Adore my D700 but am wondering about an upgrade

[cindygillespie]

<p>Steven...</p>

<p>That was quite eloquent ! And just what I was looking for at the same time.<br>

By the end of this year or the first of next I will have the D800 thanks to all of you with the amazing feed back !</p>

[stevenseelig]

<p>Glad I could help. I would also suggest that you test drive the D800. Rent one for a few days and decide how you feel about it. For me, it was love at first sight.<br>

There are some significant ancillary issues<br>

1. If you shoot RAW, file sizes run in the 35-44 MB range. Make sure your post processing equipment can handle it all.<br>

2. The D800 is (can be) very demanding on technique and lens. At 100% you may experience greater visibility to hand shake. My new mistress is training me very well. I am getting better.</p>

[cindygillespie]

<p>I am set with storage... I run 2-2TB drives for my clients and a 1-1TB for personal... I purge once a year and remotely store the oldest drive and replace. I never store anything internally. As far as processing... I am running 12gig of ram and it runs quite smoothly. <br>

Also... I am set on my lenses. The shake may be an issue. haha I am older and have hand issues so it will be a bit a learning curve I am sure. <br>

I run two bodies so that I don't have to change lenses in bad situations (to answer another on here). I don't like to change lenses in the cold or outside on a location so I will often run my prime of choice on the D700 and usually the 24-70 on my backup (right now my D7000).<br>

It's much easier to grab another camera than it is to change lenses when doing children and moving subjects. </p>

 

[stevenseelig]

<p>The other thing that I have noticed with the D800 is depth of field is somewhat more pronounced, at least that is the way it looks to me.. .again at 100%. Don't think it is critical for standard size prints.</p>

[dan_south]

It's not an easy choice. The D4 is well suited for event photography, but it won't fit into everyone's budget and 16 MP can

be a little low for some applications, especially posed portraits. The D800 produces massive files that may be difficult to

process on older computers. Further, lighting conditions and subject movement at dimly lit events won't always let you

get the most out of the D800's resolution. A D3s might be a good option if you can still find a new one somewhere.

 

I haven't used a D600, so I can't speak to the build quality or the AF response. I've struggled a bit with the AF on the

D800 (at events in particular), but I have not yet tried all of the available settings and options. Whether the D600 has the

same issues, perhaps someone can let us know.

 

If the D600 proves to be reliable enough for the work that you do, and if it's weather resistant and has autofocus that

works when and how you need it to, it might be the best choice. It would be a good trade off between resolution and file

size. It's inexpensive enough that eventually you might be able to purchase a second one to use as a backup. Or use

the D600 in conjunction with a D800. The D800 really, really shines when shooting posed shots such as group and bridal

portraits or when capturing people outdoors with abundant sunlight. The output is amazing, unlike anything that I've

seen. But in a dark church or reception hall, you're not going to get the most from that sensor. The 24 MP of the D600 is

probably more than enough in those situations, especially since you're used to 12 MP now.

 

Good luck, and hang onto that D700 for as long as you can.

[andylynn]

<p>Tough call, I guess. Sounds like you're set for hardware. I take it you're making enough income with these to have upgrades make sense. So if you're jonesing for resolution, the D800 would work. The D600 seems a good compromise and some people are going to prefer the ergonomics, with a size closer to the D700 and the U1/U2 setting modes. What I don't like about it is the smaller area of AF points coverage - they pretty much took the D7000 AF and put it in an FX frame. But if you aren't looking for more resolution and you like the ergonomics of the D700, a second one for under $1900 lightly used (or less if you don't mind eBay) sounds pretty good.</p>

[jeff_loughlin1]

<p>Unless you want to upgrade just for the sake of upgrading (just to stay current with technology, or just to get out of your D700 while it still has resale value, for example), I would stay where you are. You're happy with your current camera, so why not stick with it until you have a good reason to upgrade or replace it? I kept my D200 after the D300 came out because there wasn't a good enough (for me) reason to upgrade to it. Then when the D700 came along, its low light capability was reason enough to change, so I did. Now that the D600 and D800 are here, I don't see any compelling reason to go with either of those, so I'm staying with my D700 for now and will wait and see what the next generation brings.</p>

<p>Also bear in mind that the longer you wait, the more prices come down, so unless you have a good reason to switch to a D800 right now, you might as well wait until the D900 comes out in a year or two (just guessing) and see what it has to offer. Then you can either jump on the new offering if it has something you really want, or you can pick up a D800 then for a lot less money. In the early days of DSLRs (D100, D70), it made sense to upgrade with each generation because the technology was improving so rapidly. The technology is still improving, but things are so good now that last year's tech (or even 4 year old tech) is still good enough for all but the most demanding shooters.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>you might as well wait until the D900 comes out in a year or two (just guessing) and see what it has to offer</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think people need to keep in mind that FX is still a much much smaller market and its upgrade cycle is also a lot slower.</p>

<p>Just take the D700 (2008) as an example; it took roughly four years before Nikon introduces the D800 and then D600 in 2012. Of course they were likely delayed by the earthquake and flood in 2011, but it'll still be at least 3 years before we see any major update to the D600 and D800, although we could see some minor D600S/D800S type upgrade in a couple of years.</p>

<p>Therefore, if you are looking into upgrading your FX DSLRs in 2013 and 2014, most likely the selections will be either the same as they are today or very similar, although prices will continue to come down over time.</p>

<p>The low end is a very different story. You see the D40X, D60, D3000, D3100 and D3200 updated every 12 to 18 months.</p>

[jason]

<p>ah too much spare money chasing boredom.<br>

New cameras don't make better photos.</p>

 

[cindygillespie]

<p>Jason... I do not have spare Money and I am making a decent living doing photography however, I do only want to have a full frame 2nd body "eventually" and was just tossing around the idea and wanted professional and real life users to share experiences and knowledge. <br>

That is why I come to this forum and pay to be a member. I have always gotten amazing advice and help when I have needed it most. <br>

I also understand that better cameras do not take better pictures... it's the tools you have and how you use them. I am just saying. <br>

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.</p>

[stevenseelig]

<p>I agree the equipment does not make the photographer; however, good equipment allows one with skill to take pictures that few would ever attempt or accomplish. There is a reason why pro's use professional equipment over point & shoots. </p>

[michael_j1]

<p>Well, first of all, the D700 and the D800 are not the same. For an upgrade it also depends on which lenses you have more of, either DX or FX lenses. My D700 is absolutely terrific and I'm not looking at all in updating any time soon, although I did have a close look at the D600 but with some disappointment.<br>

Nikon is heading in the direction of the prosumer camera with the D600, being the mode dial having far too many options with all the scene selections on it. There are far too many options already with digital SLRs, we don't need more.<br>

Also, in the D600, Nikon has used the focus screen (seen through the viewfinder) from the D7000 (DX) straight into the D600 (FX), meaning there is more blank space around the focus screen on the D600's full frame sensor than there is on the D7000's sensor.<br>

In my opinion, if you are up against a wall with choice mayhem, I suggest you just leave things as they are, your D700 will serve you well for a long time to come.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p><strong><em>.... and lusting after the 70-200 maybe yet this year........</em></strong><br>

<strong><em> </em></strong><br>

Wonderful lens and about the same price as a D600....in the UK at least.</p>

<p>Humm, I think I'd buy the glass now, take and sell some great pix this Autumn/Winter, and get a new/recon D800 in the Spring. You should still be able to get some reasonable $$$ back with the D7000 +35mm 1.8 DX. You don't seem to need the extra-reach for small wildlife that DX + Tele gives you.<br>

<br>

From the description of your 'targets', I don't think the D600 is enough 'upgrade' for you.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>If you are a mediocre photographer, a newer, better camera is not going to make you a better photographer. However, depending on the subject matter, an excellent photographer can potentially use the new, advanced capabilities to get to a higher level. For example, if you shoot night sports, a D4 can probably help you capture images you could not achive with a D2H or D2X.</p>

<p>In other words, those who tell you that "cameras do not matter" are probably not very good photographers themselves. :-)<br />That is why they see little difference using good or bad cameras.<br>

Yes, I am somewhat kidding.</p>

[kevin_beretta]

<p>I think Shun hit the nail on the head. Yes, better gear WILL make better pictures, all else being equal. I saw a massive improvement in my photography when I went to the D700 and bought a suite of glass rivaling the cost of my car. I think that sadly half the problem is throwing money at it, in an absurd way. Having said that, creativity and composition etc. can't be bought.<br>

I have the same challenge as the OP, I would like a second body, but after looking at the D800 etc. I've come to the conclusion I am too mediocre of a photographer to make it work. The glass is what is helping me in making better pics.<br>

All rationality aside, I'll probably buy a D4 as a second body, at some point. It's like business suits, the better the cut, the more money you can charge your clients. <br>

Photography in big part is about being able to promote yourself to clients. A D4 says something different than a smaller camera. You don’t need to be an expert to see that a D4 is a solid piece of professional equipment. People will feel better about their pics when they come out of an expensive camera. Just the same as you don’t want your realtor to show up in a Lada when he takes you to a multi-million dollar house you are about to make an offer on.</p>