Body Rental?

[SouthLand]

Hey guys -

I shoot with a D90 and a D60 back up. I am looking to make an upgrade within the next 4-5 months. One of my friends shoots with a D3X and he let me shoot with it for a day and it was very nice.

My question is I was thinking of renting a body for a week and was looking for the best price, but also the nicest gear. Any help there?

Should I even bother renting? I know my budget is between the D300 and the D700? Renting is around $300-$500/week and I feel like it's wasting money a bit. Any help would be great!

Thanks!

 

[gsgary]

In the Uk there are places that rent and if you buy the rental price is knocked off the price is it the same there ?

 

[RentalInfo]

Online rental will probably be your least expensive option. Most places have the D300 for ~$100/week, with the D700 going for ~$225 or so.

 

[KmH]

What do you shoot? The D3X is a studio camera. Nice for sure, but pretty much useless for shooting field sports at night, which is what the D3S is for.

The D300 and the D90 have the same image sensor and ISO capabilities, but the D300 has a better AF module, metal body, weather sealing, and some other features.

The D700 has much better ISO capability compared to the D90/D300, because it has a full frame image sensor (FX).
Your 2 Nikon lenses are DX which means they don't project a larger enough image circle to completely cover the FX image sensor in the D700. I'm not familiar with the 3rd party lenses you have but I am pretty sure they also project an insufficient image circle(DG and Di) for the D700.

 

[SouthLand]

What do you shoot? The D3X is a studio camera. Nice for sure, but pretty much useless for shooting field sports at night, which is what the D3S is for.

The D300 and the D90 have the same image sensor and ISO capabilities, but the D300 has a better AF module, metal body, weather sealing, and some other features.

The D700 has much better ISO capability compared to the D90/D300, because it has a full frame image sensor (FX).
Your 2 Nikon lenses are DX which means they don't project a larger enough image circle to completely cover the FX image sensor in the D700. I'm not familiar with the 3rd party lenses you have but I am pretty sure they also project an insufficient image circle(DG and Di) for the D700.

So if I am considering the D700, I need to buy lenses that project a larger image circle to cover the FX sensor?

I sounded smart right there but I have no idea what I said?

So the pictures would be cut off or the full frame capabilities would be non existent and I should just go with the D300 because of the lenses I already have?

Can you explain a little more in detail what that means? I don't shoot on Auto, so I do understand a little tech talk and some of the settings. However I am lost on this one. Thanks.

Also, what is the benefit of "full frame?"

 

[bigboi3]

Full Frame Digital is equivalent to 35mm Film camera. D90/D60 have APS-C sized sensors.

 

[KmH]

Both full frame and APS-C size sensors have the same aspect ratio as 135 format film (35mm) 3:2. But, the APS-C size sensor (15.8 x 23.6mm, D300/D90) is physically smaller than the full frame (36×24 mm, D700/D3(x)).

So yes your current lenses can't cover the entire image sensor of a D700 and would produce vignetted images to one degree or another. The D700 has a feature that automatically reduces how much of the sensor is used when a DX lens is mounted. It only uses the central 5.5 MP of the sensor.

You can always sell your current lenses and replace them with FX capable glass. Most of Nikon's AF/D lenses are FX capable and priced mid-range.

You still haven't mentioned what is is you mainly shoot, so I can't necessarly recommend either body.

 

[SouthLand]

Thanks for the help!

I mostly shoot live sports, but recently I have been dabbling in portraits.

 

[swoop_ds]

I don't think it makes sense to get the d300 if you have the d90 already. There just doesn't seem to be enough upgrades to be worth the money. Although I guess you'd sell the d60 and keep the d90. You just won't see much if any image quality benefit unless you move up to the d700, in which case you'll have the above mentioned lense issue.

I'm thinking of purchasing a d700 and some sort of lense that I can more or less leave on there. I have an 18-200 DX lense that lives on my d90 and then a 50mm and a crappy 150-300mm that could be used on both cameras.

Frankly, if I was you I don't know that I'd upgrade to d300, but the d700 is an option, if you have a plan for the lense issue. . . I don't think you'll want to use your lenses on it, even on its 5.5 Mp mode that just seems silly.

-Dave

 

[swoop_ds]

As for renting, I wouldn't unless you can put the rental cost against the purchase cost like someone mentionned

 

[Aayria]

If you can't get new glass right away, the D700 has an option you can turn on, so that it only uses the dx portion of its sensor, that way you don't get areas of black arounf the frame because of your DX lenses.

 

[KmH]

I don't think it makes sense to get the d300 if you have the d90 already. There just doesn't seem to be enough upgrades to be worth the money.
-Dave

The Nikon Multi-CAM 3500DX autofocus module; and 51 focus points (15 cross-type sensors) alone are worth the cost of a D300/D300s compared against the D90's Nikon Multi-CAM 1000 autofocus module with 11 focus points and only 1 cross-type sensor.

The AF module in the D300/D300s is the same AF module in the Top-Of-The-Line D3s and D3x.

Add the magnesium metal body, weather sealing, 12-bit lossless and 14-bit RAW capture, 9 auto brackets, PC sync cord port, 10-pin remote capability, and a bunch of other stuff and the D90 looks and performs more and more like the entry-level camera it is.

But you're right. They use essentially the same image sensor so there is little difference in image quality.