# So I'm torn, upgrading to FX...



## Aloicious (Feb 5, 2012)

EDIT- I got it figured out, Thanks everyone!


----------



## Aloicious (Feb 5, 2012)

so also worth mentioning is that video capabilities, weight/size of the body, and built in flash (or lack there of) mean absolutely nothing to me. 

I wish they'd come out with a full sized body D4 without video for less money...but unfortunately thats probably a pipe dream...


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 5, 2012)

I bought the D700 instead of the D3 because of the weight and cost; If the D3s had been available, I'd have been very sorely tempted just for the high iso performance.
The D700, as it is, is a much better camera than I am a photographer and I would only upgrade if there were both a significant increase in ISO and a better dynamic range (I shoot a lot in high contrast situations). I would be tempted by higher megapixels but not much.
So, since you have the world at your feet now, you can choose an end of production but still a fabulous camera, D700 or up your sights a bit and get the D800 when available.
But don't skimp or wait on lenses.  The D700 body and the 24-70 2.8 is an unbeatable all around combination.


----------



## Aloicious (Feb 5, 2012)

thanks, yeah, right now I'm kinda switching inbetween the D4 and scrimping and saving for a 24-70, and the D700+23-70+70-200. I've got some spare car/truck parts I'm trying to sell at the same time too, so if someone ends up buying those, it will probably give me just enough to go the D4 route, which would be nice, it definitely has everything I'm looking for (well, assuming it's at least as good as the D3s, which I'm sure it will be, but since it hasn't been released yet it's something that is still unknown)...but the D700 is a pretty tempting option too. Luckily I have a month or so to really decide before the D4 comes out so I can see what it's like in person, and before the next events I'm going to be shooting at.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 5, 2012)

Aloicious said:


> thanks, yeah, right now I'm kinda switching inbetween the D4 and scrimping and saving for a 24-70, and the D700+23-70+70-200. I've got some spare car/truck parts I'm trying to sell at the same time too, so if someone ends up buying those, it will probably give me just enough to go the D4 route, which would be nice, it definitely has everything I'm looking for (well, assuming it's at least as good as the D3s, which I'm sure it will be, but since it hasn't been released yet it's something that is still unknown)...but the D700 is a pretty tempting option too. Luckily I have a month or so to really decide before the D4 comes out so I can see what it's like in person, and before the next events I'm going to be shooting at.



There are a lot of people hoping that D700 prices will drop a good bit with the arrival of the D800.. so that might be a good possibility for you! Great body! And the lenses are really more important, as long as the body will do what you need ISO wise.


----------



## Aloicious (Feb 5, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> There are a lot of people hoping that D700 prices will drop a good bit with the arrival of the D800.. so that might be a good possibility for you! Great body! And the lenses are really more important, as long as the body will do what you need ISO wise.



says the man who's already purchased a D4 heh

I've thought about that too, but I don't really know if it will affect the prices, if the d800 is a 36mp monster, then its not even in the same class as the D700. it may even make the D700 prices rise since I think a high ISO 12mp used D700 might be more widely desired than a so-so ISO huge 36MP studio D800....who knows though, thats all speculation...I guess it's supposed to come out in a couple days, we'll see what happens then...


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Feb 5, 2012)

If you're mainly doing low-light photography, I'd look into something brighter than f/2.8. Instead of the 24-70 (which is alright), look into the f/1.4G primes. They'll separates subjects out of the background better, and bring in 4 times the light. In my experience, you'll almost never have to go past ISO 1600 with them if you're shooting wide open. 

My event set up is usually the D700 + 24G & 50G or 35G + 85G. Just scoot back and forth. It's alot lighter, brighter, and more interesting than a midrange zoom. If you have any experience with what the event is than you'll easily be able to anticipate what lens you need.  Last event all I used was the 24 and the 85.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 5, 2012)

Aloicious said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > There are a lot of people hoping that D700 prices will drop a good bit with the arrival of the D800.. so that might be a good possibility for you! Great body! And the lenses are really more important, as long as the body will do what you need ISO wise.
> ...



Yes.. but I already have the lenses!  

Have to wait and see what happens... Nikon usually doesn't take a step backward (although it is possible they are trying to place the D800 so as not to take D4 sales away.. like the D700 did to the D3's)


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 5, 2012)

Sw1tchFX said:


> If you're mainly doing low-light photography, I'd look into something brighter than f/2.8. Instead of the 24-70 (which is alright), look into the f/1.4G primes. They'll separates subjects out of the background better, and bring in 4 times the light. In my experience, you'll almost never have to go past ISO 1600 with them if you're shooting wide open.
> 
> My event set up is usually the D700 + 24G & 50G or 35G + 85G. Just scoot back and forth. It's alot lighter, brighter, and more interesting than a midrange zoom. If you have any experience with what the event is than you'll easily be able to anticipate what lens you need.  Last even all I used was the 24 and the 85.



I have to admit.. I am absolutely amazed at what the 85 1.4 will do ..  wonderful lens!


----------



## Bossy (Feb 5, 2012)

I'd get the D4, then use the lenses you have when you can, rent on the rare ones that you'll need something different, and save up for the other ones.


----------



## tirediron (Feb 5, 2012)

A lesser body with top glass will almost always out-perform a top-of-the-line body with mediocre glass.


----------



## Aloicious (Feb 5, 2012)

Sw1tchFX said:


> If you're mainly doing low-light photography, I'd look into something brighter than f/2.8. Instead of the 24-70 (which is alright), look into the f/1.4G primes. They'll separates subjects out of the background better, and bring in 4 times the light. In my experience, you'll almost never have to go past ISO 1600 with them if you're shooting wide open.
> 
> My event set up is usually the D700 + 24G & 50G or 35G + 85G. Just scoot back and forth. It's alot lighter, brighter, and more interesting than a midrange zoom. If you have any experience with what the event is than you'll easily be able to anticipate what lens you need.  Last event all I used was the 24 and the 85.



well, when I say low light, I'm not talking total darkness or something (at least for business purposes, I do like night shoots for fun though), more like poorly lit shops, conference halls, exhibits, etc...although I love primes for work that I have full control over, they rarely work for my event coverage, many times I just have to work with what I am given, and don't usually have the area or time to move around a frame stuff up correctly with a prime, and I'd need a hell of a lot more than 85mm...we're talking 5 mile long runs where the vehicles end up going 300+mph sometimes, last time I was at speed week, I was lucky I had a 200mm, was wishing I had a 400...though thats usually out in the sun and well lit...for field work there really isn't a way I'm going to be able to only use primes exclusively...I do use them for product shots, and my personal shooting though...

I'd love to get the 85 1.4, and probably will someday, but that can wait for now.


----------



## Aloicious (Feb 5, 2012)

Bossy said:


> I'd get the D4, then use the lenses you have when you can, rent on the rare ones that you'll need something different, and save up for the other ones.



right now I'm leaning towards this too



tirediron said:


> A lesser body with top glass will almost always out-perform a top-of-the-line body with mediocre glass.



oh, I completely agree, however a better body with the exact same top glass will out perform a lesser body all else being equal....and in the end, I will end up with the top glass for sure, really looking at the same lenses to get regardless of which body I end up with...it may just take a little longer to collect some of the glass depending on the body I end up with.


----------



## Aloicious (Feb 6, 2012)

okay, I think I've come to a decision. I'm going to keep looking in the used market for a D700 or D3s in extremely good condition, and with a good price (it's going to have to be really worth my while if I buy it used), if nothing turns up by the time the D4 ships, I'm going to jump on the D4. 

regardless of body, I'm going to be collecting the top tier FX glass that I can. mainly 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8 vr2, and depending on prices maybe another one, maybe the other trinity lens, but I don't need super wide angles too often...if I end up with the D4, I'll work on getting the 24-70 first, then rent as needed until I can get the others. (rental prices aren't as bad as I expected them to be. I've never really looked into it too much before this)

if I end up getting a D700 or D3s, I'll use it and slowly save up for whatever the sucessor to the D4 is going to be (D4s?) several years down the line, if I end up getting the D4, then that should be future "proof" for a good long time. 

to me that seems like a good idea if I can snag a d700/D3s for a sweet deal then it will be very worth my while to save some money.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Feb 6, 2012)

I'd still look into getting an exotic or fast prime in the midrange. It's almost as if _everyone_ who has a FF Nikon digital uses the 24-70, and it's just...boring for something so expensive.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 6, 2012)

Sw1tchFX said:


> I'd still look into getting an exotic or fast prime in the midrange. It's almost as if _everyone_ who has a* FF Nikon digital uses the 24-70*, and it's just...boring for something so expensive.



24-70 and 70-200 <----just works good


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 6, 2012)

Sw1tchFX said:


> FF Nikon digital uses the 24-70, and it's just...boring for something so expensive.



Yeah, all the beautiful and consistent perfection in the range that I need - really bums me out.
I'm thinking of getting an old 18-200, knock the barrel against the curb a few times, shoot jpgs at either 18 or 200 and get some really interesting ****. (also looking forward to lots of messing with it in filters and ****)


----------



## KmH (Feb 6, 2012)

Video doesn't add very much cost to a DSLR.

All video is, is still pictures taken and shown at a 25 frames per second or more, so it looks like constant movement.


----------



## Aloicious (Feb 7, 2012)

Sw1tchFX said:


> I'd still look into getting an exotic or fast prime in the midrange. It's almost as if _everyone_ who has a FF Nikon digital uses the 24-70, and it's just...boring for something so expensive.



yeah, it's not an exotic lens, thats for sure, but it's probably one of the most useful ones out there....it's a working man's lens...it's like a hammer, sure you can pound a nail in with a rock or a boot or something, but a hammer will get the job done effectively, even if it's a little boring of a tool. 



KmH said:


> Video doesn't add very much cost to a DSLR.
> 
> All video is, is still pictures taken and shown at a 25 frames per second or more, so it looks like constant movement.



oh yeah, I've got an electical engineering background so I'm familiar with the function of it, and you're right the video function isn't too complex itself...but the cost of development, improvement, software and processor performance development, etc, etc...and to keep a competitive edge in video alone adds to the cost....personally, I'd rather spend $5k for a D4 without video, than $6k for one with...of course those numbers are just hypothetical, but the D3 was a little under $5k when it came out without video, and the D3 most likely required alot of development cost since it was the first FX DSLR in nikon's lineup.


----------



## Aloicious (Feb 7, 2012)

okay, now I'm back to the drawing board with nikon announcing the D800....according to nikon they're saying the D800 will have the ISO noise charactoristics of the D700 due to improvements in the processor and such even with a pixel pitch closer to (and slightly larger than) the D7000...okay, that sounds good. but at 36MP, if you downsize the the image to 12mp that the D700 puts out, then the noise would be extremely reduced in comparison. this sounds really promising since my large print options are usually well lit subjects, the low light stuff is usually for web publication, that means I could get much less noise, or even have the option to do some serious crops without losing alot....and the high MP stuff would be good for shooting products that I do occasionally, as well as landscapes and, other things that I do for fun

plus, DX mode will actually be useable with 15MP! that means I could use a 200 2.8 w/ 1.7 TC, giving 340mm, then use that in DX mode, which won't degrade the image like a larger or second TC, and get an effective focal length equivalent of 510mm at f4.8 wide open, and still get a 15mp image with room to crop...damn....that could come in very handy...

granted the FPS isn't as good as some other options, but even full uncompressed RAW it's slightly better then my D90 does, and about the same as the d700....and DX mode would increase that to 6fps with the grip...I could probably live with that...

and the much more reasonable $3k pricetag is a good thing...I'd still be able to get both the 24-70 and 70-200 vr2 lenses I need at the same time for that price tag...

more decisions...more decisions...


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 7, 2012)

LoL @ this thread


----------



## MReid (Feb 7, 2012)

d700
50 1.8g
24-70 2.8
Buy this and don't look back.


----------



## Aloicious (Feb 7, 2012)

and my indecision...yes..


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 7, 2012)

MReid said:


> d700
> 50 1.8g
> 24-70 2.8
> *Buy this and don't look back*.



Or whats in my sig works fairly well too =)

D700's should be had on the cheap real soon too


----------



## Aloicious (Feb 7, 2012)

well, I'm on the reserve list at my local nikon distributor for the D800 which should be coming in late march. luckily they'll reserve one for me, but I don't have to pay until it physically comes in, so if I don't like it at that point, I don't have to get it. 

I didn't think I'd be looking at it at all, but with nikon's claims that it's equal to the D700 ISO performance, I gotta say, it has piqued my interest for sure.

I'll be picking up the 24-70 and 70-200 VR2 next week too.

/decision made...time to end the madness...unless I don't like it when it comes in, then the madness will start up all over again, but at least at that point I can look at the D4 in person or a D700 which hopefully will have more sane used prices...


----------



## Aloicious (Feb 7, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> MReid said:
> 
> 
> > d700
> ...



yeah, actually some of your pics are one reason the D700 was even on my list in the first place


----------



## MReid (Feb 7, 2012)

Why do you ask for advice if you just ignore it....in your application, what are you going to do with 36 megapixels?
What are you going to gain with a d4 over the d700 for the extra $3000.


----------



## mjhoward (Feb 7, 2012)

Aloicious said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > MReid said:
> ...



Photographer not included


----------



## Aloicious (Feb 7, 2012)

MReid said:


> Why do you ask for advice if you just ignore it....in your application, what are you going to do with 36 megapixels?
> What are you going to gain with a d4 over the d700 for the extra $3000.



sheesh, as was stated in my original post, I simply needed a sounding board to think through my ideas out loud, I wasn't requesting people TELL me what to get, but rather their experiences and thoughts, so I could come to my own decision.
and I'm not locked down into the D800, if it isn't what I want when it arrives, then I don't need to get it. but it's at least worth looking into more seriously...did you even read my thinking and reasoning behind the D800? 

your questions are exactally why I started this thread, just trying to debate between them. no need to get all hurt that I didn't run out and buy what you suggested.


----------



## Aloicious (Feb 7, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> Aloicious said:
> 
> 
> > 2WheelPhoto said:
> ...



yes, he's very accomplished. and I may be far from perfect, but I'm not a newb to photography either.


----------



## MReid (Feb 7, 2012)

....in your application, what are you going to do with 36 megapixels?
What are you going to gain with a d4 over the d700 for the extra $3000. 

Ok pretend this is what I wrote before.....

I get a little frustrated now and then...my bad.


----------



## Aloicious (Feb 7, 2012)

its all good. I'm not offended or anything. and I do appreciate your input.

I shoot some product photography for print usage on various scales, I have some clients that do request high MP files, although this is only occasionally, the benefits of being able to shoot at 36mp will be beneficial in those instances rather than upsizing a 12mp file. and with the versatility of the D800, I think it may be a decent competitor in the ISO vs the D700 that I'm looking for....obviously it isn't perfect, but nothing really is, it's definitely worth looking into, and I have a good rapport with my local store to get one reserved and give them the business they need. 

I agree, the D4 vs D700 price difference is pretty severe. my problem is 2 fold, I'm a geek, so I like the latest and greatest, but I've also got to think of my bottom line too. and the problem is compounded with my regular job which I have alot of free time to research various things...and if I look at things objectively without my tech geek-ness, then honestly the ISO performance of the D700 would be plenty for my needs. sure a stop or 2 with the D4 would be nice, but I don't think the price justifies it. 

so if the D800 ISO isn't what I'd like (it's sometimes hard to believe manufacturer's claims), then I'd probably be looking at a good used D700 providing the used market has stabilized at that point. The fact that I've even been able to consider the D4 is also a factor to me since something of that caliber hasn't ever been in my budget before. but again, looking objectively, all the upgraded lenses with a body like the D800 or D700 would provide a better gain for my situation.


----------



## IgsEMT (Feb 7, 2012)

To Fx or not 
Since I entered the digital age, it was mostly Dx for me and for nearly 10yrs, I'd probably be amongst the few ppl who'd say that spending extra 1k on Fx isn't worth the price. However, I had an opportunity and upgraded to D700. No regrets and no looking back. The biggest difference and significance for me b/n dx and fx is use of high ISOs. As for dof, I'm sure some1 here will want to disagree with me, haven't seen any differences. In print, both images from my D700 and D300s are indistinguishable. I have a 5mp and 11mp (after cropping) printed in 16x20. The only way you'd see the difference b/n the two is if you're standing less then a foot away, holding the two side by side and know what to look for. Which also means that 12megapix is probably enough for larger prints as well. Largest I've ever printed was for a client who wanted a 46x30 - it was as sharp as the 16x20. Nonetheless, I do miss medium format film 



> I shoot some product photography for print usage on various scales, I  have some clients that do request high MP files, although this is only  occasionally, the benefits of being able to shoot at 36mp will be  beneficial in those instances rather than upsizing a 12mp file.



Not to knock down D800, but is having all that resolution necessary? Last time Nikon loaded all that juice into the camera (d3x) they back of (d3s) and ended up producing a power house with amazing final product. I am very excited about this new toy but for now 36megapix with optimal performance, sounds to good to be true. Until the camera becomes accessible so photographers can start pushing it to its limits, I'll stick by under 20MP bodies . I really hope that I'm wrong about this!!


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 7, 2012)

My vote is the rumored upcoming *D7S*


----------



## Aloicious (Feb 7, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> My vote is the rumored upcoming *D7S*



for sure, I'm on the list for that one too heheh


----------



## Aloicious (Feb 7, 2012)

IgsEMT said:


> To Fx or not
> Since I entered the digital age, it was mostly Dx for me and for nearly 10yrs, I'd probably be amongst the few ppl who'd say that spending extra 1k on Fx isn't worth the price. However, I had an opportunity and upgraded to D700. No regrets and no looking back. The biggest difference and significance for me b/n dx and fx is use of high ISOs. As for dof, I'm sure some1 here will want to disagree with me, haven't seen any differences. In print, both images from my D700 and D300s are indistinguishable. I have a 5mp and 11mp (after cropping) printed in 16x20. The only way you'd see the difference b/n the two is if you're standing less then a foot away, holding the two side by side and know what to look for. Which also means that 12megapix is probably enough for larger prints as well. Largest I've ever printed was for a client who wanted a 46x30 - it was as sharp as the 16x20. Nonetheless, I do miss medium format film
> 
> 
> ...



yeah, I shot film for ~10 years or so but had to sell my equipment in the early 2002ish time before digital really was too refined, so I've been getting back into it with digital the last few years, the printing ability of film is great, but really the continual cost of film and processing and such is just too much, last event I shot I took ~1200 images, film cost would have been astronomical cosidering I shoot similar events multiple times per year, sometimes with more images...I totally understand that 36mp is excessive, but if it really does hold up to the ISO of the D700 like nikon says, then the added Mp would be useful to me, since what I really need is both a speed camera and a studio camera, but if the D800 is a happy center with high MP and decent ISO like nikon is saying, with a down to earth cost, then it will fill a niche that I unfortunately am in. I agree that it does sound too good to be true, and without needing to put any money down on it, I'll still be able to try before I buy if that is the case. 

rememer that when the D3x came out a big reason it wasn't so widely accepted was it's crazy MSRP of $8k in a time that top of the line DSLRs were like around the high $4k's. the ISO also wasn't up to par with the D3 or D3s, but that was also the first generation of processors, in the first generaton of FX sensors. so I'm hoping that they've made alot of progress with that kind of thing...

I suppose time will tell, if I try it and it sucks, I'll for sure let you know, maybe with some sample images, but I'm hoping it doesnt because if it does live up to Nikon's claims, it'll be seriously bad-ass


----------



## djacobox372 (Feb 7, 2012)

Right now i would seriously consider a used d3, their prices have plumeted--and now cost just a few hundred more then a used d700.  In a few years when u upgrade again the d3 will be worth a lot more then the d700.


----------



## IgsEMT (Feb 7, 2012)

Aloicious said:


> IgsEMT said:
> 
> 
> > To Fx or not
> ...



WHEN you get it, PLEASE keep us updated 
Just spoke with a buddy of mine, he pre-ordered his.


----------



## Aloicious (Feb 7, 2012)

oh yeah for sure. I'll let you know what I think, good or bad...


----------



## Balmiesgirl (Feb 7, 2012)

Bossy said:
			
		

> I'd get the D4, then use the lenses you have when you can, rent on the rare ones that you'll need something different, and save up for the other ones.



Good idea  borrow lenses . Com is great for fast & affordable rentals anywhere in the US


----------



## Balmiesgirl (Feb 7, 2012)

Looks like your decision has been a roller coaster ride  ..... Hope u figure it out! I feel your pain! I pre- ordered a d4and reserved it through NPS ..... I was tempted by the d800 announcement but after shooting with the d3 as long as I have I don't think I could stand not having all of my controls where I want them   Saving about 3 grand would be sweet though!!!! Then I could afford the Perspective Control lens I have been wanting for my commercial work.


----------



## Aloicious (Feb 8, 2012)

yeah it has. heh...I'll get something, no worries...let us know how you like the D4 once yours arrives.


----------



## Aloicious (Feb 11, 2012)

So, some interesting new developments here (you ready for this 2wheelphoto? heh  )...but in a good way...I've been looking around, and I have a friend who as it turns out is able to get me hooked up with a really nice D3s, its got about 30k actuations but the thing looks like it was just out of the box. and he's going to hook me up for it pretty cheap in exchange for a few things he needs help with...in fact I'll most likely still be able to get the D800 for my studio and large MP work...which is great! best of both worlds....

I also got the glass I need, I picked up both the 24-70 2.8G ED (it's an unused one, but I got it on the used market locally, it was just a complete stroke of luck that it showed up when it did, so I saved a good amount on it, but since I didn't buy it from a nikon distributor I don't have the warranty, oh well) , and a nikon refurb 70-200 2.8G VR2 ED too...the 70-200 is being shipped, so I don't have it yet, but I will shortly. I'll probably end up getting a 1.7 TC too, but perhaps not for a little while

so I'm stoked...the next show I'm shooting is at the beginning of march so it'll be fun, new upgraded gear usually is...


----------

