Upgrading from D90 to FX camera. What to buy?

[steven_pink]

<p>I'm a high school senior who has taken photos as a hobby for about 5 years now. I've gone from a film camera (Nikon FE2), to a mirrorless (Sony NEX-C3), to a DSLR (Nikon D90). I've been using my D90 for about a year now and I'm quite committed to the Nikon brand (with a solid set of pro-grade lenses). Recently I've been getting more and more paid work and I feel that it's time to go for a full frame Nikon camera. All my equipment has been bought used and whatever full frame camera I decide on will also be purchased used (I can't afford new and I don't see much reason to buy new aside from a slightly shinier product and a warranty).<br>

What Nikon FX camera is the best performance for the value? And to be more specific, most of the photography I do is sports (softball, dogs, horses, racing, etc.) and portraits. I've considered the D700 and D600 mostly, but aside from a few slight differences (sensor, AF, frame rate), I can't tell which is better for what I do. And from what I've found in all the shopping I've done for my current equipment, the people who have used the equipment know the performance better than any spec sheet or benchmark.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>D700 is awfully old, I think D600/610 is the least you should upgrade to.</p>

<p>What pro lenses do you have?</p>

[steven_pink]

I have the 70-200mm f/2.8 (earlier

edition), 50mm f/1.8, 300mm f/4 (older

AF version), and I just sold my DX 18-

105mm in hopes of buying a 24-XX for

my full frame camera.

[ShunCheung]

<p>If you are getting paid for your photography, especially for things that there are no second chance to reshoot, I would highly recommend that you use a camera with dual memory cards, which is a feature very common to current higher-end Nikon DSLRs. The main issue with the D600 is the well publicized sensor oil/dust issue.</p>

<p>With dual memory cards, please make sure that you use the backup mode and write each image file onto both cards to guard against the occasional (but uncommon) memory card failure and image file corruption.</p>

<p>As an older DSLR, the D700 has only one memory card slot, for compact flash.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>Right now, with the New D810 out, and the D750 coming any day, the used D800 prices are down. This is a $3000 camera that can be had for $1800-2000 today. There are a lot of them out there with low shutter count (under 10k), and sellers are motivated to get rid of them.</p>

<p>That's what I'd look for if your budget allows.</p>

<p>Good luck.</p>

[siphiwe_memela]

<p>Hi Steven. While the D700 is considered old by today's standards, it's the one I think might best suit your photography. Particularly, the AF and the frame rate when you are shooting sports. I have seen some incredible shots from D6X0 cameras too but I believe shooting technique is much more important with such a high pixel density. The D700 on the other hand is much more forgiving and will really be a big step up from your D90.</p>

<p>One important thing you need to take into consideration too is whether you do much cropping, and how you've felt about cropping D90 files because both are 12MP cameras. Therefore, if you felt the D90 was limiting you in that regard, then the D700 will not solve that issue.</p>

<p>Lastly, regarding your lenses, on the D6X0 cameras the 300mm F4 and 50mm might start to show their weaknesses, and again here, the D700 is much more forgiving. Good luck.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>D700 is awfully old, I think D600/610 is the least you should upgrade to.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>let's examine that for a second. AFAIK, Peter Hamm has never used a Nikon FX camera, so i'm not sure what he's basing his rec on, other than the d700's age. IMO, the d700 in many ways is a better camera than the d600/610. faster frame rate, larger buffer, better AF, more solid build, has grip which boosts FPS even more, more durable shutter. Where that would make a difference is in how you use the camera. if you mainly shoot portraits, landscapes and such, the larger MP count and higher resolution of the 600 series would be a plus. however, for action, events and anything which requires more high-performance shooting or shooting in demanding envrionmental conditions, the d700 would be a better bet. it may still be possible to find a low-actuation one. good luck!</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>and the D750 coming any day</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not just any day, it is available today. But being a brand new DSLR, it is likely over the OP's budget.</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<blockquote>

<p>IMO, the d700 in many ways is a better camera than the d600/610</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The used market in Portland, OR bears this out. I regularly see D600 priced lower than D700 on local classified. This raises a question: does the OP <em>need</em> the prized qualities of a D700? If not, then you are likely wasting money b/c you can probably buy a used D600 for less than the D700.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>I bring up the D800 because I was seriously considering selling mine this last week since the Df is my primary camera anymore. But, looking around, I decided against selling the D800 since the market was so soft at this time. For now, it's a D800 buyers market, and not a D800 seller's market.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Eric,<br /><br />He's getting paid for his work. He should have recent technology, the most recent he can afford. Not a 6 year old camera.<br /><br />I might argue that for sports and action, he'd be better off with a D7100, though! But he wants FX, which is probably wise in this day and age, especially for the portraits he's talking about.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>One last comment for the OP.</p>

<p>In this day and age, video is important in PJ and event work. The D700 lacks video, the D600 and D800 have it. This also mitigates the frame rate concern somewhat. If you can't snap stills fast enough, switch to video.</p>

<p>My 2¢</p>

<p>- Dan</p>

[steven_pink]

<p>Thanks for all the input thus far. For video I have a DJI Phantom 2 Vision Plus and I do a lot of aerial videography for clients who want video.</p>

<p>As far as budget goes- I'm trying to spend $1100 or something around that mark.</p>

<p>And the frame rate- I'm not too concerned about it because my D90's 4.5 fps does just fine for everything I do. </p>

<p>And the megapixels- My D90's 12 megapixels gets me by pretty well, but I can see the D600 giving me a bit more cropping ability while still keeping 300ppi when printing larger photos.</p>

[steven_pink]

<blockquote>

<p>Lastly, regarding your lenses, on the D6X0 cameras the 300mm F4 and 50mm might start to show their weaknesses, and again here, the D700 is much more forgiving. Good luck</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What's your reason for saying this about the lenses? The 50mm is a modern G lens. I understand the 300mm f/4 is older technology with slow AF, but what makes the D700 more forgiving with it?</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<blockquote>

<p>What's your reason for saying this about the lenses? ...what makes the D700 more forgiving with it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is a common refrain around here. I think people look at 100% crops to compare Camera A (6mp) files to Camera B (16mp). I don't have experience with D700 vs. D600 files, but I have seen lots of posters down sample high resolution files to disprove the "forgiveness myth." </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Steven, when I was in highschool, which was a long time ago, I had a Minolta SRT-101, perhaps roughly the modern-day equivalent of a Nikon D600, D700.</p>

<p>I am not sure exactly what your budget is, but I would not be too rigid on:</p>

<ol>

<li>It must be FX, full 35mm frame</li>

<li>And even the Nikon brand</li>

</ol>

<p>It doesn't sound like you have a huge budget. It may make sense to get another DX body for the time being. Anything among the D7000, D7100, D600, D610 or D700 is going to be a significant upgrade from your current D90. Even the D7000 has better AF, dual memory cards, a 100% viewfinder, better video .... If you can only afford to have one memory card slot, so be it, but if you are getting paid, I would try to upgrade to dual memory cards as soon as it is financially feasible.</p>

<p>And needless to say, Canon makes excellent DSLRs as well. However, if you want an SLR, I would stick with either Canon or Nikon. Those who brands dominate the market with a huge used market that you can buy from and sell into.</p>

[andylynn]

Given the budget, and the desire to shoot sports and action, I'm not convinced that FX is the way to go. Can you pick up a

D600 for $1100 in good condition? Even if you can, you're still limited by its AF system. A D700 is better, and there's still a

lot you can do with 12 MP, but it is getting pretty old on us now. With your budget, you could have a new D7100. That has

dual card slots, the good AF system and plenty of image quality, and with your 70-200 lens you have plenty of reach and

your cropping out the corners (which aren't so great on the first generation model anyway).

[steven_pink]

<p>My reason for wanting to stay with Nikon is the ~$1500 of lenses I already own. Not to mention I've become very familiar with the Nikon system and my friend who I shoot some events with uses a D3 and we share lenses for various reasons.<br>

I see no reason to spend ~$750 on a used D7100 (which I did consider for awhile) when a used D600 could be purchased for a little over $250 more and give me the full frame perks like better bokeh (for portraits), improved IQ, better high ISO performance, etc. </p>

[steven_pink]

<blockquote>

<p>Can you pick up a D600 for $1100 in good condition?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Average prices on ebay range from $1000-$1200 depending on shutter actuations, included accessories, etc. And the D700 has gone down a lot ($850-$1000) since the D750 introduction.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>I would watch for good used cameras from a reputable dealer like KEH and Adorama.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>I'd stay away from the 600 in favor of the 610 if you wanted to go in that direction. I use a D700 and its a great camera and you could do a lot worse. I would also consider the 7100, that first version 70-200 works really well on a good Dx camera. But still you have lots of good choices. A good condition 700 is a very robust all around type camera. Having one slot is an issue, but many many people including pros and semi pros have used one without issue and this has been the case for many years now. Keep you D90 as a back-up. Let me ask you. Are you happy with the crop factor on your D90? The fact is. You can still keep that camera and have an FX and a Dx camera as a back-up or 2nd camera.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>He's getting paid for his work. He should have recent technology, the most recent he can afford. Not a 6 year old camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the emphasis on the latest & greatest technology for a high school shooter with an $1100 budget is not the most pragmatic advice one can offer. the fact is, the d700 is still a great camera, just like the d90 is still a great camera. if you are shooting action, sports, or events primarily, it's still an excellent choice. however, i wouldnt get a d700 with high actuations, and that might be difficult given its age, but there are some still out there within the OP's budget. that said, if 4.5 fps is fine for the OP, then the demands on the body probably don't warrant a performance-oriented body.</p>

<p>buying a d600 used is more problematic, because nikon's warranty isnt transferable. So, if the dreaded oil spot problem develops, Nikon wont service it at their cost, which is the case with new (and i assume refurb) units. so i would keep that in mind. refurb d600's can be had <a href="http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/dslr-cameras/25488B/D600-Refurbished.html">directly </a>from nikon for about $1350, which is $250 above the OP's budget. even though that might be more than he wants to spend, it would probably be worth it to have the peace of mind that if the problem does develop once past the 90-day warranty period, nikon will still repair or replace it. this situation is specific to this model camera, since there are numerous reports of oil spots developing past initial use, and even after repair (which presumably involved putting in the replacement shutter).</p>

<p>as for the d7100, arguably a better or equally-good sports camera than the d700, especially if you need reach, but not for hi-ISO. but it sounds to me like the OP knows what he wants, and also knows what he doesn't want.</p>

[steven_pink]

<p>To be honest, I don't like the crop factor. It makes my 300mm f/4 too much for almost every situation and I only use the 70-135mm range of my 70-200 2.8 most of the time. Most sports photos I take I'm right in front of what's happening and for portraits (which most of my paid photography is) the smaller sensor produces less creamy bokeh than a FX sensor would. Honestly, I would have bought a full frame camera in the first place if I could have afforded it. And thankfully I've planned all my lens purchases with the intent of getting an FX body in the future.<br /> My biggest problem comes down to being a poor jobless high school student. I have to sell my D90 to afford my full frame camera. (Technically I could keep it, but I would end up having to wait awhile until I made some more cash to offset what the D90 is worth)</p>

<p>In response to the D600 oil spot issues, I would only buy one of the D600s on eBay if they had proof it had been sent off to Nikon for the service advisory.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>Average prices on ebay range from $1000-$1200 depending on shutter actuations, included accessories, etc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A quick look at <em><strong>completed</strong></em> listings will show that even 1200 is probably a bit low for one, but good luck.</p>

[steven_pink]

<p>If you check for dates after the D750 announcement/release you'll see they're less. There's a <a href="http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20643242.html">D600 on adorama</a> in excellent condition for $1250.<br /> <img src="http://i.imgur.com/fn7WHlC.png?1" alt="" /></p>