will swap my D700+24-70mmf2.8 for a D7000

Well,

All the tests confirm my worst fears. DX will be good enough in terms of lo-light and DR for someone like me who moved from a D200 to a D700.

My problem is that I already owned a 17-55mmf2.8 Nikkor, a 18-200mm3-5-5.6 AF-S G ED VR Nikkor, a 80-200mmf2.8 AF-D ED and a 50mmf1.4 AF-D when I bought the D700 and 24-70mmf2.8 Nikkor.

The new combination is great, but, I miss the DX reach, and cannot afford to keep spending money on lenses. There is no TC of any quality that works properly with the 80-200mmf2.8. I cannot justify the expense of a new 70-200mmf2.8 VR II. Nor does it seem to make sense to buy an 28-300mm nikkor to go on the D700..

Yes, the results I get can be very pleasing to me, but my pockets just aren't deep enough!

Sigh!

So, I'll sell the big beauty and get the little tear away, and have about A$1500 for a photographic expedition!

--
karl reed

Do you do this professionally or is this a hobby? Because there is no reason for you to fall into terrible consumer habits just because of a little reach. Why don't you just keep using what you've got for another two years? At least you can justify moving to the D7000's replacement at that time. The D700 is hardly a camera to complain about. Problem is, I think you will have sweaty palms again in the near future when Nikon releases the D700's replacement. It's a terrible marketing gimmick and I swear they have you by the balls! Just get over it. Stop reading the reviews and go out and take pictures with what you've been blessed with so far. The D7000 is bound to get cheaper or a better camera will come along. You have some really nice gear! Be happy with it.

karlreed said:

Well,

All the tests confirm my worst fears. DX will be good enough in terms of lo-light and DR for someone like me who moved from a D200 to a D700.

My problem is that I already owned a 17-55mmf2.8 Nikkor, a 18-200mm3-5-5.6 AF-S G ED VR Nikkor, a 80-200mmf2.8 AF-D ED and a 50mmf1.4 AF-D when I bought the D700 and 24-70mmf2.8 Nikkor.

The new combination is great, but, I miss the DX reach, and cannot afford to keep spending money on lenses. There is no TC of any quality that works properly with the 80-200mmf2.8. I cannot justify the expense of a new 70-200mmf2.8 VR II. Nor does it seem to make sense to buy an 28-300mm nikkor to go on the D700..

Yes, the results I get can be very pleasing to me, but my pockets just aren't deep enough!

Sigh!

So, I'll sell the big beauty and get the little tear away, and have about A$1500 for a photographic expedition!

--
karl reed

Click to expand...

--
John Tatyosian
Check out my site: http://sites.google.com/site/JTatyosian

JTatyosian said:

Do you do this professionally or is this a hobby? Because there is no reason for you to fall into terrible consumer habits just because of a little reach. Why don't you just keep using what you've got for another two years? At least you can justify moving to the D7000's replacement at that time. The D700 is hardly a camera to complain about. Problem is, I think you will have sweaty palms again in the near future when Nikon releases the D700's replacement. It's a terrible marketing gimmick and I swear they have you by the balls! Just get over it. Stop reading the reviews and go out and take pictures with what you've been blessed with so far. The D7000 is bound to get cheaper or a better camera will come along. You have some really nice gear! Be happy with it.

Click to expand...

1+ with the above.
...and save for a Sigma 50-500 to get the reach you are looking for.

JTatyosian said:

karlreed said:

Well,

All the tests confirm my worst fears. DX will be good enough in terms of lo-light and DR for someone like me who moved from a D200 to a D700.

My problem is that I already owned a 17-55mmf2.8 Nikkor, a 18-200mm3-5-5.6 AF-S G ED VR Nikkor, a 80-200mmf2.8 AF-D ED and a 50mmf1.4 AF-D when I bought the D700 and 24-70mmf2.8 Nikkor.

The new combination is great, but, I miss the DX reach, and cannot afford to keep spending money on lenses. There is no TC of any quality that works properly with the 80-200mmf2.8. I cannot justify the expense of a new 70-200mmf2.8 VR II. Nor does it seem to make sense to buy an 28-300mm nikkor to go on the D700..

Yes, the results I get can be very pleasing to me, but my pockets just aren't deep enough!

Sigh!

So, I'll sell the big beauty and get the little tear away, and have about A$1500 for a photographic expedition!

--
karl reed

Click to expand...

--
John Tatyosian
Check out my site: http://sites.google.com/site/JTatyosian

Click to expand...

--
Kindest regards,
Stany
http://www.fotografie.fr/
http://www.fotografie.fr/fotoforum/index.php

I prefer one really good picture in a day over 10 bad ones in a second...

In a perfect world, one needs both DX and FX bodies for different purposes. The optimal strategy is to own only FX lenses so that you don't need to manage two sets of gear.

IMHO I'd resist the get the latest greatest

Even KR finally admiited today the D700 wipes the D7000. The D7000 is a fine camera.

For the price buying new and letting go uesed you can get a TCE14 for reach makeup.

BTW I can understand why the 24-70 and D700 don't make your day. I personally find some other lenses far smaller do 90% of what it does at 1/8 the price.

Why not try the 28-300 from Nikon? I got it and could not be happier. I am a recent Nikon inductee and was in that predicament of D700 or D7000 for a long time. Finally, got D700 + 28-300 with the 50 mm/1.8 with the 200 mm f4 (manual micro) in the works.

I think that should be the ideal bag for you or me ( aka prosumers with the will to become better photographers)...

karlreed said:

Well,

All the tests confirm my worst fears. DX will be good enough in terms of lo-light and DR for someone like me who moved from a D200 to a D700.

My problem is that I already owned a 17-55mmf2.8 Nikkor, a 18-200mm3-5-5.6 AF-S G ED VR Nikkor, a 80-200mmf2.8 AF-D ED and a 50mmf1.4 AF-D when I bought the D700 and 24-70mmf2.8 Nikkor.

The new combination is great, but, I miss the DX reach, and cannot afford to keep spending money on lenses. There is no TC of any quality that works properly with the 80-200mmf2.8. I cannot justify the expense of a new 70-200mmf2.8 VR II. Nor does it seem to make sense to buy an 28-300mm nikkor to go on the D700..

Yes, the results I get can be very pleasing to me, but my pockets just aren't deep enough!

Sigh!

So, I'll sell the big beauty and get the little tear away, and have about A$1500 for a photographic expedition!

Click to expand...

This is unbelievable to me. Just pick up the Tamron 70 300VC or the Nikon equivalent. That will give you the reach and a lot cheaper than your plan. Better yet, just save up a bit and buy the best crop sensor Nikon you can afford a little later and keep the present gear. Dave

karlreed said:

--
karl reed

Click to expand...

--
Visit my gallery at http://www.poperotzy.smugmug.com

I am in the fortunate position of owning a D700 and about to trade in my D300 for a D7000 at the weekend. If, however, I had to make a choice between D700 and D7000, there would be no contest. For all the D7000's new technology, the D700 is still the superior photo producing machine. It's low light / high ISO performance is second to none and you have a wonderful combo with a 24-70 lens.

As a previous poster has said, why not get a 28-300mm. I have one and, although it's not going to beat your 24-70 for IQ, it's a great "do it all" lens.

See my 300mm example below.





--
Dave Carter
http://www.davecarter.me.uk

If you do not have a DX camera anymore, selling the 17-55 DX, 18-200 DX and 80-200 AF-D would likely give you at least $900+$500+$700 = US$2100 if you gears are in a condition that's good enough to sell. That's just about the money required to fetch the 70-200 VR II. The older 70-200 VR Mark I + TC-14E is a good solution as well.

karlreed said:

Well,

All the tests confirm my worst fears. DX will be good enough in terms of lo-light and DR for someone like me who moved from a D200 to a D700.

My problem is that I already owned a 17-55mmf2.8 Nikkor, a 18-200mm3-5-5.6 AF-S G ED VR Nikkor, a 80-200mmf2.8 AF-D ED and a 50mmf1.4 AF-D when I bought the D700 and 24-70mmf2.8 Nikkor.

The new combination is great, but, I miss the DX reach, and cannot afford to keep spending money on lenses. There is no TC of any quality that works properly with the 80-200mmf2.8. I cannot justify the expense of a new 70-200mmf2.8 VR II. Nor does it seem to make sense to buy an 28-300mm nikkor to go on the D700..

Yes, the results I get can be very pleasing to me, but my pockets just aren't deep enough!

Sigh!

So, I'll sell the big beauty and get the little tear away, and have about A$1500 for a photographic expedition!

--
karl reed

Click to expand...

sell the 24-70 ok, then get a 1.4 50mm and another lens. 105mm 2.8 Micro is an excellent lens.

The image quality is superior [same sensor as the d700]

I only bought the d7000 for its video and occasionally for its reach with a 70-200.

+2 on the above as well. Keep the D700, don't let the marketing and the hype sway you.

Plus, the D7000 will be hell on your lenses. Glass you think is good now, may very well not be. I was shocked at how much so this is when I test drove a D7000 recently.

-m

Maybe it's an option to get the D3100 for your reach and video needs, and keep the D700 as the main system?

I shoot both N and C, recently got the 550D and 7D and went screaming back to my Nikon thanking it for it's nice IQ. D7000 IQ is better than the 7D, but it's still way behind the "old" D700. DR is not everything, and at these differences you will not notice it anyway.

--
I'z lovez AiS'ez

I REALLY APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS!!!

I'll think about it..

Part of the logic is that there is a A$3000 relative cost in keeping the d700 and going for the 28-300mm nikkor as follows..

Sal eof of D700+24-70mmf2.8nikkor plus MD10 + some batterys ought to get me at least A$3300

Minus cost of D7000 A$1750 = net gain of A$1550..
VS buying 28-300mmf2.8 nikkor at A$1500..

'cost difference is about A$3000.

But, one poster said that I was dissapointed with the 24-70mm, I don't recall saying that. I bought the D700 after comparing it with the Sony A900 and the Ziess 24-70mm, and the Canon5D Mkii and 24-70mm..

The Nikkor was a big surprise to me, and the best shots I have please me greatly in terms of clarity and etc.

But, so to do my best shots with my D200..

Anyway, I value everyone's comments and we shall see..

Warm Regards to you all!

--
karl reed

karlreed said:

I REALLY APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS!!!

I'll think about it..

Part of the logic is that there is a A$3000 relative cost in keeping the d700 and going for the 28-300mm nikkor as follows..

Sal eof of D700+24-70mmf2.8nikkor plus MD10 + some batterys ought to get me at least A$3300

Minus cost of D7000 A$1750 = net gain of A$1550..
VS buying 28-300mmf2.8 nikkor at A$1500..

'cost difference is about A$3000.

But, one poster said that I was dissapointed with the 24-70mm, I don't recall saying that. I bought the D700 after comparing it with the Sony A900 and the Ziess 24-70mm, and the Canon5D Mkii and 24-70mm..

The Nikkor was a big surprise to me, and the best shots I have please me greatly in terms of clarity and etc.

But, so to do my best shots with my D200..

Anyway, I value everyone's comments and we shall see..

Warm Regards to you all!

--
karl reed

Click to expand...

--
karl reed

D7000 or D400. Right now I have the D2x. It compliments my D3 very, very, well.

I love having a DX/FX body with FX glass. And you don't need a fortune either. Buy smart, buy used, plan ahead, and you can enjoy pro cameras at a cheap price.

areaderct01 said:

In a perfect world, one needs both DX and FX bodies for different purposes. The optimal strategy is to own only FX lenses so that you don't need to manage two sets of gear.

Click to expand...

Nikon 70-300mm AF-D ED is only $199 on the used market in excellent shape. Sure, it might be a bit soft wide open, but if you can up the ISO get it to F8, you're good to go for extremely cheap. I might pick one up for personal use for hiking in good light. My 300m F4.5 AI lens was $250 a few years ago, and the excellent 300mm F4 AF-D is around $500.

If you don't care about ED glass, you can get the non-ED 70-300mm AF-D for $80-100.

David Nall said:

karlreed said:

Well,

All the tests confirm my worst fears. DX will be good enough in terms of lo-light and DR for someone like me who moved from a D200 to a D700.

My problem is that I already owned a 17-55mmf2.8 Nikkor, a 18-200mm3-5-5.6 AF-S G ED VR Nikkor, a 80-200mmf2.8 AF-D ED and a 50mmf1.4 AF-D when I bought the D700 and 24-70mmf2.8 Nikkor.

The new combination is great, but, I miss the DX reach, and cannot afford to keep spending money on lenses. There is no TC of any quality that works properly with the 80-200mmf2.8. I cannot justify the expense of a new 70-200mmf2.8 VR II. Nor does it seem to make sense to buy an 28-300mm nikkor to go on the D700..

Yes, the results I get can be very pleasing to me, but my pockets just aren't deep enough!

Sigh!

So, I'll sell the big beauty and get the little tear away, and have about A$1500 for a photographic expedition!

Click to expand...

This is unbelievable to me. Just pick up the Tamron 70 300VC or the Nikon equivalent. That will give you the reach and a lot cheaper than your plan. Better yet, just save up a bit and buy the best crop sensor Nikon you can afford a little later and keep the present gear. Dave

David Nall said:

--
karl reed

Click to expand...

--
Visit my gallery at http://www.poperotzy.smugmug.com

Click to expand...

The less impressed I am with high iso. An awful lot can be compensated for with proper technique.

The main edge of the d700 is full frame. Better analog to digital conversion due to the larger sensor size. Also, you will truly take advantage of the full frame lenses.

I am now spending money on other tools to help my photography. It really depends on what you shoot, but light modifiers, flashes, radio triggers, etc. typically cost less than new cameras and can really make a difference.

Regarding the 24-70mm. For what it is, it good - not great. There is a well documented light leak issue. Whether or not it is a real world problem is debatable, but it is a design flaw. If your were compare the iq of that lense with primes, you would probably switch. Also, if you crave low light performance then get faster glass.

...to swap for your D700 and 24-70 f2.8 lens.

Lunacy like yours should be rewarded!

Jay

Do what is best for you.

The ISO performance will not be a direct match from the early reports.

If your a high ISO shooter, then I would advise against the switch.

If you are not, and your looking to get back into DX, I would keep the 24-70 lens though. Its really good on the D700, but it is STELLAR on the DX rigs.

THey use the sweet spot of this really sweet lens.

If you go with the D7000 (whihc is a VERY capable camera from what I can see) you will have a rig that is light, durable, and about 90 - 95% of the D700 in photo quality. A margin you will not miss if you dont shoot High ISO or vary narrow DOF control.

Wide....well they make great super wides for DX (and inexpensive too) and long...well you already know the long side of the story.

Dont be afraid, some here think the FX cameras will win the nobel peace prize.....they are awesome, but in the end...if your not needing the most MP you can get...or shooting high ISO.....or needing razer thin DOF control (all very specialized needs) then DX is not that bad.

Lets put it this way. For my type of work, landscape. I would challenge anyone to go out on a days shoot with me and my DX rig and see what comes of the days work. My point being that the person behind the camera will probably come back with the most compelling work...not the person with the FX camera.

Happy shooting no matter what you choose, and choose what is best for YOU...not everyone else.

Roman
--

“There is only you and your camera. The limitations in your photography are in yourself, for what we see is what we are.”
~ Ernst Haas

We are officially live!!!!
http://www.commercialfineart.com/
Old Web Site
http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/