never know when the infamous upgrade monster is about to strike.</p>

 

[cguaimare]

<p>Hi Apurva! First of all, I am not a great photographer. I used to have a D80 and then I jumped to a D700 with a 24-70mm 2.8. Did my photos improved? Well I think they did! I Focus much faster, Mi pictures look sharper on the screen and on print. I am HAPPY with my new toy. Is it heavy with my 24-70? Well yes, but so what? I am not that weak. I am rich with money to burn? NO but I do have the money to please myself. I have taken tons of pictures with low light and the D700 is just perfect. It focus very well and FAST. Do not think anymore Apurva. Buy it!</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>Luis - your radar seems to be malfunctioning.</p>

[benjaminm]

<p>Go FF, but sometimes you will miss your D90 + 18-200 combo.</p>

[thomas_hardy1]

<p>I would say get the new camera. I have a friend who upgraded from a D200. He used flash for all of his low light indoor shots. Now that he has the D700 he can go without the flash, but he doesn't like the look of the photos. I think he has issues with the white balance. It just looks like film shots to me.</p>

[sven keil]

<p>Why does one want to upgrade? If one camera or lens limits your current style of taking photographs. "Upgrading" won't make you a better photographer. At the beginning you have a new toy and will possibly use it with great interest, but after a month or so it just boils down whether a new body or lens is needed to enhance your photographic style. I have newer cams, but still use my D70s, and as noise suppression algorithms have improved since then, with an up-to-date Lighroom or Capture NX2 I obtain now results from the D70s RAW files that does it not make look so old. So, D90 RAW files should still give you plenty of freedom for the future.</p>

[greg_troxel]

<p>I think the real question is whether it makes sense to spend money on DX lenses. Lenses will be with you much longer than bodies. I have an 18-200, but I find that 17-55 or 24-70 gives much better sharpness and pictures with better subjective quality. So, if you can get a used 17-55 for not too much, that's an attractive choice. But I wouldn't want to spend $1200 for one now. You might try thinking more broadly about lenses, including fixed focal length lenses.</p>

 

[Apurva Madia]

<p>The very reason that I had to post this question is the mixed feeling I am having. On the one hand I don't want to loose the convenience and practicality of D90/18-200 combo. On the other, I am attracted to Fx quality and performance of "gold ring" optics. Throw in some NAS and you have the precarious situation of the OP!</p>

[pete_su]

<p>http://bythom.com/upgradepath.htm</p>

[john_morris4]

<p>Uh Oh. I was all satisfied with a D700 and a set of fine lenses, and now I've just read that I should be wanting gold ring lenses. None of my lenses has a gold ring. The 180mm AF-D has a label with some shiny gold-tone text, but no ring (unless you count the aperture ring, but that's not gold).</p>

<p>I was hoping to get through at least half of 2010 without buying cameras or lenses, but now that I know the gold ring lenses are out there, waiting, I might not be able to resist. Do chrome or aluminum rings count?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Apurva, you can always paint a gold ring yourself on all of your lenses. Otherwise, the 18-55mm/f3.5-5.6 AF-S VR DX has a gold ring around it and it is available at a very affordable price.</p>

<p>However, as long as you have NAS, after you get the D700, you'll want the new sensor on the D3S because it gives even better high-ISO results. In fact, the difference between the D700 and D3S is about the same as the difference between the D90 and D700 in terms of high -ISO results. Moreover, you'll also soon need 24MP and more and more and more ....</p>

[photo5]

<p>Also, Nikon may be introducing a replacement for the D700 this year, so that may be something to consider...</p>

[uspandey]

<blockquote>

<p>Also, Nikon may be introducing a replacement for the D700 this year, so that may be something to consider...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are strong rumours of 'D900' in the offing indeed!</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>This is not a rumor site. Anybody who actually knows something isn't talking.</p>

[AndyMiller]

<p>Hi there Apurva, I do not know the D90 but I have not long since got rid of all my DX stuff. I used a D70, D200, D2X and D300. I had the 18-200 which is a super lens and was the only reason I held back once I had a D3. I now use a D3 and D700 with the 14-24 afs f2.8; the 24-70 afs f2.8 and the 70 - 200 afs f2.8. I print mainly A3. The D3X tempted me but Nikons price hike was a bit too much for me. I use an assortment of other lenses - primes - 16mm fisheye; 24mm PCE; 105 micro; 105 f2 DC; 70-180 micro, 300 f4; 500 f4P and 1000 f11 reflex Nikkors -- Zooms : 70-300; 80-400 VR Nikkors. I enjoy the FX part of my set up. I'm no longer working out multiplication factors and in many ways this is more of what I'm used to being an old Nikon bod from the days of the Nikon F Photomic and before. If you wish to print on the side of a building, then go for a D3X - A3 or A2 and the D3 or D700 are great. Always get the best glass you can afford as the bodies change but the glass changes are a lot slower and I'm still using a couple of 30 years old plus lenses. Wait for a D700 replacement? All they seem to do of late is add better video facilities and I'm a stills photographer; Also once you have what you decide on it will probably be upgraded within 18 months. I did keep an old D100 and 17-55 DX kit lens but I had it's sensor converted for Infrared and I tend to use an older 17-35 f2.8 Nikkor on that one.</p>