The Great Upgrade Debate

scottwdw

I currently have a Nikon D70 with the following lenses (all Nikon): 50mm f/1.8, 18-200VR DX and 80-400VR.

I am highly coventing the Nikon D700 for it's ISO range and performance, however, the price could cover instead an investment in glass like a Nikon 70-200VR f/2.8 (was 80-200VR which was a typo).

So, the question is, is it better to invest in better glass or go with the latest camera and it's 4 year leap in technology?

jonh68

That's a tough decision. The D700 is a great camera and is one of the few cameras, IMHO, that can have an impact on pictures as much as a good lens because of the ISO performance.

Depending on what you shoot, getting the D700 would be a good purchase, it just wouldn't be an investment like a lens would be. You could use your 80-400 in less light. I have put my 18-200 on the d700 and have gotten great results with it, but you do lose resolution. If you are picky about IQ, you may notice a difference.

You stated you thought about getting the 80-200 vr, but Nikon has the 70-200 vr which is expensive and hard to find, and the 80-200 af-d which is cheaper. The 80-200 2.8 AF-D, which I also have, has almost the same optics as the 70-200, but comes in around $500-700 used, which is a great deal.

One note about the D700: once you get it, you are going to want to spend money on a wide angle to take advantage of the full frame. You have some good glass now, but once you see what it can do with what you have, you are going to want to see what it can do with you don't have.

swintonphoto

You really need to take crop factor into account. Full frame sensors are fabulous, but, they may not fit everyone. People who work a lot in telephoto will need to carry much larger, heavier, more expensive glass if you use a full frame sensor like in the D700. However, if you work primarily in wider angles, the full frame is a great choice. The D700 will no doubt be a fabulous choice, but, you will need full frame lenses which cost and weigh much more. You might also consider the D300. Similar abilities with a crop sensor and a lower price tag.

scottwdw

Thank you John68 for your comments and incites. I checked out your latest Football galleries you used the D700 on and my jaw dropped. When the ISO goes above 1600, do you apply any noise reduction? Are some of the images of player closeups cropped or is the 300mm long enough when the play is close enough to the sidelines to fill the frame?

scottwdw

swintonphoto wrote:

You really need to take crop factor into account. Full frame sensors are fabulous, but, they may not fit everyone. People who work a lot in telephoto will need to carry much larger, heavier, more expensive glass if you use a full frame sensor like in the D700. However, if you work primarily in wider angles, the full frame is a great choice. The D700 will no doubt be a fabulous choice, but, you will need full frame lenses which cost and weigh much more. You might also consider the D300. Similar abilities with a crop sensor and a lower price tag.

I do mostly travel-type photography mixed in with photographing horse events for my daughter and some local events. If I was to go with the D700, I would probably get something like the Tamron 28-300 VC to replace the 18-200VR and wait to see if Tokina comes out with a nice FX WA zoom like their 11-16 & 12-24 DX Pro lenses.

jonh68

scottwdw wrote:

Thank you John68 for your comments and incites. I checked out your latest Football galleries you used the D700 on and my jaw dropped. When the ISO goes above 1600, do you apply any noise reduction? Are some of the images of player closeups cropped or is the 300mm long enough when the play is close enough to the sidelines to fill the frame?

300mm is plenty to fill the frame and get action from the midfield to sideline. I will get in the endzone when the ball gets within the 20 yd line. I cropped all of them to compose better. Reasonable cropping seems to hold prett well, usually 1/3 of the picture can be used for 4x6 photos.

The noise redcution I do is despeckle and maybe some NR in photoshop elements 6. I have found if the exposure is good, it reduces noise.

Tee Why

If money is a factor, why not a D90 which should give you the same IQ as the d300 and save the rest for glass.

If really pressed for dough, I'd go wit glass rather than a new body with no glass.

Pindy

jonh68 wrote:

I have found if the exposure is good, it reduces noise.

So true. I actually think it's "great light" reduces noise. Particularly if there's a wide dynamic range.

scottwdw

I've concluded my debate for now as I picked up a slightly used Nikon 70-200 VR f/2.8 lens last week. Thanks for all the input. I know I'll be getting a D700 in the future. Right now, I've decided to invest in some quality glass.

ziggy53

scottwdw wrote:

I've concluded my debate for now as I picked up a slightly used Nikon 70-200 VR f/2.8 lens last week. Thanks for all the input. I know I'll be getting a D700 in the future. Right now, I've decided to invest in some quality glass.

Good choice and congratulations on the new (to you) lens.

scottwdw

ziggy53 wrote:

Good choice and congratulations on the new (to you) lens.

Thanks! I haven't had a chance to put it through it's paces yet. Will be doing so soon!