D7000 - Where to now...!

[mark_vasco]

<p>Hi,I started off with a Sony A700 and now have a Nikon D7000, which I love and have taken some wonderful photo's on my trips abroad, it still amazes me in the difference between the two camera's. My question now is whats my next step, should I move onto the D7100 this month, or do I take the step of going full frame, in saying that I'm not worried if I have to sell my DX lenses as well as I only have two of them.<br>

I was looking at the D600 or a D700 if I wasn't going down the D7100 path. At lunch I went down to the local Nikon camera house and asked the sales man if he had a preference between the D600 or 700, his choice was the D700 as it had a professional body (stronger I guess) and was better at low light shoots, not that I do many of those. I'm always chasing for that clean crisp shot, so which is better for that, knowing that the lens is just as important. Just seeking your opinions as I really have no clue about FX camera's compared to DX.<br>

Thanks<br>

Mark</p>

 

[Rene11664880918]

<p>What was wrong with your Sony A700???? And what is wrong with your D7000 now?????</p>

[mark_vasco]

<p>Nothing, they both pulled of great shots, but I found the D7000 slightly sharper and was more consistent, but my question is will the D7100 be better, or will the full frame format give me better results..? I really don't have any of my friends that own a Full Frame Camera, so I have nothing to compare, this why I'm asking the forum to see if there are guys that have made the transition. Then I get an idea of which path to take.</p>

[Rene11664880918]

<p>Cameras are not sharp..... Lenses are. Maybe a good tripod will do.</p>

[mark_vasco]

<p>Can't always carry a tripod around, I guess what I'm getting at is the difference in how a full frame sensor captures a digital photo as apposed to a cropped sensor. Weather it be colour, depth of field, bokeh, etc, does it do it better than the DX, or should I upgrade to the D7100 with more mega pixals.</p>

[nathansanborn]

<p>When the D7100 was announced I thought, "wow... that is an amazing camera, better than the one I have now". And honestly, I see no need to upgrade my D7000 to either the D600 (larger viewfinder would be nice, inadequate AF) or the D7100 (way better, but not enough better to need over D7000).</p>

[tony_demonte]

<p>I would say that the D7000 is a fantastic camera and not worry about an "upgrade" to the D7100. I went over the facts between the D7100 and D7000 and sure, the D7100 is a nice improvement over the D7000. is it worth the extra 600 dollars (sell the D7000 for 700ish used plus 600 cash to buy a new D7100)?? that's up to you. I went over the math and my personal needs and figured a nice upgrade in a lens would do me much more. so, I sold my 50 1.8d for 100 and bought the 50 1.8g. must say, THAT was well worth the extra 100 cash. super sharp at 1.8 when the 50/1.8d was not sharp until 2.8.</p>

<p>I believe there is enough evidence out there on the web that proves that a crappy camera with an expensive lens will out perform an expensive camera with a crappy lens. I've done it when I still had my D60. not that the D60 was crappy. anyway, I used to think that an expensive camera was what I needed when the truth was that nice glass is the much better investment. a D7000 just 9 months ago was $1100. now it's $900 brand freakin new. and used you can find one for $650. geez!! I bought my 50mm 1.8d for $130 years ago and just sold it for $100. only a 30 dollar difference for years of usage. not a bad investment. </p>

<p>since you asked about DX/FX....it depends on many factors. a big one of course is money. I have already made up my mind that my next camera will be a FX. it probably won't be for years, but, that's the next step for me. I already have invested in FX lenses. the only DX lenses I have are the 35mm 1.8g and 16-85mm. everything else is FX. so, lenses are not a worry. also keep in mind why you want to go to FX or stay with DX?? always ask yourself questions about 'why do this or that?' why move up to FX? make a list of pros and cons. do whatever you need to help make an easier decision. </p>

[Rene11664880918]

<p>I think you need lenses....<br>

If you are using a D7000 and want really sharp shots and nice bokeh buy an AFS 17-55 f/2.8G This will do it.</p>

 

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>You do realise that upgrading is no requirement? ;-)<br /> If your D7000 is not holding you back at this moment in any way, and you do not find huge glaring ommissions in its feature set, why upgrade at all? Those 8 additional megapixels are not going to make a huge impact at all. If you need to ask others whether you should upgrade to full frame, you probably shouldn't. Full frame is not by definition better, but it is a bit different - different pro's, different cons. If the advantages of FF really come into play for your photography, you will know, and hence you will know that FF is the way to go. Else, it just isn't worth it (*).<br /> So, why not stick with a D7000 that is working fine for you? Seriously.... don't get into that "must have latest tech to shoot good photos" hype. Good photos have got relatively little to do with the amount of pixels used to record them.</p>

<p><br />Which lenses do you have? If you have the itch to spend some money on photography gear, lenses are usually a better place to put your money - they can open up more creative options, they're the key element in delivering sharpness. New bodies are just more of the same. Having a fast prime compared to a slow zoom opens completely different roads.<br /> ___<br /> Note:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>his choice was the D700 as it had a professional body (stronger I guess) and was better at low light shoots, ....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>He is wrong. The D700 is not better in low light than the D600. Its AF is better, and the construction quality too. The D600 is very similar to the D7000 (except, obviously, its sensor) - the D700 is a D300 with a larger sensor instead.<br /> ___<br /> (*) Being happy to sell of DX lenses - OK. I did go from a D300 with the 16-85VR to a full frame. Replacing that 16-85VR turned out to be not that easy really... in the end, the only lens that delivered the same versatility and quality is the 24-120 f/4 VR. Twice the price of that 16-85VR, and larger and heavier too. For wide angle zooms, the story is likewise. It's not just <em>selling</em> the DX lenses, it's <em>replacing</em> them without braking the bank and your back.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>+1 Wouter. From what I've read the D600 (2980 DXO ISO Points) is <em >considerably</em> better than the D700 (2303 DXO ISO Points) at low-light.....and 14.2 v 12.2 EVs Dynamic Range...... <br>

<br>

From those properties alone I'd go buy a D600 today, if I had the cash! But, equally, as many have said, changing glass is important £££. I have about 50% DX, but use my D5100 along side my D700.</p>

[mark_vasco]

Guys thanks for all the points of the plus and minuses of the cameras, at the end of the day money is not an issue, but just wanted to get

a feeling for the FX, to tell you the truth and friend of a friend showed me tonight his pics from his Nikon D3, and wow what a difference.

The photos just have a different look and feel to them, is it because of the full frame sensor...? Or is just the overall package of the D3

that make the shots look so good. I suppose the other question is to you is, if it's just the lens that makes the difference, then why have

these top end models when you can just use the DX format....the FX format must deliver in ways that DX doesn't, why do you see all the

studios with D800, 700, and D3s or X.

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>It's probably the overall package. As a D3 user, he probably has a very decent lens mounted (ask him which one) - that will make a VERY considerable difference. Plus, the D3 (and D700 which had the same sensor) has a very pleasant output, in my view - but with good post-processing, it is certainly possible to get the same look from a D7000 (post processing makes a huge difference too indeed).</p>

<p>Nobody said it is "just" the lens that makes the difference. What most said: the lens makes <em>more</em> difference than the body, but of course the body plays a role. There are advantages to full frame, especially for example with fast (wide) lenses. To get a similar shot as I get with my D700 with 35mm f/1.4 on a DX camera, I'd need a 23mm f/1 lens - which does not exist. Similar, to get the same view as I get from my 300 f/4 on a D300 with a D700, I need to spend a considerable extra amount of money to get a 450mm f/5.6 lens (which does not exist either). So, just as much as studios have their reasons to shoot mostly full frame, so do many wild-life photographers still like DX better. Horses for courses.<br>

The choice between FX and DX is not between "better" and "good", but between two different formats, with different strong points and weak points. Getting FX (which costs a lot more) makes sense if you understand and need the strong points of FX, else you're simply better off with DX.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I wouldn't upgrade. I wait at least every other cycle. I went D50, skipped D80, then D90, skipped D7000, and will probably skip D7100, too, as I probably want to go FX some day, but am honestly satisfied with my D90, still. If I had a D7000, I'd stick with that till it wore out.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>friend of a friend showed me tonight his pics from his Nikon D3, and wow what a difference. The photos just have a different look and feel to them, is it because of the full frame sensor...? Or is just the overall package of the D3 that make the shots look so good.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you have a chance to see him again, perhaps ask him about his photo technique.</p>

[Rene11664880918]

<p>Do you think that if you have a D3 you can take pictures as good as the friend of your friend?<br>

I use DX and FX at the same time depending what I am shooting. I wanna shoot birds, I use a D300. I wanna shoot macro, I used a D300. I wanna shoot at night, I used a D700. I wanna have fun most of all, I use a V1. Cameras help as long as you know how to use them. There are so many people here that can take better pictures than me using a point and shoot camera. <br>

IF MONEY IS NO PROBLEM I would expend it on glass....... Then if you wanna expend it on a camera buy a D4 and then you won't have to upgrade for the next 4 years.</p>

 

[virginia_john_mybusiness]

<p>I think you should ask yourself what it is that you D7000 is not doing for you today. Clearly the D7100 has some capabilities that the D7000 does not, but would they improve what you are doing now. I have found that with larger images I'm running up against limits in my post production and I run on a full house iMac with CS5. I find I have to monitor PPI levels and which plugin/extensions I use. Before you increase your sensor size, you might want to look at how well your CPU and software will handle the larger RAW files. You may also want to think about your backup of those files and what that might mean in terms of external drives, etc. Remember all drives fail at some point and double or triple redundancy and hardcopy off line are all considerations. <br>

It is no longer sufficient to just think about the image capture process with the camera and lens, but you have an image management issue after you capture the image -- particularly if you like it and save almost everything -- like I do.</p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>Mark, it sounds to me like you have upgrade-itis. My recommendation is to step back, and as others mention, work on your technique, because your current camera is great, and you do not need a new one. Buy the necessary gear over time to fill holes in your lineup (flashes, lenses, tripod, etc). But mainly, work on your technique. Spend that camera upgrade money on local courses. Go to workshops.</p>

[mark_vasco]

<p>WOW..! all your responses have been most helpful, and it looks like I have FX camera upgrade envy, and it all makes sense now and a lot clearer in what I have to do, I have been to a photo class which was most helpful, and have the need to do more.....so glass is the way to go to compliment the D7000's potential. In saying that, what should I look at in Nikon's finest for DX to cover all bases, or can you buy FX lenses that work on DX just in case I feel like upgrading in 2 yrs time.<br>

What would be the 2 lens scenario for just DX and for FX if I was to upgrade latter...? Who knows I might just stick with the DX format if it looks good at the end of a days shoot. Thx</p>

[Sycamoe]

<p>I would say buy fast glass first of all. If you have a fast 50 mm or 35 mm and a f 2.8 "standard" zoom such as 17-50 you have a great start. I wouldn't be able to live without a wide zoom for DX and for my budget that was a 12-24 f4 Tokina. If you can do better than that, great. They have great f 2.8 wide zooms now. Then on the telephoto end of things you can skimp just a bit if you stick with the D7000 or some other DX. I'm limited in budget and do very little on the long end so a 55-300 was as good as I could do. If you go FX and you like to do birds or sports you are going to need to drop a bunch of money for your long lens.<br>

I would definitely echo what everyone said about technique. Your friend with the FX camera producing such nice work is probably meticulous with selection of f stop and shutter speed and camera support. He is probably also extremely aware of good light. There's nothing more important. I have seen the difference good light makes and how crummy a picture can be if everything is right and the light is wrong. It's simple really--good photographers produce good work. The tools enhance things but in the right hands an ipod becomes a "great camera".</p>

 

[francisco_salaquanda]

<p>The $1200 price point is becoming a battle ground with good used FX cameras (Nikon D700, Canon 5D2) available second hand, the new Nikon D7100, the new Nikon Coolpix A, and many really good 4/3 cameras from Sony, Panasonic and Olympus. We are also seeing early used Nikon D600's appearing for around $1700.<br>

<br />Many think that the Nikon D7100 will be the second to last DX iteration as FX pricing will ease in the next couple of years to the $1500 mark.<br>

What to buy now? Every person you ask will have a different answer. If in doubt, do nothing. But if you were buy good lenses, buy FX ones and at least you are FX-ready.</p>

[jore_puusa]

<p>Why move to another camera. Instead learn to take better pictures. Forget photography for some months and concentrate on reading books of any kind.<br>

Maybe take a course in photography?</p>

Learn to draw a little and open your eyes when walking the streets. Start thinking about the world and what could be done with pictures. Move Your mental strenghts to another level. Then the pictures will be alive when You start taking pictures again.

<p>A pro can make D7000 kind of pictures with a 100 dollar cam if the pics are shown in internet with resolution of say 1300 pixels wide. Difference in cams is means something when You shoot for prints 100 cm large or bigger and even then the distance between onlooker and image means everything. NOBODY sees any difference in web when You change from 7000 to 7100.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<blockquote>

<p>FX favors the wide angle side, and DX favors the telephoto side.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>.........and Low-Light favours FX........Low-Weight/Small Size favours DX</p>

[mark_vasco]

This is what I have in my bag now, a Tokina 11-16/ f2.8 DX and a Nikon 35mm f1.8 DX, I went around and shot all of Taiwan last year

just with the 35mm, I truly love this gem of a lens, I personally like to photo people, detail and architecture including its detail and the odd

bit of landscape. The end results were liked by all. Is there a need to ad to these if I were in the future thinking of going to FX format.of

adding an FX lens to this kit do you see issues mounting it on my DX.

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>what should I look at in Nikon's finest for DX to cover all bases</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mark, what do you find lacking with your current lenses? The two lenses you have are both very fine; if you'll buy additional lenses, what do you want them to do? What are you missing today, and what kind of photography do you do?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Is there a need to ad to these if I were in the future thinking of going to FX format</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Cross that bridge when you get there. Buying and planning today for something that maybe, possibly, with some chance might happen in the future is a waste of energy. And usually also ends up being a waste of money.</p>

<p>For reference; you can use nearly all autofocus FX lenses on DX without issues, and in case of the D7000 also a lot of the older manual focus lenses. The crop factor does come into play, though. Especially at the wide end (below 35mm), this makes many FX lenses rather awkward focal length ranges, and much larger than an equivalent DX lens would be.</p>

[mark_vasco]

<p>I was maybe thinking of the Nikon 24-120mm FX having better glass than my DX's and would make a better walk about and holiday lens than the 35mm DX, this would also give me a bit of reach when I need it if I couldn't walk closer to a subject or object of detail.</p>