Here's my problem. My Nikon D70 is 4 year old technology. I get very good, not great, results using the VR lenses I own (Nikon's 18-200 & 80-400). I also own the 50mm f/1.8 prime lens which is a great little lens. The D70's ISO range is 200 to 1600. For web images, the range works fine. Printing...well, anything over 640 ISO needs cleaning up and 1600 is really not printable. The debate is, do I spend the money now to upgrade to a Nikon D700 with an ISO range of 200 to 3200 (with 6400 and above very good) or invest in better glass. If I invest in glass, I will only purchase FX lenses with the Nikon 70-200VR f/2.8 lens number one on my list with a fast wide angle second. Thinking future FX cameras (or current ones being sold used) will come down in price. So, any thoughts?
i have always been from the "good glass on a lesser camera is better than lesser glass on a good camera" mindset. that said, a nikon d700 is one helluva camera - i almost wish i could get one for myself.
I will help to really confuse you. I was positive my next camera would be full frame and I would get some new full frame glass to go with it. But, then this summers economy crushed that idea. I had the opportunity to buy a used d300 (Roger's) and I am thrilled. I get to keep my 18-200, which I still love, possibly more than any camera. The d300 is awesome. I really believe that this camera may be a keeper until I wear it out. It has all the extra buttons and features that I felt were missing on the d80. At this point, the only new thing I am interested is some wider fast primes from Nikon. Also, the d80 printed pretty good at high iso's from a real lab. It had the same sensor as the d200, so I believe that any big upgrade right now, would probably really, really impress you.
Upgrading to FX you will eventually loose the 18-200vr unless you use it in DX mode which defeats the purpose of upgrading in the first place. I agree with Tim that good glass is probably more important than a newer sensor- and upgradeing to decent full frame glass to cover the same range will be expensive- the range at f2.8 it will be as much or more than the camera. I was facing similar decisions when the D700 came out and decided to go for it- since my camera budget is not without limits I am working with some more cost effective lenses on the wide end for now and quite pleased with what I have for the moment. I picked up a used 35-70/2.8 and 20/2.8 all for around $500 to go with it. (You forget how wide 20mm is on 35mm/FX- equal to about 13mm in DX) Fortunately I already had the 70-200vr- if I had not and it was not in the budget I would probably pick up a less expensive 80-200/2.8 or 180/2.8 prime for a lot less.
Hmmm...I thought about the D300 but I just love the high ISO capabilities of the D700. If I not going to get a D700, I'd rather take the money and get the 70-200VR which I will be able to use on an FX body in the future.
Well, a couple of thoughts about the 18-200VR. One, I'm going to keep the D70 which is 6MP until I see what the 5MP images look like from the D700 with the DX crop. Second, I have looked at the Tamron 28-300 VC and it's a viable replacement for what I'd use it for or the older Nikon 28-200 (higher ISO to compensate for no VR). I like the idea of looking for older wide angles as the 14-24 is probably not something I'd use enough to justify the cost.
Scott, how long can you wait to move up to FF? The D90 uses the D300's sensor, supposedly with additional NR on-chip. And Nikon is rumored to be developing a removable sensor dSLR, which would be the camera to end all cameras. Well, until they stop replacing the shutter on it. But anyway, the 70-200 is being replaced this fall. So the older ones may be cheaper to obtain here in a few weeks. Next week Sony is unveiling their MP monster the A900. Then the ball is in Canon's court. Supposedly they are spliting the 5D into two: 1 a lower MP, the other the 1DsMk3 killer 3D. If an updated 5D with 12mp is released, Nikon will have almost no choice but to cut the price of the D700 to closely match it. That is something to watch out for as well. Personally, I would go after the body. The old adage used to be 100% true when film ruled. But now, sensor technologies are quickly becoming making lens decisions different. With larger pixel sizes, the D700 is more tolerant of lens problems than the D300 is. Do you want me to post some images taken with the 18-200 DX?
I'd appreciate it, Roger. Could you also add/send a link to the original file so I could do some pixel peeping? That's my feeling about the D700,too. Once Canon comes out with competition, the price will drop. As well as older 70-200VRs once Nikon comes out with the VR II version. The replaceable back system will probably be way out of my price range but would be an ideal solution. How long can I wait? Probably awhile. I'm not in any hurry.
Will do. I should be able to get something out tomorrow. I put the lens on it for the first time tonight - I defaulted mine to FX all the time, so I see the vignetting at 18mm, at 200 it's more like pronounced corner drop-off, so it's usable - mostly. I'll shoot it in both formats, b/c you may be able to squeeze out a little more of the pic on FX mode.
Scott, Go for the glass. It won't change, but the cameras will. I purchased a D300 when it first came out, and still love it. I shot a D700 for an hour or two a few weeks ago and like it as well. Ask yourself what you want to do with your images. If your answer is make web pages, stick with the D70 until it dies and upgrade lenses if you so choose. If your answer is to print them, consider the size at which you'd like to print. If it's 4x6 or 8x10 or smaller, again, stick with the D70 and buy a new lens as a toy if you like. If you like to print 24" or bigger, consider a newer camera, and lenses. If your answer is to look at your images from 1"-4" away blown up beyond 100% on your monitor looking for light fall off in corners, signs of chromatic aberration, vignetting etc, buy a medium format film camera and scanner and enjoy making higher-then-anything-else-on-the-(affordable)-market-resolution pictures the old fashion way. Regardless of what system you choose, you'll have trade offs. Start simple, decide what you want to do, and how much you are willing to spend to get there. Quite honestly, you squeeze a good number of keepers out of your "four year-old" technology. Is it really holding you back?! Cheers, Mark
Off topic but I did the same thing. I see no advantage to using the DX mode even on a DX lens. If there are more usable pixels available I want to see for myself where to crop- not have the camera default to the worst case scenario of any DX lens. I asked the question on Nikon Cafe and the only thing anyone could come up with was to preserve space on your memory card. Hardly a reason to use it IMHO.
Here's the 18-200 at 18: [attachment=1] At 200: [attachment=2] (I have no idea why it's not vertical...on my side it is.....) [This attachment has been purged. Older attachments are purged from time to time to conserve disk space. Please feel free to repost your image.]
Yes! Used the 200/2 for the first hour. Had no idea they would bring some, so I didn't bring any support with me So I was glad it was only for an hour. Used the SB-900 with it. Then I gave others a turn with it. Asked about the D90, they only had 1, which was the camera store's and one of the locals was using it and the new kit lens to try out for a review on his blog. Wished I thought in advance about it and brought an SD card and ask if I could use it for a little while just to get the video mode. Which is manual focus BTW. Even the guy said he asked his professional videographers about it that shoot BMX, and they said they always MF. So, there was some rhyme to the reason. The Nikon reps didn't have more info about Ojji or whatever the code name is for the MX format system coming out at WPPI/PMA 2009. Got a Nikon hat with their goodie bag.
Sounds like a good day. I have been really impressed with the images coming from you all with the Nikon's. Almost makes me want to switch when I upgrade my camera. I am sure that a lot of it has to do with practice, but only time will tell for me.
Sometimes I feel that way too - but then I remember how heavy the D60 felt when I picked it up. I love the colors that come out of the Nikons but I am experimenting with setting my own settings -- we shall see!
Mark brings up a valid point. Is the "old" Nikon D70 really holding me back. Friday night I would have said yes but that had more to do with having the wrong lens with me than anything. Saturday night I decided to make the best of what I had (I'll post in the Non-Disney area soon) and got great results with both the 50 f/1.8 and 18-200VR in low light situations. I think I might be better served in getting some good noise reducing software and faster FX lenses in anticipation for moving in that direction someday. Also, as was pointed out to me elsewhere, Nikon is not giving up on the DX format so I could resell any DX lenses I have or might get in the future when I do go in that direction. I'm going to wait and see what happens if/when Nikon releases the 70-200 VR II and Canon announces the 5D replacement (which looks like will cost more than the D700 if the current rumors hold true). As I said, I'm not in a big hurry no matter how much I think I am. ;D I still have a lot to learn with the D70 in the meantime as I did last Saturday night. BTW, this was not meant to be a Nikon vs. Canon thread. I use Nikon, like them and will stay with them. Canon owners are going to have their own upgrade questions to answer soon. I hope this discussion helped everyone.
It has helped, if not making me think about Nikon more now than before. I would be interested in knowing what the reasoning was for those of you that have changed from Canon to Nikon or Nikon to Canon. Are you happy with your decision? Would you have done anything differently? I am not looking into buying anything soon either, this is just an interesting question that I have had, and am enjoying the input from those of you that are in the know.
Because I got tired of images like this: [attachment=1] The focus point was on the tiger's head but the camera decided to focus on the green grass behind. It was in focus in the VF. Canon's response to those who had this issue was horrible - they denied there was a problem for months, then all of a sudden there was a hardware part recall. Mine had the recall done before the above image was taken at DAK. Then corporate posts a message that the AF in my camera body was the best they have ever made in any of their EOS bodies. Ever. Talk about a slap in the face. I never had a problem like that with any other of my Canon bodies. Yes. Not bought a new Canon model so soon after release! I was "okay" with the 30D, but I still wasn't happy with the buffer size and focus speed/hunting. Plus, due to the QC issues, my pro-level telephoto lens was back-focusing with the 30D. Which isn't good considering Canon's basically inferior warranty coverage (Nikon, Sigma, Tamron all offer multiple year (5/6) USA warranties on the lenses now. Canon's is 1 year.) In true true hindsight, I wished I had gone after the 5D instead of the 30D at the time. It's just that the 30D ended up being available locally for the same price as New York at Costco, so I jumped on it. I was upgrading from the 3mp D30, so it was a jump. If had gotten the 5D at that time, I'd probably still be shooting Canon. But the 3fps max limit was a problem for me. I didn't need 10fps, but I wanted a bigger buffer at 5 fps(like the old A2 speed), so I got the Edsel. And the rest is history. Right now the only thing I miss is the 35/1.4L. It's nice having a 28-200 (or even the 18-200 previously) to walk around with. Wasn't an acceptable option with Canon unless you wanted to spend a lot of money and get a very heavy lens to boot. Canon's 28-200 was late to the party and didn't have that great of quality. Making a decision to switch is something that you have to consider for a long time and consider the ramifications. Example: You can't use Ef-S lenses on non-modern APS-C Canon cameras without damaging the camera. Nikon allows the user to use DX lenses on a full frame body, but as you can tell, the lens can't cover the entire image circle most of the time, so it's not without a trade off. My camera has a mode where I can use those lenses and it will automatically crop the image to the smaller sensor size, and it would only be 5 mp. I do believe the rumors that Canon will release two replacements to the 5D this month, with one possibly breaking the $2k barrier, and no more than 15 mp. You could always wait (like 6 months at least) to make sure that there were no major problems (like AF problems) with it before deciding what to do. And if you need new lenses, etc. etc. Anyway, I'm actually back to the "dark side" after a decade. My first autofocus SLR was a Nikon, but I switched to Canon quickly, and used to keep a list of why I did. And all of the reasons Nikon has met or exceeded. [This attachment has been purged. Older attachments are purged from time to time to conserve disk space. Please feel free to repost your image.]
WOW, that is a heck of a focusing problem, and then to think that Canon wouldn't really do anything about it, doesn't sit well. Thanks for breaking it down for me/us weighing this decision.
