Anticipating future bout of NAS

[elliot1]

<p><em>"Good glass at what ever price should be used with good bodies"</em> Which Nikon bodies are not good bodies (when it comes to IQ)? I am not aware of any body that won't benefit by the best glass available. Nikon's non-pro lenses for the most part offer excellent IQ - they just don't have the ability to work in low light. The bottom line that most of Nikon's lenses offer excellent IQ, even the inexpensive ones. Not everyone can afford Nikon's most expensive lenses but any Nikon user can get excellent results with the less expensive gear.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I too am in the camp that makes good lenses the priority. I've come to see photo gear as a system. Tripods, lenses, and flash are the more "permanent" parts of the system, and I just plug a usuable camera into that system. (I also see software as part of the system now.) The main lenses I have now, Nikons 17-55m f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8 VR, 80-400mm VR, Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, are doing the jobs I need them to do. I am an eclectic outdoor photographer and sort of specialize in night photography. My current plan is to buy either an updated 80-400mm VR and "D400" when they become available. My lens/camera $$ value ratio is roughly 5:1. That seems about right. To a large degree it's lenses that determine what you can photo, and how. Finally, at the moment I am keeping as much cash on hand as possible for awhile. I'm waiting to see signs the economy won't completely fall off the cliff. </p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[phil_cuddy]

<p >Hi <strong>antonio</strong>,</p>

<p > </p>

<p >the main reason i see myself going to fx is for low light performance. You are right when you say that fulfilling curretn nas only postpones another bout of nas, and there will possibly be a d700 replacement by the time i actually get round to purchasing a full frame camera.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >the original question wasn't really meant to prompt rational purchasing responses, particularly the 'do you really need it' question. i was hoping that responses may compare a d300s and expensive glass (17-55), with d700 and cheaper glass (tamron 28-75). i could then consider any future decision using the responses and info gleaned here. aslo, as the person spending imaginery money, i don't see this as retail therapy,( closer to window shopping, surely that's different!) - but perhaps my perspective precludes accurate judgement there!</p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong>Thomas K</strong>, i think i got your intentions right the frst time round, a little tongue in cheek, but with a point.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >ps, can we have a "guess the date of the next fx nikon" sweepstake?! a pin in the calendar gives me feb 1st 2012 +/- 730 days...</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>the direction i see myself going in eventually is to fx, but the main reason i haven't in the past is the size of the 24-70 lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>not sure why you'd consider the 17-55 then.</p>

 

[carl_becker2]

<p>Elliot, your last statement is what I was referring to. Good glass does not have to been real expensive. I am not sure I would put a Nikkor 24-70mm f2.8 on a D50 body expecting great 16x20 prints. IMHO balance is the most important issue in the compromise of my usage. Some times expensive glass is the only option, wildlife like small birds in the field comes to mind. Using a 75-150mm series e for landscape comes to mind. From the research I have done there are a few Nikkors as well as other brands I would stay away from IQ wise and more because of weight and size. I am not sure glass is forever either. Sensor's may make today's top glass obsolete tomorrow. As long as the gear fits the needs the compromise works.</p>

[phil_cuddy]

<p>Hi Arnold,<br>

the reason i added the 17-55 to the comparison was for people to compare with the 28-75 / d700 combo. i have used a 17-55, and whilst built like a tank, weighs about the same. also the 24-70 is even longer..<br>

ps weather's turning a little colder her and there's a wasp in the kitchen on its last legs, time to crack out the macro!</p>

[stevenseelig]

For me the glass is the most important investment because bodies will keep changing, but glass will last a life time.

Buy the fastest lens you can get for focal range you want and save until you can afford it. Just my thought.

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>i have used a 17-55, and whilst built like a tank, weighs about the same.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that was my point, exactly.</p>

 

[phil_cuddy]

<p>Hi Eric,</p>

<p>apologies for calling you arnold. I understand your point regarding the weight of the 17-55 excludes it, considering i have also excluded the 24-70 due to its weight. The reason i added it was for comparison. i am quite interested in the 28-75 tamron, particularly due to its size/cost/quality, but wondered if people thought moving to a d700+28-75 would be a sideways move rather than an improvement.<br>

in an ideal world someone would have used both my current standard kit (d300s + 17-50 tamron), or kit i have used (d300s + 17-55), and also the d700 + tamron 28-75 and would comment their experience here.</p>

[ant_nio_gomes]

<p>Hi Phil,<br>

I took note of your reason for eventually going to FX, but as you do not refer the sensors size to take profit of wide angle lenses and looking at your present kit it seems your preferences go to focal range covered by standard zooms.<br>

If this is true, the decision you're facing can lock you to DX or make you move to FX right away.<br>

I can indicate my case: my first DSLR was a D70 that came with a 18-70 lens, I move to D200 and the last step to D700.<br>

By the time I bought the FX body all my lenses but the initial one and a 12-24 were FX (lets say this way to simplify), therefore I just sold the 12-24 and bought a 16-35 to cover the wide angle side (an important aspect to me and a reason to make the move).<br>

Considering the money I'd get from the D200 I kept it as a kind of 1.5 teleconverter that I must confess I don't use that much but has been useful several times.<br>

In your situation and being undecided about a future move to FX I wouldn't certainly invest on an expensive DX lens not matter how good it is, and I would rather consider a FX standard lens (in your case the candidates being the Tamron and the Nikon 24-70 that, if size and weight are not an issue have some advantage).<br>

This meaning I would stay with the D300s for a while, keep the present lens to cover the range from 25.5 to 36 mm equivalent and wait for new bodies to come out (replacing either the D300s and the D700 as both are expected by the market for some time now).<br>

This way you would keep your options open as I'm sure the new models will come with improved low noise performance and other technologic advances (just notice processing speed and other stuff coming with Nikon 1 that can be used in any other cameras).<br>

Regards,</p>

 

[johne37179]

<p>I was in a similar quandary about six months ago. I has some superb Nikon glass that I'd owned since film days -- some of it going back years to Nikon FTS and F2 days. I had my second generation DX camera -- a bit long in the tooth. I had worn out my original D-1. My first impression was to go for the D700 and the FX format, as my eye likes wide over long. Then the D7000 appeared. With the solid build and features of both the D300 and D700, but in the DX format, I traded everything for an updated FX package built around the D7000. Not only have I been delighted with my choice, the camera has exceeded expectations in all directions. The only cautionary tale is that the camera is so capable, that there are many aspects of its potential performance that I'm still learning and I still have to go back to the manual (actually aftermarket books) from time to time. The technology has also challenged my skills with PS/CS5 and I'm exploring the envelope there, too.<br>

I don't know if this is of any assistance in your decision making process, but you might wish to look at the D7000.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>I'll own up to a vested interest in full-frame, because I came to digital with a fair number of existing Nikon lenses and accessories. So to me it made perfect sense to spend a bit more on a FF body in order to save on buying DX compatible lenses. A secondary consideration was to have as much control over depth-of-field as possible.</p>

<p>My main argument for going full-frame would be that if lens and image quality is of prime importance (apologies for feeble pun) then you should get as large a sensor as possible. The reason being that smaller sensors put greater demands on lens quality, and therefore a full-frame sensor can take better advantage of the IQ of any given lens. In other words I can get away with using older or cheaper lenses on full-frame, whereas a DX sensor would probably show up their shortcomings. This is the opposite side of the coin from the "spend as much as possible on glassware" argument that goes hand-in-hand with DX use.</p>

<p>As I see it, the state of development of photographic lenses has almost reached a high plateau, and the easiest - and in the long run probably cheapest - way to improve IQ is to move up in format. After all, serious professionals don't buy or rent a Hasselblad H4D-60 for the sheer fun of it. They do it because a larger sensor size can more faithfully capture the native quality of a good lens, and the lens doesn't have to cost a fortune or weigh a ton to deliver the required quality. Ater all, I don't hear anyone saying that $40K for a 'blad digital back and ~ $1k for the lens is the wrong balance of spending.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Keeping in mind I'm a night photographer, low light performance actually is important to me. However, being a Midwestern guy I hate spending money when it brings me little advantage. That's how I sized up the current DX/FX "dilemma." I tried a D700 for two different weekends and really didn't see enough of a difference to justify spending another (net cost) $3,000 to change lenses & body over to FX. I was getting maybe a stop more high ISO over the D300. Now granted the D3s gives at least two stops, but that would jump my net cost to about $7,000! I just can't justify it. For that kind of money I could spend two months in Iceland. I would honestly rather spend two months photo'ing in Iceland with my current system than have a D700 & 24-70mm f2.8 etc. and have no money for travel. I refuse to decrease the quality of my lens selection just to afford a DX body. The other factor in my calculation is that sensors continue to improve all the time. Already the sensor on the $1,200 D7000 has surpassed the res of the D700 and has for practical purposes met it for high ISO. I see no sense in me spending multiple thousands $$ in FX just to see its capabilities matched the next year with a $1,500 D400 or whatever. Cameras are now getting to where even the cheapest will do 95% of what I need them to do. The biggest negative I see about spending $$ on camera bodies is they lose value so fast. So, being a Midwesterner, I put the money on other parts of the system that are more useful to me and hold their value much better. I then just plug a mid-priced disposable camera into the system and can update it with a LOT less pain. If I were a full time wedding photographer I might have a different opinion, but I'm not. I just shoot some occassional shots for local commercial jobs and some misc. magazine work. I certainly will NOT earn more money if I switch to FX. I always consider what economists call "alternate use of money", and am generally the last person to jump the "hot" camera of the week. </p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[phil_cuddy]

<p>Hi john,<br>

regarding the d7000, i see it as being a sideways move from the d300s. yes it has a better sensor, but i love the controls and build of the d300s. and i know if i move from d300s to d7000, whenever the d400 / d800 comes out i'll be regretting my purchase.<br>

Hi kent,<br>

regarding the loss of depreciation on bodies, that hasn't hit me that much so far. i bought a d80 a longtime after they were released and sold it for 60% of cost, and just recently bought a d300s, so didnt pay anywhere near rrp for that. the problem is i am looking to upgrade in the future, and am waiting for the d400/d700, meaning i'll be paying full rrp...<br>

Is there a photo.net sweepstake for predicting launch date of d400/d800/d4? i go for feb 2012,+-730 days!! also do people see those 3 bodies being launched at the same time?</p>

[johne37179]

<p>Phil: While I think the D7000 is a bit lateral from the D300 in that it fills the position at the top of the DX format, I think it is a generational improvement over the D300. The build of the D7000 is very solid and may have better weather protection than the D300. I think the main difference is in the low light performance of the D7000, which may match the D700. Side by side reviews have all picked the D7000 over the older D300. The estimated shutter cycles, for example, is quite high. The magnesium frame is solid and rigid. I would have preferred a slightly larger and heavier body, but I'm probably in the minority there. I like heavier cameras, as I think they are easier to handhold at low shutter speeds and make for steadier panning on moving subjects.<br>

One can always have buyer's remorse when the next generation comes out -- that is what keeps camera companies building and selling cameras. </p>

[phil_cuddy]

<p>hi John,<br>

i have handled a d7000 and must say i was impressed with the build, also with user reports of high iso performance. but whilst the camera is a generation ahead, i would be sacrificing some aspects of the d300 that will surely be present or even improved in the d300 replacement (eg controls, autofocus). i will definitely wait (how long?) for either the d300 replacement, or see what fx will bring. i was surprised with the high spec of the d7000, and believe that the d300 replacement is going to be one hell of a camera (though maybe more expensive than people anticipate). </p>

[johne37179]

<p>Given the jump with the D7000, I eagerly await the generation after the next. Typically I wear cameras out before replacing them and that usually is a two generation jump. I have never seen the scope of change that took place with the D7000. I'm assuming that this is kind of like the Moore's Law of cameras. We might well see some amazing changes down the road in the next couple of years.</p>