D700 for enthusiast ?

Hi,

I have an opportunity to purchase a D700 + grip with low shutter actuations for under 2300 from a friend. I would sell my D90 and wifes D3000 along with 18-55 kit lens, 16-85 DX and 35/1.8 which would bring back most of the money. But then im stuck lensless so I guess I would pick up a 50mm 1.8 for the mean time and eventually a 70-200. I lose video, but I just got a Canon VIXIA HF M400 for that (sorry Nikon). I would also have to get CF cards because I only have SD cards currently.

Is it an upgrade that makes sense?

12mp = 12mp
11 focus points = 51 focus points!!!!
4.5 fps = 8 fps!!!!
iso 200-6400 = iso 100-25600!!!!
weight doesnt bother me

Would you do it? Not pro, just a pleasure of mine. Family, vacations, etc.
Thanks

I sold my D90 to get a D700 and have been very happy.

If you are serious about getting great shots that can be cropped as well as great low light performance then go for it. I had been buying FX glass to use on my D90 so I already had a 24-70 when I got my D700.

OTOH the D90 is a great camera and will serve you well if you are going to remain a casual user.
--
My Smugmug photos http://www.brianshannonphotography.com/
My photo blog http://brianshannonphotography.blogspot.com/
My 500px photos http://500px.com/brianshannonphotography/

Facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Brian-Shannon-Photography/157237647635870

only if you want better pictures and are willing to spend more $$ on a bigger, heavier, more competent camera

is that is a good/fair price though for D700 + grip and low actuations ?

It doesn't seem that you can afford it. What's your wife going to use?

For the type of photography you do will a FF camera make a difference?

If no, then a D300s might be a good fit since it has video, pretty good high ISO uses your existing DX lenses. A D7000 might even be enough.

Bill F

https://picasaweb.google.com/faulknerstudios

im 99% of the time taking the pictures. we are never using both cameras at the same time and the d3000 hasent been used in a while.

hmmm, not sure.
but after playing with the D700 and 70-200 attached i was amazed.

My opinion...stick with the D90. It takes great images and you'll have the glass to get a wider variety of shots, etc.

so the deal is not so good to pass up? At what price do you do it, if I can talk price down

life is short. if you can make it work you won't be thinking I shouldn't have when you see the end results.

I'm sure "enthusiastic" about my D700.

Go for it!

Remember, if by some fluke you decide that it's not perfect for you, you can always go back to DX. Furthermore, if you take good care of it, the D700 will hold it's value well. (The $$$$ price for the upcoming D800 will ensure that.)

This is a deal that sounds good, but the ultimate decision is yours. If you can afford it, considering that the future will hold more expenses for lenses, then go for it and you won't regret it. If it's going to strain the budget then it might be necessary to forgo it.

Just because you don't make money with your camera doesn't put you out of the running for a good camera. I don't make money with my D3 and I enjoy it a lot. I'm retired and get drawn into taking pictures of town events such as the schoolkids/Seniors Christmas Cookie swap. I have fun doing it and it was worth the expenditure investment to me. It strained my wallet but not excessively so I did it (and spent lots more on lenses in succeeding years).

PS: A pro level camera is a learning experience. It has the potential to produce significant improvement in the quality of your pictures, but you have to work at it. In the long run it's worth the effort if you can swing it.

But remember that the body is not the end of it. The lenses will add to the cost. However, the lenses are forever, while bodies come and go. That means if you can't swing this deal, you will have a chance later on. Just because a body isn't the latest thing doesn't mean it won't take good pictures. You could possibly get a used D700 in a couple years for a similar price, at which time you would have had time to save up some money to make the deal a bit easier to handle.

bdscorvette said:

Is it an upgrade that makes sense?

Click to expand...

I think a D7000 makes more sense for you.

bdscorvette said:

12mp = 12mp

Click to expand...

D7000 has 16 MP.

bdscorvette said:

11 focus points = 51 focus points!!!!

Click to expand...

D7000 has 39 focus points.

bdscorvette said:

4.5 fps = 8 fps!!!!

Click to expand...

D7000 does 6 fps.

bdscorvette said:

iso 200-6400 = iso 100-25600!!!!

Click to expand...

Not sure where you are getting ISO 100 from (apparently from ISO Lo settings, which are Nikon's way of applying ETTR to the camera's meter settings), but you would have genuine ISO 100 with the D7000, and the D7000 would give you a two stop improvement over your D90 (as opposed to a three stop improvement with the D700).

bdscorvette said:

Would you do it?

Click to expand...

I would sell the D90 and D3000, throw the 18-55 in with the D3000 so it sells as a kit; then buy a D7000 for now because that's a significant upgrade to your D90 in every way.

When you can afford the 70-200/2.8 it will be an excellent lens on your D7000 and give you significantly more "reach" over what it can do on a D700. The biggest problem I have with the 70-200 is its MFDB is too long, so using it on FX means you are at 200mm for headshots, on DX you will be at 135mm for those headshots -- so you end up being pretty far away from your subject if that's how you want to use it; you will lose shallower DOF on DX, but if that's your goal then an 85/1.4 would be a better choice and the DOF of that lens would be plenty shallow on DX. For sports and such, with a TC14eII you will have something comparable to a 450mm f/4.5 FX equivalent compared to it being a 280mm f/4 lens on a D700. Another advantage to using the 70-200 on DX is you can save some money by getting a used original version instead of the newer II version because it should work very well on the smaller image circle (whereas the II version is advisable for FX to avoid issues that sometimes come up on the edges of the larger image circle).

You might consider upgrading to some good (used?) FX format lenses first. You'll be able to use them on your existing D90 body anyway. I'd guess that as soon as the D800 is released, there will be even better deals on used D700 bodies.

Also be aware that a bag full of a full frame body and FX lenses is going to be substantialy heavier than what you now carry. Just sayin...
--
Michael Sherman
http://www.msphoto.ca

You have a tough decsion. You have a good camera in the D90 for now. The price of the D700 sounds good but lower the price if you can. You have to look out for yourself even though it's a friend. But more importantly. What about staying with the D90 and putting the 70-200 vr II lens on it and shoot raw. That lens will make that camera dance along with shooting raw. The only problem I see with doing that will be that the lens is heavy for a small camera body without a battery pack to help balance out the weight and also give you more to hold onto. I don't care what anyone says about these small camera bodies. They need to have that extra bottom area to hold onto. I'm just saying that if you can't afford everything right now. Think about the glass first...maybe. I did. I had a choice to make these year and it was a D700 or something similar or a 70-200 vrII. I went for the lens and the IQ is amazing along with the fact that I can shoot at 20 - 40 of a sec at 200mm which keeps my ISO's down when permitted.
Good luck.

Thanks guys. I'm sure you get this question here at least once a week.

...but if you're contemplating selling all your lenses and you'll still have to pay $2300 to take this camera home, you might also want to consider the 5d2 by Canon, since you can buy refurbished 5d2s for $2200.

However, in your position, I'd really just keep the D90, D3000, and your current lenses. There doesn't seem to be a specific thing you're looking for in the D700 that you're not getting from your current gear. Is it a higher end camera? Certainly. Are many of the specs more impressive on paper? Of course.

But if you don't actually have specific goals in mind, your pictures won't be any different. The D90 (or any DSLR from the last five or six years) is more than enough for most shooters. A change in gear might give you more enjoyment, but it'll fade quickly if you find yourself taking the same shots with an empty wallet.

Personally, I shoot with a D3100. A D700 upgrade would give me an extra stop in ISO, an extra stop in noise (e.g., a D700 image at 25,600 ISO would show only as much noise as my D3100 at ISO 12800), a much larger VF, a built in focus motor, and much better battery life. There are specific advantages I'd use on a daily basis.

However, it would also cost at least $2000 more than I paid for my D3100. Are those upgrades worth $2000 to me? No way. You don't seem to have a similar list of things you want to upgrade, which suggests that it's more of a fun upgrade than a functional one.

I've got nothing against fun upgrades that are affordable, but if you're selling all your gear and dipping into savings for a fun upgrade, it doesn't sound too affordable. In your shoes, I'd keep shooting with the D90 until I figured out exactly what I continued to lack in it that could be solved with an upgrade.

Sorry, but this sounds like a bad idea. You're basically selling all of your (and your wife's) gear to just get a camera body. Then you have to scrounge up enough for just a basic prime lens. Unless there is some specific capability that the D700 gives you that you MUST have to accomplish the shots you want, this seems like a poor path to take.

I would do it.

Love my D700. Don't use my D300 much now. D200 sits on shelf.

--
Craig
http://www.cjcphoto.net