# Come help me decide guys...



## Arch (Apr 20, 2010)

So yea im still using my trusty D50 (whenever time allows me). I was going to buy a D700 at the beginning of the year, but my job and money took a unlucky turn, so I held out, and frankly I don't have much time at the moment to get out and shoot anyways.

But, i now have another trip coming up to the Lake District and im thinking of upgrading again before i go.

I can get decent results from a D50 still, i have some nice glass, but im not overall happy with the image size and noise in some.

So to cut to the chase its either a D90 now... or hold off untill whenever i can afford the D700, (which won't be before the trip) but then i will need new glass too.

To buy or not to buy a D90... THAT is the question!


Here is a few i took last time whilst at the Lake District using a D50, a few of which i have been asked for enlargments.... 

































Help me decide before my brain overheats!!


----------



## Overread (Apr 20, 2010)

Oooh neat LD shots!
Be sure to pack your waterproofs (though oddly its actually beeing quite dry up here recently!)
I have no idea about the cameras though....I don't know nikon stuff well enough to know how they grade up


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Apr 20, 2010)

My way of looking at this kind of problem is that I never settle for second best. When I decide on a piece of gear, I buy that gear... when I can afford it that is. Without credit!

I don't see any problem with the images you posted but, yes, agreed, I don't see the stuff you chose not to post either. Maybe you should post some of the problem ones so we can understand the problem.

Actually, the images you posted are so nice, it's hard to imagine what the problem is...

Now if you have the itch to spend, that's another story all together


----------



## Arch (Apr 20, 2010)

Yea your right Cloud, there doesn't seem like much wrong with the images on screen... but when i got asked for enlargment prints of a few of them i kindly declined, i just wouldn't be happy selling the images if i didn't think i could supply them at any required scale.
Im the type that likes to spend time editing (as thats where my background is professionally) so I know that my 6mp D50 has its limitations compared to the D90 (D300) 12mp capability and much better handeling of noise (i do like doing some low light work).
It may also aid the fine tuning of my editing work.

I would like a D700 without doubt, but then goes my Sigma 10-20... and so i'd have to buy lenses too.

Im thinking a D90 would surfice for the time being...


----------



## Newcastle Shooter (Apr 20, 2010)

Great shots first of all 

I own both the D90 and D700 and they are both superb bodies. I take all my landscape shots on the D90 as I have a DX wideangle lens. The iso on the D90 can go to just under 1000 with no real degredation / noise. Thats more than enough for me! The full frame lure of the D700 is real though but you will still see a massive improvement over the D50. Im not sure what lens you are currently using but why not go for a D90 and treat to a new lens? 

You have clearly outgrown the D50 and get all the value possible out of it.

Best of luck.


----------



## Arch (Apr 20, 2010)

Ah yes thanks for the advice ... i do only have 2 weeks to decide and i do agree i think i would maybe benefit more from a new camera for the time being... a vote for the D90 then!


----------



## Derrel (Apr 20, 2010)

Nice photos, to begin with.

It's a tough call,really...D90 now or wait for the D700. Still, if you want a D90, there are lots of them available both new and used. Buying a used D90 would be a good choice as far as saving yourself the depreciation, and you could use it and then sell it off later without much loss whenever it was time to move to the D700--or whatever it is you really,truly want. If you want a high-resolution sensor at reasonably low price, there are loads of D2x bodies available used, and they still perform well at lower ISO settings. When you're at FX format though, the wide-angle reach of the 10-20 is easily duplicated by many decent lenses...and for low light work (really low light) the FX sensors are pretty hard to better. I still think the Canon 5D "original" is hard to beat, with its very weak AA filter, it yields very sharp images at the per-pixel level, and it adapts very well to Nikon lenses with even inexpensive adapters, so if you have lenses that have aperture rings on them, for slower, tripod-mounted work you could also consider the Canon 5D to give you about the same resolution as the Nikon D700 (the Canon is a tiny bit better in terms of resolving power,I think), in a body that can be bought used for around $1,000 US on the actual 2nd hand market.


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 20, 2010)

First off, great shots!

Since you stated that you would need new lenses, what about picking up the D90 while you work on your lens collection, then upgrade to the D700 when you are satisfied with the glass you have? By then the D700 may have been upgraded and you will be even better off. I am having a similar debate with my D300 vs. a D700, but I am getting a few lenses over the next couple months first.

The D90 is a hell of a workhorse. My 2 cents. Hope it helps somewhat.


----------



## DScience (Apr 20, 2010)

D90 now, D700s later.


----------



## pbelarge (Apr 20, 2010)

I do not know anything about Nikon cameras. I do know that more pixels do not always mean a better photo. What size are the pixels of the D90 as compared to the D700? It may be better to wait. It is not like the photos you posted are bad. I think they are rather good, and it seems you are also good at PP. 
Not an easy question to answer, as finances are not easy these days, and waiting is harder. 

Me, I say get the camera you have your mind set on, and if that means waiting, so be it.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Apr 20, 2010)

Arch said:


> ... but when i got asked for enlargment prints of a few of them i kindly declined, i just wouldn't be happy selling the images if i didn't think i could supply them at any required scale.



I understand and respect that BUT, what enlargement size are you talking about?

I see a lot of people on forums talking about poster size prints and nothing else and it always amazes me. When I was still showing in galleries, 99.99% of the works hanging alongside mine were on 11 x 14" paper (an 8 x 12 image, if full frame 35mm) and no one thought that was weird.

There were both financial and logistical reasons for that. Most of us did not have access to darkrooms allowing anything much bigger and 11x14 paper was so common that it was quite affordable, all things considered.

Now, I'll admit that I once showed a 5 x 5 foot print. Someone had given me a couple rolls of machine print paper but it was such a pain (printing it and then putting it together in the gallery...) to do that I never tried it again.

I also showed contact prints from my Hassy... yes, true. Slightly smaller than a Polaroid, I think.

But the main thing that seems to have changed is that we (the photogs) decided on the size of the print and that was that. We did not offer photos at whatever size you want.

I guess what I'm trying to say is take control of your images. Don't let someone else control them.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Arch (Apr 21, 2010)

Thanks for the input guys.

@Derrel - Yea i was actually looking at a pre-owned D2x, it is a tempting alternative, although looking at the specs side by side, there really isnt much difference between the two... and the D2x is twice the size, so from a hiking, landscape point of view i may be better off with the D90 still.

@Cloud - Its true i may never go bigger than around 11x14, however id like to think i could, coupled with the fact that i am a graphic designer and i have been known to use my own images on occasion, some of which are used in exhibitions etc, so it would also come in handy there.
Tbh tho it is more the iso that is most needed in my work, i have reached the limits of the D50 several times now and it really doesn't help with the kind of PP i like to do.

I appreciate all the advice guys


----------



## benhasajeep (Apr 21, 2010)

I have a D50.  And 2- D300's, there is a fairly big difference in output of the two cameras.  The D90 has the same sensor and slightly newer software.  DXO says the D90 is slightly better than a D300.  D300 does have a better constructed body though.

I actually want a full frame and it will be the D700 series.  But I know it's mid-cycle replacement is comming up soon.  Most likely D700s.  So, I don't want to pay for a D700 and 2 months later have the new one come out.  I absolutely hate that.  I somewhat feel cheated when that happens.  As I could have gotten the newest most up to date version for about 5% more.

So, I vote for D90.  Even though it is an intermediate step its one that you could use for two years or so, until the full cycle replacement is out for the D700 (D800??).  And most likely the D90 will fetch probably at least half of what you paid on the used market.  So it would not be a total waste!!  And maybe you will want to keep a crop body as a spare??  Never know.  Price wise I don't think its much of a gamble or a waste even for people that may have low budgets.


----------



## Arch (Apr 21, 2010)

Aye your right... i am on Amazon now and have a saved shopping list for the D90 with the 18-105 VR lens 
It is SO annoying tho that when upgrading it never stops at just the camera...

So non of my batteries are compatable.. so x3 add to list
Non of my SD cards are compatable... so x3 add to list
I do not have an exsisting 67mm thread lens... so new Polariser add to list
Oh and the SDHC cards may not be read by my SD reader, so... add to list!!

Ahhhh!!... its turning into a moster!


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Apr 21, 2010)

Arch said:


> It is SO annoying tho that when upgrading it never stops at just the camera...



:lmao:  So true.


----------



## Atlas77 (Apr 21, 2010)

The price leap from the D90 body to the D700 body is quite big. Although im sure you would be happy with a D90 body, the D700 is just too good to pass up. 

One question though, what made you skip the D300s on your list? What made you go D90 or D700? The D300s seems like a nice compromise, or even the D300.


----------



## kundalini (Apr 21, 2010)

It's a tough call Arch.  My first thought is the D700, but as you've mentioned, your lens collection is in need of updating to FF.  That should be paramount IMO and also a deal breaker for a quick decision.  A question for you.... how long have you held on to the D50?  You could easily multiply that time with a D90 because of the ISO capabilities and newer technologies.  During the interim, build on the lenses for full frame.  It doesn't need to be mentioned, but a FX lens works perfectly well on a DX body.

This also alleviates some anxiety for the upcoming trip.  You have a new body with trusted (and compatible) lenses to shoot one of the most beautiful places I've ever seen.... the Lake District.

Wish you well in your decision.


----------



## Arch (Apr 23, 2010)

Thanks for the extra input guys.



Atlas77 said:


> One question though, what made you skip the D300s on your list?



Tbh, i would still need to save for the D300s which means i wouldn't be able to buy it before the trip and if im going to hold off and save, then id go for the D700 
The trip itself will cost a few hundred £ .... i have already had to update some of my camping/hiking gear too... its going to be an expensive month!



kundalini said:


> It's a tough call Arch.  My first thought is the D700, but as you've mentioned, your lens collection is in need of updating to FF.  That should be paramount IMO and also a deal breaker for a quick decision.  A question for you.... how long have you held on to the D50?  You could easily multiply that time with a D90 because of the ISO capabilities and newer technologies.  During the interim, build on the lenses for full frame.  It doesn't need to be mentioned, but a FX lens works perfectly well on a DX body.
> 
> This also alleviates some anxiety for the upcoming trip.  You have a new body with trusted (and compatible) lenses to shoot one of the most beautiful places I've ever seen.... the Lake District.
> 
> Wish you well in your decision.



Very true.... and your right the Lakes is one of the the most amazing natural places i have seen, i will have to post some more pics of the actual mountains after this next trip. 

I have in fact just purchased a D90, so once again thanks for the input.
I will also be taking a MF TLR camera to see if i can get something a bit different from my usual style, gonna be fun!


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Apr 23, 2010)

I love photographing in The Lakes and fortunately for me it's an area that's on my doorstep, or at least it is when I'm in the UK (read, not often enough).

I'm not sure I can offer you much in the way of suggestions on the Nikon question, but I can perhaps off a bit of a comparison from my move away from my 350D last year. I always knew that I wanted to go the full frame route, so when the opportunity came, I got myself the 5DII and the lenses I needed to upgrade from my EFS stock. Which was a great move, though I perhaps hadn't banked on expecting to struggle so much with the consequent weight gain.

So time passes by and I'm finding I lost something in the move, that being the IS capability and familiarity of working with my 17-55mm f/2.8 EFS. In a moment of weakness, my willpower cracked and I found myself buying a 7D body to use with the 17-55. So now I have a top notch full frame and an equally top notch crop sensor body, and I switch between using them as the situation suits.

So basically what I'm suggesting is that there is no real need, other than purely financial, why you should think that the D90 should be a compromise. If you get that now, there's no reason to think that it will languish in a cupboard should you subsequently decide to get a D700 or it's next incarnation.


----------



## Kiefer (Apr 26, 2010)

Nice pictures and really good to see it.Can you post me more pictures....


----------

