Ok as a follow on from a recent post about upgrading my Nikon D90 kit (which I have been shooting for 3 years now) and having thought a lot more about what I want to get out of my photography I am starting to swing towards FX and the D700.
I currently have the following glass;
Tamron 17-50 f2.8
Tamron 90mm f 2.8 macro
Nikon 18-105mm
Nikkor 50mm f1.8 D
Nikkor 70-300 VR
Grip, manfrotto tripod with ball head and gear head.
I find most of my shooting is close up with the 17-50 and in natural light. My primary interest is landscapes and protraits (indoor and street) with some interest in macro coming along.
Having looked online at images I can't believe the sharpness achieved on images taken withthe D700. I know it is the glass that does it but the tones, DOF and low light quality is what seals it for me.
My initial tought had been get a wide angle lens (tokina 11-16mm) and SB-700 for the D90 and upgrade the body with the D300S replacement but looking at images with my 17-50 or 50mm they are no where near as sharp as what I see with the D700. I'm not sure if the 17-50 is a dud or am i missing something here?
My thoughts now are initially get a wide angle prime, 24mm, and maybe an 85mm with the D700 and sell off the D90, 17-50 and 18-105mm. Continue to use the 50mm and the 70-300 as I currently shoot very little with it and keep the 90mm for the bit of macro that I am just starting to try out.
I am not sure whether I need something wider than the 24 for landscapes or possibly the 24-70 in the future.
Is it a big gamble to move to this set up and use primes initially or is it the right move?
The only downsides I see with moving to FX are cost and extra weight. There are no D700 in local stores so I cannot gauge the weight thing but I never take the grip of my D90 as it feels better to hold
Any advice is welcome about which way to go as I hope I am thinking about things right and not just suffering FX lust!!.
I currently have the following glass;
Tamron 17-50 f2.8
Tamron 90mm f 2.8 macro
Nikon 18-105mm
Nikkor 50mm f1.8 D
Nikkor 70-300 VR
Grip, manfrotto tripod with ball head and gear head.
I find most of my shooting is close up with the 17-50 and in natural light. My primary interest is landscapes and protraits (indoor and street) with some interest in macro coming along.
Having looked online at images I can't believe the sharpness achieved on images taken withthe D700. I know it is the glass that does it but the tones, DOF and low light quality is what seals it for me.
My initial tought had been get a wide angle lens (tokina 11-16mm) and SB-700 for the D90 and upgrade the body with the D300S replacement but looking at images with my 17-50 or 50mm they are no where near as sharp as what I see with the D700. I'm not sure if the 17-50 is a dud or am i missing something here?
My thoughts now are initially get a wide angle prime, 24mm, and maybe an 85mm with the D700 and sell off the D90, 17-50 and 18-105mm. Continue to use the 50mm and the 70-300 as I currently shoot very little with it and keep the 90mm for the bit of macro that I am just starting to try out.
I am not sure whether I need something wider than the 24 for landscapes or possibly the 24-70 in the future.
Is it a big gamble to move to this set up and use primes initially or is it the right move?
The only downsides I see with moving to FX are cost and extra weight. There are no D700 in local stores so I cannot gauge the weight thing but I never take the grip of my D90 as it feels better to hold
Any advice is welcome about which way to go as I hope I am thinking about things right and not just suffering FX lust!!.
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/33/33439-7bb5d8a4a88131e09c082764dcb77a40.jpg?1734163468)
