D90 or D700?

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>it's hard to see why one would need a D300 over a D90 </em><br>

It's not at all hard to see. The D300(s) has far superior autofocus whereas the AF of the D90 is only practically useable with the center focus point; the rest are too unrealiable. Recomposing only works for some subjects and static ones at that, thus if you're photographing people, you definitely want something that has useful autofocus throughout the image field, and that's what the D300(s) does better than any other camera.</p>

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

<p>By contrary, I think all DX cameras are fairly specialized; what is available for them in abundance are slow zooms with large ranges; i.e. consumer lenses for photos in bright daylight with lots of background clutter and difficulty in isolating the main subject outside of the studio. For bird photography they're no doubt great but that wasn't mentioned by the OP as being a key subject of interest (though I suppose "nature photography" may include birds and other wildlife but the budget specified isn't conductive to that). D700 is excellent for people photography; it has superb autofocus and lenses that were actually designed for people photos work as they were intended on FX. You even have a big viewfinder so you can see your subject clearly and detect nuances in expression which you can't when using a DX camera with a tiny viewfinder. For city subjects, like architecture, DX cameras have no really wide angle with shift available, that's a problem for architectural photography. And there are few fast wide angle options for DX; the 24/1.4 seems excessively expensive for a fast moderate wide if you only use it on DX. IMHO DX is way more specialized than FX if we only look at results possible in a variety of photographic fields, as opposed to focusing on price.</p>

<p>Back to the OP,</p>

<p><em>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.</em></p>

<p>Either D700 or D300s would be excellent for the subjects mentioned; if people subjects are more important, get the D700, and if wild animals are an important part of nature photography for you, then D300s with some 300mmish lens would almost be within budget. A D90 would also be useable but the autofocus would probably eventually drive you to upgrade since you mention a moving 4-year old kid. It's better to buy something that is known to work well from the start, rather than start from something that will almost work, be frustrated, and then pay more to upgrade.</p>

 

[albert_lee1]

<p>i recommend the full frame d700. i went from a d40->d5000->d300s->d700 and i can say the full frame sensor blows the DX format away. my images in low light with the d700 look beautiful where as the dx sensor has more visible noise. u will notice the difference and u'll be glad u got it. the size is not unbearable, when u are getting such high quality shots from it at an event, wedding, family, whatever, u will not notice the weight.</p>

[igor_gefter]

<p>Would it be redundant if I were to also get the Nikkor 35 1.8 in addition to my Tamron 17-50 2.8<br>

I know Tamy has already 35 mm range, but Nikkor is faster, lighter.<br>

Or would the Tammy be comparable at 35 mm?</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I think the 35 f1.8 is a joy to use, and not just in low light. I'd say yes, that's my lens that "lives" on the camera.</p>

[left_ayyones]

<p>Congrats on the D90 purchase. The 35mm f/1.8 is a great lens for indoor shots - it's perfect for those family gatherings (holidays etc), and is very sharp, lightweight and inexpensive. What more do you need?</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=568149">Andrew Campbell</a><br>

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

</blockquote>

<p>Andrew brings up a great point. Check out his work. You don't need $20,000 of camera gear to take great pictures - you need dedication, hard work, and a creative mind. Thom Hogan's classic 'Blame the Equipment' article sums it up well: http://bythom.com/blame.htm</p>

[igor_gefter]

<p>I understand that 35 1.8 is a great lens. But I also need a wide angle. That's why I ordered the Tamron 17-50. Is it redundant to also order the 35 1.8?</p>

[homer_arment1]

<p>For me, buying a fixed focal length lens that fit in a range I already had covered by fairly good glass would be a waste of money. I would look outside the 17-50 range for my next lens be it fixed focal length or another high-speed zoom. For landscapes perhaps a 10-20 zoom or perhaps a 70-300 zoom for nature/wildlife. For mid distance sports perhaps a 70-200 2.8 zoom or maybe an 85mm 1.8 or a 105 2.8 macro lens. Both macros are also good for portraits although the 105 is perhaps a little on the long end.</p>

[chauncey_huffman]

<p>Like others have said, get the D90 with the 16-85 VR and you'll be very happy. I use the 16-85 as my back up lens for weddings and I am very happy with it. It's not as good as my 17-55 as far as IQ, focusing and build quality, but it's a lot lighter and has that longer tele length to get a little closer.</p>

[igor_gefter]

<p>I know the 16-85 is a good lens, but I am afraid it might be to slow for taking pictures of the the 4 year old kid indoors.<br>

From what I have read Tamron is nearly as good optically, yet will be better suited for indoor stop action pictures.<br>

Don't you agree?</p>

[drjoder]

<p>Nikon D90 with the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 zoom (a happy combination, for me at least).</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p><em>"Would it be redundant if I were to also get the Nikkor 35 1.8 in addition to my Tamron 17-50 2.8</em><br /><em> I know Tamy has already 35 mm range, but Nikkor is faster, lighter.</em><br /><em> Or would the Tammy be comparable at 35 mm?"</em></p>

<p>yes, slightly. i have both the tamron 17-50 and the sigma 30/1.4--a more expensive, slightly faster alternative to the 35/1.8--i can tell you from personal experience that the 30/1.4 gets neglected frequently, except in conditions where 1.4 is absolutely necessary or when i'm going for jaw-dropping bokeh. the same thing has more or less happened with the 50/1.8.</p>

<p>part of the reason for this is that the 17-50 is quite sharp at 2.8--my copy is, anyway--while the 50 and the 30 need to be stopped down to 2.8 to achieve the same level of sharpness in real-world usage. part of this is my shooting style--i shoot a lot of things which move in low-light situations, so the narrow DoF can result in focus errors.</p>

<p>the original, non-VC version of the tamron is quite compact--not quite as small as the 35 and the 50--but well-suited for travel and street photography. so if you get the 35, there will be a lot more redundancy with the 17-50 then there would have been with the 16-85, for instance. the 17-50 also has better bokeh than both the 50 and the 35 (but not the 30).</p>

<p>so, you're not really getting better IQ with the 35 over the 17-50, just a squeench more low-light ability and minimal size/weight savings, at the expense of zoom range. i wouldnt NOT recommend the 35, since it's cute, inexpensive and fairly sharp, but i would maybe suggest filling more gaps first before purchasing, such as replacing the 70-210 or getting an UWA. also, it's a lot easier to scrape up enough dough to buy a $200 lens down the line than one costing $500 and upwards.</p>

 

[eric_arnold]

<p><em>"From what I have read Tamron is nearly as good optically, yet will be better suited for indoor stop action pictures.</em><br /><em> Don't you agree?"</em></p>

<p>yes, i do. the slow, variable aperture of the 16-85 took it out of the running for me. and if you compare MTF results on photozone, the nikon is better in some areas, the tamron in others, so it's probably closer to comparable optically than 'nearly as good.' what the 16-85 does have is more range and VR, but i'd rather have constant 2.8 than stabilization.</p>

<p>VR can't freeze subject motion, just reduce camera shake, and with a short range zoom like the 17-50, would really only be necessary for low-light still shots, not low-light action shots. 1/15 is always gonna be 1/15, and if you needed ,say, a 1/60 shutter min. to freeze motion, you'll still get blurry pics with VR if you shoot things which move at that shutter speed.</p>

<div></div>

[igor_gefter]

<p>Great. Thank you all. I bought the Tamron lens.<br>

Which filter would you recomend on the Tamron lens for optimum results?<br>

I already have a cheap Tiffen UV filter I could use on it. Is it sufficient, or do I need to invest a few extra dollars into a better filter. Would it make any difference for this lens?</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

[igor_gefter]

<p>By the way, do I need to go a very fast SDHC card for D90? Sandisk Extreme III, or is it overkill?</p>

<p>As I said, I will be shooting auction shots of my kid and occasional videos as well.</p>

[bourboncowboy]

<p><em>Which filter would you recomend on the Tamron lens for optimum results?</em><br>

The only filter you need is a circular polarizer. Get a B + W or a Hoya HMC. Skip the UV filters unless you're shooting in an environment in which the front lens element could be damaged or soiled - such as on the beach.</p>

[bourboncowboy]

<p>Extreme III cards are fast and reliable. It's the only card I use in my cameras.</p>

[charleseagan]

<p>The d700 is an awesome camera! You won't regret it. It is a heavy camera, but if you have large hands it should be a comfortable fit. You'll make the most of your existing lenses with the D700 with the added benefit of great low light performance.</p>

[charleseagan]

<p>duplicate post.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>I've found that in my D90 a faster memory card does improve rapid-fire performance. The D90 will do an initial burst of several fast shots, which will fill up the internal memory buffer (it fills faster in raw than in JPG) then it will shoot as fast as it can offload previous images to the memory card. A faster card doesn't make a <em>huge</em> difference but it makes some difference. I think that already having some reasonably fast cards I wouldn't have bought a faster one myself, but I was given one for Christmas and I use it.</p>

<p>WRT the 35mm lens, I have one, and also a Tamron lens that could substitute (a 28-75/2.8). I choose a zoom lens in bright light because there's not much difference optically when stopped down, but I go to the 35mm in lower light because the finder is brighter, the AF works better (AF sensor works off what it seems through the lens wide open, the more light coming through the better) and it does give me better results as the 2.8 zoom wants to stop down to f/4 to get really, really sharp results. The 35mm is also small, quick handling and its wide aperture results can be stunning. It spends more time on my camera than any other lens and even gets some use on my F100.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>I've found that in my D90 a faster memory card does improve rapid-fire performance. The D90 will do an initial burst of several fast shots, which will fill up the internal memory buffer (it fills faster in raw than in JPG) then it will shoot as fast as it can offload previous images to the memory card. A faster card doesn't make a <em>huge</em> difference but it makes some difference. I think that already having some reasonably fast cards I wouldn't have bought a faster one myself, but I was given one for Christmas and I use it.</p>

<p>WRT the 35mm lens, I have one, and also a Tamron lens that could substitute (a 28-75/2.8). I choose a zoom lens in bright light because there's not much difference optically when stopped down, but I go to the 35mm in lower light because the finder is brighter, the AF works better (AF sensor works off what it seems through the lens wide open, the more light coming through the better) and it does give me better results as the 2.8 zoom wants to stop down to f/4 to get really, really sharp results. The 35mm is also small, quick handling and its wide aperture results can be stunning. It spends more time on my camera than any other lens and even gets some use on my F100.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>To underline the point of Andrew:<br>

Whether owning a fixed focal, like a 35 f/1.8, in a range you already have pretty well covered, is a totally personal decision. I would still get the 35 f/1.8, even with a f/2.8 zoom. It's more than a stop faster, it's small, light, easy. Primes can help considering composition more since you physically have to move to change perspective.</p>

<p>Some people prefer zooms because of flexibility, others primes because they're faster and smaller. The fact that somebody else has a preference won't tell you a thing there, it's worth finding out for yourself.</p>

[left_ayyones]

<p>yeah, from my experience, the difference between a "fast" and a "very fast" memory card isn't much, but there is a huge difference in how fast you can shoot between a cheapo no-name memory card and a very fast memory card. so it's probably worth springing for a good card if you haven't already...</p>

[pasi_h_gg]

Indoors+kid = flash :-)