Nikon advice to replace D200

twinsmom · April 21, 2011

I lost my D200 in an accident 18 months ago. I finally got the settlement and am ready to purchase. I had a small business before we moved, and I may work towards starting again here. I was going to go with the D300s or even the D700, but now I'm considering the D7000. I currently have my Nikkor micro 105 f2.8 VR, my 50 f1.8 and a SB600. I lost the rest of my kit in the accident. I'm thinking I may go with the D7000 and put more $ into glass being sure to only buy what can go full frame if I go that way in the future.

I would love to hear your experience with any of those cameras and all advice is greatly appreciated. I'm afraid I may be taking a step back from my D200 to the D7000 so I'm a bit nervous. Thanks

ziggy53 · April 21, 2011

The D7000 is a very capable camera. I suspect you will know when you are approaching the limits. When the body starts to limit your capabilities, explore more options.

Good glass is almost always a good purchase as long as it meets your needs. I would not discount the value of using DX lenses if they meet your needs. You can always sell them later when you get the FX body but, in the mean time DX lenses can be a means to an end. Selling later would just mean a small tariff in cost, but the utility could be worth it in the here and now.

For instance, the Nikkor AF-S DX 17-55mm, f2.8G IF-ED is a wonderful lens on the front of a D7000 and I don't think that you'll find an FX lens with as much versatility.

Third-party super-wide-angle DX 10-20mm-ish lenses are another example.

Matthew Saville · April 22, 2011

The D7000 and D700 are the two greatest cameras on the market, depending on what you shoot. If you find yourself always shooting portraits and candids in low light, a D700 is the way to go and it will serve you well. If you're a more outdoorsy person who likes a tripod and a good sunrise, or a trip, hike, etc. ...then a D7000 is an amazing camera with tons of features packed into a smaller, lighter body with plenty of awesome lens selection.

What do you usually shoot, by the way?

=Matt=

twinsmom · April 22, 2011

ziggy53 wrote: »

The D7000 is a very capable camera. I suspect you will know when you are approaching the limits. When the body starts to limit your capabilities, explore more options.

Good glass is almost always a good purchase as long as it meets your needs. I would not discount the value of using DX lenses if they meet your needs. You can always sell them later when you get the FX body but, in the mean time DX lenses can be a means to an end. Selling later would just mean a small tariff in cost, but the utility could be worth it in the here and now.

For instance, the Nikkor AF-S DX 17-55mm, f2.8G IF-ED is a wonderful lens on the front of a D7000 and I don't think that you'll find an FX lens with as much versatility.

Third-party super-wide-angle DX 10-20mm-ish lenses are another example.

Thank you. This advice is just what I needed to hear. Other boards I visit always put down 3rd party lenses, but I had two in the stuff I lost and loved them. I also appreciate the advice on the 17-55 since I was looking for something in that range.

I had thought about switching to the FX because of how well it handles noise. I found that I was doing more weddings than I expected in some really dark churches.

twinsmom · April 22, 2011

Matthew Saville wrote: »

The D7000 and D700 are the two greatest cameras on the market, depending on what you shoot. If you find yourself always shooting portraits and candids in low light, a D700 is the way to go and it will serve you well. If you're a more outdoorsy person who likes a tripod and a good sunrise, or a trip, hike, etc. ...then a D7000 is an amazing camera with tons of features packed into a smaller, lighter body with plenty of awesome lens selection.

What do you usually shoot, by the way?

=Matt=

Sorry, Matt, I should have mentioned that in my OP. I was doing portraits and weddings before we moved. I believe that I will still be doing some, but mostly I love doing macro and landscapes as well as my kiddos who never seem to be indoors. How is the D7000 at higher ISOs?

r3t1awr3yd · April 22, 2011

ziggy53 wrote: »

For instance, the Nikkor AF-S DX 17-55mm, f2.8G IF-ED is a wonderful lens on the front of a D7000 and I don't think that you'll find an FX lens with as much versatility.

24-70??

ziggy53 · April 22, 2011

r3t1awr3yd wrote: »

24-70??

While that's a very nice lens, it lacks the ability to shoot groups indoors in many cases. It's a normal/standard zoom on FF bodies, but the equivalent zoom is more like the 17-55mm on a DX body.

You could use a 24-70mm zoom "plus" a super-wide zoom to give coverage on a DX camera for social events, but it would mean more switching lenses. The 17-55mm is the one zoom that I would sorely miss and, when I shoot crop cameras, I make sure to have 2 lenses for redundancy/backup. (I have a 17-55mm, f2.8 and a third party 18-50mm, f2.8; it's that important to the way I shoot.)

Matthew Saville · April 23, 2011

ziggy53 wrote: »

While that's a very nice lens, it lacks the ability to shoot groups indoors in many cases. It's a normal/standard zoom on FF bodies, but the equivalent zoom is more like the 17-55mm on a DX body.

You could use a 24-70mm zoom "plus" a super-wide zoom to give coverage on a DX camera for social events, but it would mean more switching lenses. The 17-55mm is the one zoom that I would sorely miss and, when I shoot crop cameras, I make sure to have 2 lenses for redundancy/backup. (I have a 17-55mm, f2.8 and a third party 18-50mm, f2.8; it's that important to the way I shoot.)

...I guess they were referring to, on a DX body?

Personally, for DX work in the mid-range I'd go for the new Sigma 17-50 2.8, it's got stabilization, it's very sharp, and it's still cheaper.

I had the Nikon 17-55, and honestly that lens is just weird. The zoom ring is small and tight; the rubber on it will eventually get all gross and slippery if you shoot in warm weather ever. That, and also the lens can have SERIOUS focus shift issues, to the point that I found my copy to be completely un-usable for indoor group formals from 17-35mm. Wide open it wasn't that bad, aside from the shallow depth, but stopped down to f/5.6 the plane of focus would warp incredibly, almost like it was tilt-shift, to the point that goup faces were just un-usably out of focus on one side of the image while the other side was tack-sharp. I had the lens serviced by Nikon twice with no improvement, so yeah you just gotta be extremely careful when purchasing, and when shooting with, the Nikon 17-55. I did a bit of research when I was having my issues, and other people did confirm that severe focus shift was a problem on many copies of the lens.

The 24-70 on a full-frame body has much less difficulty, although allegedly at 24mm the issue is still faint if you get a bad copy. But all in all, nowadays for formal group shots I try and stay away from wider angles at ANY cost. I find an outdoor space where I can back up enough to use 35mm+ on DX, or 50mm+ on FX. It doesn't always happen and sometimes I have to go as wide as 24mm on FX, but in those situations I am extremely careful about edge sharpness...

Anyways, good luck!
=Matt=

angevin1 · April 23, 2011

twinsmom wrote: »

I lost my D200 in an accident 18 months ago. I finally got the settlement and am ready to purchase. I had a small business before we moved, and I may work towards starting again here. I was going to go with the D300s or even the D700, but now I'm considering the D7000. I currently have my Nikkor micro 105 f2.8 VR, my 50 f1.8 and a SB600. I lost the rest of my kit in the accident. I'm thinking I may go with the D7000 and put more $ into glass being sure to only buy what can go full frame if I go that way in the future.

I would love to hear your experience with any of those cameras and all advice is greatly appreciated. I'm afraid I may be taking a step back from my D200 to the D7000 so I'm a bit nervous. Thanks

Body First! You are gonna be so pleased with the improved handling of light/imagery in these two bodies you have to choose between!

The D700 is well established as a low-light performer, Full Frame, fast AF.
The D7000 is a upgrade (well over the D200) for the D90 and really the D300S. 16MP sensor, usable ISO up to 6400, HD video, accepts older non-AFS lenses and will meter AI lenses as well.

What you do need to consider in the lens category is quality AND range. It makes sense to shop for range, but a lens range without quality glass will leave you disappointed, especially if you go to push that iso! So if you're inside one of those 'cracker-box' Churches and there is 'no light, make certain you've got a good piece of glass hanging off of the end, no matter which body you choose.

I like what Matt suggested regarding the choice of Sigma 17-50 f/2.8. That lens range just makes sense, and if the quality is there, then you got it. I would think that you could easily almost shoot a Wedding with that added lens and what you have on either fx or dx.

One thing I will mention is buying from a reputable dealer. If you choose your body first, and THEN start ordering glass, you can try them out and return them quite easily buying from a reputable source, so don't forget that one.

www.SGphoto.us · April 26, 2011

i went from a d70 (witch is similar to the d200) to the d90. the d300s isn't really worth it w/ the d7000 out there now. if you get a d7000 0r d700, it's gonna blow your mind. the main thing to think about btw the 2 cameras is buying lenses for the FX d700. you don't want to put cheap alternatives on that body.

ImageX Photography · April 27, 2011

For what it's worth... the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC is an excellent DX lens and I would miss mine BIG TIME if I didn't have it. I have a pretty extensive lens collection too. That lens just rocks and is one of the best and most versatile 3rd party lenses made. It really is that good... and cheap! Buy now, sell later if you go FX. You won't regret it. I haven't used the Sigma equivalent lens but i suspect that it does not beat the Tamron version's sharpness and contrast.

met · April 27, 2011

I just bought my D700 a couple months ago and am in lerve.

Amazing, amazing camera. If you have the money to invest in it - I highly recommend it. If you're thinking of upgrading to one in the future anyway, then it might make sense to skip the middle step and just go for it. (That is assuming that both cameras are within your budget at this juncture.)

twinsmom · May 2, 2011

got the D7000
Thanks everyone. I've been out of town, but that has helped pass time while I waited on my D7000. I went ahead with that because I figured I could use some of the $ difference in a new lens and maybe a better tripod. I just got it and can't wait to play. Thanks for all the help and I'm sure I'll be asking a lot more questions.
Bonni

Matthew Saville · May 2, 2011

met wrote: »

I just bought my D700 a couple months ago and am in lerve. Amazing, amazing camera. If you have the money to invest in it - I highly recommend it. If you're thinking of upgrading to one in the future anyway, then it might make sense to skip the middle step and just go for it. (That is assuming that both cameras are within your budget at this juncture.)

Sigh... I need to get out more! I got my D700 a while ago and it just sits in my camera bag like every other camera has over the years. Well I mean of course I get it out and use it every week when I have a job to shoot, but I guess what I mean is, I'm past that honeymoon phase and have settled into the "alright camera, let's pay the bills shall we?" phase...

Need to get out and shoot more hobby photography, or something...

=Matt=

twinsmom · May 2, 2011

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Sigh... I need to get out more! I got my D700 a while ago and it just sits in my camera bag like every other camera has over the years. Well I mean of course I get it out and use it every week when I have a job to shoot, but I guess what I mean is, I'm past that honeymoon phase and have settled into the "alright camera, let's pay the bills shall we?" phase...

Need to get out and shoot more hobby photography, or something...

=Matt=

I've gone through spells like that. I feel like I have lost creativity by just doing what "needs" to be done. Make time for yourself to get out and shoot for fun and all of life seems so much better. Now go!

ziggy53 · May 2, 2011

twinsmom wrote: »

... Make time for yourself to get out and shoot for fun and all of life seems so much better. Now go!

These are excellent words of encouragement.

Nikon advice to replace D200

Comments