So I'm torn, upgrading to FX...

....in your application, what are you going to do with 36 megapixels?
What are you going to gain with a d4 over the d700 for the extra $3000.

Ok pretend this is what I wrote before....:).

I get a little frustrated now and then...my bad.
 
its all good. I'm not offended or anything. and I do appreciate your input.

I shoot some product photography for print usage on various scales, I have some clients that do request high MP files, although this is only occasionally, the benefits of being able to shoot at 36mp will be beneficial in those instances rather than upsizing a 12mp file. and with the versatility of the D800, I think it may be a decent competitor in the ISO vs the D700 that I'm looking for....obviously it isn't perfect, but nothing really is, it's definitely worth looking into, and I have a good rapport with my local store to get one reserved and give them the business they need.

I agree, the D4 vs D700 price difference is pretty severe. my problem is 2 fold, I'm a geek, so I like the latest and greatest, but I've also got to think of my bottom line too. and the problem is compounded with my regular job which I have alot of free time to research various things...and if I look at things objectively without my tech geek-ness, then honestly the ISO performance of the D700 would be plenty for my needs. sure a stop or 2 with the D4 would be nice, but I don't think the price justifies it.

so if the D800 ISO isn't what I'd like (it's sometimes hard to believe manufacturer's claims), then I'd probably be looking at a good used D700 providing the used market has stabilized at that point. The fact that I've even been able to consider the D4 is also a factor to me since something of that caliber hasn't ever been in my budget before. but again, looking objectively, all the upgraded lenses with a body like the D800 or D700 would provide a better gain for my situation.
 
To Fx or not :)
Since I entered the digital age, it was mostly Dx for me and for nearly 10yrs, I'd probably be amongst the few ppl who'd say that spending extra 1k on Fx isn't worth the price. However, I had an opportunity and upgraded to D700. No regrets and no looking back. The biggest difference and significance for me b/n dx and fx is use of high ISOs. As for dof, I'm sure some1 here will want to disagree with me, haven't seen any differences. In print, both images from my D700 and D300s are indistinguishable. I have a 5mp and 11mp (after cropping) printed in 16x20. The only way you'd see the difference b/n the two is if you're standing less then a foot away, holding the two side by side and know what to look for. Which also means that 12megapix is probably enough for larger prints as well. Largest I've ever printed was for a client who wanted a 46x30 - it was as sharp as the 16x20. Nonetheless, I do miss medium format film :(

I shoot some product photography for print usage on various scales, I have some clients that do request high MP files, although this is only occasionally, the benefits of being able to shoot at 36mp will be beneficial in those instances rather than upsizing a 12mp file.

Not to knock down D800, but is having all that resolution necessary? Last time Nikon loaded all that juice into the camera (d3x) they back of (d3s) and ended up producing a power house with amazing final product. I am very excited about this new toy but for now 36megapix with optimal performance, sounds to good to be true. Until the camera becomes accessible so photographers can start pushing it to its limits, I'll stick by under 20MP bodies :). I really hope that I'm wrong about this!!
 
My vote is the rumored upcoming D7S
bigthumb.gif
 
To Fx or not :)
Since I entered the digital age, it was mostly Dx for me and for nearly 10yrs, I'd probably be amongst the few ppl who'd say that spending extra 1k on Fx isn't worth the price. However, I had an opportunity and upgraded to D700. No regrets and no looking back. The biggest difference and significance for me b/n dx and fx is use of high ISOs. As for dof, I'm sure some1 here will want to disagree with me, haven't seen any differences. In print, both images from my D700 and D300s are indistinguishable. I have a 5mp and 11mp (after cropping) printed in 16x20. The only way you'd see the difference b/n the two is if you're standing less then a foot away, holding the two side by side and know what to look for. Which also means that 12megapix is probably enough for larger prints as well. Largest I've ever printed was for a client who wanted a 46x30 - it was as sharp as the 16x20. Nonetheless, I do miss medium format film :(

I shoot some product photography for print usage on various scales, I have some clients that do request high MP files, although this is only occasionally, the benefits of being able to shoot at 36mp will be beneficial in those instances rather than upsizing a 12mp file.

Not to knock down D800, but is having all that resolution necessary? Last time Nikon loaded all that juice into the camera (d3x) they back of (d3s) and ended up producing a power house with amazing final product. I am very excited about this new toy but for now 36megapix with optimal performance, sounds to good to be true. Until the camera becomes accessible so photographers can start pushing it to its limits, I'll stick by under 20MP bodies :). I really hope that I'm wrong about this!!

yeah, I shot film for ~10 years or so but had to sell my equipment in the early 2002ish time before digital really was too refined, so I've been getting back into it with digital the last few years, the printing ability of film is great, but really the continual cost of film and processing and such is just too much, last event I shot I took ~1200 images, film cost would have been astronomical cosidering I shoot similar events multiple times per year, sometimes with more images...I totally understand that 36mp is excessive, but if it really does hold up to the ISO of the D700 like nikon says, then the added Mp would be useful to me, since what I really need is both a speed camera and a studio camera, but if the D800 is a happy center with high MP and decent ISO like nikon is saying, with a down to earth cost, then it will fill a niche that I unfortunately am in. I agree that it does sound too good to be true, and without needing to put any money down on it, I'll still be able to try before I buy if that is the case.

rememer that when the D3x came out a big reason it wasn't so widely accepted was it's crazy MSRP of $8k in a time that top of the line DSLRs were like around the high $4k's. the ISO also wasn't up to par with the D3 or D3s, but that was also the first generation of processors, in the first generaton of FX sensors. so I'm hoping that they've made alot of progress with that kind of thing...

I suppose time will tell, if I try it and it sucks, I'll for sure let you know, maybe with some sample images, but I'm hoping it doesnt because if it does live up to Nikon's claims, it'll be seriously bad-ass
 
Right now i would seriously consider a used d3, their prices have plumeted--and now cost just a few hundred more then a used d700. In a few years when u upgrade again the d3 will be worth a lot more then the d700.
 
To Fx or not :)
Since I entered the digital age, it was mostly Dx for me and for nearly 10yrs, I'd probably be amongst the few ppl who'd say that spending extra 1k on Fx isn't worth the price. However, I had an opportunity and upgraded to D700. No regrets and no looking back. The biggest difference and significance for me b/n dx and fx is use of high ISOs. As for dof, I'm sure some1 here will want to disagree with me, haven't seen any differences. In print, both images from my D700 and D300s are indistinguishable. I have a 5mp and 11mp (after cropping) printed in 16x20. The only way you'd see the difference b/n the two is if you're standing less then a foot away, holding the two side by side and know what to look for. Which also means that 12megapix is probably enough for larger prints as well. Largest I've ever printed was for a client who wanted a 46x30 - it was as sharp as the 16x20. Nonetheless, I do miss medium format film :(

I shoot some product photography for print usage on various scales, I have some clients that do request high MP files, although this is only occasionally, the benefits of being able to shoot at 36mp will be beneficial in those instances rather than upsizing a 12mp file.

Not to knock down D800, but is having all that resolution necessary? Last time Nikon loaded all that juice into the camera (d3x) they back of (d3s) and ended up producing a power house with amazing final product. I am very excited about this new toy but for now 36megapix with optimal performance, sounds to good to be true. Until the camera becomes accessible so photographers can start pushing it to its limits, I'll stick by under 20MP bodies :). I really hope that I'm wrong about this!!

yeah, I shot film for ~10 years or so but had to sell my equipment in the early 2002ish time before digital really was too refined, so I've been getting back into it with digital the last few years, the printing ability of film is great, but really the continual cost of film and processing and such is just too much, last event I shot I took ~1200 images, film cost would have been astronomical cosidering I shoot similar events multiple times per year, sometimes with more images...I totally understand that 36mp is excessive, but if it really does hold up to the ISO of the D700 like nikon says, then the added Mp would be useful to me, since what I really need is both a speed camera and a studio camera, but if the D800 is a happy center with high MP and decent ISO like nikon is saying, with a down to earth cost, then it will fill a niche that I unfortunately am in. I agree that it does sound too good to be true, and without needing to put any money down on it, I'll still be able to try before I buy if that is the case.

rememer that when the D3x came out a big reason it wasn't so widely accepted was it's crazy MSRP of $8k in a time that top of the line DSLRs were like around the high $4k's. the ISO also wasn't up to par with the D3 or D3s, but that was also the first generation of processors, in the first generaton of FX sensors. so I'm hoping that they've made alot of progress with that kind of thing...

I suppose time will tell, if I try it and it sucks, I'll for sure let you know, maybe with some sample images, but I'm hoping it doesnt because if it does live up to Nikon's claims, it'll be seriously bad-ass

WHEN you get it, PLEASE keep us updated :)
Just spoke with a buddy of mine, he pre-ordered his.
 
oh yeah for sure. I'll let you know what I think, good or bad...
 
Bossy said:
I'd get the D4, then use the lenses you have when you can, rent on the rare ones that you'll need something different, and save up for the other ones.

Good idea :) borrow lenses . Com is great for fast & affordable rentals anywhere in the US :)
 
Looks like your decision has been a roller coaster ride :) ..... Hope u figure it out! I feel your pain! I pre- ordered a d4and reserved it through NPS ..... I was tempted by the d800 announcement but after shooting with the d3 as long as I have I don't think I could stand not having all of my controls where I want them :( Saving about 3 grand would be sweet though!!!! Then I could afford the Perspective Control lens I have been wanting for my commercial work.
 
yeah it has. heh...I'll get something, no worries...let us know how you like the D4 once yours arrives.
 
So, some interesting new developments here (you ready for this 2wheelphoto? heh :lol: )...but in a good way...I've been looking around, and I have a friend who as it turns out is able to get me hooked up with a really nice D3s, its got about 30k actuations but the thing looks like it was just out of the box. and he's going to hook me up for it pretty cheap in exchange for a few things he needs help with...in fact I'll most likely still be able to get the D800 for my studio and large MP work...which is great! best of both worlds....

I also got the glass I need, I picked up both the 24-70 2.8G ED (it's an unused one, but I got it on the used market locally, it was just a complete stroke of luck that it showed up when it did, so I saved a good amount on it, but since I didn't buy it from a nikon distributor I don't have the warranty, oh well) , and a nikon refurb 70-200 2.8G VR2 ED too...the 70-200 is being shipped, so I don't have it yet, but I will shortly. I'll probably end up getting a 1.7 TC too, but perhaps not for a little while

so I'm stoked...the next show I'm shooting is at the beginning of march so it'll be fun, new upgraded gear usually is...
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top