# Upgrading to an FX body



## hanna95mead (Dec 25, 2011)

I have a D5000, which I've had for about a year. I would like to upgrade to a FX body. I was thinking maybe selling the D5000 and put that money, along with saved up money for buying the D700. Is this worth it? When should one upgrade to a FX body? Thanks.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Dec 25, 2011)

Dont stretch you budget on a body unless you have money to buy nice lenses too.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Dec 25, 2011)

Before the tsunami, I would have said yes, the D700 is definitely worth it, but the prices went all wonky and still haven't really recovered.  

I hate to be one of _those_ guys, since I've been making fun of _those_ guys for about two years now, but at this point, I would probably hold off on picking up a new or used D700 until the D4 or D800 are released.  That release should have a stabilizing effect on the D700 price.

What lenses do you currently have?


----------



## Derrel (Dec 25, 2011)

The best time to buy a new Nikon body is when it is first released. You'll probably be able to use it for four years before it is replaced by another body in the same class. Nikon has been releasing its high-end bodies on roughly a four year schedule. If you want to save some money, look for a good deal on a used D700. Pre-Christmas often is a period with some good deals on gear, as is the first two weeks of April (just prior to tax day).


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 25, 2011)

Personally, I'd wait to see what happens with the impending D4/D400/D800 releases do.  So far, none of them tickle my fancy, but if they sell like hotcakes, I may be able to pick up a D700 dirt cheap.


----------



## cnutco (Dec 25, 2011)

What glass do you have now with the D5000?


----------



## hanna95mead (Dec 28, 2011)

thanks for the input.
And for those wanting to know what lenses I have:
18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR AF-S DX
55-200mm f/4-5.6G AF-S DX (came with kit also)
50mm 1.8 G

I had gotten the 85mm 1.8 AF D, but I hadn't realized at how much of a disadvantage it would be without having the auto focusing, so I'm returning it.
I'm a kid so I'm poor and can't afford much ha


----------



## tyler_h (Dec 28, 2011)

hanna95mead said:


> thanks for the input.
> And for those wanting to know what lenses I have:
> 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR AF-S DX
> 55-200mm f/4-5.6G AF-S DX (came with kit also)
> ...



The suggestion with that list would be to invest in better lenses first.

Do you know particularly what you like to shoot, or what focal lengths you tend to use etc? From there can look at better lenses then once you have those look at upgrading your body. Lenses (along with lighting equipment depending on what you shoot (hard to light a landscape with strobes...)) will make a greater difference to your shots.


----------



## hanna95mead (Dec 28, 2011)

I like to shoot people and portraits. I'd also like to get into fashion. 
With fashion, I'm not sure which longer focal lengths would be best.


----------



## DorkSterr (Dec 28, 2011)

By the time your done saving up the D800 will probably be officially announced. Probably.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 28, 2011)

hanna95mead said:


> ...........And for those wanting to know what lenses I have:
> 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR AF-S DX
> 55-200mm f/4-5.6G AF-S DX (came with kit also)
> 50mm 1.8 G.........



Two of those three are DX lenses.  While they will work on an FX body, you'll need to shoot in DX mode with them.  As suggested, you'd be better off investing in better glass instead.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Dec 28, 2011)

I bought two of Nikon's FX lenses and then went to a D700.  That body is NIGHT and DAY over my D7000, D5000, and D80.  I only have the D80 now as a backup body, and am loving that cam for more reasons than just the obvious such as pic ISO and build quality.


----------



## wolfdale13 (Dec 29, 2011)

for what you upgrade you camera? are you profesional photographer? if yes, yup you must have a FX camera, but if not,i think you just need good lenses for your D5000. I have D3000 and don't think to upgrade to higer series because i am just hobbies, but think about good lenses


----------



## Tee (Dec 29, 2011)

hanna95mead said:


> thanks for the input.
> And for those wanting to know what lenses I have:
> 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR AF-S DX
> 55-200mm f/4-5.6G AF-S DX (came with kit also)
> ...



If you have the intent of upgrading to FX soon then I would hang onto the 85 1.8D.  It's a dandy of a lens.  Like 2wheel stated, I would buy some good glass that you can use on your current body and then upgrade.  Since you stated you weren't Daddy Warbucks keep in mind going FX can pack a sucker punch to the wallet.


----------



## iNNo (Dec 30, 2011)

Derrel said:


> The best time to buy a new Nikon body is when it is first released. You'll probably be able to use it for four years before it is replaced by another body in the same class. Nikon has been releasing its high-end bodies on roughly a four year schedule. If you want to save some money, look for a good deal on a used D700. Pre-Christmas often is a period with some good deals on gear, as is the first two weeks of April (just prior to tax day).



Totally agree.


----------



## Dillard (Dec 31, 2011)

hanna95mead said:


> I'm a kid so I'm poor and can't afford much ha



better hang tight and just upgrade your glass then


----------



## RRRoger (Jan 2, 2012)

If I were you, I would upgrade to a D5100 and some good used FullFrame glass like:
17-35, 28-70, and AF-S 80-200 Nikkors.

Then when a used D700 drops to half of what it is now, you will be ready for a second body.


----------



## robolepa (Jan 3, 2012)

I'm jumping on the "totally agree" bandwagon here as well.  A relatively inexpensive way to find out for yourself is to rent a lens for a week or so.  I had a D80 and just a couple of the kit lenses, so I decided to rent at 70-200 f/2.8 from Lensrentals.com.  I was absolutely amazed at the shots.  Just be warned though - that lens is worse than an addiction to meth.  Just one week with it and you'll crave it forever.  ;-)  But the people at Lensrentals are amazing to deal with btw.


----------



## PictureBox (Jan 4, 2012)

Why a d700? D7000 makes it obsolete...right?

Nikon D700 vs D7000 you can find reviews like this all day.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jan 4, 2012)

PictureBox said:


> Why a d700? D7000 makes it obsolete...right?
> 
> Nikon D700 vs D7000 you can find reviews like this all day.



I went D7000 to D700. Night and day difference. ISO, full frame, build quality............     Don't always believe the review hype. 

The very first thing I noticed was when I was wanting a head shot at 200mm I didn't have to back up a football field so depth of field attributes sold me within seconds LoL


----------



## GlassSlinger (Jan 7, 2012)

robolepa said:


> I'm jumping on the "totally agree" bandwagon here as well.  A relatively inexpensive way to find out for yourself is to rent a lens for a week or so.  I had a D80 and just a couple of the kit lenses, so I decided to rent at 70-200 f/2.8 from Lensrentals.com.  I was absolutely amazed at the shots.  Just be warned though - that lens is worse than an addiction to meth.  Just one week with it and you'll crave it forever.  ;-)  But the people at Lensrentals are amazing to deal with btw.



It is so true!  And this also holds true for camera bodies as well.  My  first experience with this was a former photo student of mine renting a  Nikon D3 to do prom with.  He let me use it to shoot our play and other  end of the year events.  Up to that point, I didn't understand why anyone  would pay $6000 for a camera body.  But those two days of using that  camera and the Nikkor lens he also rented, made me a believer, and as  you said, craving it forever.  

I'm looking to upgrade when the dust settles after the D800 and D4 are released.


----------



## Tee (Jan 7, 2012)

PictureBox said:


> Why a d700? D7000 makes it obsolete...right?
> 
> Nikon D700 vs D7000 you can find reviews like this all day.



IMHO, the video addition is what pushes the D7000 above in that review.  If you look at the advantages of the D700 - that right there is the meat of a good camera.  I had a good chuckle that the D7000 has a better lens selection.  How many people are going to buy 169 lenses?  The trinity and a good prime is all most need aside from genre specific shooters.  

I don't know how else to explain it.  Someone else that is better at wording can.  You just have to hold one, shoot with one to realize the D700 is better.  That's not to knock the D7000 by any means.  It's a solid camera.  It's just not...a D700.


----------



## djacobox372 (Jan 8, 2012)

I expect to see the D700 prices dropping now that the D4 is on it's way out.  $1500 would be a good price point to look for in the future.  Right now they're selling for around $2000 used, which is only $200 less then I paid for mine over two years ago--now way can that be a good deal.


----------



## Tee (Jan 8, 2012)

djacobox372 said:
			
		

> I expect to see the D700 prices dropping now that the D4 is on it's way out.  $1500 would be a good price point to look for in the future.  Right now they're selling for around $2000 used, which is only $200 less then I paid for mine over two years ago--now way can that be a good deal.



See, I was thinking the opposite. The D4 has video. I don't think the price will drop until a comparative upgrade camera arrives that does not have video. Or at the very least the price will stay the same for a year. The D4 costs a kidney. The D700 fills a role in the FX spectrum for those who don't want video.


----------



## MarkCSmith (Jan 8, 2012)

wolfdale13 said:


> for what you upgrade you camera? are you profesional photographer? if yes, yup you must have a FX camera,



Why *must* a professional photographer have an FX camera? It's that kind of unsubstantiated thinking that causes people to upgrade camera bodies expecting a huge difference in their image quality. 

Upgrade your lenses first before plunking down for a full-frame camera, good glass will last you forever, camera bodies come and go. Or until you can really come up with good reasons as to why you want to upgrade.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jan 8, 2012)

MarkCSmith said:


> wolfdale13 said:
> 
> 
> > for what you upgrade you camera? are you profesional photographer? if yes, yup you must have a FX camera,
> ...



FWIW, in the Nikon line up, there _is_ a huge difference in the FX and DX line.  Focusing ability is near the top, and ISO performance isn't very far behind.  No, you don't need an FX camera to be a pro, but there is a huge difference between the two line ups.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jan 8, 2012)

MarkCSmith said:


> wolfdale13 said:
> 
> 
> > for what you upgrade you camera? are you profesional photographer? if yes, yup you must have a FX camera,
> ...



Wow @ at this opinion.


----------



## MarkCSmith (Jan 8, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> FWIW, in the Nikon line up, there _is_ a huge difference in the FX and DX line. Focusing ability is near the top, and ISO performance isn't very far behind. No, you don't need an FX camera to be a pro, but there is a huge difference between the two line ups.



Agreed. I never said there wasn't a difference, there is a big difference. But if you can't articulate or work out the difference it will make in your work, you should save your money until you can. Because you'll likely be disappointed after plunking down for a D700/800. 



2WheelPhoto said:


> Wow @ at this opinion.



Ok? So you've never seen the endless amounts of people talking about how they want a full-frame camera because they want to go pro? And being rendered silent when they're asked what for?


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 9, 2012)

MarkCSmith said:


> Ok? So you've never seen the endless amounts of people talking about how they want a full-frame camera because they want to go pro? And being rendered silent when they're asked what for?



Non-image quality related reasons: higher shutter reliability, metal frame, weather sealing are just a few


----------



## ph0enix (Jan 9, 2012)

I would love to upgrade to FX one day but I told myself that I'm not going to until I feel like I deserve an FX camera.  It means that my skills need to improve (a lot) first.  I'm currently shooting with a D90 and I definitely don't feel like the equipment is holding me back.  But that's me.  With that being said, I don't think there is a specific point in time when one should upgrade to a full frame body.  For most people it's about wanting it more than needing it.  If you have the $$$ then, by all means, go for it.


----------



## RRRoger (Jan 9, 2012)

I only see 5 reasons for you to switch from DX to FX:
1. You came from Film camera and cannot get used to DX
2. You shoot mostly (Landscapes and Portraits) wide.
3. You want/need higher ISO performance.
4. You want/need features that are in the latest & greatest "Pro" body.
5. You need the weather sealing and durability of a "Pro" body.


----------



## Patrice (Jan 9, 2012)

RRRoger said:


> I only see 5 reasons for you to switch from DX to FX:
> 1. You came from Film camera and cannot get used to DX
> 2. You shoot mostly (Landscapes and Portraits) wide.
> 3. You want/need higher ISO performance.
> ...





These can be fairly compelling reasons.


----------



## iNNo (Jan 13, 2012)

Derrel said:


> The best time to buy a new Nikon body is when it is first released. You'll probably be able to use it for four years before it is replaced by another body in the same class. Nikon has been releasing its high-end bodies on roughly a four year schedule. If you want to save some money, look for a good deal on a used D700. Pre-Christmas often is a period with some good deals on gear, as is the first two weeks of April (just prior to tax day).



Quoted for agreement.


----------



## manaheim (Jan 14, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> Dont stretch you budget on a body unless you have money to buy nice lenses too.



I don't agree with this... except when it comes to someone with DX lenses.  I went through the same thing... bought three FX lenses and now am waiting for my new FX camera to arrive.

It's a steep climb.


----------



## djacobox372 (Jan 18, 2012)

Another often overlooked reason:

1)You're a portrait shooter and want a more narrow DOF.


----------



## Vinata (Jan 18, 2012)

owesome


----------



## greybeard (Jan 22, 2012)

hanna95mead said:


> I have a D5000, which I've had for about a year. I would like to upgrade to a FX body. I was thinking maybe selling the D5000 and put that money, along with saved up money for buying the D700. Is this worth it? When should one upgrade to a FX body? Thanks.



When should one upgrade to a FX body?  

Why do you feel or think you need the FX format over the DX?  Is it because of something you think your pictures are lacking? Is it because you have become bored with your present rig?  Is it because of something you read on this or another forum.  There is nothing wrong with any of these reasons as long as you can afford it.


----------



## jriepe (Jan 23, 2012)

As far as DX versus FF I honestly believe that most times it is a matter of want more than need.  Some motorists whose needs are being filled by a Honda Civic may lust for a Cadillac Escalade.  I could easily afford an FF camera with quality lenses but since photography is a hobby for me and I'm mostly interested in macro I don't feel a real need for an FF body. Would there be a benefit I'm not aware of when shooting macro if I had a D700 instead of my D7000?  If there is a benefit would the cost difference be justified?  I believe it is human nature for people to lust after things they cannot afford believing their life would be so much better by owning those things. 

For those who own FF bodies please don't take offense because I do believe many photographers buy an FF body based on need.  But I can't help but believe that many move up to FF based on "want" without being able to state where their DX is lacking.  Also if money is not an issue go for it.  But if I was in the position where I had to sacrifice and pinch pennies to purchase an FF body when my DX is serving my purpose I would have to think long and hard before doing so.

Jerry


----------



## manaheim (Jan 23, 2012)

jriepe said:
			
		

> As far as DX versus FF I honestly believe that most times it is a matter of want more than need.  Some motorists whose needs are being filled by a Honda Civic may lust for a Cadillac Escalade.  I could easily afford an FF camera with quality lenses but since photography is a hobby for me and I'm mostly interested in macro I don't feel a real need for an FF body. Would there be a benefit I'm not aware of when shooting macro if I had a D700 instead of my D7000?  If there is a benefit would the cost difference be justified?  I believe it is human nature for people to lust after things they cannot afford believing their life would be so much better by owning those things.
> 
> For those who own FF bodies please don't take offense because I do believe many photographers buy an FF body based on need.  But I can't help but believe that many move up to FF based on "want" without being able to state where their DX is lacking.  Also if money is not an issue go for it.  But if I was in the position where I had to sacrifice and pinch pennies to purchase an FF body when my DX is serving my purpose I would have to think long and hard before doing so.
> 
> Jerry



Likely true though there is also an image quality difference that one may not "need" but may want.  Though honestly I know many who would not truly see the difference.


----------



## jriepe (Jan 24, 2012)

Likely true though there is also an image quality difference that one may not "need" but may want. Though honestly I know many who would not truly see the difference.[/QUOTE]

Manaheim,

I won't dispute this statement because I'm sure it's true.  As far as ones not being able to see the difference that's the category I fall into because when I view an image I have a tendency to overlook imperfections that others notice immediately.  I like sharp, detailed images but I'm not nit picky and my D7000 produces images that I am perfectly fine with.  As far as image quality I'm also happy with the ones my D80's are kicking out.  That is after PP of course with any of the three camera.

Jerry


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jan 24, 2012)

You guys talk yourselves into believing the pro cams and the pro-sumer D700 compared to croppers is only a "subtle" difference


----------



## jake337 (Jan 24, 2012)

RRRoger said:


> I only see 5 reasons for you to switch from DX to FX:
> 1. You came from Film camera and cannot get used to DX
> 2. You shoot mostly (Landscapes and Portraits) wide.
> 3. You want/need higher ISO performance.
> ...



You forgot to add one

#6 It produces files that your clients expect.


If file size/sensor size is irrelevant then why do most big time fashion/magazine shooters use hassys and the likes??


----------



## greybeard (Jan 24, 2012)

jake337 said:


> RRRoger said:
> 
> 
> > I only see 5 reasons for you to switch from DX to FX:
> ...



Because it is what they have developed their techniques with.  Most of them have moved from 2 1/4 film to 2 1/4 digital.  Same lenses etc. etc.


----------



## manaheim (Jan 25, 2012)

jake337 said:
			
		

> You forgot to add one
> 
> #6 It produces files that your clients expect.
> 
> If file size/sensor size is irrelevant then why do most big time fashion/magazine shooters use hassys and the likes??



This is a very silly statement and question.


----------



## Balmiesgirl (Jan 28, 2012)

hanna95mead said:
			
		

> I have a D5000, which I've had for about a year. I would like to upgrade to a FX body. I was thinking maybe selling the D5000 and put that money, along with saved up money for buying the D700. Is this worth it? When should one upgrade to a FX body? Thanks.



Upgrading to fx is great.... But make sure you realize that dx lenses don't work for a fx camera.... It could add considerable cost to your upgrade!!!! I think the smartest upgrades are in the glass.... An amazing lens can serve you well for many years. Put an inferior quality lens on a d3x and you still wont have the quality... But put a pro lens on a lower grade camera and it will amaze you with the visible difference!!!!! Camera bodies tend to come and go quickly because of changing technology. Just my humble opinion  and personal experience.


----------



## cnutco (Jan 28, 2012)

I upgraded to a full frame for the low light capability.  Shooting sports in high school gyms needs a body that is able to shoot in low light and I also side shoot weddings and sometimes that seems like I am in a cave.


----------



## bhop (Jan 28, 2012)

I don't think all pros want to use fx cameras.. sports photographers, wildlife photographers, can get a longer reach with dx... but I think if I were a pro fashion photographer, for instance, i'd make the switch.


----------



## greybeard (Jan 28, 2012)

MarkCSmith said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > FWIW, in the Nikon line up, there _is_ a huge difference in the FX and DX line. Focusing ability is near the top, and ISO performance isn't very far behind. No, you don't need an FX camera to be a pro, but there is a huge difference between the two line ups.
> ...


I'm using a DX body now with the 18-55 kit lens.  It's ok but I grew up and developed my technique with a 35mm and bigger format camera.  I will eventually go FX simply because it is the same size format as my old 35 and the lenses have the same DoF.  I am perfectly happy with the image quality of the D5100 and will really miss the fold out screen as I find it extremely useful for low level close to the floor work.   But, I've got 3 DX lenses that don't AF with the D5100 so I might just as well bight the bullet and go with a DX body when I get the funds and those are the reasons I'm looking to go FF.


----------



## ceejec (Jan 31, 2012)

Get a 17-55 2.8, although its heavy, its meant for your style of shooting


----------



## RRRoger (Jan 31, 2012)

ceejec said:


> Get a 17-55 2.8, although its heavy, its meant for your style of shooting QUOTE]
> 
> Why should anyone get a DX lens if they are planning on upgrading their body to FX?


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jan 31, 2012)

Interesting thread


----------



## ceejec (Jan 31, 2012)

My point is to stick with DX. The OP stated that he's a kid and he's poor (so am I, student with a part time job).. So I don't see much use of spending $2000+ on body alone plus the money to spend for decent glass.

What i meant was to just stick with d5000 and get a decent lens like the 17-55 or it's alternatives (sigma/tamron) and stick with that until he feels that he can make the leap to FX. Although I'm just stating my opinion, the OP is free to do whatever he wants, but thats just for me. Deal with what I have for now, grow mature and knowledgable, and expand. 

Personally, I had this same dilemma a few weeks ago. I shoot with D90, I wanted to get a D700 SO bad, but i had to justify spending almost half my yearly income in one go.. or go with what I have, spend a little on a great lens and gain experience, while at the same time saving up enough cash in case I outgrow the D90. 

To the OP: The only person that can tell you when to switch to FX is yourself. If you feel confident with your knowledge, experience, wallet, go ahead and jump to FX, I'm sure you'll love it! 

Best of luck


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 31, 2012)

Don't skim on nice glasses.  Buy it once and you can use them on FF in the future, whenever you decide to upgrade.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jan 31, 2012)

Why not just use a nice film camera like an F100? There's you're full frame + other huge benefits? Or is that cheap/easy?


----------



## bhop (Jan 31, 2012)

Sw1tchFX said:


> Why not just use a nice film camera like an F100? There's you're full frame + other huge benefits? Or is that cheap/easy?



That's one reason I got my F100.. I was already shooting film anyway so it made sense, only cost around $2500 less than a D700.  That can buy a lot of film.


----------



## RRRoger (Feb 1, 2012)

bhop said:


> Sw1tchFX said:
> 
> 
> > Why not just use a nice film camera like an F100? There's you're full frame + other huge benefits? Or is that cheap/easy?
> ...


----------



## bhop (Feb 1, 2012)

RRRoger said:


> The cost of film and processing has gone up. I could never afford to go back now that I take thousands of pictures in a day.
> And, I hated the dark room.
> And I hated waiting for others to process my pictures just to throw most of them away.
> I can now even review and edit my pictures in camera if I want.
> Yes, I am hooked on the instant gratification of digital.



True on the costs, which is why I develop my own (color and b&w) and scan myself.  Personally, I wouldn't want to take thousands of pictures per day.. too much work to go through them after.  That happened to me when I took my d300 to the zoo a couple weeks ago..still editing those pics.


----------



## RRRoger (Feb 1, 2012)

bhop said:


> QUOTE]
> 
> True on the costs, which is why I develop my own (color and b&w) and scan myself.  Personally, I wouldn't want to take thousands of pictures per day.. too much work to go through them after.  That happened to me when I took my d300 to the zoo a couple weeks ago..still editing those pics. QUOTE
> 
> ...


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 1, 2012)

Sw1tchFX said:


> Why not just use a nice film camera like an F100? There's you're full frame + other huge benefits? Or is that cheap/easy?



Digital/Film is another debate with its own unique set of parameters, but good to stir a thread


----------



## RRRoger (Feb 1, 2012)

MarkCSmith said:


> wolfdale13 said:
> 
> 
> > for what you upgrade you camera? are you profesional photographer? if yes, yup you must have a FX camera,
> ...


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 1, 2012)

RRRoger said:


> MarkCSmith said:
> 
> 
> > wolfdale13 said:
> ...


----------



## jriepe (Feb 1, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> RRRoger said:
> 
> 
> > MarkCSmith said:
> ...


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 1, 2012)

I wasn't comparing to a DX body, was just stating many INSIST on using the very best, second best won't do. No ill will intended. But my D80 compared to my D700 is a butter knife vs. a surgical knife LoL


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Feb 1, 2012)

Hmm.... Too bad.


----------



## nickzou (Feb 1, 2012)

Depends what DX bodies you are comparing. I will agree the D700 craps all over the D80. But comparing the the D7000 to the D700, the gap narrows. While I will say I prefer the D700 overall, going back to my D7000 after two weeks of FX-bliss wasn't all that bad. Things I don't like going back to, tiny DX-body grips, what I consider a pitiful AF system, and button-placement. On the D7000 the ISO, QUAL, and WB, buttons are overlaid on top of the back LCD screen buttons and it is a pain in the ass compared to the D700's version where they sit on top of the mode dial, great design! While shooting a fight, I LOVED that the D700's AF system, 90% of the time it was perfect and fast (though not flawless, it still tracked once in a while), and the grip just feels right.

Things I didn't like, I thought my 50 1.4 D was my perfect lens, the bokeh looks nice, its sharp as all hell and nice and compact. Most of that is still true on the D700 but I noticed that after I had uploaded the images onto the computer how ugly the edges were, which was not a problem on my D7000. And I knew this would be an issue, I know the differences between DX and FX but I just didn't internalize it so I was kinda shocked at the colour fringing. Almost makes me want to mount medium format lenses on the D700 just to compensate. Also the focal length was not what I was used to. I was used to the 50 being more like a 75, which was close enough to an 85 to make it a great portrait lens. The 50 on FX, not quite as great. But that's easily remedied with a thousand bucks. I didn't care for the "big bright" viewfinder everyone kept telling me about, I didn't really notice it. And in my opinion the noise performance on the D700 is WAYYY overstated. As far as I can tell it's only about half a stop better than my D7000. ISO 100-800 is virtually indistinguishable, its at 1600 that the D7000 actually really starts to show the effects of noise on image detail and dynamic range. The D700 was noticeably better and at 3200 the gap just continues to widen. However, comparing images shot at 1600 on the D7000 and shots at 3200 on the D700, the cleaner images are still the D7000 at 1600 so I'm guessing 3200 on the D700 is somewhere like... ISO 2400 on the D7000. It's still a noticeable difference, just not the black-magicery I built up in my head. And that for me is the difference between comparing the D80 and the D700. When I had the D80 I was constantly frustrated with the ISO performance. Personally I didn't think it was much better than my old Rebel XT. So when I made the jump to the D7000, I was like_ wwhhhhaaooooo what witchcraft is this?!_ Going from the D7000 to the D700, my reaction was not as profound.

Sadly I had to give the camera back to my photography prof. I might try her D3S next.  At this point I'm still kinda on the fence, I do want to go FX, don't have money nor the desire for the D-single digit line. Even the D700 is slightly big for my tastes. But I LOVE LOVE LOVE its AF. I want to see what the D800 is, it is rumoured to be smaller than the D700 which is a huge incentive.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 1, 2012)

nickzou said:


> Depends what DX bodies you are comparing. I will agree the D700 craps all over the D80. But comparing the the D7000 to the D700, the gap narrows. While I will say I prefer the D700 overall, going back to my D7000 after two weeks of FX-bliss wasn't all that bad. Things I don't like going back to, tiny DX-body grips, what I consider a pitiful AF system, and button-placement. On the D7000 the ISO, QUAL, and WB, buttons are overlaid on top of the back LCD screen buttons and it is a pain in the ass compared to the D700's version where they sit on top of the mode dial, great design! While shooting a fight, I LOVED that the D700's AF system, 90% of the time it was perfect and fast (though not flawless, it still tracked once in a while), and the grip just feels right.



Just the difference in focus speed and looking through the viewfinder and the knobs/layout caused me to sell my D7000 immediately, and I really haven't missed anything about it.  Not that the camera isn't any good, its just a huge gap for me and I didn't see me using it again.

Yeah I may jump on the D800 or D700S or whatever omes around too if its really all that =)


----------



## Balmiesgirl (Feb 4, 2012)

Your equipment doesn't make you a pro! Producing consistent high quality work does!!!! Behaving in a professional manner, being responsible ( liability insurance), dependable and delivering the advertised product in a timely manner.... Are all indications of a pro. It's when it's your business not a hobby!
That said, having the correct equipment or tools to do the job makes it easier!!!! In these days of digital most hobbyists don't even make prints larger than a 4x6 ...if they do at all!  They would gain very little by having a larger sensor. As a professional I make 24x36 prints on a regular basis. With prints that size a full size/fx sensor DOES make a difference!


----------



## DaveO (Feb 4, 2012)

greybeard said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > RRRoger said:
> ...



      If you look at the specs of these digital 2 1/4 cameras, the sensors are much less than 6cm in size. More like 45mm or so. Besides that, they are $ 20,000 or more except for the Pentax D645 which is around $ 10,000.
     The Pentax or Nikon D3x might be a better deal for them, less money.

DaveO


----------



## DaveO (Feb 4, 2012)

greybeard said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > RRRoger said:
> ...


<br><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 

Double post, sorry.
  DaveO


----------

