Upgrade to D700 or get the 70-200 Ver II

[joseph_costanza]

<p>Hey guys, I have a D300s nikkor 50mm f/1.8, nikkor 85 f/1.4D, Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 & Siggy 10-20 f/4-5.6. I am looking at buying some new gear, it looks like it will either be the D700, or a New 70-200 vrII. The thing is, it seems to me the FF cameras produce a much "smoother" picture, also the ability to shoot at much higher ISO's is something I would like. That being said I would LOVE LOVE to get the new 70-200. I am just wondering what will ultimately allow me to get better looking photos.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

 

[Matt Laur]

What do you photograph, and under what circumstances?

[joseph_costanza]

<p>People and architecture. I love the D300s, but just wished it handled higher ISO's, this is really my only issue, I think in my head I know the right decision is to get the glass, (I shoot portraits mostly), but I just love the results from higher ISO shots of the d700, and it seems it just makes each lens better</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>It sounds like neither the D700 nor the 70-200mm is necessary for the OP. My suggestion is buy nothing for now; I can provide equipment suggestions based on need, but I cannot cure NAS.</p>

<p>Given how strong the specs for the D7000 is, there is absolutely no way I would buy a new D700 now unless you have some compelling reasons that you must have one. IMO it is a fairly out of date camera. If you buy a new one now, it will depreciate rapidly in the next few months.</p>

[joseph_costanza]

<p>^ Yeah, I think your right. I have been wanting a 70-200 for a while now and I feel like that lens I will have forever so I am thinking that might be a smarter decision. Granted I don't need it, but the reach and VR is something I would certainly like to have when doing portraits</p>

[photo5]

<p>Why not rent one and try it out? Personally I'd never want one, they are HUGE and HEAVY and do not travel well. I'd look at the 80-200mm 2.8 zoom lens, much smaller and lighter, and still a fast lens. You shouldn't need VR for people and architecture, you should be using a tripod for both.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>And related to what Dave Lee points out, after the 16-35mm/f4 AF-S VR and 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR, I think it is more than obvious that there is going to be a 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR to complete the trio of f4 zooms. If you don't need f2.8 and weight is a concern, the f4 version is worth waiting for. Obviously it is unclear when such a lens will be introduced and if so, how good or bad it is, but I think we'll get an answer in a matter of months, e.g. 48 months. :-)</p>

[jon_porter2]

<p>If you really want a D700 now, look into the used market. They're down to around $1,800. I would have loved to have gotten one that low when I bought mine last year! And I doubt the used price will go much below $1,600 in the next 10-15 months, so there won't be much depreciation on a used D700 bought today.</p>

[gary_sempler]

I'v been shooting my d300s with the 70-200 vr2 and I'ts a vary sharp set up. Ad the nikon 1.4 converter and you will get some really good reach that is still sharp as a tack. Thats what I do. Get the lens, you will love it. Their will always be new bodies.The one you have now is real nice

[elliot1]

<p>This is not necessarily what you want to hear but a tripod and improved technique, especially with regard to lighting and perhaps post processing, will improve your images more than a new body and/or lens, especially for the types of photography you are doing.</p>

[joseph_costanza]

<p>^ agreed, no debate in that regard from me :)</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>D300s nikkor 50mm f/1.8, nikkor 85 f/1.4D, Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 & Siggy 10-20 f/4-5.6.</em><br /> <em>People and architecture.</em></p>

<p>I think you should be reasonably well covered for general people photography with that kind of equipment. For architecture a D700 and 24 PC-E would allow you to shoot exteriors with more options, but together they cost a lot of money. It depends on how seriously you pursue architectural photography. Personally I think possibilities to use wide angles for serious architectural shots are very limited without having at least shift.</p>

<p><em>the FF cameras produce a much "smoother" picture</em></p>

<p>True. Normally one would use a tripod for architectural photography, not high ISO ... well, I've done that too but I think generally speaking better results (more carefully composed and aligned shots, with better tonality) are obtained on tripod at base ISO. For people photography, high ISO is undeniably very useful.</p>

<p>While the D700 is two years old, it is a well thought out camera that doesn't have any great flaws. It is possible that it will be replaced by something in the next year - then again, it's possible that it will not. If you need the camera now, go get one. It's less expensive now than it was two years ago and you can expect a significant price hike if/when the update comes out.</p>

<p>The 70-200 II is a nice lens; it would allow you to shoot architectural details and juxtaposition different layers at different distances for a better composition than you can with tele primes. However, it's a heavy lens ... I use it often for travel architectural and landscape details but I think it's a pain to carry around. I keep at it because of the quality of the results. For people photography I normally use tele primes like the 85/1.4 and 135/2 rather than the 70-200 which is very large and obtrusive. The buildings and landscapes don't seem to mind the big lens as much. ;-)</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>My experience is the same... the 70-200VRII is an outstanding lens, but its weight and size makes me to avoid it. In addition, I do not use this lens hanging by the camera, I like to attach the strap directly to the lens feet; then I have to remove the "normal" strap >a bit of added pain. Pro-zooms are not all roses.<br /> <br /> Most of the times I use a prime instead. Your 85/1.4 is one of the best Nikkors. BTW, it looks to work better in your D300s than on a D700.<br /> <br /> Several times I`ve been tempted to sell it, it`s an expensive lens but... I always end thinking that maybe I`ll regret that decission. If you think you can live with this issue, this zoom is the best in its class.<br /> <br /> About the camera, I don`t know. IMHO, things could be different if you were looking for other than that "<em>much higher ISO" </em>issue, or even that smoothness. Maybe I`d hold with the D300s for a time. There will be always a chance to buy a camera if you don`t need one right now. That D7000 specs makes me wonder about what`s next in FX.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>While the D700 is two years old, it is a well thought out camera that doesn't have any great flaws. It is possible that it will be replaced by something in the next year - then again, it's possible that it will not.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A DSLR without video capability is a major flaw in 2010, so is 12MP. You might not need video or more pixels, but when the bottom-of-the-line D3100 captures 1080p video and has 14MP @ $699 with a lens, Nikon can't expect to sell many more D700. I have absolutely no doubt that it'll have to be replaced within a few months. The D700 is largely based on the D3, and the D3 was already replaced a year ago by the D3S.</p>

[benjaminm]

<p>I would buy the lens first.<br>

My opinion about the D700 upgrade: the D3S is quite new model. It has the same resolution as D700. I think there will be no compact alternative to D3S (if Nikon would plan to do that, they would already did it). So, the D700 upgrade (with new, better sensor) would jeopardize the sale of relatively new D3S. In my opinion we will have to wait for the D700 upgrade for more than 6 months.</p>

[waltflanagan]

<p>D3 announced August 23, 2007<br>

D700 announced July 1, 2008<br>

D3s announced October 14, 2009</p>

<p>The D700 was announced less than a year after the D3. I guess Nikon was not scared that D700 sales would cannabilize D3 sales. I'm kind of surprised that a D700s wasn't announced because the D3s is just under 1 year old today. I think comparing the D3100 and the D700 is a little silly. One of them is FX, built like a tank, has the top AF System, and more while the other is the bottom consumer level camera. Some people need the higher MP and video, others don't.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I think comparing the D3100 and the D700 is a little silly.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not at all silly. Video is very much a pro feature as well as amateur feature today. The D3S' 780p video is out of date already; not having video at all is simply not acceptable. Consider the Canon 5D Mark II has had 20MP and 1080p video since 2 years ago (but doesn't have Nikon's AF); in some ways Nikon is way behind.</p>

<p>The flag-ship D series is on a 4-year cycle: D1 1999, D2H 2003, D3 2007. It is pretty obvious that the D4 is expected in 2011. We should see a number of FX update within the next year. The D3S is no longer a new camera; we just need to get used to the rapid upgrade cycles in electronics.</p>

[ted_ron]

<p>Get the lense first. 70-200/2.8 is very good for portrait and candid shoots. It is my favorate lense on my D300.</p>

[joseph_costanza]

<p>I am going with the lens and will just save up until the D3s replacement is out (D4 or whatever they come out with) :)</p>

[ifti]

<p>I played with it and did not buy it instead bought 135mm Nikkor. It is too heavy to be a good portrait lens and not long enough for birds. This is good for indoor sports. I dont think it is for architecture unless you want to a portion with tele to show details. I have no experience with D700 so cant say much. Good luch. Regards, ifti. </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>A DSLR without video capability is a major flaw in 2010, so is 12MP.</em></p>

<p>Not everyone who shoots stills is interested in doing video and many of those who do experiment with it never go beyond a few hours of footage that ends up largely unedited on their hard drives. Those who do video seriously, don't use Nikon equipment nor look to Nikon to deliver their next camera. They look at Panasonic, Sony, and Canon. To see why, try the contrast detect AF in a Panasonic micro four thirds camera and the 20/1.7 lens ... it's five years ahead of Nikon. I suspect that if video cameras really are to integrate into still cameras, the whole system has to be rethought and rebuilt and this introduces too many compromises for still shooters to keep their interest. To make (contrast detect) AF work properly, a new set of lenses is needed. And I very much doubt Nikon customers are willing to fund that.</p>

<p>As for the 12 MP, I don't see it any more issue today than it was in 2007 (it was low then as it is today). If you want high resolution, you get something like a Leaf 80 MP back with lenses. 16 MP vs. 14 vs. 12 MP are very small, inconsequential differences. FX vs. DX is a much more significant difference since it changes which lenses you can use. Lenses are where most of the investment goes with any serious shooter so buying into a format and switching later is basically a financial disaster, so choose your format early - and carefully.</p>

<p><em>Video is very much a pro feature as well as amateur feature today. <br /></em></p>

<p>Video isn't a feature, it's a medium.</p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>If people still have any doubts, I suggest they read this interview with Nobuaki Sasagaki, Nikon's General Manager for Marketing, back in February this year (2010), apparently during the PMA: <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10022304nikonbalance.asp">http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10022304nikonbalance.asp</a><br />I have previously cited that interview a few times so that for most of you, this should not be news.</p>

<p>Sasagaki openly acknowledged the need to put more pixels into their DSLRs and the importance of video capture. Now 7 months later, the D3100 is 14MP and D7000 is 16MP. Both can capture 1080p video and have AF during video capture. The fact that Nikon still hasn't used the D3S' sensor to update the D700 now 11 months after the D3S' introduction tells me that they are not going to make that move.</p>

<p>In other words, the D700 is falling way behind in multiple important fronts. The days to sell DSLRs only for still capture are over. If they don't imporve, Nikon will have a hard time selling cameras. None other than Ilkka has explained to us why Nikon needs to catch up badly:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Those who do video seriously, don't use Nikon equipment nor look to Nikon to deliver their next camera. They look at Panasonic, Sony, and Canon. To see why, try the contrast detect AF in a Panasonic micro four thirds camera and the 20/1.7 lens ... it's five years ahead of Nikon.</p>

</blockquote>

[david_poole1]

<blockquote>

<p>"Those who do video seriously, don't use Nikon equipment nor look to Nikon to deliver their next camera. They look at Panasonic, Sony, and Canon."</p>

<p>Agree with that statement...</p>

</blockquote>