Nikon D700 or stick with the D90?

[Gremlich]

I have the opportunity to acquire a new D700 ( it is in stock at a place I know). I emailed Ken Rockwell and asked if he still thought the D700 FX camera was an advisable purchase. He recommended the D7000 instead. Soooo, I have a D90 and don't feel like moving to the D7000 when I don't really need the extra MP, improved video or another DX camera.

Soooo, keep the D90 and buy new glass instead? (looking at the Nikkor 10-24mm f3.5-4.5 G)

[Matt K.]

I have a D5000 ... and wished I had bought the D90 when I first got into photography. So, with your choice: the biggest difference is the change from cropped frame to full frame. I think that going to full frame will be a better choice than upgrading to more pixels. The sensors on the full frame cameras are by nature better, that is why you do not need to get crazy with hyper-pixels on those cams. Pixels are only important if you want to print very large format. One thing the D7000 has over the D700 is the ISO range. I have not read any comparison as far as quality is concerned, but that would be something to consider. The D700 has better functions when it comes to flash photography ... I dunno, I was tempted to go for a used D2X ... for the full frame alone.

[Gremlich]

Indeed, you understand my quandary....

[Matt K.]

Indeed, you understand my quandary....

Yes, only too well ... have my eye on a D200 ... or D300, or better yet, when money allows, a D700. Thought about the D 7000, but would opt for the D 700 anytime ...

[Bambi]

Yes, only too well ... have my eye on a D200 ... or D300, or better yet, when money allows, a D700. Thought about the D 7000, but would opt for the D 700 anytime ...

me too. I am happy with my D5000 but would love a full frame.

[F8&Bthere]

I went from the D70 to the D300 to the D700, so fwiw here's my thoughts...
D700 ups = no 1.5X crop factor, so no having to convert focal lengths if you come from a 35mm film background and you can get wide angle shots without too much distortion (depending on lens choice), a bit easier to throw background out of focus with any given lens compared to crop body (thinner DOF), it also has great image quality and noise performance but most other current models are fine in that regard too.
D700 downs = bigger, heavier, lose the crop factor advantage at the longer end of your focal length.
Honestly, I was a bit of a wide angle nut for a while and had a hard time finding a really wide lens that I liked for DX, but my infatuation with wide has since subsided a bit. I'd say if wide angle and/or portrait shooting is your thing and you don't mind the added heft to schlep around, go for it. Nice camera. But if you're more of a long shooter, have any amount of DX glass that you're attached to, prefer to have a camera the shoots video, or prefer to travel lighter, keep what you have and invest in glass. The D90 is a fine camera. I actually kinda miss my D300. I do believe sometimes there's a sort of romantic notion urging us to go full frame, but with the great features and specs on today's DX bodies, and a decent selection of ultra wide glass, I personally wouldn't feel like I'm missing out on anything.

[Gremlich]

Yea, I chickened out and got the Nikkor 10-24mm f/3.5 instead. And an SB-700 to go with my two SB-600 speedlites.

[Bambi]

Yea, I chickened out and got the Nikkor 10-24mm f/3.5 instead. And an SB-700 to go with my two SB-600 speedlites.

let me know how you like the 10-24!

[Marko]

I can tell you that I've been loving the D700 for a while and the low light capability is fanfriggentastic. I can easily shoot at 3200 or 6400 and it looks fab. Now do i use those ISOs often...not really. If I were still shooting weddings those speeds would be far more useful and I would use them more regularly. Super high ISO (anything above 6400 imo) seems to be the flavour of the day but it's also a lot of marketing and a feature that very few photogs will use regularly.

That said, the D700 is still expensive and heavy. It's probably overkill for many photogs - but it's seriously solid, and my gear definitely takes a beating so I did not want a flimsier camera. FX (full frame) bodies also have larger sensors and 'tend' to show sharper results when results are enlarged and put head to head with DX bodies with similar pixel amounts.

I should say that I have not tested the D7000 but i have played with one in the store - also it seems solid though NOT as solid as the D700.

For the majority of photographers out there (especially those that don't have old glass) I'd say the D7000 is a better choice based on the 1500.00 or so price difference. You could buy an additional killer lens for the price difference!

[in00bz]

the d700 is
a beauty
extremely high iso performances
its like having a d3 but lighter . enough said
[ but weatherproof fx etc]