Upgrading to an FX body

[Dillard]

I'm a kid so I'm poor and can't afford much ha

better hang tight and just upgrade your glass then

 

[RRRoger]

If I were you, I would upgrade to a D5100 and some good used FullFrame glass like:
17-35, 28-70, and AF-S 80-200 Nikkors.

Then when a used D700 drops to half of what it is now, you will be ready for a second body.

 

[robolepa]

I'm jumping on the "totally agree" bandwagon here as well. A relatively inexpensive way to find out for yourself is to rent a lens for a week or so. I had a D80 and just a couple of the kit lenses, so I decided to rent at 70-200 f/2.8 from Lensrentals.com. I was absolutely amazed at the shots. Just be warned though - that lens is worse than an addiction to meth. Just one week with it and you'll crave it forever. ;-) But the people at Lensrentals are amazing to deal with btw.

 

[PictureBox]

Why a d700? D7000 makes it obsolete...right?

Nikon D700 vs D7000 you can find reviews like this all day.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Why a d700? D7000 makes it obsolete...right?

Nikon D700 vs D7000 you can find reviews like this all day.

I went D7000 to D700. Night and day difference. ISO, full frame, build quality............ Don't always believe the review hype.

The very first thing I noticed was when I was wanting a head shot at 200mm I didn't have to back up a football field so depth of field attributes sold me within seconds LoL

 

[GlassSlinger]

I'm jumping on the "totally agree" bandwagon here as well. A relatively inexpensive way to find out for yourself is to rent a lens for a week or so. I had a D80 and just a couple of the kit lenses, so I decided to rent at 70-200 f/2.8 from Lensrentals.com. I was absolutely amazed at the shots. Just be warned though - that lens is worse than an addiction to meth. Just one week with it and you'll crave it forever. ;-) But the people at Lensrentals are amazing to deal with btw.

It is so true! And this also holds true for camera bodies as well. My first experience with this was a former photo student of mine renting a Nikon D3 to do prom with. He let me use it to shoot our play and other end of the year events. Up to that point, I didn't understand why anyone would pay $6000 for a camera body. But those two days of using that camera and the Nikkor lens he also rented, made me a believer, and as you said, craving it forever.

I'm looking to upgrade when the dust settles after the D800 and D4 are released.

 

[Tee]

Why a d700? D7000 makes it obsolete...right?

Nikon D700 vs D7000 you can find reviews like this all day.

IMHO, the video addition is what pushes the D7000 above in that review. If you look at the advantages of the D700 - that right there is the meat of a good camera. I had a good chuckle that the D7000 has a better lens selection. How many people are going to buy 169 lenses? The trinity and a good prime is all most need aside from genre specific shooters.

I don't know how else to explain it. Someone else that is better at wording can. You just have to hold one, shoot with one to realize the D700 is better. That's not to knock the D7000 by any means. It's a solid camera. It's just not...a D700.

 

[djacobox372]

I expect to see the D700 prices dropping now that the D4 is on it's way out. $1500 would be a good price point to look for in the future. Right now they're selling for around $2000 used, which is only $200 less then I paid for mine over two years ago--now way can that be a good deal.

 

[Tee]

I expect to see the D700 prices dropping now that the D4 is on it's way out. $1500 would be a good price point to look for in the future. Right now they're selling for around $2000 used, which is only $200 less then I paid for mine over two years ago--now way can that be a good deal.

See, I was thinking the opposite. The D4 has video. I don't think the price will drop until a comparative upgrade camera arrives that does not have video. Or at the very least the price will stay the same for a year. The D4 costs a kidney. The D700 fills a role in the FX spectrum for those who don't want video.

 

[MarkCSmith]

for what you upgrade you camera? are you profesional photographer? if yes, yup you must have a FX camera,

Why must a professional photographer have an FX camera? It's that kind of unsubstantiated thinking that causes people to upgrade camera bodies expecting a huge difference in their image quality.

Upgrade your lenses first before plunking down for a full-frame camera, good glass will last you forever, camera bodies come and go. Or until you can really come up with good reasons as to why you want to upgrade.

 

[Kerbouchard]

for what you upgrade you camera? are you profesional photographer? if yes, yup you must have a FX camera,

Why must a professional photographer have an FX camera? It's that kind of unsubstantiated thinking that causes people to upgrade camera bodies expecting a huge difference in their image quality.

Upgrade your lenses first before plunking down for a full-frame camera, good glass will last you forever, camera bodies come and go. Or until you can really come up with good reasons as to why you want to upgrade.

FWIW, in the Nikon line up, there is a huge difference in the FX and DX line. Focusing ability is near the top, and ISO performance isn't very far behind. No, you don't need an FX camera to be a pro, but there is a huge difference between the two line ups.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

for what you upgrade you camera? are you profesional photographer? if yes, yup you must have a FX camera,

Why must a professional photographer have an FX camera? It's that kind of unsubstantiated thinking that causes people to upgrade camera bodies expecting a huge difference in their image quality.

Upgrade your lenses first before plunking down for a full-frame camera, good glass will last you forever, camera bodies come and go. Or until you can really come up with good reasons as to why you want to upgrade.

Wow @ at this opinion.

 

[MarkCSmith]

FWIW, in the Nikon line up, there is a huge difference in the FX and DX line. Focusing ability is near the top, and ISO performance isn't very far behind. No, you don't need an FX camera to be a pro, but there is a huge difference between the two line ups.

Agreed. I never said there wasn't a difference, there is a big difference. But if you can't articulate or work out the difference it will make in your work, you should save your money until you can. Because you'll likely be disappointed after plunking down for a D700/800.

Wow @ at this opinion.

Ok? So you've never seen the endless amounts of people talking about how they want a full-frame camera because they want to go pro? And being rendered silent when they're asked what for?

 

[Vtec44]

Ok? So you've never seen the endless amounts of people talking about how they want a full-frame camera because they want to go pro? And being rendered silent when they're asked what for?

Non-image quality related reasons: higher shutter reliability, metal frame, weather sealing are just a few

 

[ph0enix]

I would love to upgrade to FX one day but I told myself that I'm not going to until I feel like I deserve an FX camera. It means that my skills need to improve (a lot) first. I'm currently shooting with a D90 and I definitely don't feel like the equipment is holding me back. But that's me. With that being said, I don't think there is a specific point in time when one should upgrade to a full frame body. For most people it's about wanting it more than needing it. If you have the $$$ then, by all means, go for it.