Caedes

Photography

Discussion Board -> Photography -> Looking to upgrade.....Help!

Looking to upgrade.....Help!

.tebfire77
02/06/10 4:05 AM GMT
I've out grown my D60 and looking at either a D700 or D2x (wish I had $ for any of the D3's though)....anyways...what's your take on a fx vs. dx? Pro body vs semi pro?

Would you get the newer and more expensive ($2000-$2500 range)D700 since it has a fx sensor... although it's not a "Pro Body" or go with the older D2x (used for around $1000) which has a dx sensor but pro body features. I've read and watched so many reviews....every time I think I've come to my final decision...I second guess myself! New technology vs. older? Fx vs.Dx? Pro vs. Semi-pro? Price? Ahhhh....Help!

My reason for upgrading? My D60 only takes 3 fps...less if shooting raw (not so great for sports), doesn't support cordless sync flash for my sb600, only has 3 area AF, iso is decent at 400 but horrible after 800, Ive read great reports on CMOS vs. CCD sensors and the D60 has CCD.

Don't get me wrong....the D60 has been and still is a great camera (look at my pictures on caedes)...it's just time to step up to the next level.

Link to my Gallery


Thanks,

Todd
0∈ [?]

Comments

Post a Comment  -  Subscribe to this discussion
::zunazet
02/06/10 7:14 AM GMT
I can't give any specific advise but it would be wise to keep in mind that the camera body is just a little computer these days and becomes obsolete very quickly. Regardless of the one you choose, something better will be available next year or next month even. And the one you have will have depreciated drastically. It seems best to focus on the feature or features that are MOST important to you and base the decision on that. After all, If a $1000 camera body will get you there that would leave plenty of money for a new lens as well. Good lenses don't depreciate.
0∈ [?]
+purmusic
02/06/10 7:19 AM GMT
Some thoughts on this exact photographic purchase conundrum, courtesy of dpreview.com:


Opening post:

"Hello

I have a chance to buy a used D2x in mint condition for a decent
price but want to know if it's better to go for a D700 or even a D3.
My concern is image quality, plain and simple."


Responses:

"D700... going D2x you are just delaying your eventual move to FX.. just do it now."


"The D2X will not give you better DR than the D200, but it will give you slightly better textural detail resolution and to my eyes, a slightly more film-like look, at base ISO and base ISO only.

Moving to the D700 will give you better DR, but not anything in terms of resolution or textural detail - in fact, the D2X might still have the edge in those areas - at base ISO. (it's very clear that only at base ISO is the D2X an excellent camera - anything up higher and the D3/D700 are vastly superior machines)

Given what you're trying to do (print a 24x30" print I assume?), you may need to wait for the next higher MP Nikon to come out. If we're talking gallery quality prints at really high technical standards, I'm very happy with the 16x20's I make from my D2X and D300 with the very best glass (think 14-24, 24-70 in the mid range, 200/2) but not sure going much larger than that would be feasible to still honestly call the quality "gallery quality at really high technical standards".

I should note that at 16x20 I'm getting prints from the D2X that are every bit the equal of anything I got out of MF film (and I was a color printer and have 10 years experience in photoshop and post processing/retouching, so I'm not a newb at this either), and far far superior to anything I got out of 35mm film.

For 1300 bucks, it might be worth a stretch if the D2X doesn't have a lot of frames on it. But I wouldn't expect "blow away" differences - the differences in textural rendering and the smoother tonal transitions are subtle things - not blatantly obvious "OMG" things."


"The D3 / D700 blows the D2x OUT OF THE WATER! End of story...

I have had my D2x for 3 years, taken thousands of photos, of all ranges from ISO 100 portraits to ISO 1600 night Little League. After I got the D3, my D2x has sat, though I take it for backup.

I would love to get another D3 soon. The D2x was a FINE CAMERA, and if your doing studio, or portrait work, fine. If you goal is sports, night games, and low light, get the D700 or D3.

I find the D3 photos MUCH more vivid, and sharp, with a lot more POP, almost slide like, over the D2x. Even on non "Vivid" mode."


"if you're seeing increased sharpness and color pop from a d3 over a d2x you're seeing things that aren't there, or your cameras have been set up differently. the raw files of both cameras are very very similar. the lenses you are using may have more to do with any visible differences.

i'm of the opinion that for daylight photography the d2x is the best value for the money, and the d3 is the best value for low light photography or any time the iso goes over 800. with the d3 getting cheaper and cheaper i'd recommend it over a d2x if the funds are available but if you only have $1000, a d2x or d300 is better."


"don't think you will see any real or significant increase in IQ with the D2X over the D200. Good glass is probably more important, but if you already have that then there isn't much to improve.

The one advantage of the D700 is better low light performance and cleaner less noise photos at higher ISO. The D2X is pretty close to the D200 and D700 at base ISO. If you search this forum you can find a thread where someone has charted the performance of many cameras with graphs measuring some sort of specific numeric performance."


"FWIW IMHO a friend just came over to my home a few minutes ago with his new D700 from work. He just purchased a D300 for himself. He has a arsenal of used Nikons from F2's, 3's,4's, D1's and D2x's.

I asked him in his opinion would he say the D300 is the finest crop sensor camera Nikon has ever made? He answers "yes without a doubt". I then asked him his opinion on the D700 and his response was "Film is Dead".

There is no way I would take a D2x "whatever" over a D300. I just will not restrict myself to base ISO shooting. If you do studio work with the D2x on a pod then I say sure. But I wouldn't even think twice about it. Now if you can pick up a D2x for around $1,000 USD then it would make a nice emergency back up. (But for that kind of money you can get a D90)

I say get a D700 or wait for the next best thing from Nikon. But I am very sad to say this but of all the Nikon owners who got screwed it is the D2Xs owners who just bought a D2Xs prior to the D3's release that got hammered the hardest.

Once again, don't walk toward the light, don't buy the D2x no matter how wonderful it feels. Put the camera down, turn around and walk over to your local shop and pick up a new D700. I understand the allure, but it's ALL smoke and mirrors. The D1 and D2 series have been bested by the D300 and D700."



Reply by original poster:

"Question: Fx senseor= just plain old regular lenses, right? Do I need FX lenses? I have a 70-200 2.8 VR. Is that an "fx" lens?

Finally, which lens would you all suggest as a replacement for a Tokina 12-24 DX for use on a d700? That's my only dx lens'; my other glass is all non-dx pro glass."


Responses:

Question: Fx senseor= just plain old regular lenses, right? Do I need
FX lenses? I have a 70-200 2.8 VR. Is that an "fx" lens?

"This will work fine on your D700. Especially at f5.6 and 8. NO vignetting problems."

Finally, which lens would you all suggest as a replacement for a
Tokina 12-24 DX for use on a d700?


"I believe the Tokina will work fine in FX mode. If not, the Nikon 17-35 f2.8 will be an excellent replacement. One of Nikon's finest. The 14-28 f2.8 is more expensive and bulges out with the front element - but it is one very sharp lens. My choice - 17-35."


The above discussion in it's entirety can be found ... here.



And on a parting note, till our resident experts weigh in on your discussion thread here, have you read anything about the two cameras under consideration on Ken Rockwell's site?
0∈ [?]
"There is always something waiting at the end of the road ... if you're not willing to see what it is ... you probably shouldn't be out there in the first place."
::third_eye
02/06/10 2:47 PM GMT
Hi. If you're still interested in any more opinions after Les's fairly thorough post, I'd lie to share a couple of thoughts.

I used to shoot with a D200. It's a great camera. The D2X, if I'm not mistaken, used the same processing technology, with just a slightly larger file (10 vs 12). Both cameras are great. They do have one serious Achiles' heel.. low light/high ISO shooting. You could pick up a used, or refurbished D300 for just about the same price as a D2X. The D700 *drools* is a beautiful machine, but "pro-body" is an often mis-used term. The D700 is built like a tank, as are the D200 (trust me) and the D2X, and yes, the D300.

Unless video is a high priority (I'm sensing that it isn't) then the newer D300s shouldn't be a factor. So, would you be doing more wide angle shooting, or "normal" or tele-zoom stuff?

The D2X is nice (the D2Xs is nicer), and for the money (assuming you find a good used/refurb out there) will get you some great shots. Ditto for the D200. My money, though, would be on a D300..especialy if you're stepping up from a D60. It'll feel.. right, I suspect. Both B&H (bhphoto.com) and Adorama (adorama.com) are reputable re-sellers of used/refurb stuff. If you're looking to shave a few bucks (ok, a few hundred) and aren't looking for that "new camera smell" (I completely understand if you are though :P) then these two stores might be a good place to start. Hell, their prices are pretty decent on the new stuff too.

Good luck. :o)
0∈ [?]
Please, even if you don't visit my gallery, check out my "Faves".I've left them intact since day "1", and would like it if every image there got the attention they deserved.
.tebfire77
02/08/10 4:09 PM GMT
I appreciate the detail responses and suggestions. After doing some more research, I believe I'm going to go with the D700. I'll of coarse not be upgrading as soon as I wanted now....so my cheap little D60 will have to suffice until I save a few more bucks!

"Third eye"....The only reason I didn't consider the D300 is the fact that it's a dx. I've read several post to include "Purmusic" (above) that the fx cameras and lenses are far better in quality, clarity, and color. Ive got a professional military combat camera friend with a D3 and D2x and another armature photographer friend that shoots with the D700.....I might have to borrow theirs for a day and see which is better. Well I know the D3 is far superior, but way out of my budget range...LOL. The only thing that sucks going from dx to fx is all my lenses will need to be fx as well to achieve the full potential of the dx body......Thanks a lot for the responses.....Todd
0∈ [?]
::third_eye
02/08/10 5:57 PM GMT
Hmm. Guess I misunderstood a bit, but hope my words were still somewhat helpful. Something to consider.. third party manufacturers such as Tokina, Sigma, and Tamron also make FX compatible glass.. some of it quite good, and it'll make a significantly shallower hole in your pocket. Hey, truth be told, I'd take the D700 over 2 D300's.. so I get where you're coming from.

Happy Hunting..er.. so to speak..
0∈ [?]
Please, even if you don't visit my gallery, check out my "Faves".I've left them intact since day "1", and would like it if every image there got the attention they deserved.

Leave a comment (registration required):

Subject: