Looking to upgrade. D7000, D700 or wait? Unsure what step makes the most sense.

[dhogan]

I'm a passionate amateur who is transitioning into the pro field. I have started shooting some paying gigs and I'm looking to join a commercial studio as a junior photographer (hoping to slowly learn the trade in depth and move my way up as my skills and knowledge increase). I currently own a D5000 which I purchased a year and a half ago for a great price on the floor model. I took a lot of time researching options after 6 months of using the camera and decided that quality glass was a better investment than a new body. So over the last year I have purchased Tamron 70-300 3.5-5.6 (kind of my first early stumble but still useful and didn't cost too much but wish I had saved my money as I hardly use) Nikkor 35mm 1.8 AF-S G DX, 50mm 1.8 AF-S G, 85mm 1.8 AF-S G. I love the primes and feel they have helped me improve my photography with a maximum return on investment. I'll have these lenses for years.
Now that I'm involved in paying gigs in different situations I'm feeling the D5000 isn't quite performing at the level I'd like for myself and paying clients. Specifically I'd like a 95-100% viewfinder, better auto focus, better lowlight ISO perfomance and the LCD on the D5000 is horrible for seeing what you've actually shot. Also it wouldn't hurt to have some weather sealing and more durability. My budget is $1500 So I was thinking of getting the D7000 and using that as I continue to improve and then move to whatever pro body suits me best in perhaps another year and a half or two years (I'm sure it'll be something like the D900xstt21FF or something just as silly by that time). But....With the apparent D600 on the horizon it muddies the waters. Do I wait a little longer and see if the D600 is basically a D7000 FX camera? Do I get the D700 now as it's a great camera and will serve me well for years, even though it's likely to be out megapixel-ed by every camera released from now on, yet still be more bang for the buck in the next two years despite pushing my budget by $500? Or do I get the D7000 now as it's within my price range, I have a local shop with a great deal and it will probably make me a happy camper with it's upgrade in every regard compared to my D5000? I guess I'm thinking that with new Nikon releases it seems as though the D700 is likely to be phased out and I'm wondering if it's worth the extra cash now to get such a solid performing beast before it's discontinued or if the D7000 is likely to hold me over for a couple years while I continue to take paying jobs and possibly work for a pro studio? I know there isn't one correct answer just looking from some feedback from those more experienced out there that might have a nugget of knowledge to pass along.
I currently shoot a lot of city street photography, landscape, people, events, architecture and I'm looking to move into commercial studio/location ad work (hopefully if my applications are accepted). Sorry for the long winded post but I wanted to make sure I provided solid info for anyone that was considering responding. As I said, I'm aware there is no "right" answer just looking for feedback from those with more experience in this world. Thanks.

 

[Solarflare]

Shouldnt a studio kind of be able to help you with equipment, if it employs you ?

And yes, the D700 is quite old now (July 2008) and the D7000 is no longer young, too (Sep 2010). Looks like the D600 will replace the D7000 soon.

FX vs DX: to me, the main advantage of FX is that theres a lot more lenses for that one, and lenses that cost 2000$ and more no longer look like a riddiculous idea.

 

[Rockadile]

Wait and see if the D400 or D600 appears. Price for older models will be lower when new models release which can help.

Are you keeping your D5000? A pro should have at least two camera bodies so your not SOL on a paying gig.

 

[dhogan]

Yeah, I plan to keep the D500 as back up and use whichever camera I purchase new as my main body. I was leaning towards waiting but was curious if anyone thought D7000 or D700 (mainly as it might be discontinued) was worth getting now. Thanks for the feedback

 

[o hey tyler]

FX vs DX: to me, the main advantage of FX is that theres a lot more lenses for that one, and lenses that cost 2000$ and more no longer look like a riddiculous idea.

Uhhhh... No.

There's technically more lenses for DX. As you can mount FX lenses on a DX camera, and you can mount DX lenses on a DX camera. On a FX body, you're really limiting yourself if you decide to use DX glass.

 

[fjrabon]

Looks like the D600 will replace the D7000 soon.

You keep just making stuff up.

NOBODY that I've seen but you has said, implied, or even thought that the D600 is going to 'replace' the D7000. How does a camera that doesn't even use the same category of lenses 'replace' another model anyway? If anything, the D3200 is closer to a replacement to the D7000 than the D600 would be?

 

[fjrabon]

Yeah, I plan to keep the D500 as back up and use whichever camera I purchase new as my main body. I was leaning towards waiting but was curious if anyone thought D7000 or D700 (mainly as it might be discontinued) was worth getting now. Thanks for the feedback

Put the D7000 v. D700 issue aside for the moment.

Do you want to shoot full frame or crop frame? Figure that out, and then pick your body. What format you shoot is more important than what particular body you shoot.

 

[KmH]

Learn when it's appropriate to make paragraphs and make white space. Large solid blocks of text are difficult to read, which is why many won't bother to read your OP, unless you edit it.

Get in the habit of making sure you always project a professional impression. Commercial photography requires a lot of written client contact and often the task of generating the written contact content is left to junior staff.

Most commercial studios large enough to have multiple photographers will expect you to have a fairly extensive commercial photography portfolio, and previous commercial photography experience. You can also expect lots of competition for any available openings.

Good luck with the pursuit of your goals. :thumbup:

 

[dhogan]

Thanks for the feedback. What you say makes sense. I guess I have more to add to the practice list.

 

[nmasters]

Just FYI, I saw a great deal today in the buy and sell section of this forum: a used D7000, gripped, with a tamron 17-55 2.8, and remote shutter for $1400. I would post a link but I'm on my phone right now. Good luck with your commercial photography endeavor!

 

[Solarflare]

There's technically more lenses for DX.

Well ... technically, yes.

BUT FX lenses on DX are

(a) bigger
(b) heavier
(c) more expensive

than a corresponding DX lens, and

(d) you dont really use their potential
(e) some dont even make much sense anymore on a 1.5 crop factor. Like the AF 135mm f/2 DC lens, which is supposed to be a portrait lens, only on DX you have to keep a hell of a lot distance to your subject.

Thats why I am not really thrilled by the idea to use FX lenses on my DX camera.

(Not that I plan to get any more lenses for my camera. I kind of feel complete atm)


P.s.: Oh, for completeness - yes, if an FX lens is kind of bad at the borders and good in the middle, then it may be worth it, because DX uses less of the borders.

P.p.s.: Interesting, if you edit your postings, the forum forgets your signature.

 

[o hey tyler]

Well ... technically, yes.

BUT FX lenses on DX are

(a) bigger
(b) heavier
(c) more expensive

than a corresponding DX lens, and

(d) you dont really use their potential
(e) some dont even make much sense anymore on a 1.5 crop factor. Like the AF 135mm f/2 DC lens, which is supposed to be a portrait lens, only on DX you have to keep a hell of a lot distance to your subject.

Thats why I am not really thrilled by the idea to use FX lenses on my DX camera.

(Not that I plan to get any more lenses for my camera. I kind of feel complete atm)

P.s.: Oh, for completeness - yes, if an FX lens is kind of bad at the borders and good in the middle, then it may be worth it, because DX uses less of the borders.

P.p.s.: Interesting, if you edit your postings, the forum forgets your signature.

I would point out the things you said that were wrong, but I am on my phone. Maybe someone else will do the honors.

 

[AaronLLockhart]

I would point out the things you said that were wrong, but I am on my phone. Maybe someone else will do the honors.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it looks like his explanation is that FX lenses are inferior to DX lenses...

 

[o hey tyler]

Correct me if I am wrong, but it looks like his explanation is that FX lenses are inferior to DX lenses...

That, and he forgot to mention a few distinct differences, like the fact that fx lenses are generally of a higher build quality, and that when you use an fx lens on a dx body you are only using the center part of the image area which is quite sharp.

He also didn't mention that dx lenses are made to project a smaller image circle, and can still suffer from lack of corner sharpness due to that fact.

 

[fjrabon]

(e) some dont even make much sense anymore on a 1.5 crop factor. Like the AF 135mm f/2 DC lens, which is supposed to be a portrait lens, only on DX you have to keep a hell of a lot distance to your subject.

You picked one single prime, to make some overarching point? Yes, a couple of FX primes are at awkward lengths on DX. But almost all the zooms are good, plus the common primes tend to fall right on where they just jump to the next one up. ie a 24mm FX prime is basically a 35mm prime on DX, a 35mm prime is basically a 50mm prime, a 50mm prime is basically your first portrait prime, etc etc.

You picked the one of the longest FX portrait primes, which is really the only example I can think of that's a bit awkward. And even then, 135mm f/2 is fairly useful for wildlife shooting on a DX.