Upgrading from D90 to D300 or D700. Help!

[elliment18]

Hey, i've been doing a bunch of research on these two cameras and I'll do my best to fill you in with everything I know and what I'll be doing.

First, these are the two cameras im looking at:
D300s
D700

I own a D90, Nikon 80-200 2.8, Nikon 18-200, and a Tokina 11-16 2.8, and a sb-600 with lightsphere.

I will be shooting as photo editor for the college newspaper and may possibly be shooting for the city newspaper/webpage later this next year. As such, I will be shooting in a large variety of lighting conditions and focal length extremes. I will be shooting sports from day/night football, ice hockey, indoor basketball and volleyball, swim meets and track and field. I will also be shooting events, these will be low light events. Aside from the paper, I do plan on shooting some weddings and senior pictures.

Now, my dilemma goes as follows for either body purchase:

D300s: I will keep my 80-200 and possibly my 11-16 and use the remaining funds to purchase a Nikon 17-55 2.8.

D700: I will keep my 80-200 and sell everything else for a tamron 28-75 2.8 and possibly a 50mm 1.8.

My funding is very limited between those trades.
Now, should I go with the D300s knowing that I will not need super results for print/webpage and learn to use flash at weddings/portraits. Thus allowing me to use the camera/lens combo in serious weather conditions (rain/humidity). I enjoy the 300mm equivalent however, I find the 80-200 is far too close for indoor sports, will the nikon 17-55 keep up?

Or should I get the D700 so that I can shoot in any lighting condition however giving up my ability to fully utilize the weatherproofing features. Though I can continue to use my rain bag as I have been. I would love to use my 80-200 indoors and do think I could sacrifice the long end during soccer and football games and wait for the perfect shots. Besides, is a crop from a d700 better anyway? bigger pixels and all?

I may plan on selling prints this year if I find they turn out better than last years.
Thanks

 

[Dominantly]

The D700 would be an easy choice for me.

 

[Moe]

Definitely a close call, but you stated you'll be doing some low light stuff. The D700 will be far superior in this setting.

 

[Muusers]

Just out of personal interest, have you sold your D90 already?

 

[KmH]

+47 on the D700 for the high ISO capabilites. The D700 is also weather sealed like the D300s.

You have noted you will lose the 1.5x crop factor the D90 apparently adds to the focal length of your 80-200 (and any other lens) and you will find the 80-200 short on reach for field sports as you are used to it providing a FOV equivelent to a 120-300 mm lens.

 

[Live_free]

The D700, it's also weather sealed.

 

[Garbz]

If you truly intend to upgrade the glass you like say you would then the D700 is the choice to make.

The D700 is never a choice if your primary lens will be DX or worse yet that nasty 18-200.

 

[PhotoXtra]

I wouldn't upgrade to D300s from a D90 as you do not get any resolution or FX benefits and really doesn't buy you much. I will take the D700 any day but there is a possiblity that a next generation of D700 would be released in the next few months which would make the current model a bit cheaper.

For the time being I would keep my D90 and buy a prime - 35mm 1.8 DX (which needs to be disposed of later) or even a 50mm 1.8 or 1.4.

 

[KmH]

I wouldn't upgrade to D300s from a D90 as you do not get any resolution or FX benefits and really doesn't buy you much.

The D300s has a ton of upgraded features compared to a D90, the most notable of which is a much better AF module. In fact the D300s has the DX half of the AF module that is in the top-of-the-line D3's

The D90 only has 1 cross-type focus point, the middle one, out of 11 total focus points. The D300s has 15 cross-type focus points out of a total of 51 focus points.

Add the D300s's metal body and weather sealing, 14 bit RAW capture, 9 auto brackets, 1/8000 shutter speed, more fps, better video, blah, blah, blah, and the D300s starts looking like a very senseable upgrade from the D90.

 

[Derrel]

The D700 with full frame sensor and excellent High ISO capabilities is the camera you want. It will give you the best wide-angle coverage with the most lenses, and will also work the best for indoor sports and events with the widest array of lenses, from 35mm all the way to 300mm.

 

[Josh220]

I wouldn't upgrade to D300s from a D90 as you do not get any resolution or FX benefits and really doesn't buy you much. I will take the D700 any day but there is a possiblity that a next generation of D700 would be released in the next few months which would make the current model a bit cheaper.

For the time being I would keep my D90 and buy a prime - 35mm 1.8 DX (which needs to be disposed of later) or even a 50mm 1.8 or 1.4.

The 35mm 1.8 works on FX bodies as well. It would be a good lens to keep around and it's much sharper than the 50mm 1.8.

+1 for D700.

 

[Newcastle Shooter]

D700. Every time.

D90>D300s----->a lot of cash for not that much extra.

D90>D700------>a lot of cash and you wont care when you turn on that D700!

 

[kundalini]

The 35mm 1.8 works on FX bodies as well.

.... at a cost. It's a DX lens. Do you really want to sacrifice a 12MP sensor to only a 5MP image? **geesh**

D700. :thumbsup: Just make sure you get proper glass for it. Which means NOT a DX lens.

 

[Josh220]

The 35mm 1.8 works on FX bodies as well.

.... at a cost. It's a DX lens. Do you really want to sacrifice a 12MP sensor to only a 5MP image? **geesh**

D700. :thumbsup: Just make sure you get proper glass for it. Which means NOT a DX lens.

Yes, I realize that... :lmao:

Supposedly it works without the usual drop in MP from DX lenses, otherwise I wouldn't have brought up that point as it can be said about any DX lens.

As I have said before, I am unsure how accurate this is. I have however heard it from multiple unrelated sources, so perhaps there is some truth to it.

 

[Garbz]

"Works" is a very lose word. So are the examples of "FX Coverage" I have seen. Every picture has a good -3 to -5EV vignetting in the corners. That may work for some photos, but corner vignetting is a metric of quality of a lens.

It may work, but it definitely doesn't work very well.

But this is all really moot when the other options is a Nikkor AF 35mm f/2.0D which is designed to cover the 35mm