Looking to upgrade, But WHAT??

Gdav36

TPF Noob!
Joined
Jul 11, 2010
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Location
Nashville,TN
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Ok, me and my d3000 have had our 16 month romance, and I do believe it's time to move up. Let me 1st give my problems, and maybe it will help with solutions.. #1 Low light limitations : I'm not a perfectionist, however at 400 and up ISO, I'm just not happy with the results. #2 Lack of AF on non AF-S lens. Yes.. i know, DUH.. right.. well.. when I purchased this camera, I didn't have the secret decoder pen to decipher all the abbreviations, and more importantly this was my 1st DSLR. ""Novice"" #3 lack of commander capabilities, may be trivial to some with remote triggers, I still desire it..

Those are just the top 3, Don't get me wrong.. I've enjoyed it very muchso, however it's noise at higher iso, is the biggest deal breaker, as i can't really go out at dusk and have the freedom I would like..

I wouldn't classify myself as a portrait, landscape, or any particular style. I do however enjoy shooting what's appealing to me. I'm not really interested in macro/micro. Video is a plus, but not a must.

Of the 3 lenses that I have, I find myself using the 55-200 70% of the time, and the 18-55 & 50mm 1.8 AF each getting their share of the 30%

** What i'm looking for is the freedom to shoot without flash or tripod (when unable) .. (obviously a 2.8) with sharp, results. I believe i'm becoming partial to the dx format, and i cannot figure out why...

So, here's the budget.. $3,400

My thoughts, D7000 + Nikkor 70-200mm 2.8 AF-S VR II / Then selling the D3000 & 55-200 of which the proceeds will be put towards an "unknown" lens to help fill out the circle of light =)

Just looking for some input.. going to hold off purchasing anything until I considered all other options.

Thanks in advance:mrgreen:
 
D7000 + Nikkor 70-200mm 2.8 AF-S VR II = YES!
 
If low-light performance means the most to you, you might want to consider a d700. Refurbs sell for around $2200.

You won't have enough left over in your budget for the 70-200mm vr2, but you might want to consider a used VR1, or perhaps even a 80-200mm afs. The later of which sells in mint condition for around $1000.

Of course the d7000 is great choice as well.
 
I think you answered your own question!

Not sure how the D7000 stacks up to the D700 for low light performance but I would think as technology marches on newer lower end cameras will have sensors that may be equivalent to older higher end cameras.

As far as lens, since you have a fairly large budget - I would go for the 70 - 200 f2.8 or the 80 - 200 f2.8. I'm not there yet but was looking at them wondering if there was a big difference in them as far as image quality and the 80-200 is a lower price which means additional money to spend on something additional! :lol:
 
I did look at the option of going FX, and it's a good option... however, giving the lenses that I currently posess, I felt I would be handicapped until i was able to purchase FX lenses. That's why I was leaning towards getting the 70-200 vrII and acquiring better glass, so if and when i decided to change formats, i would be ready to do so straight out of the box.. Does this sound logical?
 
I did look at the option of going FX, and it's a good option... however, giving the lenses that I currently posess, I felt I would be handicapped until i was able to purchase FX lenses. That's why I was leaning towards getting the 70-200 vrII and acquiring better glass, so if and when i decided to change formats, i would be ready to do so straight out of the box.. Does this sound logical?

You already have an FX lens. Your 50/1.8 is a solid sharp lens. D700 + any 70/80-200 = :drool: performance. With the budget that you have, I highly recommend a D700. Unless you really need ultra wide, which you don't seem like you do, a 35/2 is a perfect walk around lens for the D700 and it only cost around $300.
 
I think you answered your own question!

Not sure how the D7000 stacks up to the D700 for low light performance but I would think as technology marches on newer lower end cameras will have sensors that may be equivalent to older higher end cameras.

As far as lens, since you have a fairly large budget - I would go for the 70 - 200 f2.8 or the 80 - 200 f2.8. I'm not there yet but was looking at them wondering if there was a big difference in them as far as image quality and the 80-200 is a lower price which means additional money to spend on something additional! :lol:

The image quality of the older 80-200 and new 70-200mm is near identical; you will see no difference.

The major pluses of a new 70-200mm is a more modern focusing system and VR. The glass hasn't improved much, if at all. The difference, is surely something you'd need a test-chart to see.

If you want to save a lot of $$, and shoot mostly stationary subjects, the 80-200mm AF-D is a steal. Mint examples sell for only $500, and you can get a "user" example for as low as $350.

If you shoot anything that moves, wildlife/sports etc, then you'll want the af-s version.

One more thing: there's a youtube review slamming the 80-200mm af-s that is complete BS. It almost scared me away from buying one, until I looked for more reviews that all contradicted the horrible you-tube review.
 
I did look at the option of going FX, and it's a good option... however, giving the lenses that I currently posess, I felt I would be handicapped until i was able to purchase FX lenses. That's why I was leaning towards getting the 70-200 vrII and acquiring better glass, so if and when i decided to change formats, i would be ready to do so straight out of the box.. Does this sound logical?

You already have an FX lens. Your 50/1.8 is a solid sharp lens. D700 + any 70/80-200 = :drool: performance. With the budget that you have, I highly recommend a D700. Unless you really need ultra wide, which you don't seem like you do, a 35/2 is a perfect walk around lens for the D700 and it only cost around $300.

Ultra-wide options for the d700 can be expensive. I opted for a 20mm f2.8 AIS lens, which is equivelant to a 13mm on DX. It's an awesome lens, very sharp wide-open.
 
If I would go the d700 route, with its replacement speculated to be coming out next year, I am wondering how much of a price reduction the 700 will incur. I'm just wondering if I go ahead and purchase the 70-200 af-s VRII, will it make me happy enough until the 700's replacement drops the 700 down in price. I know to acquire lenses before camera, I'm just questioning the performance of the lens on the d3000. As, I do shoot children and domestic animals frequently. I see a need to opt for the afs version. Thoughts???
 
I have always found better & faster glass to stretch the usability of a camera.
I upgraded my 18-55 kit lens back on the D40 and usability and Image IQ went up quite a bit.
And still a workhorse lens on my D90.

And on the 70-200vr f2.8 AF-S can't see why not. But may seem kind of unbalanced on the smaller entry level cams. As I consider bodies replaceable every 2yrs or so. But good pro glass can last a lifetime on any body and is more of an investment.

Personally I would want to kit my lenses all in a row of what I needed then worry about camera body upgrade.
.
 
I also recommended a D700. The D7000 is a great camera, but it's still APS-C, and if low light is your game, than the D700 + any f/1.4 lens = night vision in color.
 
Not many people are gonna' be happy with a 50mm prime on an FX body...it's no longer 1975...he has aspirations for a 70-200 f/2.8 Nikkor VR lens...I think that a 50 prime will not really cut the mustard...kind of like a new Porsche with an AM radio...ONLY...or an iPod with just three songs on it...

After seeing the incredibly efficient, low-noise electronics on the D7000 and the new Pentax K 5, I am really wondering what the *next* generation of NIkon cameras is going to all users to do.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top