D700 too much of a camera for me?

[inTempus]

There is no such thing as "too much camera", however there is such thing as more camera than you need.

If cost is not an issue, how is this a problem?

 

[001fj]

anubis404 expressed exactly what I meant by him saying:

There is no such thing as "too much camera", however there is such thing as more camera than you need.

I am just wondering if I really need such an advanced camera, that’s all.

I am hesitant to buy something like the D90 or XSi because my uncle has the XTi with some pretty good lenses and accessories and he regrets buying it. He wishes he had bought something like the 50D or 5D…that’s why I don’t want to make the same decision. I’d rather spend one or two thousands extra and be happy with my equipments. Of course if I go to flickr and search for photos they only show good captures. Flickr makes even the PowerShot S3IS looks like a 10,000 camera! So it is hard to judge how good the D90 in comparison with the D700 from viewing pictures. But it is photos like this http://www.flickr.com/photos/paigekparsons/2713101698/ make me want to buy the D700.

Thank you for letting me know that FX lenses work on DX cameras…now purchasing the D300 sounds just as good an option as the D700. As you said, I can always upgrade later to a full frame camera.

I agree with tharmsen, I don’t think few ounces really make a difference.

 

[Montana]

I am with tharmsen on this. I do not see how anyone can actually have "too much" camera. You are getting more features is all. The camera still works just like every other camera out there. Heck, i shoot Canon and I could grab a 700 and be taking "decent" photos with it in half an hour. Basic photography is basic photgraphy. Better camera body does not change that at all.

I am not sure if people are being nay-sayers because they don't have a 700 or don't have the means to get a 700, but I bet if they could get one they would. The whole too much camera is just plain BS.

Keep in mind, a camera body is only a very small portion of making a great photo.

 

[Tinstafl]

I have had a d100 and a d200 and a d 40x and now a d700. It is an amazing camera and in low light it can not be beat unless it is the D3. I would go for the D700 and get some glass over time. You can use this body for 5 years or so with out issue. After that I am sure nikon will come out with a better and faster and more MP or better WB or what ever you have to have. I know I had a d200 and waited through all the upgrades to go with the D700. Thought of the d3x but decided i wanted low light more than I wanted MP. I am sure in a number of years I will get the MP but for now it works great.

 

[TUX424]

I think that a FX might be to big of a jump from what you have now.
But a D300 if price is not a big would be the way to go
But if you are more on a limited budget i would save a D90
Both of those cameras will work great with...
Tokina 11-16 2.8
24-70 2.8 (Nikon or Sigma depending on price)
70-200 2.8 (Nikon or Sigma Again Price)
BTW has anyone heard anything about Sigma's New 10-20 3.5?

 

[Ejazzle]

get the D700. Youll be much happier in the long run.

 

[001fj]

Tinstafl, that’s exactly what I think I will do: buy the D700 and then buy the lenses I need over time. I too want low light performance more than MP.

I appreciate you suggesting lenses for cameras this way I can research them and have more ideas about lenses.

Also for some reason my heart is set on the D700 (or D300) and buying things is not always a rational decision making process, after all we are humans and our emotions play a big part in that. You know, it is like cheering for a certain team even though you know they probably will lose. But I know that with either the D700 or D300 I am getting a great deal and there is no loss.

Thank you for your advice and suggestions and keep them coming.

 

[JustAnEngineer]

In the world of DSLRs, camera bodies become obsolete much more quickly than lenses do. Buying into full frame (Nikon D700 or Canon 5D Mk. II) now could save you the aggravation of having to discard DX or EF-S lenses later on. If money's not an object, why not?

 

[Hobbes]

Well I guess it depends on what you are going to use your camera for. From what I have heard full frame bodies are really good for landscapes and if I had the extra 2 grand to spend I would definitely have got 5D mk2 instead of the 40D which I have now besides you are not going to be a newbie for the rest of your life so why not get the latest and best now so you won't have to buy a better one later.

 

[JerryPH]

There is no such thing as buying too much camera. Everyone was telling me that my D200 was way over my head as a first dSLR. Well, I hit the wall with my D200 in about 6 months and moved to a D700.

That said, it is not just all about the camera body but the lenses and supporting equipment too. If you are thinking about buying a D700 and slapping on a $300 lens... the D700 is not for you. One doesn't go out and buy a Ferrari, and then slap bicycle tires on it... you will NEVER be happy with the results.

Another is your current knowledge and how fast you grow as a photographer. Someone with less than a year of experience with a high end dSLR is not going to get the most out of a D700. Heck if anything, they will be extremely frustrated... not becuase the camera is bad, but because they do not understand photography and the D700 can be quite unforgiving of mistakes.

Bottom line... if you did your homework and want the D700, feel free to get it, BUT be ready to invest 2 to 3 times in $$ amounts for lenses that you invest in the camera alone. If the thought of spending $2000 for a single lens (and then knowing that you need several more lenses on top of that), discourages you, the D700 is not your camera. If you get the D700, at least try to be worthy of it and be ready to invest a LOT of effort and time to get your skills down. I am talking tens of thousands of focused practice shots, not a couple hundred shots of the family dog, either.

A D700 is a serious toy, you *should* understand photography and the camera enough to use it properly... don't be one of those klutzes that has an expensive toy and not know how to get the best they can out of a several thousand dollar investment.

 

[Mike_E]

If you're going to be shooting smallish kids then low light capability and extra-wide angle capability (with easily obtainable lenses) are a joy to have. The D700 has both.

If you are worried about learning the camera then buy Thom Hogan's book.

If you are worried about ergonomics, Nikon is tops in class (buttons and wheels instead of menus).

If you're worried about the weight, work out and buy a god strap. Every camera in that class is going to be weighty.

Happy shooting

mike

 

[001fj]

Thank you all for your feedbacks.

Mike E, you made me laugh with "If you're worried about the weight, work out..." Thanks

 

[McQueen278]

I don't see why a FF camera is too much for a beginner as long as money isn't a concern. If you like the camera, get it. It's a lot like getting a F6 as a first camera. If you can afford it and know that you will eventually go full frame anyway, then you're actually saving money.

 

[anubis404]

If cost is not an issue, how is this a problem?

Cost is always an issue. Even if you have the money, better to splurge on lenses than on bodies.

 

[kundalini]

If you are thinking about buying a D700 and slapping on a $300 lens... the D700 is not for you.

Easy there sunshine....... I love my little $300 35mm lens.

Cost is always an issue. Even if you have the money, better to splurge on lenses than on bodies.

Your choice of lenses above tell a different story.

I appreciate you suggesting lenses for cameras this way I can research them and have more ideas about lenses.

Although I have a good range of zooms, I really am appreciating my primes more. The 35/50/85/105 primes are a good assortment. Primes are usually cheaper $$, better IQ, faster, better built, less obtrusive, lighter weight and less to go wrong.

Just for giggles, I took the 2 shots below with a D300 & D700 for your entertainment. I "slapped on my $300 lens" too, just for Jerry . The shots are straight out of the camera and only resized the jpegs to 800 pixels wide.

35mm focal length, aperture = f/4, shutter speed = 1/1.6s, ISO200. Subject to camera = 11 inches.

D300

D700

Although it looks like I focused on the nose with the D300 and the eyes on the D700, that should still give you an idea of the crop factor of DX versus FX.​

BTW, I bought into the Nikon system primarily for Nikkor glass. But, that's just my opinion.​