Age old question...GREAT GLASS or NEW BODY???

[Trever1t]

I have a D300s and it serves me well but I've always wanted an FX body.

I have enough money to buy any of Nikon's offerings OR a few really nice lenses to compliment the 70-200vr I have.
If I buy a body I will be limited on glass until I can save up again.


Should I buy some good FX glass and wait on a body or should I grab that body while I have the $ in my pocket


Suggestions welcomed!

 

[TiCoyote]

Full frame is the boom-diggity, but what can you do with it if you don't have lenses? New lenses will give you an instant upgrade in IQ. Wait until they come out with another FX body, and then buy a used D700.

 

[analog.universe]

PRIMESSSSSSS

 

[Drake]

Why chose just one? If you have the money to go with a D3x, you could also get a D700 or D3s and some really nice glass. Of course you could wait for the new D800 or D4, or whatever they will be called, they will probably have some crazy high resolution to compete with the 5D, but then again, you can always wait for something newer when it comes to electronics.

 

[MWG]

I would go with the d700 +glass route IMO

 

[KmH]

Yep, I also vote for both, great glass and a good body.

But you already have a good body that has most of the features full frame Nikon's have, except the FX image sensor. If you aren't shooting for pay I'd get the glass first because lenses (even used ones) are going up in price faster than camera bodies are.

 

[Overread]

My general advice is glass before bodies - generally speaking you get more for your cash in glass that you do for body upgrades. Whilst new bodies do expand upon things, eg higher ISOs and faster/better AF and metering - the overall biggest image quality improvements come from good lighting and good reflection of that light on the sensor - ie good lenses.

However when one is looking to change the size of the recording format I generally say its better to go for the body change as early as possible; this is because changing the size of the recording medium affects the angle of view that lenses give the user and thus affects ones shooting practice. I hold that if you're determined to move to another sensor/film size for a specific advantage then its best to shift as soon as you can so that you build your shooting practice and lens selection around that new field of view. Otherwise you can end up getting a good setup and practice with one sized recording medium and then shift - all of a sudden you've got lenses that don't work or don't work how you want then to and you've got to start again building up the collection .

 

[Trever1t]

I'm scouring the local markets for a lightly used D700. I think for me to spend the $ on a D3x is just too extravagant for a pure amateur like me. The larger sensor and better high ISO with the D700 oughta do well for me. Plus I can afford a couple new lenses

Thanks!

 

[Mike_E]

here you go, knock yourself out. Pentax | 645D Digital SLR Camera Body Kit | 17971

 

[Trever1t]

No thanks, I'll stay with Nikon

 

[djacobox372]

I would go with glass... specifically some nice primes.

The D300s is a very respectable body, if it was an older CCD sensor nikon my advice would be different.

Although you might want to stick with full-frame lenses, so when you do decide to upgrade to a D700 or D800 it's an easy transition.

 

[D-B-J]

FAST PRIMES

 

[Derrel]

I'd rather have a D3s and aging screw-drive, older-generation lenses than I would a D300s and new lenses that are anything less than absolutely TOP-GRADE, pro Nikkors. The resolution of the D3x demands the best of the new, pro-grade Nikkor lenses. The D3s has the absolute best high-ISO capabilities of any camera yet invented,and it is the body I would shoot for, not the D3x. If all you need is a high-res, 24 MP camera, you could buy a Sony A850 and three superb lenses for the price of the D3x, which makes the D3x purely a higher-end shooter's camera. The 12 megapixel, FF sensor cameras (Canon 5D, Nikon D700, Nikon D3) have about the same ISO/noise/resolution performance up to ISO 1600; above 1600, the D3s is the clear winner, with better image quality, lower noise, and just "better" I.Q. all around. The 12MP FF bodies I just listed are pretty easy on lenses, meaning they deliver high resolution even with a "modest" to "good" lens, and do not absolutely require the use of the very-best lenses.

The 12 to 12.8 MP, full-frame sensor found in the 5D classic, the D700, and the two D3s variants have proven themselves to be, currently, some of the best all-around sensors for the lenses that are actually out there on the market. If you need a Nikon D3x, you already better have three to six lenses which are currently priced at $1699 to $2499, each. Plus your big glass. Otherwise, those 24 megapixels are just going to waste.

 

[djacobox372]

I'd rather have a D3s and aging screw-drive, older-generation lenses than I would a D300s and new lenses that are anything less than absolutely TOP-GRADE, pro Nikkors. The resolution of the D3x demands the best of the new, pro-grade Nikkor lenses. The D3s has the absolute best high-ISO capabilities of any camera yet invented,and it is the body I would shoot for, not the D3x. If all you need is a high-res, 24 MP camera, you could buy a Sony A850 and three superb lenses for the price of the D3x, which makes the D3x purely a higher-end shooter's camera. The 12 megapixel, FF sensor cameras (Canon 5D, Nikon D700, Nikon D3) have about the same ISO/noise/resolution performance up to ISO 1600; above 1600, the D3s is the clear winner, with better image quality, lower noise, and just "better" I.Q. all around. The 12MP FF bodies I just listed are pretty easy on lenses, meaning they deliver high resolution even with a "modest" to "good" lens, and do not absolutely require the use of the very-best lenses.The 12 to 12.8 MP, full-frame sensor found in the 5D classic, the D700, and the two D3s variants have proven themselves to be, currently, some of the best all-around sensors for the lenses that are actually out there on the market. If you need a Nikon D3x, you already better have three to six lenses which are currently priced at $1699 to $2499, each. Plus your big glass. Otherwise, those 24 megapixels are just going to waste.

Excellent points, and I to would take a d3s over a d3x even if the price was the same. Low light performance is far more useful then a little more resolution.

 

[kzhlin]

I would typically say get GREAT glass because they are more of an investment, but I don't know what I would do without my full frame 5D Mark II right now.