What to upgrade to from my D70

[matt_b14]

<p>Hi Everybody,</p>

<p>I have a Nikon D70 with the standard 18-70mm DX lens and a 60mm 2.8 Macro FX lens.</p>

<p>I'm going to have around £1,000 to spend towards the end of this year (possibly £1,600 in the new year) and I'd like to upgrade. I'm in no way a serious or career photographer, just a hobbyist and I feel as though I need to upgrade what is now five years old technology.</p>

<p>80% of the time I'm shooting people with the rest being whatever takes my interest.</p>

<p>I want to get rid of the 60mm 2.8 and replace it with the Sigma 50mm 1.4 (I tried this last weekend and was really impressed with the bokeh). It was on a D60 body but would love to have it on an FX camera so that I could use it indoors in less light. I suppose I could always comprimise with the Sigma 30mm which I could put on a DX camera.</p>

<p>I'm interested to know what people think I should get in terms of a camera body. If I save I can buy a D700 and make use of FX lenses at their actual focal length with no cropping and shoot indoors in lower light (my 60mm is frustrating in that walls get in the way when I try and frame the picture as I'd like on my D70). It also means that when I (can afford to) buy wide lenses, they'll capture what they were designed for on an FX, or at least will capture wider angle, as opposed to a DX body.</p>

<p>The D7000 looks mighty interesting but am I better future-proofing and getting an FX body, or should I buy what I can afford? The D90's price is also attractive - I could even buy more lenses if I opted for this.</p>

<p>I'd also like to be able to shoot some video. This is, however, a bonues and not essential.</p>

<p>I'd appreciate any thoughts or what other people think.</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Matt</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I'd get the D7000 if I could afford it, and I wouldn't feel bad about "settling" for the D90 if you can't. Any refurbs available there? That's a good way to cut the price on the D90.</p>

<p>You almost certainly don't need FX until you know you need FX. And if you're on a budget, you don't need it.</p>

[alvinyap]

<p>Hmmm so basically the camera isn't really limiting you, it's just time to upgrade yes?</p>

<p>Maybe a D90 would be a good jump, D7k may be overkill, but only you can decide that. Personally, unless you really need the performance of a d7k or better, d90 + additional lenses would be imo a better option.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>I don't see your need for FX. If you have money and a bad case of NAS then go for a D700. Personally I would go for a body that would enable use of older AIS lenses like the D7000. If you like the size, weight and feel of your D70 then a D90 would be a very nice upgrade at a price that would allow you to purchase a Sigma 50mm f1.4. You should probably give that combination strong consideration. If you are not shooting sports then the AF module would be less important (D7000)</p>

[andreas_manessinger]

Matt, there is no wide-angle problem on DX. None at all. You can get an 8-16 mm Sigma lens for DX, and that's equivalent to 12-24 mm on

FX. You can't possibly go wider on FX, at least not without a fisheye, but you have that option on DX as well. About the only three things

that I currently see, that could be hard reasons for why someone has to use FX, are a) the better high-ISO performance, b) the bigger

viewfinder and c) the need to use wide-angle tilt/shift lenses.

 

a) is no real problem. The D7000 is almost where the D700 is in terms of noise. Not exactly, but it's near. Less than a stop maybe. If you

want something better on FX, then you have to buy a D3s for more than double the price. Lens stabilization helps a lot, but admittedly not

for sports.

 

b) is tempting, but even a D700 has no 100% viewfinder, while the D300(s) and the D7000 have one. You trade a bigger viewfinder image for

less framing accuracy. You can have 100% on FX, but you have to buy a D3s or D3x

 

c) is the only issue that's left. A 24mm PC lens is a 36mm PC lens on DX, and that may be not wide enough for architecture or landscape.

 

On the other hand, you can't buy a stabilized 24-70/2.8 lens for FX, but there are two options for a roughly equivalent 17-50/2.8 stabilized

lens, one from Tamron (that I have) and a new one from Sigma. Yes, it does not help for action, but stabilization helps everywhere else.

 

Imagine a D7000, for the sake of the argument let's say that its noise is one stop worse than that of the D700. Now put a stabilized 17-

50/2.8 on the D7000 and a non-stabilized 24-70/2.8 on the D700. The advertised gain for stabilization is "up to four stops", but let's assume

it were only two stops. In reality it is more something between two and four, depending on the situation, your stance, etc, but let's assume

only two.

 

Even in that worst case scenario you gain one stop. Sure, motion blur will be a problem, but in a church or any other dark building you will

profit greatly. And, of course, a stabilized 24-70/2.8 would change the game completely.

 

But it's not only that. Yes, a 24mm lens is really as wide as 24mm on FX, but a 70-300mm lens is only a 300mm max, versus a 450mm

on DX. Or take a 70-200/2.8. It's a 300mm lens on DX. Sure, it's pretty expensive, but a 300/2.8 is more than twice the price. Yes, you can get a 300/4 prime cheaper, and its apparent DOF will be only slightly worse, but it's a prime and much less flexible.

 

Thus, I would recommend DX unless you explicitly want a camera for professional event or sports photography and can't possibly work with

flashes.

 

Which one?

 

I have a D300 and I won't buy a D7000, I consider upgrading to the to-be-announced D400 though. There is not much difference between

my D300 and the D7000. The D7000 has the better sensor, the D300 the better AF module. I don't want to live without the "one press for

100% review" functionality though. Instant sharpness verification with one button press. On the D300 this is an option for the center button,

and Nikon reserves that for their "professional" models. Other than that, the D7000 would be my next camera.

 

If I were in your situation, I would go for the D7000 or contemplate a (possibly refurbished) D300(s). Both will be a spectacular upgrade for

you. Just decide between slightly higher image quality and better handling. Or wait for the D400 and get both.

[mart_e]

<p>I went from D70 to D90, and I found a significant step up in IQ (not least because of the larger screen for viewing shots and spotting problems).</p>

<p>I would recommend glass over camera, although the D70 has slipped behind current standards in dynamic range, pixels etc. so it may be worthwhile to upgrade.</p>

<p>If it were me, I would go for a D90, and spend the rest on a lens or 2.</p>

<p>Martin</p>

[simon_hickie1]

<p>One query I have is what you do with your images once you have them. I'm an enthusiastic (amateur) camera club member and we either project images or display prints. When projecting (XGA) I find no difference in image quality between my cheap Canon compact and D300 + 16-85mm (subject to the usual DOF and dynamic range issues). When printing, my old D50 will print <em>quite</em> nicely to 10 x 15 inches (to internal competition winning standard) and D300 <em>very</em> nicely to the same size. The D300 has more cropability than the D50 & the D7000 would offer more still. For lower light stuff, the D50 is fine to ISO 800 if well exposed (about the same as the D70). The D300 ditto to ISO 1600. </p>

<p>One key thing for me is exposure accuracy. The D300 is excellent in aperture priority matrix metering mode. I believe the D700 is similar. I have yet to see outcomes for the D7000. The other key thing for me is weight. Thanks to ongoing back problems I need lightness & the D300 is proving to be on the heavy side. This may not be an issue for you. But if it is, either the D90 or D7000 (a little heavier than the D70 / D90, but lighter than the D300) would probably make most sense.</p>

<p>For lenses, I found my 18-70mm to be decent, but no more. The 16-85mm is better for me. You can have image stabilisation throughout most of the FL range on DX, but not FX. Depth of field control will be slightly easier on FX than DX (about a stop less DOF than DX for the same field of view and f stop i.e. f5.6 on DX = about f8 on FX).</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>If price is an object - I would suggest a used D300 or D300s - either of which will be a significant improvement over a D70 in battery life, low light and dynamic range.</p>

<p>D90 would be my second choice.</p>

<p>D7000 may be out of the price range - or high enough that you can't get additional lenses. </p>

<p>And I'd totally stay away from D700 or Full Frame for now - unless you think you are really missing something with Dx.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>If the budget is around £1,600, I would get a D90 now at deep discount and 1 or 2 good lenses to go along with it. The D90 is no longer the latest but can still capture fine images.</p>

<p>It is always unwise to spend the bulk of your budget on a DSLR body while you don't have much optics to support it. In the old days, film SLRs did not depreciate nearly as quickly so that you could always argue that you get a good camera first and then add lenses gradually. Today, DSLRs go down in value so quickly such that there is no point to buy a good DSLR until you have some good lenses.</p>

[matt_b14]

<p>Hi all,</p>

<p>Thanks for the replies.</p>

<p>From what everyone has written I've ruled out the D700.</p>

<p>I've mulled over the thought of having a used / refurbished body, I'm just worried I'll be the one in a million where it goes wrong and there's no warranty. For peace of mind I'll buy new.</p>

<p>If I wait 'til next year and I have £1,600 (and find an extra £200 from somewhere), I can get the D7000, 18-200mm VR and the Sigma 50mm. I think this combination should suit most of my needs for now and will be hugely superior to my current setup.</p>

<p>Simon, your question regarding what do I want to do made me think about this differently. Having a D70 has meant I've never considered large prints because it's just not possible. I'd like to have some large pictures, say A2 or bigger, displayed in the house which never would be able to do with the D70; the D7000 would allow this and I could crop if necessary.</p>

<p>Mart, I completely agree on the smaller screen on the D70. I've wanted a bigger screen for quite some time now and have been disappointed on a number of occasions when pictures have appeared out of focus on the computer. A bigger screen may not completely solve this but i'll certainly help. I often feel that the quality of my pictures are far inferior straight out of the camera compared to my friend's Canon 5d II. It's not a fair comparison by any means but it's hard not to be jealous.</p>

<p>Andreas, your post is a very interesting read, thank you. I hadn't realised these 'extra' gains from IS and gives me more reason to stick with DX.</p>

<p>I'd be interested to know how the 400D will be priced compared to the D7000, or even if its release will push down the price of a D7000.</p>

<p>Matt</p>

[simon_hickie1]

<p>Hi Matt.</p>

<p>If A2 is your objective (that's big!) then at 300dpi we are talking about 7000 x 4900 pixels (c. 34mp). At 200dpi that becomes a more reasonable 15mp or thereabouts. 200dpi for such a large print is fine at sensible viewing distances. At 150dpi we're down to 8.7mp. With some decent interpolation software, this would suggest you can get decent prints out of a 12mp D90 or D300. Proamimaging (excellent print quality BTW) want their files as 402ppi, so often you have to do some interpolation anyway.</p>

<p>On the lens front, I'd steer clear of the 18-200 if you plan to print big. I don't think you'll be happy with the image quality. Suppose we are talking £1800 total. A D90 body new is around £600. This leaves £1200 for lenses. Believe me lenses are the key! It's like the old hifi argument - spend as much as you can on the source first (CD player / record deck etc) then think about amplifiers and speakers. The amp can only work with what you feed it. Same with cameras - the sensor can only work with what it's given. £900 will buy you a brand new 17-55mm f2.8 nikkor (£650ish used). That's £1500 total and you can then save up some more for a telephoto. Alternatively, if you are OK with slower lenses, the 16-85mm (£400) is excellent and much better than the 18-200mm I owned. Yet another alternative is the Tamron 17-50mm with the added attraction of image stabilisation (£350). (I had one of those too, but found the AF a bit twitchy, if accurate and the range wasn't quite right for me - very sharp though). </p>

<p>Summary within budget:</p>

<ul>

<li>If fast lens(es) needed, then Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 (£900) or Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC (£350) plus a telephoto when funds permit</li>

<li>If slower lenses OK, then 16-85mm VR nikon (£400) plus possibly a 70-300 VR nikon (£390) </li>

</ul>

<p>The D300s is £1000 new and must be due for an upgrade soon. The D7000 is £1100 currently from an authorised UK dealer. The D90 is £600. <br>

D90 + 17-55mm nikon = £1500 - proven lens and body, less financial body depreciation, lens will depreciate less<br>

D7000 + 16-85mm nikon = £1500 - as yet unproven body, proven lens, body will depreciate a lot over time<br>

D300s + 16-85mm nikon = £1400 - not much better IQ than D90<br>

D90 + 16-85mm Nikon = £1000 - can buy now if slower lenses OK.<br>

Plus a whole load of other permutations including prime lenses etc.</p>

<p>If it was me and I could manage the weight, the 17-55mm would be at the top of the list. You can't beat the flexibility of fast focusing large aperture lenses for maximum creative control, flexibility and value retention.</p>

<p>More to think about!</p>

[drjoder]

<p>What Mart E above said applies precisely to me as well. Went from the D70 to the D90--and perhaps more importantly, was able to get a nice selection of pretty decent glass. They always say the glass is most important...With the D7000 out, you might find a good deal on the D90 now--or a refurbished by Nikon body which would be an excellent option.</p>

[matt_b14]

<p>Mart, thanks for the post.<br>

I'm still very keen to get the Sigma 50mm 1.4. With that in mind do you think the Nikon 17-55mm 2.8 should be my next buy?</p>

<p>Hi Daniel, where do you get a 'refurbished by Nikon' body from? Do you have a link? I can find a couple (namely on CameraWorld) but the savings are virtually nil. A new D90 from Mifsuds is £589 instore and that'll get you a longer warranty period too. Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place?</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>Decide what you are going to photograph and get the lense that does the best job. For travel the 18-200mm may be best. For event shots a 17-50mm f2.8 type lense would be better. For low light a f1.4 might be best. For large prints I would rather use something else than the 18-200mm from what I have read. Personally I don't care for slow zooms at what ever range. To limited for narrow DoF. A few fast primes can weigh and cost more than a f2.8 zoom but I prefer to change lenses and use the speed. If I could have only one lens in DX it would probably be a 17-50mm f2.8 zoom or a fast med wide angle. Some folks use just one fast prime, YMMV.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>If you want to save money for lenses, get the D90, it's a fantastic camera. (The D7000 is even more fantastic, but if you can get a good discount on a D90 that would be very compelling.) If you're comfortable with the D70's form factor and feature set, I'd rule out the more expensive D300(s) options - they offer the same imaging capabilities as a D90, but with more features and a larger (and sturdier but this also means heavier) form factor.</p>

[photo5]

<p>D7000</p>

[drjoder]

<p>Matt, here is a link to B&H with some used D90s...scroll down to the refurbished one at about $740.00. You should confirm with them it is Nikon refurbished (should be) and then check on shipping, compare with exchange rate, etc.<br>

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=D90&InitialSearch=os&N=0&usedSearch=1">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=D90&InitialSearch=os&N=0&usedSearch=1</a><br>

I bring up Nikon refurbished stuff because most folks seem to have a good experience with it. The idea is that someone from Nikon has actually taken the time to check out the camera. Not sure if new ones get this kind of attention.</p>

[matt_b14]

<p>Hi everyone,</p>

<p>I went and tried out the D7000 this weekend and was impressed. However, in the store they had a D300 which, when I picked it up, just felt right in my hand. In terms of size, the D7000 feels more like a toy compared to it.</p>

<p>However, as I'm sure was the case in most parts of the UK, there was low stock of D7000 and the only stores to have any were electonic sections of department stores; on both occasions staff members who helped me out were Canon fans and didn't know much at all about Nikon (what's up with that?!). So trying to understand the D300 was a little difficult to say the least.</p>

<p>Would anybody suggest that the D300 would be too much of a step up? Or once you get to know the dials is it easier? I might be comparing apples and oranges but some advice from D300 users would be appreciated.</p>

<p>Simon, I tried out the Nikon 17-55mm in the store on the D300 - the lens was a much bigger than I was expected!! For some reason I was having focussing problems but on some pictures that did take right I was impressed. That lens on a D300 feels seriously robust but fairly heavy. I wanted to try the Tamron too (having done some research this seems to be almost an equal but much cheaper alternative to the Nikon) but sadly no stores had any stock.</p>

[russharris]

<p>Matt B</p>

<p>The Tamron 17-50 (I had the non-VC version) is a very fine lens. Still heavy tho, even when compared to the Nikon equivalent.<br>

No problems with sharpness...</p><div></div>

[russharris]

<p>And a 100%-ish crop</p><div></div>

[layne_applecrispstudios]

<p>I just upgraded my D70s to a D90. I found a great deal on a refurbished D90 from an authorized dealer on ebay. I couldn't be happier. I agree that moving to the D90 is a major upgrade and it is not so costly. Save for great lenses!</p>