D90 or D700?

[JerryPH]

I'd like to shoot landscapes as well as weddings, fast action as well as low light stuff. I want my next camera to be one I don't have to replace any time soon. I love my D80 but would like to step up.

You want a D3, then. Besides the high ISO and low noise... slap on a DX lens on a D3 and enjoy 11FPS !

The D3 is the wedding photographer's dream camera come true. FX means WIDE landscapes. A D3 will last a professional at least 1-2 years... an amateur an easy 5 years.

Now... don't you dare ask what's your budget, you'd better be asking... what is the maximum limit on your credit card and how can you raise it?

 

[roadkill]

WOW Jerry! Thanks for the plug. I think I'll steer myself in the direction of the D3.

 

[JerryPH]

Once you see the price of a D3, you may not be thanking me... I was trying to be subtle about mentioning the high price of a D3... lol

 

[K_Pugh]

D300 and a nice 70-200 2.8 lens? Are you keeping the D80? if you're doing weddings i'd suggest you do!

 

[Alleh Lindquist]

+1 Canon...? I am also invested in Nikon but I still pre ordered the 5D Mark II.

 

[Joves]

Well if it is low light then the D700 if you cant really afford the D3 or, if you dont want to. With the price diffrence you could get some nice glass with the 700 too.

 

[mrodgers]

These 2 cameras have almost nothing in common besides being able to take pictures and have TOTALLY different audiences.

I see comments like this on different camera lines all the time. What exactly is the difference?

Does both not allow you to change aperture, shutter, ISO, go to manual mode, have the same lens mount, thus same lenses available, autofocus, manual focus, have focus lock, exposure lock, aperture priority, shutter priority, etc, etc?

I would take the D300/700 as an overall better quality of camera, but what is it that spurs the comments that they have nothing in common over "entry level" cameras besides build quality or quality of results? What is it on a more expensive and better camera that the user "wouldn't understand" as I've seen commented many times?

These comments make it seem that if I won the lottery tomorrow, and wanted to buy a new camera being new to a dSLR, I would be way over my head with a d700 even if I could afford it no matter what. Why exactly is that? AFAIK, they all have the same camera features (ignoring any auto modes the different cameras may or may not have).

I have never seen this explained. I've only seen comments that the D700 or Canon equivalent would be too much for a beginner.

 

[Joves]

If coming up from entry level then to a D300/700 and, Canon equivalents then the learning curve would be high to utilize the features. Just look at the manuals for each camera my D80s manual is like 200 pages as where my D300s is like 500. That how much more there is to using the camera.

 

[anubis404]

I would suggest the D700 if you have the money. I don't think there is going to be something in the D3 that you're dying to have that's not in the D700.

 

[mrodgers]

If coming up from entry level then to a D300/700 and, Canon equivalents then the learning curve would be high to utilize the features. Just look at the manuals for each camera my D80s manual is like 200 pages as where my D300s is like 500. That how much more there is to using the camera.

That still doesn't answer the question, what exactly is the difference? What features can it possibly be that would be such a high learning curve?

The learning curve just going from a snapshot shooter during the kid's birthdays to taking photography as a hobby shooting in manual with my Fuji superzoom was quite high as well. It's not rocket science to use a piece of equipment like a camera. Is there some sort of feature that poses your subject for perfect composition or something that is too difficult to understand with a D700 compared to an "entry level" camera?

You can read the manual of my camera all you want and never learn what the heck aperture, shutter, or ISO settings do. You do learn how to set them, but what and when to set them, there is no information. Yet, I shoot my superzoom in full manual same as someone would with a D700, by metering and setting the ISO, aperture, and shutter. Unless the D700 seeks out the photo and takes the picture for you, I still have yet to hear of any special features that would be so above my or anyone else's head who would be interested in photography that it wouldn't be a good idea to go with it starting out.

 

[zeroskillz]

I've only seen comments that the D700 or Canon equivalent would be too much for a beginner.

Yup. To much money. :mrgreen:

n all seriousness though, I'm with you on that. It may be a bit more intimidating to a beginner, but otherwise it could be mastered just as well as a D40x with a little investment in time.

 

[JerryPH]

I see comments like this on different camera lines all the time. What exactly is the difference?

Does both not allow you to change aperture, shutter, ISO, go to manual mode, have the same lens mount, thus same lenses available, autofocus, manual focus, have focus lock, exposure lock, aperture priority, shutter priority, etc, etc?

You misunderstood me. Technically the D700 is a FX vs the D90's cropped sensor. The high ISO low noise blows the D90 out of the water. The FPS (with the right battery) destroys the D90. Someone mentioned the manual, but as an example, using a knowledgeable source of information for reference, Thom Hogan's book on the D90 touches something like 500 pages for the D90, yet the D700 has well over 875 pages. If there weren't SOME differences, poor Thom would have 375 extra blank pages now, wouldn't he?

I would take the D300/700 as an overall better quality of camera, but what is it that spurs the comments that they have nothing in common over "entry level" cameras

I said totally different audiences, not that one doesn't have shutter... lol Whereas one is a good "prosumer" camera, the D700 is marketed by Nikon as a PROFESSIONAL camera. It caters more to people who need more, like the more enthusiastic, experienced amateurs and professionals. Most (but not all) professional photographers CURRENTLY could not care less about having video in their cameras. Nice to have? Sure. Would they prefer an extra 10MP instead of the HD capabilities in their camera? DEFNATELY! How about for the average consumer? Many will choose the D90 *just becuase* it can do video!.

I would not call the D700 an entry-level camera by any means and its NOT made for them either.

These comments make it seem that if I won the lottery tomorrow, and wanted to buy a new camera being new to a dSLR, I would be way over my head with a d700 even if I could afford it no matter what.

No one on this board is more against that sentiment than I am. My first dSLR was a D200 and people told me ALL THE TIME that it was too much camera for me. It was not... however, the pro end cameras are far more demanding than your D40-D90 because you have to KNOW what you are doing more than the average D40 customer knows to get the BEST out of the camera. The average D40 customer could not care less about D-lighting, the differences between front and rear sync, high-speed sync or testing for hours each little item in the entire menu. A professional would be vry interested to do exactly that. Not everyone is like me... however, I will say that my way of being is 1 out of a hundred. The vast averages don't NEED a D700 or D3, they may even do better with a lower model. Whether they can afford a D40 or a hundred D3s is not important from that point of view.

If I coudl afford a Veyron... would I be able to use it to it's potential? Not likely. Nice to have? Sure. Waste of a good car on me? Most definately. I do better with the Z06 Corvette in my driveway.

I have never seen this explained. I've only seen comments that the D700 or Canon equivalent would be too much for a beginner.

You now know my feelings about that. However, for the AVERAGE person moving up from a P&S to a D700, they would not have the knowldege, experience nor even the inclination to get 10% out of that camera that it could produce. In that sense, it is a waste of their money and time trying to. They are better off with something like a D90, that is made to hand-hold this average user through the process of giving them the best picture they can get beucase the average new user could not care less about learning precise PPing techniques to acheive ultimate results, they want that picture NOW and don't spare the ketchup.

Again, we are talking majorities and higher averages and this certainly doesn't apply to everyone... I am proof of that.

 

[JerryPH]

Yup. To much money. :mrgreen:

n all seriousness though, I'm with you on that. It may be a bit more intimidating to a beginner, but otherwise it could be mastered just as well as a D40x with a little investment in time.

Now, if that was true for EVERYONE, Nikon should just kill the entire line from D40 through the D300 immediately and make everyone buy ONLY the D700 or D3 and increase profits.

Not everyone wants to spend either the money or the months or years perfecting their photography hobby. Not everyone wants to become a master of CS4, they just want good pics with the advantages that a dSLR offers that a P&S cannot.

Sure they may all want to become Ashtin Kutchers but it ain't gonna happen (lmao!!).

 

[jbatphoto]

How much of a difference is there between the D700 and the D3 other than price?

 

[JerryPH]

Check out the detailed answer for that on Dpreview.com (I don't feel like typing in 300-400 words when that info is easily available on the net already)... however, after speaking to many people who own both, as far as final results are concerned, there are none in that area.