D90 to D700?

I could probably be spending time enjoying either camera right now, but my mind just won't let go. Right now I have a D90 which I'm fairly happy with 80-90% of the time, but I've run into situations already where I've gotten noisy pics at 1600/3200 ISO while attempting to capture photos in dark places, so I'm considering a D700 just to have the best possible high-ISO performance. My D90 is set to auto ISO, 200-1600 most of the time, and I don't like using 3200 because it gets too noisy for me when the light goes dim. I already have an SB600 but I find that I don't use it much; I prefer using the available light in most normal situations.

Since I don't normally shoot sports or birds or anything like that, I don't really "need" the reach that DX offers. In fact, I haven't yet felt compelled to get anything more telephoto than the 150ish mm FX equivalent my 18-105mm provides. I like the idea of being able to record video but I have used that feature maybe 5 times in the last 2000+ shutter clicks, with maybe a couple of those times being when I actually needed the video.

I was thinking of getting a D700 + Sigma 24-70 (non-HSM or HSM, I haven't decided), and adding a Nikon 70-300VR soon after because it seems to give fine results with the D700 and the 300mm would be nice on occasion. I'd be keeping my 50/1.8 and 35/1.8 because one's fine for FX and the other one gives great/interesting results at larger apertures, even in FX mode.

I'm definitely no professional, but I keep wanting to get the D700, especially after trying it out for a few test shots. The huge viewfinder is amazing, and it feels great in my hand compared to the plastic D90. In addition, the diopter adjustment is stronger on the D700 and I don't need to use the plastic eyepiece I am forced to use on my D90. Additional external controls are also nice because I find myself switching metering / focusing modes pretty often and having a knob for each is useful. I would also probably find a use for the custom settings banks. I could have both cameras, but my rational side and wallet are both telling me that I only need 1, so the D90 would have to go if I were to upgrade. I "could" stock up on lenses for the same amount of money, but I really only wanted macro and wide-angle lenses and the 24-70 would give enough of both to start with.

What to do, what to do..

Sounds to me like you're looking for the necessary justification for the 700. I was in your position for quite a while, though with a D50 that I was finding increasingly limiting. If you're not hugely in debt elsewhere, I'd probably take the plunge - it's great to be able to push up that ISO with (virtual) impugnity and you will hopefully be taken to new levels of inspiration!
--
Patrick Dodds

if you can afford D700 and want good high ISO pictures, go for it!

But you are not only gaining high ISO performance, and other things you see on the spec sheet, there are also a lot of other "hidden" benefits, the way the camera feel on your hand, the shutter sound...etc

While these things may not make you take better pictures, they make shooting photo a much better experience. (at least that's how i feel)

It's not until i shoot with the D200 again and then i discover how nice the D700 really is..

--
http://www.nikonjin.com - brand new 100% free nikon photographer community

If you can pull off the D700, go for it. My D300 is not getting much use these days. I have a couple lenses that I didn't care for on DX, one the 70-300VR. It just comes alive on the D700. The D90 is a great camera, but in a different class. You would not be disappointed.....
--

'Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped.' --Elbert Hubbard

It sounds like you've already decided and just need our blessing, so you have it!

I've got the D200 and like the feel of it, but I'd decided that since I'm turning 50 in november, and I'm tired of noise past 800 that it's time.

See if my thread helps out: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1021&message=32340073

If you need additional justification, just ask yourself this simple question: "How long will I be dead?" So, I guess the next question is, which camera bag?

Reid

Kodak Brownie
Argus 126
Quaker Oats Container Pinhole Camera

D90 is not exactly a slouch, but if you'll predominantly depend on higher ISO's, then go for D700. I knew that I'll be relying on higher ISO's from day one. The camera surprised me how clean the ISO 200 is. Yet, I'll likely get a DX of some sort (D200, D300 or D90) just for longer reach.

Realistically though, you could imrovise by using tripod/monopod or small flash, keeping the ISO's below 800....or spend ex$$tra and get what you want.

You have the final decision.

Leswick

Thanks guys.. after long consideration I pulled the trigger on a D700, Sigma 24-70 HSM, an ok UV filter for protection (if it significantly degrades IQ I'll return it), and an op/tech strap I wanted to get anyway. Already have the extra battery, flash, etc. from my D90.

Reid: I sure hope my crumpler bag ($5m home) will fit it fine, because I don't want a bigger bag for now. As is, my D90 has quite a bit of spare room. I may carry one fewer lens (or omit the flash more often), so I doubt there'll be a problem.

I had a D90 for about a month before testing the D700. As the others have already stated, the D700 is in a different class all together.

7evenomeo said:

Thanks guys.. after long consideration I pulled the trigger on a D700,

Click to expand...

hey, did I call it or what?

Reid

Kodak Brownie
Argus 126
Quaker Oats Container Pinhole Camera

I have to tell you that the superiority of the DR on D700 will produce better IQ in PP.
--
Ben
Design is all I do.
bibikova.com

My wife has the D90 (upgraded from the D70s). I bought the D700 (upgrade from the D200). They are the two newest Nikon DSLRs and have their own merits.

The D90 is mainly for outdoor portraits using a 70 to 200mm 2.8 VR. Since there is usually a lot of available light, we use it below 800ISO. The the DX reach is great.

The D700...wow. We use it mainly for indoor portraits...both studio and natural light. When using natural, I don't have any problems shooting up to 6400ISO. The noise is not that bad. I usually stay around 2500ISO...the pictures are unbelieveable. The FX format is great for wide-angle applications.

The D700 is well worth it. And if you can afford to keep the D90, it's great having both of them.

Regards,

Joel
--
Joel

Don't be so pessimistic. You have another good 50 years to shoot.

--
Joel

One thing to keep in mind -- if you take JPG's, your not going to get the same quality of JPG shot on the D700 "out of the camera."

If you shoot raw, it doesn't matter.

But if you DO prefer shooting JPG's (which many people including professionals do), keep in mind you will need to do some reading online here and other places as to the best in-camera settings for getting good JPG's....everything D300 and lower does that beautifully in camera; everything D700 and higher needs special tweaking.

RonAnnArbor said:

One thing to keep in mind -- if you take JPG's, your not going to get the same quality of JPG shot on the D700 "out of the camera."

If you shoot raw, it doesn't matter.

But if you DO prefer shooting JPG's (which many people including professionals do), keep in mind you will need to do some reading online here and other places as to the best in-camera settings for getting good JPG's....everything D300 and lower does that beautifully in camera; everything D700 and higher needs special tweaking.

Click to expand...

Cool, I've seen some complaints and I'll keep that in mind. I normally prefer RAW because I end up tweaking a lot of photos. Sometimes I feel like I spend too much time in PP so I'll probably look through people's optimal settings at some point just to speed up the process for the photos that don't need anything more than basic adjustment (RAW+jpeg though). I've never really gotten around to configuring the D90's JPEG settings either.

I have both. I use the D90 for it's reach, even in low light.

Low light performance is more a function of a fast lens. Is the D90 as good as the D700 with high iso... no

But with a fast lens and EV tweaking , it's a lot better than the D200 technology

The D700 dual functionality is oversold in my opinion. I tried shooting in DX mode and the reduced viewfinder makes it hard to see the focus point. That said the DX mode (small view) does exclude the vignetting of DX lens on the D700.

Consider keeping both if you can. The 90 is a great travel cam

--
Rags

Definitely considering it... instead, I might use that money towards some lenses for the D700, e.g. 70-300 + a macro like the Tamron 90mm or Nikon 105mm VR.. My D90 is rather large as is, so I figure if I am bringing a DSLR somewhere I might as well just take the "real deal" especially considering the camera bag is the same size. I'll compare the two side-by-side before making any final decisions. I think I need to warranty my D90 first anyway as I discovered a bright red hot pixel (or more) roughly in the middle of the sensor last night. I wonder where it came from..... Going to take a closer look at the photos on my computer later today.

torags said:

I have both. I use the D90 for it's reach, even in low light.

Low light performance is more a function of a fast lens. Is the D90 as good as the D700 with high iso... no

But with a fast lens and EV tweaking , it's a lot better than the D200 technology

The D700 dual functionality is oversold in my opinion. I tried shooting in DX mode and the reduced viewfinder makes it hard to see the focus point. That said the DX mode (small view) does exclude the vignetting of DX lens on the D700.

Consider keeping both if you can. The 90 is a great travel cam

--
Rags

Click to expand...

Having come from D80 to D90 I was blown away by what the D90 could do, it felt faster, better high ISO picture, etc.. (I think we all know I don't need to state the obvious)

The move for me, from D90 to D700 was underwhealming. Sure the body is stronger, it is a pro camera, I love the dedicated buttons, and the FX feels like it just magically lets more light in. But for me there were a few things that (are probably user issues rather than the camera) that made me a little disappointed. I won't talk about the good points, as there are many, and I think you all know what they are.

In my limited use of the D700 compared to the D90 I have found that.

• The AF was not that much quicker (if any, and in some cases slower) (it is more accurate)
• The third party support for RAW processing was not as good as the D90 (maybe the d90's raws are more processed than the D700 = user error?)
• Image quality was not that much different than the D90 I felt..

You guys and girls are more than welcome to slag me off, saying I am just a novice, what would I know.. But this is my opinion and how I felt about the D700.

Do I regret getting it ? Not really, I needed a pro body, as the D90 just wouldn't cut it.

Would I recommend getting it over the D90 (or even d300) - hard to say, depends what you will use it for.
Do I like the camera ? yeah I love it.

There are many benefits to a full frame sensor. Overall, I'd say that my D3 does a better job with indoor shooting at ISO1600 than my wife's D90. On the D3, ISO600 is tolerable. On a D90, it is not.

On FX, what you gain on the wide end is what you lose on the long end. Much of the higher ISO performance is lost when a longer lens is used and you have to boost the ISO to regain the shutter speed for handheld operation. If you're used to shooting people at f/4 on DX, you'll have to stop down to f/5.6 for a similar DOF. At the long end, you'll need to use TCs to get the same magnification you had on DX. Thus, many shooting conditions negate the FX advantage.

RAW is esential for paid assignments. But practicing with JPEGs to get the best exposure and composition results in even better RAW capture.
--
Joel

Going from a D70s to the D700 was unbelivable. The first photos made my wife see how great of a camera it was. I would say if you need it and can afford it, get. Check out the Tamron 28-70, it gets good reviews. I personally have the nikon 24-70, 70-200 and 105vr. I love the way these 2.8 lenses help in low light, especially with focusing. The 70-300 is not for low light, so i would look at some thing like the 50mm 1.4g and 85mm 1.8. Both these lenses I think would amaze you compared to the 18-105 on your d90.

About shooting raw and practice with Jpeg. For professional news and sports I use JPEG. For weddings and portraits I use raw. For family fun photos depends on where we are and what I am wanting.

Good luck and enjoy your new beast. It will control your life for the first couple hours.

Greg