If all you had was a Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II . . .

heatherk9heatherk9 Registered Users Posts: 20 Big grins
edited August 12, 2012 in Cameras
would you get the Nikon d700 or d7000 if you were me? How's that for a hypothetical? I was using my old Nikon d70 with the 18-200mm on it until last week when it was stolen. :cry I'd been considering upgrading for a long time but now I don't have a choice.

I can buy a d7000 kit with the 18-200mm VRII lens, or I could pick up a used d700 for not much more money than the d7000 kit and just use my 70-200. I've never used full frame before but I'd like to get the best low light capability I can while still using a zoom lens. I mostly take pictures of cats--both portraits for the local shelter (for which I could use a prime lens) and feral cats out in their element (which is akin to shooting wildlife).

I'm very thankful I didn't have the 70-200mm on my Nikon when it was stolen.

Thank you!
Heather

Comments

  • OverfocusedOverfocused Registered Users Posts: 1,068 Major grins
    edited October 29, 2011
    D700 would bring you to another level completely and you'd be fine without the 18-200 :) I'd get a 50mm or 35mm prime on the side for less than $100 for the ability to go wide, and then you should be pretty well covered.

    I use a Canon 5D MKII (basically the D700 equivalent) and when I first bought it I had the Canon 70-200F4 and the Canon 24-105F4. I had the 70-200 on my camera about %85 of the time. The IQ that the 70-200's give simply crush the all in one zooms, and from what you're saying you want to photograph, the 70-200 + an inexpensive 50mm or 35mm prime is exactly what you need.
    www.overfocused.com
  • ThatCanonGuyThatCanonGuy Registered Users Posts: 1,778 Major grins
    edited October 29, 2011
    D700. Unless you really like using that 18-200. I'd prefer something in the 24-70 range (doesn't have to be the expensive one :D), which would give better image quality and would probably be faster. The D7000's crop sensor would be good for wildlife, though. But I'd say if you can afford a D700, get it. A 35mm prime or similar could cover the wide end. If you use the 18-70 range a lot, you might want a D7000 and a wide zoom. But if you use the 70-200 range mostly, then go for the D700.
  • mjordanphotomjordanphoto Registered Users Posts: 88 Big grins
    edited October 29, 2011
    I gotta agree, go for the better camera body and then invest in a cheap prime in the wider range. It'd be a really nice combo!
    Website - Smugmug Galleries - Facebook - Twitter
  • babowcbabowc Registered Users Posts: 510 Major grins
    edited October 29, 2011
    D7000 kit is ~$1500 max..
    D700 used is $2100 minimum.
    Unless you were speaking of D7000 with a 18-200, the price difference is pretty big.

    But +1 on the D700.. I just got mine too and I love it!
    -Mike Jin
    D800
    16/2.8, f1.4G primes, f2.8 trio, 105/200 macro, SB900.
    It never gets easier, you just get better.
  • SystemSystem Registered Users Posts: 8,186 moderator
    edited October 29, 2011
    D700~
    If your were thinking of the D7000 just because it came with the 18-200, don't bother. I had one (18-200) and sold it within a year.
  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 3,352 Major grins
    edited October 29, 2011
    Everybody always argues both sides of this, but all I can say is that if low-light performance is important to you, well, ...once you go full-frame, you never want to go back.

    For those of you who simply don't understand our burning desire to shoot at ISO 3200 or 6400, well, please don't chime in with "oh, who on earth could ever REALLY need to shoot above ISO 800 more than once or twice?" Laughing.gif! I've made at least ten thousand dollars in print sales from images made at ISO 1600 and 3200 alone, conservatively. Now that I have a D700 to shoot theater with, I don't even bother looking for chances to turn down my ISO to 1600, I just leave it at 3200 for the entire job.

    So anyways, all that to say, go for it! Yes, the D7000 and a 18-200 make a KILLER combo for all-around casual shooting in good light. Heck, if I were an "adventure photographer" like Galen Rowell, I'd be sporting a D7000 and a 16-85, 90% of the time. But as a low-light photojournalist, I pay my bills with full-frame. Bottom line.


    Good luck and take care,
    =Matt=

    (edit) Although, I ought to mention, that if low-light performance is important to you, no full-frame kit is complete without a couple f/1.4 primes. When the light gets truly terrible, I'd rather have a good 50mm f/1.4 or an 85mm f/1.4, compared to f/2.8 and stabilization...

    =Matt=
    “My first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
  • IcebearIcebear Registered Users Posts: 4,015 Major grins
    edited October 29, 2011
    There's a big difference in shooting cats (even feral) and shooting wildlife. Range. If you really needed the 1.5 crop factor for reaching out, the D7000 might make sense, but the D700 would be my choice given what you've told us about your photography.
    John :
    Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
    D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
  • heatherk9heatherk9 Registered Users Posts: 20 Big grins
    edited October 29, 2011
    Icebear wrote: »
    There's a big difference in shooting cats (even feral) and shooting wildlife. Range. If you really needed the 1.5 crop factor for reaching out, the D7000 might make sense, but the D700 would be my choice given what you've told us about your photography.

    Good point, John. My subjects are much closer to me so I don't really need to worry about crop factor.
  • heatherk9heatherk9 Registered Users Posts: 20 Big grins
    edited October 29, 2011
    Matthew Saville wrote: »
    Everybody always argues both sides of this, but all I can say is that if low-light performance is important to you, well, ...once you go full-frame, you never want to go back.

    For those of you who simply don't understand our burning desire to shoot at ISO 3200 or 6400, well, please don't chime in with "oh, who on earth could ever REALLY need to shoot above ISO 800 more than once or twice?" Laughing.gif! I've made at least ten thousand dollars in print sales from images made at ISO 1600 and 3200 alone, conservatively. Now that I have a D700 to shoot theater with, I don't even bother looking for chances to turn down my ISO to 1600, I just leave it at 3200 for the entire job.

    So anyways, all that to say, go for it! Yes, the D7000 and a 18-200 make a KILLER combo for all-around casual shooting in good light. Heck, if I were an "adventure photographer" like Galen Rowell, I'd be sporting a D7000 and a 16-85, 90% of the time. But as a low-light photojournalist, I pay my bills with full-frame. Bottom line.


    Good luck and take care,
    =Matt=

    (edit) Although, I ought to mention, that if low-light performance is important to you, no full-frame kit is complete without a couple f/1.4 primes. When the light gets truly terrible, I'd rather have a good 50mm f/1.4 or an 85mm f/1.4, compared to f/2.8 and stabilization...

    =Matt=

    Thanks, Matt! The good thing about shooting with a d70 and an 18-200 for a long time was that it allowed me to figure out what I really need--good low light, high ISO performance and and the ability to never use a flash. I'll follow your advice.
  • heatherk9heatherk9 Registered Users Posts: 20 Big grins
    edited October 29, 2011
    Thanks, everyone! bowdown.gif

    I'm going to grab a used d700 and a nice prime and prepare myself for a steep learning curve. thumb.gif

    Heather
  • IcebearIcebear Registered Users Posts: 4,015 Major grins
    edited October 30, 2011
    Not too steep. The D700 will make you think you're a photographic genius.
    John :
    Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
    D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
  • OverfocusedOverfocused Registered Users Posts: 1,068 Major grins
    edited October 30, 2011
    Icebear wrote: »
    Not too steep. The D700 will make you think you're a photographic genius.

    Ha!
    www.overfocused.com
  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 3,352 Major grins
    edited October 30, 2011
    Icebear wrote: »
    Not too steep. The D700 will make you think you're a photographic genius.

    Aside from the *art* that autofocus truly is, I agree that the D700 and most any Nikon camera seem to have a very easy learning curve when switching from one to the other...

    I was especially delighted with the similarities between the D300 and the D700; the controls and interface are practically identical, the only difference is the performance and image quality.

    Of course like I said, the one caveat is autofocus. The controls and the technique required for consistent autofocus in difficult conditions are definitely one of the highest levels of technical camera mastery. Heck, I sometimes teach a workshop dedicated entirely to the subject of autofocus. But, that's quite a tangent for today. ;-)


    =Matt=
    “My first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
  • Mark DickinsonMark Dickinson Registered Users Posts: 337 Major grins
    edited October 31, 2011
    Forget the model go full frame as Matt said ll is to die for
    MD Facebook
    MD Website
    MD Store Site
    Mark + Lindsay Facebook
    I love animoto
  • heatherk9heatherk9 Registered Users Posts: 20 Big grins
    edited August 12, 2012
    I finally shelled out the cash for a used D700 and a prime--the 50mm f/1.8G AF-S. I'm so glad I took your collective advice! Last night I spent some time playing around to see just how high I could bump up the ISO and still get clean, in-focus, low-light shots. I LOVE this camera! Once I really know what I'm doing, we'll make great pictures together.

    Thanks again for the great advice! bowdown.gif
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,156 moderator
    edited August 12, 2012
    heatherk9 wrote: »
    I finally shelled out the cash for a used D700 and a prime--the 50mm f/1.8G AF-S. I'm so glad I took your collective advice! Last night I spent some time playing around to see just how high I could bump up the ISO and still get clean, in-focus, low-light shots. I LOVE this camera! Once I really know what I'm doing, we'll make great pictures together.

    Thanks again for the great advice! bowdown.gif

    Congratulations on the new (to you) camera and lens. clap.gif
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • EphTwoEightEphTwoEight Registered Users Posts: 552 Major grins
    edited August 12, 2012
    heatherk9 wrote: »
    I finally shelled out the cash for a used D700 and a prime--the 50mm f/1.8G AF-S. I'm so glad I took your collective advice! Last night I spent some time playing around to see just how high I could bump up the ISO and still get clean, in-focus, low-light shots. I LOVE this camera! Once I really know what I'm doing, we'll make great pictures together.

    Thanks again for the great advice! bowdown.gif


    Good choice!thumb.gif
Sign In or Register to comment.