# Upgrading from D90 to D300 or D700. Help!



## elliment18 (May 30, 2010)

Hey, i've been doing a bunch of research on these two cameras and I'll do my best to fill you in with everything I know and what I'll be doing.

First, these are the two cameras im looking at:
D300s
D700

I own a D90, Nikon 80-200 2.8, Nikon 18-200, and a Tokina 11-16 2.8, and a sb-600 with lightsphere.

I will be shooting as photo editor for the college newspaper and may possibly be shooting for the city newspaper/webpage later this next year.  As such, I will be shooting in a large variety of lighting conditions and focal length extremes.  I will be shooting sports from day/night football, ice hockey, indoor basketball and volleyball, swim meets and track and field.  I will also be shooting events, these will be low light events.  Aside from the paper, I do plan on shooting some weddings and senior pictures.

Now, my dilemma goes as follows for either body purchase:

D300s:  I will keep my 80-200 and possibly my 11-16 and use the remaining funds to purchase a Nikon 17-55 2.8.

D700: I will keep my 80-200 and sell everything else for a tamron 28-75 2.8 and possibly a 50mm 1.8.

My funding is very limited between those trades.
Now, should I go with the D300s knowing that I will not need super results for print/webpage and learn to use flash at weddings/portraits. Thus allowing me to use the camera/lens combo in serious weather conditions (rain/humidity).  I enjoy the 300mm equivalent however, I find the 80-200 is far too close for indoor sports, will the nikon 17-55 keep up?

Or should I get the D700 so that I can shoot in any lighting condition however giving up my ability to fully utilize the weatherproofing features.  Though I can continue to use my rain bag as I have been.  I would love to use my 80-200 indoors and do think I could sacrifice the long end during soccer and football games and wait for the perfect shots.  Besides, is a crop from a d700 better anyway? bigger pixels and all?

I may plan on selling prints this year if I find they turn out better than last years.
Thanks


----------



## Dominantly (May 30, 2010)

The D700 would be an easy choice for me.


----------



## Moe (May 30, 2010)

Definitely a close call, but you stated you'll be doing some low light stuff. The D700 will be far superior in this setting.


----------



## Muusers (May 30, 2010)

Just out of personal interest, have you sold your D90 already?


----------



## KmH (May 30, 2010)

+47 on the D700 for the high ISO capabilites. The D700 is also weather sealed like the D300s.

You have noted you will lose the 1.5x crop factor the D90 apparently adds to the focal length of your 80-200 (and any other lens) and you will find the 80-200 short on reach for field sports as you are used to it providing a FOV equivelent to a 120-300 mm lens.


----------



## Live_free (May 30, 2010)

The D700, it's also weather sealed.


----------



## Garbz (May 31, 2010)

If you truly intend to upgrade the glass you like say you would then the D700 is the choice to make. 

The D700 is never a choice if your primary lens will be DX or worse yet that nasty 18-200.


----------



## PhotoXtra (Jun 1, 2010)

I wouldn't upgrade to D300s from a D90 as you do not get any resolution or FX benefits and really doesn't buy you much. I will take the D700 any day but there is a possiblity that a next generation of  D700 would be released in the next few months which would make the current model a bit cheaper. 

For the time being I would keep my D90 and buy a prime - 35mm 1.8 DX (which needs to be disposed of later) or even a 50mm 1.8 or 1.4.


----------



## KmH (Jun 2, 2010)

PhotoXtra said:


> I wouldn't upgrade to D300s from a D90 as you do not get any resolution or FX benefits and really doesn't buy you much.


The D300s has a ton of upgraded features compared to a D90, the most notable of which is a much better AF module. In fact the D300s has the DX half of the AF module that is in the top-of-the-line D3's

The D90 only has 1 cross-type focus point, the middle one, out of 11 total focus points. The D300s has 15 cross-type focus points out of a total of 51 focus points.

Add the D300s's metal body and weather sealing, 14 bit RAW capture, 9 auto brackets, 1/8000 shutter speed, more fps, better video, blah, blah, blah, and the D300s starts looking like a very senseable upgrade from the D90.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 2, 2010)

The D700 with full frame sensor and excellent High ISO capabilities is the camera you want. It will give you the best wide-angle coverage with the most lenses, and will also work the best for indoor sports and events with the widest array of lenses, from 35mm all the way to 300mm.


----------



## Josh220 (Jun 2, 2010)

PhotoXtra said:


> I wouldn't upgrade to D300s from a D90 as you do not get any resolution or FX benefits and really doesn't buy you much. I will take the D700 any day but there is a possiblity that a next generation of  D700 would be released in the next few months which would make the current model a bit cheaper.
> 
> For the time being I would keep my D90 and buy a prime - 35mm 1.8 DX (which needs to be disposed of later) or even a 50mm 1.8 or 1.4.



The 35mm 1.8 works on FX bodies as well. It would be a good lens to keep around and it's much sharper than the 50mm 1.8. 

+1 for D700.


----------



## Newcastle Shooter (Jun 2, 2010)

D700. Every time. 

D90>D300s----->a lot of cash for not that much extra. 

D90>D700------>a lot of cash and you wont care when you turn on that D700!


----------



## kundalini (Jun 24, 2010)

Josh220 said:


> The 35mm 1.8 works on FX bodies as well.


.... at a cost. It's a DX lens. Do you really want to sacrifice a 12MP sensor to only a 5MP image? **geesh**

D700.  :thumbsup:    Just make sure you get proper glass for it. Which means NOT a DX lens.


----------



## Josh220 (Jun 24, 2010)

kundalini said:


> Josh220 said:
> 
> 
> > The 35mm 1.8 works on FX bodies as well.
> ...



Yes, I realize that... :lmao:

Supposedly it works without the usual drop in MP from DX lenses, otherwise I wouldn't have brought up that point as it can be said about any DX lens. 

As I have said before, I am unsure how accurate this is. I have however heard it from multiple unrelated sources, so perhaps there is some truth to it.


----------



## Garbz (Jun 24, 2010)

"Works" is a very lose word. So are the examples of "FX Coverage" I have seen. Every picture has a good -3 to -5EV vignetting in the corners. That may work for some photos, but corner vignetting is a metric of quality of a lens. 

It may work, but it definitely doesn't work very well. 

But this is all really moot when the other options is a Nikkor AF 35mm f/2.0D which is designed to cover the 35mm


----------



## kundalini (Jun 24, 2010)

Josh220 said:


> ...
> Supposedly it works without the usual drop in MP from DX lenses, otherwise I wouldn't have brought up that point as it can be said about any DX lens.
> 
> As I have said before, I am unsure how accurate this is. I have however heard it from multiple unrelated sources, so perhaps there is some truth to it.


Please link your sources. I'm always interested in gaining knowledge. 

I also like to poke fun at bull$hit statements.  "Supposedly" doesn't cut the mustard, dear.


----------



## Eco (Jun 24, 2010)

Go for the 700.....or spend the money on the 300......and then upgrade to a 700....and then upgrade to a D3_........

On a side note, I found a 700 with grip on Craiglist for $2100ish (used) and fell in love with it until I found a D3x for $3000....and fell in love with it. 

Good luck!


----------



## Josh220 (Jun 24, 2010)

kundalini said:


> Josh220 said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



It would take me the same amount of time to search for them as it would for you to do it yourself. In other words, I don't do the work others are not willing to do themselves.

I could care less, I was just passing on what I have heard from the experiences of others. When the D700 gets replaced I will let you know how it works from first hand experience on a FX sensor.


----------



## Formatted (Jun 25, 2010)

I went for a D5000 to a D700.

The FX viewfinder is worth paying the extra just for that feature!


----------



## ghache (Jun 25, 2010)

buy a D3 or dont upgrade.
you will want to upgrade the d700 after a while enyway.


----------



## kundalini (Jun 25, 2010)

Josh220 said:


> It would take me the same amount of time to search for them as it would for you to do it yourself. In other words, I don't do the work others are not willing to do themselves.


I believe you brought the subject up and I only questioned its validity. I also believe that you don't want to link your sources and "do the work for others" because your statement was based on conjecture and anecdotal information rather than fact. Please prove me wrong.



Josh220 said:


> When the D700 gets replaced I will let you know how it works from first hand experience on a FX sensor.


I don't need to wait for its replacement because I have first hand experience now. A DX lens on the D700 is a cut down image. If you don't believe me, let's see what Thom Hogan says in his review of the 35mm f/1.8 lens.... 





> _FX body users should note that the lens is basically usable if you set 5:4 crop on your camera. Here there is much more vignetting, but still at acceptable levels. *The lens does not cover the full FX frame, though*_.


 





Formatted said:


> The FX viewfinder is worth paying the extra just for that feature!


Unlike the D300's 100% viewfinder, the D700 has only a 95% viewfinder. In order to cram the guts of the D3 into the D300 chasis, something had to give. It was here.


----------



## Josh220 (Jun 25, 2010)

kundalini said:


> Josh220 said:
> 
> 
> > It would take me the same amount of time to search for them as it would for you to do it yourself. In other words, I don't do the work others are not willing to do themselves.
> ...



Like I said, I am just passing on information. If you would like to check its validity, then please do so yourself. 

If all you have found thus far is that you get vignetting, then you better not use the 70-200 VR1 on a FX since it was designed to be a DX lens and has the same issues you are describing. Whether it works with vignetting or not, it seems that the 35 still performs better than other DX lenses on a FX sensor.


----------



## kundalini (Jun 25, 2010)

Josh220 said:


> Like I said, I am just passing on information. If you would like to check its validity, then please do so yourself.


Passing on erroneous information is not benefiting anyone and does a disservice to those that do not take the time to check the validity of someone's statements.  I happened to do my own research previously and I went back to verify before I commented in this thread as I have.  I also provided one source (and Thom Hogan is a damn good source on things Nikon) and additionally provided the link.  What have you done?  Oh wait... look below.




Josh220 said:


> If all you have found thus far is that you get vignetting, then you better not use the 70-200 VR1 on a FX *since it was designed to be a DX lens* and has the same issues you are describing.


 Oh really?  Perhaps you'd like to have a gander at the chart.  You might want to pay particular attention to the yellow marked text.
Nikon Zoom Lenses by Thom Hogan


Light drop off in the corners on the 70-200 is known and so is the fact of ghosts if the light source is in frame.  Everything else is the dog's bo11ucks.


----------



## Josh220 (Jun 25, 2010)

Where does the chart talk about whether the 70-200 was initially designed as a DX or FX lens?


----------



## kundalini (Jun 25, 2010)

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Green = DX consumer zoom
Red = DX pro zoom
Blue = FX consumer zoom
*Yellow = FX pro zoom*[/FONT]


Again, I'm all ears if you can link your source.  I am quite interested.


----------



## purpleorbes (Oct 25, 2015)

Any other cameras with similar capabilities for lower price that any of you know of?
Thanks


----------



## Alexr25 (Oct 26, 2015)

This thread over 5 years old!
The original respondents are in all likelihood long gone and the cameras they were talking about are very much out-date and obsolete.
If you are after some advice on getting a new camera why don't you start a fresh thread and give details of your photographic needs and budget constraints.


----------



## purpleorbes (Oct 26, 2015)

Alexr25 said:


> This thread over 5 years old!
> The original respondents are in all likelihood long gone and the cameras they were talking about are very much out-date and obsolete.
> If you are after some advice on getting a new camera why don't you start a fresh thread and give details of your photographic needs and budget constraints.



Yea, I know. I meant to post this reply on my thread not here. lol  
The D90 and D300 might be out of date but all I could hope to try and afford.


----------

