Another "Should I Upgrade" Thread a.k.a. Please Just Tell Me that I'm Crazy

[colnago1331]

So pretty much everything I do is landscape and cityscape photography. For better or for worse, that's my wheelhouse; that's what I enjoy. I don't do portraits. I don't do macro. I don't do lions or tigers or bears or birds. Mind you, landscape photography in Ohio is tough. There's only so many photographs one can take of farmland and trees, but for whatever reason landscape photography is where it's at for me.

So with all this in mind, I'm seriously considering getting rid of my D7K (~6100 shutter actuations), my 10-24mm dx, my 35mm dx, my 18-200mm dx, and my sb800 and getting a used D700 (~40K shutter actuations) and either the AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8d or the AF 20-35mm f/2.8D (and keeping my AF 50mm f/1.8D). Can someone please just tell me I'm crazy stupid for even considering this and that I should shut up and enjoy my D7K in all its DX glory?

Thanks.....

 

[sscarmack]

I say do it!

 

[robbins.photo]

So pretty much everything I do is landscape and cityscape photography. For better or for worse, that's my wheelhouse; that's what I enjoy. I don't do portraits. I don't do macro. I don't do lions or tigers or bears or birds. Mind you, landscape photography in Ohio is tough. There's only so many photographs one can take of farmland and trees, but for whatever reason landscape photography is where it's at for me.

So with all this in mind, I'm seriously considering getting rid of my D7K (~6100 shutter actuations), my 10-24mm dx, my 35mm dx, my 18-200mm dx, and my sb800 and getting a used D700 (~40K shutter actuations) and either the AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8d or the AF 20-35mm f/2.8D (and keeping my AF 50mm f/1.8D). Can someone please just tell me I'm crazy stupid for even considering this and that I should shut up and enjoy my D7K in all its DX glory?

Thanks.....

Well really I guess my question would be when you look at your current pictures, do you think that having them shot at a wider perspective will really improve them a great deal? Do you find that your wanting to print large enough that the D7000 you have now just doesn't produce images sufficient for the task? The D700 will give you the ability to shoot wider, as well as a higher MP sensor. It doesn't sound like the lowlight will really be a huge issue for you - though in some limited instances you might get some benefits from it.

But all in all you are looking at spending a significant amount of money for the upgrade. So really only you can decide if the improvements your likely to see are going to be worth the additional investment.

 

[jaomul]

The d700 will in theory have less resolution and less dynamic range at base iso. I say keep your d7000 in this instance

 

[TheWildSide]

Most ever I know of that gets the D700 ends up going back to the D7000. They claim that it's bigger, heavier and doesn't have as good of picture quality. I have personally only used the D7000 and I honestly love it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Derrel]

Read Thom Hogan's new review about what the NEW Nikon-made sensor in the new D3300 can do, and how it compares to the 10- and 12-megapixel sensors of yore. I would say it's foolish to go back to 12MP FF for landscape work. For other types of photography, like say where you are imaging let's just say a 30 x 20 foot area of the real world, 12 million pixels is plenty of data for high resolution. Buuuut when the area being imaged is 300 x 200 feet in actual real-world things...those pixels are spread pretty thinly indeed.

The D700 was a nice camera. It is a nice camera. It has roughly a $950 street price here as a clean, used shooter. For portraiture and news and events, sure, I'd happily use a D700 today. But I would not go out and buy a D700 and re-outfit myself with it as the cornerstone of a landscape photography set-up. I just do not see the logic behind going down in MP count, and also down in pixel density when for a lot LESS money, I could get a camera with a brand new sensor with double the MP count.

 

[coastalconn]

So pretty much everything I do is landscape and cityscape photography. For better or for worse, that's my wheelhouse; that's what I enjoy. I don't do portraits. I don't do macro. I don't do lions or tigers or bears or birds. Mind you, landscape photography in Ohio is tough. There's only so many photographs one can take of farmland and trees, but for whatever reason landscape photography is where it's at for me.

So with all this in mind, I'm seriously considering getting rid of my D7K (~6100 shutter actuations), my 10-24mm dx, my 35mm dx, my 18-200mm dx, and my sb800 and getting a used D700 (~40K shutter actuations) and either the AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8d or the AF 20-35mm f/2.8D (and keeping my AF 50mm f/1.8D). Can someone please just tell me I'm crazy stupid for even considering this and that I should shut up and enjoy my D7K in all its DX glory?

Thanks.....

Well really I guess my question would be when you look at your current pictures, do you think that having them shot at a wider perspective will really improve them a great deal? Do you find that your wanting to print large enough that the D7000 you have now just doesn't produce images sufficient for the task? The D700 will give you the ability to shoot wider, as well as a higher MP sensor. It doesn't sound like the lowlight will really be a huge issue for you - though in some limited instances you might get some benefits from it.

But all in all you are looking at spending a significant amount of money for the upgrade. So really only you can decide if the improvements your likely to see are going to be worth the additional investment.

The D700 would give him lower MP resolution and the 2 lenses he listed would give him narrower FOV... I think in your situation with controlled lower ISO and and not needing a fast body going full frame would be counter productive.. Unless you go to the d800 and a super UWA lens... unless there is something driving you nuts about the D7000 stick with what you have.... just my humble opinion..

 

[robbins.photo]

So pretty much everything I do is landscape and cityscape photography. For better or for worse, that's my wheelhouse; that's what I enjoy. I don't do portraits. I don't do macro. I don't do lions or tigers or bears or birds. Mind you, landscape photography in Ohio is tough. There's only so many photographs one can take of farmland and trees, but for whatever reason landscape photography is where it's at for me.

So with all this in mind, I'm seriously considering getting rid of my D7K (~6100 shutter actuations), my 10-24mm dx, my 35mm dx, my 18-200mm dx, and my sb800 and getting a used D700 (~40K shutter actuations) and either the AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8d or the AF 20-35mm f/2.8D (and keeping my AF 50mm f/1.8D). Can someone please just tell me I'm crazy stupid for even considering this and that I should shut up and enjoy my D7K in all its DX glory?

Thanks.....

Well really I guess my question would be when you look at your current pictures, do you think that having them shot at a wider perspective will really improve them a great deal? Do you find that your wanting to print large enough that the D7000 you have now just doesn't produce images sufficient for the task? The D700 will give you the ability to shoot wider, as well as a higher MP sensor. It doesn't sound like the lowlight will really be a huge issue for you - though in some limited instances you might get some benefits from it.

But all in all you are looking at spending a significant amount of money for the upgrade. So really only you can decide if the improvements your likely to see are going to be worth the additional investment.

The D700 would give him lower MP resolution and the 2 lenses he listed would give him narrower FOV... I think in your situation with controlled lower ISO and and not needing a fast body going full frame would be counter productive.. Unless you go to the d800 and a super UWA lens... unless there is something driving you nuts about the D7000 stick with what you have.... just my humble opinion..

For whatever reason I was thinking of the D800 when I replied.

 

[goodguy]

Get the Nikon D610

 

[astroNikon]

I was at the same crossroads you were at .. a d7000 and wanting to change.

I was looking at one of the expensive Nikon UWAs and the price of that was roughly the price of a refurb'd d600 or d700

I played with a d700 and really loved the button layout, but wished it was 16mp or higher (ala d4 or d3x). I also really wanted video (thus the d700 was kinda out) and some posts (such as I think from Derrel about the old tech). Some users use the d700 and I recall some indoor volleyball shots that were fantastic and very much for the d700.

In the end I bought a d600 refurb and glad I did.

on the WA/UWA lenses .. had a 20-35/2.8, 35-70/2.8, 80-200/2.8. I still have the 80-200 and use it *alot*. I have the 35-70 and use it some. It's not very good outdoor shooting towards the light and I'm thinking of replacing it with the 28-70/2.8 because the 24-70 is too much $$$.

I got rid of the 20-35 ... just such a short focal length and I wanted wider.
In the end I settled for the 18-35/3.5-4.5 -- but this is not as wide as your current 10-24 DX lens.

I only this past weekend gave the 18-35 a good outing .. here
https://www.flickr.com/photos/100677477@N08/sets/72157645081760985/

In short I love the 18-35. Something about it just seems better than the 20-35 .. maybe easier to handle etc. and wider. I was amazed at how close I actually was to the front end of cars ... looking to distort / elongate hoods, etc.
but you're not after distortion for landscapes which is a different animal.

I wish the d600 had the top ISO button though whereas the d600 has it in the lower left button versus d7000 I think is the 2nd one up. This was one instance where I really needed the ISO button on top as I was changing ISO all the time due to the varying cloud/rain cover.

but over all. The d700 uses a different battery than the d7000 - an issue I looked at because I kept my d7000 (the bodies don't sell for much in comparison any more).
the d700 has no video
d700 - 12mp .. if it was 16 I would have bought it
d700 native low ISO is 200 down to 100 (d600 native is 100 and goes down to 50)

at that time the d600 refurb and d700 was essentially the same price. So the basic features pushed me to the d600. now the d610 is better but more $$$


but looking at your lens ... what are you *not* getting out of your 10-24 that would get out of a 20-35 / 17-35 ?
or maybe you just want to make the jump to FF ?

 

[coastalconn]

Off topic, @Astro.. if you shoot in manual use auto-ISO and use EC to adjust to what you want.. in the other modes you can turn on easy-ISO and then the wheel changes the ISO without touching menus...

 

[bigal1000]

OK your crazy !

 

[astroNikon]

Off topic, @Astro.. if you shoot in manual use auto-ISO and use EC to adjust to what you want.. in the other modes you can turn on easy-ISO and then the wheel changes the ISO without touching menus...

sometimes I go into fully manual everything for training/understanding. This allows me to understand how ISO affects the exposure more and more and more. PLus AUTO ISO seems to love to go to the extremes if you let it, unless you set the max ISO to a low #. I had WB auto .. but I should have set it myself as that needed tweaking too. another thing to learn to get more and more ingrained in practice.

I never knew what Easy-ISO was ... so now i'll look at that for the few times I use Aperture priority (but I usually don't like the outcome).
and I never thought of using EC .. one of those features I knew was there.. I know the button quite well ... but I have never used it for anything except fiddling.

Always more to learn. :thumbup:

 

[astroNikon]

OK your crazy !

he just wants a new toy

the 10-24 is hard to beat unless you get the nikon 14-24 on a FF ...

 

[colnago1331]

OK your crazy !

he just wants a new toy

This....