# D90 or D700?



## roadkill (Nov 2, 2008)

D90 or D700?


----------



## epp_b (Nov 2, 2008)

For what usage?


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 2, 2008)

What are your shooting needs?  These 2 cameras have almost nothing in common besides being able to take pictures and have TOTALLY different audiences.

I think your first job is to decide where you and your style fits in with photography before you can make an intelligent decision.

I've done my homework... and the D700 is my choice for me.


----------



## dEARlEADER (Nov 2, 2008)

if your asking this question then d90


----------



## platano (Nov 3, 2008)

dEARlEADER said:


> if your asking this question then d90


 
+1  

and im a newbie myself


----------



## NateS (Nov 3, 2008)

I think a more realistic question would be 

D90 or D2x

Considering a great condition used D2x is about the same price as a new D90.  

Comparing a D90 to D700 would be like


Acura Integra or Acura NSX??


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 3, 2008)

D2x can be had for dirt cheap nowadays, but I would take the D90 over the D2x.  Though closer, at that point, I would want to take advantage of the newer technology.  The D2x camera is a good camera, but its not a great camera (compared to what is out there today).


----------



## NateS (Nov 3, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> D2x can be had for dirt cheap nowadays, but I would take the D90 over the D2x. Though closer, at that point, I would want to take advantage of the newer technology. The D2x camera is a good camera, but its not a great camera (compared to what is out there today).


 
THat was kind of my thoughts too.  I think the D2x is best served as a FF backup to a D3 or D700...maybe a cheaper backup for a FF wedding photog.


----------



## Tolyk (Nov 3, 2008)

NateS said:


> THat was kind of my thoughts too. I think the D2x is best served as a FF backup to a D3 or D700...maybe a cheaper backup for a FF wedding photog.


 The D2x isn't full frame, it uses a 

" The high resolution is achieved by the use of a new Sony 12.4 megapixel DX Format CMOS image sensor"

It's CMOS, but not full frame.


----------



## roadkill (Nov 3, 2008)

I'd like to shoot landscapes as well as weddings, fast action as well as low light stuff.  I want my next camera to be one I don't have to replace any time soon.  I love my D80 but would like to step up.


----------



## droyz2000 (Nov 3, 2008)

Get the D90 and get some good glass, like the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8.


----------



## zeroskillz (Nov 3, 2008)

Canon


----------



## roadkill (Nov 3, 2008)

Now why would I buy a canon when I'm obviously an invested Nikon shooter?


----------



## dEARlEADER (Nov 3, 2008)

besides.... the op never once mentioned that he was looking for a super noisy high resolution sensor with a clunky focusing system....


----------



## roadkill (Nov 3, 2008)

LOL


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 3, 2008)

roadkill said:


> I'd like to shoot landscapes as well as weddings, fast action as well as low light stuff.  I want my next camera to be one I don't have to replace any time soon.  I love my D80 but would like to step up.



You want a D3, then.  Besides the high ISO and low noise... slap on a DX lens on a D3 and enjoy 11FPS ! 

The D3 is the wedding photographer's dream camera come true.  FX means WIDE landscapes.  A D3 will last a professional at least 1-2 years... an amateur an easy 5 years.

Now... don't you dare ask what's your budget, you'd better be asking... what is the maximum limit on your credit card and how can you raise it?


----------



## roadkill (Nov 3, 2008)

WOW Jerry! Thanks for the plug.  I think I'll steer myself in the direction of the D3.


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 3, 2008)

Once you see the price of a D3, you may not be thanking me... I was trying to be subtle about mentioning the high price of a D3... lol


----------



## K_Pugh (Nov 3, 2008)

D300 and a nice 70-200 2.8 lens? Are you keeping the D80? if you're doing weddings i'd suggest you do!


----------



## Alleh Lindquist (Nov 3, 2008)

+1 Canon...? I am also invested in Nikon but I still pre ordered the 5D Mark II.


----------



## Joves (Nov 4, 2008)

Well if it is low light then the D700 if you cant really afford the D3 or, if you dont want to. With the price diffrence you could get some nice glass with the 700 too.


----------



## mrodgers (Nov 4, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> These 2 cameras have almost nothing in common besides being able to take pictures and have TOTALLY different audiences.


I see comments like this on different camera lines all the time.  What exactly is the difference?

Does both not allow you to change aperture, shutter, ISO, go to manual mode, have the same lens mount, thus same lenses available, autofocus, manual focus, have focus lock, exposure lock, aperture priority, shutter priority, etc, etc?

I would take the D300/700 as an overall better quality of camera, but what is it that spurs the comments that they have nothing in common over "entry level" cameras besides build quality or quality of results?  What is it on a more expensive and better camera that the user "wouldn't understand" as I've seen commented many times?

These comments make it seem that if I won the lottery tomorrow, and wanted to buy a new camera being new to a dSLR, I would be way over my head with a d700 even if I could afford it no matter what.  Why exactly is that?  AFAIK, they all have the same camera features (ignoring any auto modes the different cameras may or may not have).

I have never seen this explained.  I've only seen comments that the D700 or Canon equivalent would be too much for a beginner.


----------



## Joves (Nov 4, 2008)

If coming up from entry level then to a D300/700 and, Canon equivalents then the learning curve would be high to utilize the features. Just look at the manuals for each camera my D80s manual is like 200 pages as where my D300s is like 500. That how much more there is to using the camera.


----------



## anubis404 (Nov 4, 2008)

I would suggest the D700 if you have the money. I don't think there is going to be something in the D3 that you're dying to have that's not in the D700.


----------



## mrodgers (Nov 4, 2008)

Joves said:


> If coming up from entry level then to a D300/700 and, Canon equivalents then the learning curve would be high to utilize the features. Just look at the manuals for each camera my D80s manual is like 200 pages as where my D300s is like 500. That how much more there is to using the camera.


That still doesn't answer the question, what exactly is the difference?  What features can it possibly be that would be such a high learning curve?

The learning curve just going from a snapshot shooter during the kid's birthdays to taking photography as a hobby shooting in manual with my Fuji superzoom was quite high as well.  It's not rocket science to use a piece of equipment like a camera.  Is there some sort of feature that poses your subject for perfect composition or something that is too difficult to understand with a D700 compared to an "entry level" camera?

You can read the manual of my camera all you want and never learn what the heck aperture, shutter, or ISO settings do.  You do learn how to set them, but what and when to set them, there is no information.  Yet, I shoot my superzoom in full manual same as someone would with a D700, by metering and setting the ISO, aperture, and shutter.  Unless the D700 seeks out the photo and takes the picture for you, I still have yet to hear of any special features that would be so above my or anyone else's head who would be interested in photography that it wouldn't be a good idea to go with it starting out.


----------



## zeroskillz (Nov 4, 2008)

> I've only seen comments that the D700 or Canon equivalent would be too much for a beginner.


 Yup. To much money. :mrgreen:

n all seriousness though, I'm with you on that. It may be a bit more intimidating to a beginner, but otherwise it could be mastered just as well as a D40x with a little investment in time.


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 5, 2008)

mrodgers said:


> I see comments like this on different camera lines all the time.  What exactly is the difference?
> 
> Does both not allow you to change aperture, shutter, ISO, go to manual mode, have the same lens mount, thus same lenses available, autofocus, manual focus, have focus lock, exposure lock, aperture priority, shutter priority, etc, etc?



You misunderstood me.  Technically the D700 is a FX vs the D90's cropped sensor.  The high ISO low noise blows the D90 out of the water.  The FPS (with the right battery) destroys the D90.  Someone mentioned the manual, but as an example, using a knowledgeable source of information for reference, Thom Hogan's book on the D90 touches something like 500 pages for the D90, yet the D700 has well over 875 pages.  If there weren't *SOME* differences, poor Thom would have 375 extra blank pages now, wouldn't he?  




mrodgers said:


> I would take the D300/700 as an overall better quality of camera, but what is it that spurs the comments that they have nothing in common over "entry level" cameras



I said totally different audiences, not that one doesn't have shutter... lol  Whereas one is a good "prosumer" camera, the D700 is marketed by Nikon as a PROFESSIONAL camera.  It caters more to people who need more, like the more enthusiastic, experienced amateurs and professionals.  Most (but not all) professional photographers CURRENTLY could not care less about having video in their cameras.  Nice to have?  Sure.  Would they prefer an extra 10MP instead of the HD capabilities in their camera?  DEFNATELY!  How about for the average consumer?  Many will choose the D90 *just becuase* it can do video!.  

I would not call the D700 an entry-level camera by any means and its NOT made for them either.



mrodgers said:


> These comments make it seem that if I won the lottery tomorrow, and wanted to buy a new camera being new to a dSLR, I would be way over my head with a d700 even if I could afford it no matter what.


No one on this board is more against that sentiment than I am.  My first dSLR was a D200 and people told me ALL THE TIME that it was too much camera for me.  It was not... however, the pro end cameras are far more demanding than your D40-D90 because you have to KNOW what you are doing more than the average D40 customer knows to get the BEST out of the camera.  The average D40 customer could not care less about D-lighting, the differences between front and rear sync, high-speed sync or testing for hours each little item in the entire menu.  A professional would be vry interested to do exactly that.  Not everyone is like me... however, I will say that my way of being is 1 out of a hundred.  The vast averages don't NEED a D700 or D3, they may even do better with a lower model.  Whether they can afford a D40 or a hundred D3s is not important from that point of view.

If I coudl afford a Veyron... would I be able to use it to it's potential?  Not likely.  Nice to have?  Sure.  Waste of a good car on me?  Most definately.  I do better with the Z06 Corvette in my driveway.



mrodgers said:


> I have never seen this explained.  I've only seen comments that the D700 or Canon equivalent would be too much for a beginner.


You now know my feelings about that.  However, for the AVERAGE person moving up from a P&S to a D700, they would not have the knowldege, experience nor even the inclination to get 10% out of that camera that it could produce.  In that sense, it is a waste of their money and time trying to.  They are better off with something like a D90, that is made to hand-hold this average user through the process of giving them the best picture they can get beucase the average new user could not care less about learning precise PPing techniques to acheive ultimate results, they want that picture NOW and don't spare the ketchup.  

Again, we are talking majorities and higher averages and this certainly doesn't apply to everyone... I am proof of that.


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 5, 2008)

zeroskillz said:


> Yup. To much money. :mrgreen:
> 
> n all seriousness though, I'm with you on that. It may be a bit more intimidating to a beginner, but otherwise it could be mastered just as well as a D40x with a little investment in time.



Now, if that was true for EVERYONE, Nikon should just kill the entire line from D40 through the D300 immediately and make everyone buy ONLY the D700 or D3 and increase profits.  

Not everyone wants to spend either the money or the months or years perfecting their photography hobby.  Not everyone wants to become a master of CS4, they just want good pics with the advantages that a dSLR offers that a P&S cannot.

Sure they may all want to become Ashtin Kutchers but it ain't gonna happen (lmao!!).


----------



## jbatphoto (Nov 5, 2008)

How much of a difference is there between the D700 and the D3 other than price?


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 5, 2008)

Check out the detailed answer for that on Dpreview.com (I don't feel like typing in 300-400 words when that info is easily available on the net already)... however, after speaking to many people who own both, as far as final results are concerned, there are none in that area.


----------



## manaheim (Nov 5, 2008)

wow this was almost like asking...

"VW Golf or Mercedes SL600"?


----------



## mrodgers (Nov 6, 2008)

Jerry, a very nice response to my post.  Thanks for that.  Your explaination, well, explains it very well.  Thank you, it answers the question I have every time I see someone state what I was asking there in my post.


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 6, 2008)

manaheim said:


> wow this was almost like asking...
> 
> "VW Golf or Mercedes SL600"?



It kinda-sorta was, wasn't it?


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 6, 2008)

mrodgers said:


> Jerry, a very nice response to my post.  Thanks for that.



Thank-you.


----------



## jbatphoto (Nov 6, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> Check out the detailed answer for that on Dpreview.com (I don't feel like typing in 300-400 words when that info is easily available on the net already)... however, after speaking to many people who own both, as far as final results are concerned, there are none in that area.


 
Thanks, JerryPH. I have read articles and reviews on the D700 but that is the first place that I have seen a good side-by-side comparison to the D3 (and D300). I'm kind of surprised I haven't run across that website before.


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 6, 2008)

It is the first place that the majority of people here will run to, to get technical info. 

Glad I was able to help.


----------



## hipslap (Nov 6, 2008)

mrodgers said:


> That still doesn't answer the question, what exactly is the difference?  What features can it possibly be that would be such a high learning curve?
> 
> The learning curve just going from a snapshot shooter during the kid's birthdays to taking photography as a hobby shooting in manual with my Fuji superzoom was quite high as well.  It's not rocket science to use a piece of equipment like a camera.  Is there some sort of feature that poses your subject for perfect composition or something that is too difficult to understand with a D700 compared to an "entry level" camera?
> 
> You can read the manual of my camera all you want and never learn what the heck aperture, shutter, or ISO settings do.  You do learn how to set them, but what and when to set them, there is no information.  Yet, I shoot my superzoom in full manual same as someone would with a D700, by metering and setting the ISO, aperture, and shutter.  Unless the D700 seeks out the photo and takes the picture for you, I still have yet to hear of any special features that would be so above my or anyone else's head who would be interested in photography that it wouldn't be a good idea to go with it starting out.


I'd say that the entry level cameras are easier to use because the have more auto options.  Portrait mode, sports mode...etc.  I guess these cameras are considered easier to use because a photographer can get great results without learning the ins and outs of photography.

That being said.  If you shoot in manual or semi-manual and are actually familiar with photography then I think the higher-end cameras are actually easier to use.  They add more functionality at your finger tips.

If you are familiar with shooting manual modes the differences between the D90 and D700 are more of quality and price than complexity.


----------



## manaheim (Nov 6, 2008)

^^ a lot of the entry level cams also have a lot of limitations that can be really annoying and make it hard to learn photography.  The D90 is not one of those, however.


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 6, 2008)

I'd also not really call it an entry level camera either, Chris.  It's a solid mid-level cam with some very interesting feature and targeted in such a manner that it can catch both mid-level and beginner dSLR interested people.


----------



## manaheim (Nov 6, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> I'd also not really call it an entry level camera either, Chris. It's a solid mid-level cam with some very interesting feature and targeted in such a manner that it can catch both mid-level and beginner dSLR interested people.


 
Yeah, I guess I could go along with that.  What _is_ an entry-level camera, though?  D40?  D60?  I guess they are, but ... well, we've all heard my opinions on these cameras waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too many times at this point.


----------



## anubis404 (Nov 6, 2008)

manaheim said:


> Yeah, I guess I could go along with that.  What _is_ an entry-level camera, though?  D40?  D60?  I guess they are, but ... well, we've all heard my opinions on these cameras waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too many times at this point.



Yea, I would say the D40, 50, 60, 70, and maybe even 80 would be more entry level. Although I quite like my D70s. Much sturdier than the D40/60 and much less menus. But enough of my raving :cyclops:.


----------



## dEARlEADER (Nov 7, 2008)

I'd call it entry level...

anything with preset picture modes is entry level IMO..

D90 down entry/consumer level

D300/700 advanced amateur

D3 pro

there.... now  everything is neatly labeled....


----------



## boncphoto (Nov 7, 2008)

or you can wait until November 20th then Nikon will introduce new cameras with 20+ mp


----------



## dEARlEADER (Nov 7, 2008)

boncphoto said:


> or you can wait until November 20th then Nikon will introduce new cameras with 20+ mp



that means my pictures will now be twice as good..... awesome...


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 7, 2008)

dEARlEADER said:


> D300/700 advanced amateur



Except your labels are not matching what Nikon is saying they are... lol.

From the Dpreview D700 review:
"*The D700 joins the D3 as a fully-fledged 'professional' model*; it has the same tank-like build quality (though we're sure the pop-up flash will cause a few raised eyebrows), and *gets you the full pro service from Nikon*."


----------



## dEARlEADER (Nov 7, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> "*The D700 joins the D3 as a fully-fledged 'professional' model*; it has the same tank-like build quality (though we're sure the pop-up flash will cause a few raised eyebrows), and *gets you the full pro service from Nikon*."




full pro service from Nikon?... is that like keys to the executive washrooms?


besides... these are my labels and there is nothing you can do to take them away....


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 7, 2008)

dEARlEADER said:


> full pro service from Nikon?... is that like keys to the executive washrooms?



Not really.  Nikon only has 2 toilets... so in a pinch, they let you use the ladie's room.


----------



## SlimPaul (Nov 7, 2008)

boncphoto said:


> or you can wait until November 20th then Nikon will introduce new cameras with 20+ mp



:shock: I didn't know that. I guess reading engadget is not enough 
D90 came out this year so we won't see any update on that? In other words, will I get a better Nikon for $1000 after the 20th?

Cheers,


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 7, 2008)

I'd think no.  Nikon doesn't release new model cameras every 2 months... traditionally its every 12-24 months.

They will likely release revised editions to match the competition, though, like a D3 to D3x (higher MPs?), to match their nemesis Canon... lol


----------



## manaheim (Nov 7, 2008)

SlimPaul said:


> :shock: I didn't know that. I guess reading engadget is not enough
> D90 came out this year so we won't see any update on that? In other words, will I get a better Nikon for $1000 after the 20th?


 
That's a technology battle you can never win.  You always get more or pay less if you wait... but then if you wait just a little longer...........


----------



## roadkill (Nov 8, 2008)

that's why I want to make a somewhat substantial leap foreward with out spending too much on something that will be relatively obsolete in a couple of years


----------



## fightin14 (Nov 8, 2008)

I need 20+ Mp to contain all of my awesomeness.   And because my computer monitor is 120 inchs and all of my pictures are printed for billboards.


----------



## anubis404 (Nov 8, 2008)

Yea lol I don't see the need for anything past 6-10 Mp unless you are making extraordinarily large prints.


----------



## mrodgers (Nov 8, 2008)

A benefit other than large prints for large MP would also be cropping.  If you are limited in your lens, and don't want to scare wildlife away, or can't get closer, more MP is nice to have.

I would have loved to have more MP at the hockey game I took my camera to.  Though, a better camera would have been even better yet.  I did have to crop quite a bit with my 380 mm (35 mm equiv.) lens.   I nearly had do duck under the banners hanging in the rafters I was so high up.  Yet, I have photos that look like I was on the glass, but the quality is a bit rougher because of how much they were cropped.


----------



## lids369 (Nov 8, 2008)

NateS said:


> THat was kind of my thoughts too. I think the D2x is best served as a FF backup to a D3 or D700...maybe a cheaper backup for a FF wedding photog.


 lol same with the nsx


----------

