D700 first DSLR

[stevejw]

<p>Is there anything wrong with a beginner going from a P&S to a D700?<br>

After using a Kodak Easy Share for a long while, (years), I've picked up and played with a fair few DSLR bodies and I like the D700 the most out of all of them. The fact that it's FF appeals to me greatly as well.<br>

As for video and a high MP count, I really don't care. In fact I think a lower MP count makes for better IQ, especially considering the D700's 'era'.<br>

I've saved for a fair while and now I have enough to buy one, unfortunately I feel a little hesitant doing so as I'm not an 'advanced amateur' or what ever the pre requisite is for owning one.<br>

More accurately, it would be my first DSLR rather than my first camera.<br>

Permission appreciated!<br>

Thanks :)</p>

[jaydesi]

<p>There's nothing wrong with buying a higher end DSLR rather than starting out with a consumer model. The biggest issue is how comfortable you'll be using the various features, and spending the time needed to learn how to use your camera well.</p>

<p>You said you have saved enough money for the camera, but what about lenses? There's nothing wrong with sticking with the kit lens for a while; in fact, that's probably the best thing to do. Then you add lenses to fit needs you have that your kit lens can't deliver.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Sure nothing wrong, but you have to ask yourself a few questions:<br>

- "The fact that it's FF appeals to me greatly as well"; what exactly about FF is the attraction? What does FF deliver to you that makes it worth the extra money?<br>

- Does your budget allow for a few good lenses to use on the D700? A body is just the start. Lenses for APS-C cameras can be cheaper too, so this is also part of the first question: is FF worth the extra money?<br>

- Are you OK with the weight and size of a D700 with one or more good lenses? It's a serious amount bigger and heavier than any compact camera and that can be less fun for sure.<br>

- How familiar are you with the basics of photography? The more pro-level Nikons have just the PASM modes (which is enough) and their menus. They offer no help to the user to grasp how to operate the camera. The learning curve, hence, can be steep, where the D3100/D5100 level cameras are much gentler.</p>

<p>On my sites and forums, you get the idea that full frame is like the holy grail of photography. Fact is many here, including professionals, do very fine on APS-C. Lenses make all the difference in the world, and given the choice between a D700 with some 28-300 do-it-all zoom or a D7000 or D300s with a few smaller-range zooms or primes, I'll take the APS-C camera any day.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>typo. "On my sites and forums" should be "On many sites and forums..."</p>

[stevejw]

<p>Yes, there's enough for lenses. I was going to buy one of the new 50 1.8G's and maybe a 24 2.8 to begin with.<br>

If I find that I need different focal lengths then get some form of zoom in a month or two.<br>

FF appeals to me because of the pixel to sensor size ratio and how that equates to better IQ & better low light/high ISO performance.<br>

I haven't read a great deal about the newer sensor in the D5100 and D7K but apparently it does quite well in those situations too.<br>

I'm not experienced with aperture & shutter speed thus far but know what they do. I'm familiar with exposure compensation, ISO, zoom, WB & focal points from using my current camera.<br>

Using all these things together well & developing an eye is what I see as the challenge.</p>

<p>I do hear what you guys are saying, believe me, it's not as though I haven't thought about a cropper or LX5 or something similar instead. Perhaps a D700 maybe overkill, I just don't want to be endlessly upgrading bodies which seems to be big on forums as well.</p>

<p>Cheers :D<br>

P.S. No worries WW, I knew what you meant. ;)</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>If money is not a concern, the D700 is still a fine camera. However, it was announced 3 years ago and is based on the technology of the D3, which was announced back in 2007. The technology inside the D700 is very old for digital electronics and there is little doubt that an update is due. As I have been saying for a year, you should have a compelling reason to buy into such technology if you want a new D700 now.</p>

<p>Generally speaking, you are better off spending more money on lenses. For example, the 24mm/f2.8 AF-D has an optical design that is over 3 decades old (optically it is identical to the 24mm/f2.8 AI that I bought way back in 1978). With modern DSLRs, you are better off using newer lenses.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Nothing wrong with that at all, Steve. During the first year after the D700 was introduced I recall seeing posts from several folks who said it was their first "serious" digital camera - in some cases, their first camera of any kind.</p>

<p>Even tho' the D700 is a comparatively old model by dSLR standards, it would still be a huge step up for me (I'm still using a 4 mp D2H). I'm sure it would meet my needs for years to come, but I know my own subject matter and habits very well. The main reason I'm not considering buying one is the currently high market value for new and used D700's, due in part to slowed production in the aftermath of the March tsunami.</p>

[dbcooper]

<blockquote>

<p>Is there anything wrong with a beginner going from a P&S to a D700?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not at all. You'll save quite a bit of money skipping intermediate steps, and a D700 is likely all the camera most people will ever really need.</p>

<p>Some free advice: don't fall into the tech trap, meaning don't get sold on the idea you gotta have the latest and greatest stuff. If you need it, that's one thing, but there are a <em>lot</em> of folks that have overspent themselves that way. The D700 is more camera than most people will ever really need.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Steve,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I just don't want to be endlessly upgrading bodies</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But you decide whether that happens or not. All current DSLRs deliver very good quality photos. Sure, there are improvements in new models, but it's not the case that your pictures will go bad in 2-3 years because the Nikon D9500FX just hit the street. So, the D700 does not, or cannot, cure that. Personally, I think as a first DSLR, taking it serious and willing to spend, at this very moment, the D7000 is the Nikon that makes the most sense. Price/performance, it's an outstanding deal. (*)<br>

And, it's really useful to try free up a bit more for lenses; the 50 f/1.8 will be nice (I have the older one, and value for money it's awesome), the 24 f/2.8 is not spectacular. As much as I like primes (and I use them a lot), I think a decent allround zoom is really something you don't want to miss out on. For events, holidays etc., it's really always handy to have around. Limiting yourself to 2 primes will be a great learning experience, but one that will also at times infuriate you and make you miss shots.</p>

<p>(*) <em>but yes, having set your mind now on a D700, you may always suffer that nagging feel that you bought a compromise. In which case, try to get the 24-120VR or a similar lens with the D700 :-)</em></p>

[victorwei]

<p>Bottom line is... if it feels right to you, go for it. </p>

<p>The fact that it may be too advanced for you in the beginning means it will also give you lots of room to grow as a learning photographer without having to upgrade to a more advanced body.</p>

[stevejw]

<p>Thanks for all the input fellas, I suppose I should think about it some more.<br>

If I don't go ahead with the D700, what would you say is better out of the D90 and D5100?<br>

If I went DX I'd probably get the 35DX and the 16-85VR.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>D5100 - better sensor, better video.<br>

D90 - Better controls, better compatibility (AF lenses and for wireless flash), much better viewfinder.</p>

<p>D7000 - best of both worlds.</p>

<p>(the lenses, in my view, would be excellent choices)</p>

[janin_robertson]

<p>I am you. I bought my first DSLR two weeks ago and went through the same dilema. I was comimg from a Canon S5IS which is an awesome camera but that I totally outgrew. First it was btw the Canon T3i, Nikon d5100 and Nikon d7000. Once I decided to 'marry' Nikon for life instead of Canon I really had to think about the 5100 vs the 7000.<br>

In the end I went with the 7000 and I don't regret it. The salesperson was extremely helpful and because she knew I really wanted to learn and was willing to invest time to get off auto she thought the 7000 was the way to go. If I went in and said that I just wanted to take great pictures she would have steered me to the 5100 or even lesser models.<br>

I was also pretty hard on my last camera body so I thought the more rugged 7000 would pay dividends in the long run.</p>

[stevejw]

<p>I've been pretty amazed at how many beginners have bought this model, I thought it would have been about the same level of difficulty as using a D700.<br>

I suppose it's a cheaper body and still relatively new.<br>

Hopefully mine won't have oil spots or hot pixels, although the chances of that happening are very slim.<br>

Ta for the help fellas. :)</p>

[thomas_lozinski]

<p>Go for it. You'll love it.</p>

[stevejw]

<p>Janin, did you get the 18-105 kit lens or the 16-85?<br>

I'd prefer the 16-85 as it's meant to be a better lens, if I get that and a 35DX I will have spent just about as much a D700 and a 50 1.8G. Although I will have two cool lenses instead of one.</p>

[janin_robertson]

<p>I opted for the 18-105 as there are going to be many times were versatility is important. Then for those times when I want to bring two lenses with me, I got the 70-300 (it helped there was a sale on them at the time). </p>

[stevejw]

<p>I think I'm just going to get the 35mm DX.<br /> Otherwise I'm going to be spending as much as the FX kit I wanted.</p>

<p>Cheers :)</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>To re-emphasize, there's nothing at all wrong with going for an FX body right off, but do, as suggested, ask yourself why, really, you want FX instead of DX. If it's just, well, "because," consider the smaller format as there are lots of advantages in cost, lenses (except for wide angle), and the like. There's no "natural" progression from DX to FX any more than there was from 35mm to medium format film -- they're just different formats.<br>

Anyhow, any advanced camera can be used in "program" mode as you learn how to take control of it. You can use it as a "point and shoot" and try out more complex things as you become adept at the control system, ISOs, etc.<br>

For heavens sake, don't try to jump in with so-called "professional" practices, just because that's how the "pros" do it. Give yourself time to learn, and vary only one variable (like aperture control, ISO, etc.) at a time - doing everything at once is a path to muddle.</p>

[stevejw]

<p>Hey JDM, at this point I wouldn't know what professional practice is.</p>

<p>There's a few local photography courses that range from beginner to wildlife to photojournalism to glamour. They're fairly cheap, short courses & so I thought I'd do the beginner one then shoot for a while on my own and then go back and do another one that met my interests later.</p>

<p>I've used ISO, focus points, exposure compensation & zoom with my current little camera so I'm fairly keen to get experience using shutter speed and aperture.</p>

<p>Thanks for your input mate. :)</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Courses are actually great - they force a certain discipline that is too often lacking in self-training.<br>

"Professional practice" means things like "I ONLY shoot in manual." Or "I never use anything but the most expensive lens" and such-like illusions. ;)</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"Professional practice" means things like "I ONLY shoot in manual."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I thought <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=%22professional+mode%22+site%3Akenrockwell.com&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=">Professional mode</a> was the "P" setting on my Nikon?</p>

[stevejw]

<p>LoL, it very well may!</p>

<p>If someone were to only shoot manual, pro or not, surely they would miss opportunities that only present themselves briefly.</p>

<p>It sounds more like someone saying that they are a superior technician rather than something that a pro would actually practice in real world situations.</p>