Good Afternoon All...

I am brand new to the world of SLR cameras. I've always used a Nikon point and shoot (I currently own the P6000, which as point and shoots go is a really nice camera). I recently purchased a DSLR because Costco had too good of a deal on the D5000 for me to pass up. I'm obviously not a professional photographer, so figured the D5000 would serve my purposes well, for taking pictures of my 3 year old son, and photographing the interior of homes (I'm a real estate agent). After playing around with the D5000 for a couple of weeks, I was VERY impressed with how easy it was to use and how dramatically different (i.e. better) the image quality was versus a point and shoot camera. The only reason I never considered a DSLR over a point and shoot was the intimidation factor. I thought a DSLR would be impossible for me to figure out. There are obviously endless features on the D5000 that I still haven't learned, but just figuring out how to take quality images was all I really needed for now.

Here is my dilemma...I have the opportunity to return the D5000 to Costco for a full refund (they have a liberal return policy) and I'd really like to purchase the D700. I'm told that I have zero shot of getting true wide angle shots with my Nikkor 12-24mm lens using a DX body (a bit over my head, as a non-photographer), but I trust what I'm being told because I've read about it. I'm told that superb lens is almost "wasted" on any DX frame. I have the money to upgrade to the D700, but my real concern is my lack of knowledge. Is it going to be that complicated to get from the box to taking pictures? Obviously with the D5000, there is an "Auto" mode and a scene dial, which I've had fun experimenting with. I guess in my ignorance, I assumed even higher end cameras, like the D700 had these same features (obviously I was completely ignorant to the fact that this is a camera geared more toward professionals who don't need the guidance I need). Can anyone offer me any advice on the ease of use (for the non-professional photographer) of the D700? I really want to purchase the camera but don't want to purchase something that I feel like I'm not educated enough to use without reading 17 books on the topic. I will gladly read books about improving my skills. I simply want to be up and running with taking pictures, sooner rather than later. Go easy on me...this is my first post Thanks in advance for any and all advice offered.

John

John if I were you I wouldstick withthe D5000 for awhile until you master it. If you really want to move up to a Full Frame camera, do not buy any DX lenses. I assume your 12-24 is a Nikon DX lens. While this lens will work on a D700 from 18-24 mm it will look soft on the corners. The 12-24 is a wonderful lens, but it was designed to fill the frame of a DX body not an FX body. You are not "wasting your lens on a DX body. Whoever told you you can't get true wide angle shots with your 12-24 on a DX body is wrong. The 12-24 field of view on a DX camera is 18-36 mm. On a full frame camera like the D700 you would only be able to use it from 18-24 mm. In wide Angle land, we start with 35 mm and work our way daown to 24 mm. Anything below 24 mm is considered ultrawide and the lenses start to get very expensive. For example Nikon makes a 17-35 f/2.8 lens and a 14 to 24 mm lens. To go wider you would need a fisheye lens today.

As for ease of use a D700 has no special scene modes like you are used to in your point and shoot and it would be a big leap from a P&S to this camera. You would also have to make an investment in non-DX lenses for this camera and this is a costly venture, unless you purchase used lenses.

So in summary, learn to use your D5000 well, buy non DX lenses for it to build your lens kit and some time in the future move up to FX bodies if it meets your needs.

Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery

"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"

Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!

JOhn,

Welcome to Nikonians!

First off your 12-24mm Nikkor DX lens is an ultra-wide angle lens designed specifically for Nikon DX bodies such as your D5000. Who ever told you the contrary is misinformed. It is also a fine, fine lens, one of Nkon's best. I know I used one for years. There, now let's move on.

I have to agree with Bob's recommendation, moving to a more complicated camera at this point is probably premature. I own three camera bodies, the D5000 like yours (actually my wife's camera but if I behave she lets me use it on occasion), a D300 (this camera essentially has the same image sensor as the D5000), and a D700. Now here is the kicker in all this. Even up to prints made to 13x19 you will not tell the difference between the image quality of these cameras. Believe me, I print very often, and even out to bigger sizes I hardly ever consider which of these three cameras I used to take the shot, they all perform well. The differences between these cameras has more to do with durability and build, weather resistance, a few features here and there, compatibility with older Nikkor lenses, and whether you need the optical characteristics a full frame camera can provide with equivalent focal length lenses.

Enjoy the D5000, learn to use it, and gain some knowledge on the basics of photography. Don't worry about getting on the upgrade treadmill so soon. There is plenty of time to acquire the dreaded NAS (Nikon Acquisition Syndrome).

Ernesto Santos

esartprints.com Ernesto Santos Photography
Now offering fine art print services and ICC printer profiling.
Great service - at a great price!

Thanks for the feedback guys. It's most appreciated. Let me ask another question. I've noticed that I can get the D90 for a couple of hundred dollars more than the D5000. Can any of you shed any light on the differences between the D90 and D5000? I think I'm leaning toward staying with my friendly "scene dial" button for now, but am still interested in getting the most
"bang for my buck". Interesting feedback on the 12-24 lens. It's actually being delivered to my house today, so don't have all the specs at my fingertips. I just assumed with the endless rave reviews EVERYWHERE about this lens and the fact that it retails for nearly $2000.00 (more than twice what I paid for the D5000) that it would have been a lens for a full frame camera and professional photographers. I guess I assumed (wrongly) that most professional photographers would never use a DX camera and stick to the more full frame or 35mm that they've become accustomed to over the years.

John

Hi John,
\
>Thanks for the feedback guys. It's most appreciated. Let me
>ask another question. I've noticed that I can get the D90 for
>a couple of hundred dollars more than the D5000. Can any of
>you shed any light on the differences between the D90 and
>D5000? I think I'm leaning toward staying with my friendly
>"scene dial" button for now, but am still interested
>in getting the most
>"bang for my buck".

The D90 has all the functions of the D5000 with the exception of the rotating LCD. The D90 has a foucing motor built into the cmaera body that will provide AF operation with just about every Nikon F mount AF lens ever made. It also has a sub-command dial (finger wheel) and more dedicated buttons for much faster access to change camera settings on the fly. You can copare the features at the following link: http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/nikon_articles/body/chart/nikon_dslr_chart.html

>Interesting feedback on the
>12-24 lens. It's actually being delivered to my house today,
>so don't have all the specs at my fingertips. I just assumed
>with the endless rave reviews EVERYWHERE about this lens and
>the fact that it retails for nearly $2000.00 (more than twice
>what I paid for the D5000) that it would have been a lens for
>a full frame camera and professional photographers.

The street price for the Nikkor 12-24mm is $999.95. It is a DX lens and an outstanding one. I am sure you will be happy with it.


>I guess I
>assumed (wrongly) that most professional photographers would
>never use a DX camera and stick to the more full frame or 35mm
>that they've become accustomed to over the years.

Nikon was DX only aside from film bodies until November 2007 when the D3 became available.
As for what the Pro,s use; many use both DX and FX bodies. Some are FX only and I know a few full time Pro's shooting only DX bodies as well.
Good Luck and Enjoy your Nikons!

Best Regards,
Marty

John you already have acquired the NAS - there is no cure for that. The medication available has no effect on the NAS. You will take the D90 pill than will follow the D300 pill - then the expected D700. By then Nikon will have introduced a new medication most likely the D700x and will run to get it. You will say to yourself I: I am finally cured - I have the ultimate camera - 24MegaPixel at a price below 2,500$.
Surprise the NAS is still in you and you will be the first to comment on rumours of the D700XSB.

Welcome to the NAS group - get a second job - or win at the lottery. LOL

Jacques G

Hi John,

Welcome to Nikonians!

>I'm told that I have zero shot of getting true wide angle shots with my Nikkor 12-24mm lens using a DX body (a bit over my head, as a non-photographer), but I trust what I'm being told because I've read about it. I'm told that superb lens is almost "wasted" on any DX frame. I have the money to upgrade to the D700, but my real concern is my lack of knowledge. <

The Nikkor 12-24mm will provide the same FOV (Field of View) on your D5000 (DX body) as an 18-36mm lens on an FX body (D700). To get wider on you D5000 you can get the Nikkor 10-24mm ($799.95). It will provide the same FOV on a DX body as a 15-36mm lens will on an FX body. Both of the above lenses are DX and designed for DX bodies. They will vignette severely on an FX body. If you go FX (D700) and want to go wider than the above lenses will go on a DX body, you will have to buy the Nikkor 17-35mm ($1765.95) or the Nikkor 14-24mm ($1824.95) to use on the D700. They will be slightly wider on an FX body, but at a significantly higher price (more than double).

As you know, the D700 is a very different camera than the D5000 and requires much more user input to get decent results. If you feel confident using Aperture (A) priority, Shutter (S) priority, and Manual (M) exposure modes, have a basic knowledge of the relationship of shutter speed, aperture, ISO, focus mode, etc... and understand how to set up the picture controls and/or edit the images using image editing software in your computer, you might not have any problems transitioning to a D700. The D5000 Users Manual is 236 pages, the D700 Users Manual is 444 pages. Almost double.

You would be much better served by keeping the D5000 and learning how to use it in all exposure modes. Once you have mastered the D5000 in all modes you could consider an upgrade if you find that you need to.
Good Luck and Enjoy your Nikons!

Best Regards,
Marty

My mistake on the lens. I didn't purchase a 12-24mm lens. I purchased the 14-24mm f/2.8G ED lens. Does that change things? I assume that I am not going to get a true wide angle (for interior real estate shots) and that it will be a cropped image on the DX body or is that not correct?

John

Hi John,

>My mistake on the lens. I didn't purchase a 12-24mm lens. I
>purchased the 14-24mm f/2.8G ED lens. Does that change
>things? I assume that I am not going to get a true wide angle
>(for interior real estate shots) and that it will be a cropped
>image on the DX body or is that not correct?


The 14-24mm will provide an equivelant FOV on a DX body as a 21-36mm lens on an FX body. Mount the lens on your D5000 and you can visualize the FOV. Wide angle is anything 35mm or wider on an FX body. Yes you will loose some FOV by using the lens on a DX body. The 10-24mm or 12-24mm would be a better choice on a DX body if you want ultra wide.
Good Luck and Enjoy your Nikons!

Best Regards,
Marty

Uh, yeah, that is quite a difference.

The 14-24 mm is considered one of Nikon's finest lenses, period. No other zoom lens that I know of has been reported to be even better than equivalent prime (fixed) focal length lenses across its range. It is best suited for a full frame camera but I have used it on my D300 as well with no issues.

Ernesto Santos

esartprints.com Ernesto Santos Photography
Now offering fine art print services and ICC printer profiling.
Great service - at a great price!

>Uh, yeah, that is quite a difference.
>
>The 14-24 mm is considered one of Nikon's finest lenses,
>period. No other zoom lens that I know of has been reported to
>be even better than equivalent prime (fixed) focal length
>lenses across its range. It is best suited for a full frame
>camera but I have used it on my D300 as well with no issues.
>



Thanks Ernesto. I assume that when using on the D300 (which I assume is a DX camera) that you didn't get the same field of view and there was some crop factor there, due to it not being an FX?

John

Yes John that's correct. The 12-24 mm although being a fine lens in its own right does tend to get a little soft and distorted in the corners when dialed down all the way to 12 mm. The 14-24 does not exhibit this short coming. So, essentially the 12-24 has an effective range equivalent to the 14-24 when shooting indoor architectural images. For landscape work the softness and distortion I spoke of is not such a big factor. If you want a really wide lens designed for DX cameras have a look at the newer 10-24 mm Nikkor. I bought this to replace my 12-24 and I consider it to be a better performer on the really wide end.

Ernesto Santos

esartprints.com Ernesto Santos Photography
Now offering fine art print services and ICC printer profiling.
Great service - at a great price!

John,

The 14-24 on the D5000 will be 21-36mm. IMHO try the lens indoors on the D5000 first and see if it meets your needs. I think you will find that for 98% of your shooting for realestate it will be just fine.

I will throw something in the mix. High ISO for indoor shots without a flash is something the D700 has hands down over the D5000.

I agree with others about keeping the D5000 and learning it at this point.

Michael P. Meyers

http://www.artizencreations.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>John,
>
>The 14-24 on the D5000 will be 21-36mm. IMHO try the lens
>indoors on the D5000 first and see if it meets your needs. I
>think you will find that for 98% of your shooting for
>realestate it will be just fine.
>
>I will throw something in the mix. High ISO for indoor shots
>without a flash is something the D700 has hands down over the
>D5000.
>
>I agree with others about keeping the D5000 and learning it at
>this point.


Thanks Michael. Any thoughts on the D90? From what I've read, it seems like a nice upgrade over the 5000 and appears to function almost the same (at least in terms of a novice like me being able to take pictures out of the box). Any thoughts on the D90 would be very helpful if anyone has any insight.

John

The D90 is a little bit bigger camera and has a built in AF motor where as the D5000 does not. Hence the incompatibility with some older Nikkor lenses. Otherwise these two cameras perform almost identically.

Ernesto Santos

esartprints.com Ernesto Santos Photography
Now offering fine art print services and ICC printer profiling.
Great service - at a great price!

If I might be so bold as to make a suggestion. Why not return the 14 - 24 lens, purchase the 12 - 24 (which is tailored for your DX body), pocket the difference and squirrel it away as a nest egg for future Nikon acquisitions?

The 14-24 will work on your body but it is a bit of a mismatch.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Hi John

I agree with Bob, (the first one to reply). Do NOT buy any DX lenses, and do not return your 14-24 for a DX lens. It may be more than you need for now, but it is, as was pointed out by previous posters, one of the finest lenses that Nikon has ever made.

Don

>Hi John
>
>I agree with Bob, (the first one to reply). Do NOT buy any DX
>lenses, and do not return your 14-24 for a DX lens. It may be
>more than you need for now, but it is, as was pointed out by
>previous posters, one of the finest lenses that Nikon has ever
>made.
>
>Don

Hi Don...

Thanks for the feedback. Let me ask a follow up to ensure that I am clear on what you're saying. You're saying that if I choose to stick with a DX body, do not purchase DX lenses? I understand the logic that if I trade up to an FX body (which seems likely at some point in time), I will still have some great glass designed for that body. Are the FX lenses (not sure if that's even the proper designation for a lens that is compatible with the full body Nikons) compatible with the DX cameras? Any downside to using an FX lens on a DX body? Finally, just to educate myself, how do I tell which lenses are for FX versus DX? I know it's a ridiculously elementary question, but as I said, I'm not a photographer and learning more each day. Looking at the lenses on Nikon's website, I get a bit confused by which lens goes with which body. Thanks again for all the great and insightful feedback.

John

Hi John


>Thanks for the feedback. Let me ask a follow up to ensure
>that I am clear on what you're saying. You're saying that if
>I choose to stick with a DX body, do not purchase DX lenses?

I am sure that is what he is saying!
To do that would require the 14-24mm to provide a wide enough FOV for your requirements or at least wide enough to be usable for your needs.

>I understand the logic that if I trade up to an FX body (which
>seems likely at some point in time), I will still have some
>great glass designed for that body. Are the FX lenses (not
>sure if that's even the proper designation for a lens that is
>compatible with the full body Nikons) compatible with the DX
>cameras?

Yes! FX lenses are 100% compatible with DX camera bodies. The exception is AF lenses without built in AF motors will not AF when mounted on D40/D40X/D60/D3000/D5000 bodies.

>Any downside to using an FX lens on a DX body?

They tend to be larger and heavier than a DX lens of the same speed and focal length.

>Finally, just to educate myself, how do I tell which lenses
>are for FX versus DX?

Any Nikkor lens that does not have DX in its nomenclature (discription)! DX lenses were designed to be used on DX bodies as they produce a smaller image circle than non DX lenses.

>I know it's a ridiculously elementary
>question, but as I said, I'm not a photographer and learning
>more each day. Looking at the lenses on Nikon's website, I
>get a bit confused by which lens goes with which body.

No problem! We all learn by asking questions!
Good Luck and Enjoy your Nikons!

Best Regards,
Marty

Hi John

Everything that Marty has said is correct. The only thing that you have added to the mix is your comment, "if I choose to to stick with a DX body." If that were the case, then there is no downside to owning DX lenses. They are less expensive, lighter, and they work fine with DX cameras. However, you have indicated that you eventually intend to move to an FX body in which case your DX lenses will put you at a definite disadvantage since they will only work in "DX crop mode." This means that the camera will only use a small portion of the sensor to record images, thus eliminating one of the major advantages of owning an FX camera.

Since you have purchased the 14-24 lens which is an almost $2000 lens, I have to assume that "cost" is not your primary concern. If that is the case, then in answer to one of your preious questions, you may want to consider the D90 which has the advantage of being able to autofocus with a lot of the other Nikkor lenses whereas the D5000 does not. My son has a D5000, and it is a very nice camera, but he cannot use a number of my other lenses in autofocus mode. Going one step further, and also assuming that "cost" is not one of the primary catalysts, you may want to consider just purchasing the D700. You won't have the scene modes, but you can use the "Program Mode" which is very close to a "Point and Shoot" scenario. It sounds as if you intend to spend some time learning how to use your camera anyway, so you might want to just take the "big step" now. The "learning curve" is not that much different. As mentioned in an earlier post, the owner's manual is almost double the size, but you do not have to know everything about the camera or learn to use all of its features to get good results.

I know - "too much information and too many decisions," but you are definitely doing it the right way by asking all of the question and exploring all of the options. You have picked a good place to start, and I am sure that you will get many more good suggestions and advice.

Good luck.

Don

Another point - learn on the D5000 and when you become proficient, the D900 will be available.

KenL

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I'm going to offer the maverick opinion and beat against a head wind here. If photography is your passion, you want to grow with it, you like to dig in, and you are patient, then by all means get the D700.

Heck, my inexperienced family members are having a ball with my D200 and D300. You can set them up for point and shoot within reason. If you become a Nikonian member, you'll have a plethora of excellent help and advice.

The key is you. Do you want to get in deep at your own pace, or is serious photography a whim? The D700 certainly has room to keep you mentally engaged on the learning curve. You won't learn it overnight, but what are serious hobbies for?

If you have the aptitude and desire, you can get there. If you are a mechanically inclined type of person and like buttons and knobs, you will get there.

Scott Chapin
Powder Springs, GA, USA
Nikonians Team Member

Taking Scott's opinion a few steps further, people who bought 35mm film cameras years ago did not have "scene" or "program" modes, and most of them learned how to use their cameras without too much difficulty. The learning curve and your ability to obtain good results "right out of the box" should be even easier with a camera like the D700 with its advanced metering system, spectacular autofocus features and, of course, "Program Mode." You won't have to read "17 books," but you will have to read at least a few books to get the most out of your camera and photography. And, by buying the D700 now, instead of the D5000, you won't have to upgrade for a long, long time.

Here here

Scott Chapin
Powder Springs, GA, USA
Nikonians Team Member

I'm not against using the best equipment you can afford but moving up to a more expensive camera just because expectations are that you will get better results is unrealistic. The D700 is a complicated camera, no doubt. So is the D5000. All I have to do is think back at the menu structure of my old D100 and compare that to the menus in both of these cameras. It is quite overwhelming. In the old days we had to learn the basics of photography and exposure theory. If your plans are to become a proficient photographer that has not changed in my opinion. On top of that though, you must now learn how to operate a light-tight box with an on-board computer and complicated menu system and a lens attached to it.

I question whether if one chooses a D700 over a D5000 how that somehow suspends the need for a future upgrade. Like I have said both are very capable cameras with excellent IQ. These days whether one decides to upgrade or not has less to do with the capabilities of the camera than advances in tech and a lust for it.

Ernesto Santos

esartprints.com Ernesto Santos Photography
Now offering fine art print services and ICC printer profiling.
Great service - at a great price!

That's absolutely true. A decision has to be made as to whether one wants a complicated piece of equipment for the enjoyment of the challenge and potential it has.

Buying any camera at any level thinking it will automatically improve your skills and artistic talent will wind up in disappointment.

Scott Chapin
Powder Springs, GA, USA
Nikonians Team Member

Wow...what a GREAT discussion. I'm really appreciating the varying opinions. I'm not sure I've made a decision yet (I have another two months, thanks to Costco's 90 return policy). What I do know is that I've found THE SITE to come to for answers and opinions.

John

.

I think you definitely ought to get the D700 and keep the 14-24 for the following reasons:

1. I don't think that "learning the D700" is such an unsurmountable task. The "P" mode is basically an "automatic mode". You can use the D700 "out of the box" with the default settings in "P" mode.

2. Some capabilities of the D700, for example excellent auto white balance and auto iso from 200 to 6400, makes it a camera that is easier to use than alternative models. Also, the bright viewfinder esp. with a f/2.8 lens makes a big difference.

3. For interior shots, the high iso capability is a tremendous asset. You can do without a tripod and don't have to study flash photography.

4. With the D700 and the 14-24 you will have about the best photographic system available today.

5. In the future, you can further build on this equipment by adding the 24-70 (great for pictures of your 3 year old son) or some high quality fast prime lenses.

6. Using the 14-24 with a lighter camera will make the system unbalanced and may adversely affect its performance.

7. You say you are unhappy with the image quality of your P&S, therefore you should aim for the best possible equipment.

8. First class equipment does not make you a better photographer, but makes it a lot easier to get a good picture.

Tristan

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>
>3. For interior shots, the high iso capability is a tremendous
>asset. You can do without a tripod and don't have to study
>flash photography.
>
>
>
>
>


Hmmmmmm. Interesting angle I hadn't considered. So, are you saying that my SB-900 would be a paperweight because there is zero need for it with the D700? Does the D700 not even need flash in darkness?

John

In "total darkness" - like with the lens cap on - no camera can take a picture. However, the D700 is a lot better than my night vision: The attached picture was taken at 24mm, f/2.8, 1/30s, iso 6400, hand held with some noise reduction. With my bare eyes I could not see the far coastline to the left or the wave structure of the ocean in the darker areas.

Tristan

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

OK, I've been staying quiet, but I need to pitch in because the recommendations here are all over the board.

The first thing you need to do is to decide if you want a Full Format camera or a DX camera. Since you are new to dSLR photography and you want to make things as easy as possible, you will not find anything in Nikon full format as consumer friendly as a DX camera like the D5000 or the D90.

BUT -- that being said -- if you used to shoot with a non-digital SLR camera, you are already familiar with the Full Format and lens lengths, etc. Many Full Format users come to the dSLR D700 from their non-digital cameras. For them, using Full Format is a no-brainer. The D700 also is faster in limited light situations. But the lenses are much more expensive, and there is a lot of fiddling you need to do to your settings. The D700 (and higher, including the new D300s) are NOT optimized for just shooting out of the box. They are also not optimized for JPG shots, which is what most consumers shoot (in fact, a recent poll of digital camera users indicated 90% of all dSLR uses shoot only JPG). But they are also not optimized for RAW shooters either, and users of the D700, D300, and D300s should be familiar with settings for contrast, saturation, color settings, and sharpness before doing much more with their cameras first.

IF you are completely new to dSLR/SLR camera, then it makes sense to go with a DX camera and stay with a DX camera. It then makes no sense to get advise like "buy only FX lenses" which are NOT opimized for use on a DX camera. There are much better DX lenses for DX cameras than sticking FX lenses on them.

My own thinking --

If you want the next step up from the D5000, get the D90. The photo quality is better than the D300 (though probably equal to the D300s) and it has all the scene modes on the dial control (nightime, sports, etc) that you are used to on the D5000 and your P6000.

If you want the professional version of the DX (though many also use the D90) then the D300s is the next step. If you get this camera, you will be reading books and following templates to get it set up so it can shoot what you want to shoot without maximal fuss. Thom Hogan and others offer great guidebooks with setting templates so it is NOT that difficult to do.

Also -- if you stick with the DX camera, get DX lenses. They are optimized for the best image quality on DX cameras. The Nikon 17-55 2.8 dx lens is considered by many (including myself) to be one of the best Nikon lenses they make. The 35mm 1.8 is also getting great reviews. You can keep your wideangle lens and will be happy, but most DX users actually don't use NIkon lenses for wide angle -- the most popular wide angle lens for DX Nikon cameras is the Sigma 10-20mm lens which is wildly popular. If you stick with Nikon, their 12-24 DX is a great lens. Add a 70-300 VR and you will be covered for all situations.

Many users, though DON'T use Nikon lenses -- the Tamron 18-270 dx lens, for example, is terrific, and you don't really need to swap lenses at all. It's an award winner that was new last year. The Nikon equivalent (18-200VR) is very popular, but doesn't have the same range.

In general, if you stick with these formats, the general setups vis-a-vis Nikon are:

D90/D300/D300s (900 - 1600.00)
Nikon 12-24 (1000.00)
Normal 50mm or 35 mm (100-400.00)
Nikon 17-55 (1300.00)
Nikon 70-300VR (500.00)
Budget option: Nikon 18-200 VR or Tamron 18-270 VC

D700 (2400.00)
Nikon 14-24 (1800.00)
Nikon 50 mm normal (100 - 400.00)
Nikon 24-70 (1799.00)
Nikon 70-200 (2000.00)
Budget Option Tamron 28-300 VC

SO -- my suggestion -- Decide if you want DX or FX, and stick with it. Purchase appropriate lenses for that format and STICK WITH IT. Don't purchase for what others suggest you might want in the future.

Visit my photos at RonAnnArbor.Smugmug.com

Thanks for the most informative reply. It is interesting that others believe the D700 is relatively easy to get up and running with while others say just the opposite. I guess nothing is overly complex, if you completely understand it. Because I'm not a phototgrapher and know little to nothing about photography (beyond what my eyes tell me is a good picture versus a bad one), I am probably going to return my D5000 and get the D90. Most people say that the lens kit alone makes the D90 worth the extra $200.00. I have never shot with anything other than a point and shoot camera and am afraid that I'll simply never be able to get my settings correct to take the pictures that I know the D700 is capable of taking. I already know that I'm able to take reasonable pictures with my D5000 so the D90 should be a very easy transition for me.

On another note, the Tamron lens you mention only gets 3.5 stars on Amazon. While not horrible, I never quite understood the point of buying a Nikon camera only to use another manufacturer's lenses. I guess I could understand it if the other manufacturer made a better quality lens, but that doesn't seem to be the opinion of anyone. I certainly understand it from a financial standpoint (i.e. the Tamron lens is significantly cheaper than the Nikon equivalent). I must admit that I was stunned to see the price of the 17-55mm 2.8 lens you recommended. I assumed the DX lenses were relatively inexpensive, so I didn't expect to find a $1,300+ lens. It seems to be a great lens from what I've read. Thanks again for the superb feedback. I'm really getting quite the education just from reading everyone's replies here. The knowledge here is SUPERB!

John

Hi John,


>On another note, the Tamron lens you mention only gets 3.5
>stars on Amazon. While not horrible, I never quite understood
>the point of buying a Nikon camera only to use another
>manufacturer's lenses. I guess I could understand it if the
>other manufacturer made a better quality lens, but that
>doesn't seem to be the opinion of anyone.

Not entirely true! Zeiss lenses are considered to be better if not equal to the best Nikkors but they are priced the same to twice as much as the equivalent Nikkor and All of the Zeiss lenses are MF (Manual Focus) only. They are itroducing chipped lenses that will meter with Nikon bodies but still Manual Focus only.
In addition there are a few third party lenses that perform at a similar level to the equivalent Nikkor but they are priced the same or higher. The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX HSM is a good example.

>I certainly
>understand it from a financial standpoint (i.e. the Tamron
>lens is significantly cheaper than the Nikon equivalent).

That is true for the vast majority of the third party offerings.
They offer a little less performance at a much lower price point!

>I must admit that I was stunned to see the price of the 17-55mm
>2.8 lens you recommended. I assumed the DX lenses were
>relatively inexpensive, so I didn't expect to find a $1,300+
>lens. It seems to be a great lens from what I've read.

The Nikkor 17-55mm is a Pro Lens from build quality to performance!
Good Luck and Enjoy your Nikons!

Best Regards,
Marty

>OK, I've been staying quiet, but I need to pitch in because
>the recommendations here are all over the board.
>
>The first thing you need to do is to decide if you want a Full
>Format camera or a DX camera. Since you are new to dSLR
>photography and you want to make things as easy as possible,
>you will not find anything in Nikon full format as consumer
>friendly as a DX camera like the D5000 or the D90.

I disagree by the simple fact that it is not that difficult to learn ISO, Aperture, and shutter speed. Then shoot in manual. P mode on the D700 is simple point and shoot.

>BUT -- that being said -- if you used to shoot with a
>non-digital SLR camera, you are already familiar with the Full
>Format and lens lengths, etc. Many Full Format users come to
>the dSLR D700 from their non-digital cameras. For them, using
>Full Format is a no-brainer. The D700 also is faster in
>limited light situations. But the lenses are much more
>expensive, and there is a lot of fiddling you need to do to
>your settings.

I have found that I have not had to fiddle with any settings on the D700 with my pro glass. Again pretty much point and shoot.

The OP is a real estate agent. Having the ability to walk into a home push the ISO and not use a flash or use a flash for fill limiting the harsh shadows is a big advantage.

>The D700 (and higher, including the new D300s)
>are NOT optimized for just shooting out of the box. They are
>also not optimized for JPG shots, which is what most consumers
>shoot (in fact, a recent poll of digital camera users
>indicated 90% of all dSLR uses shoot only JPG). But they are
>also not optimized for RAW shooters either, and users of the
>D700, D300, and D300s should be familiar with settings for
>contrast, saturation, color settings, and sharpness before
>doing much more with their cameras first.

RAW all I can say is this.
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/pdfs/understanding_digitalrawcapture.pdf

As for not optimized for out of the box this I totally disagree with.
I to this day still shoot with factory settings and full manual and the results are nothing but stellar.

>IF you are completely new to dSLR/SLR camera, then it makes
>sense to go with a DX camera and stay with a DX camera.

Why? Why? Why?

>It then makes no sense to get advise like "buy only FX
>lenses" which are NOT opimized for use on a DX camera.
>There are much better DX lenses for DX cameras than sticking
>FX lenses on them.

If you plan to shoot wildlife the extra reach of FX glass and a DX sensor may be the only way to go. If your goals are to move to FX in the future for what ever reason then why spend the money on DX glass that will be wasted if you ever choose to upgrade to FX body.

>
>My own thinking --
>
>If you want the next step up from the D5000, get the D90. The
>photo quality is better than the D300

They all have the same sensor. How is it that the D90 gives a better RAW image than the D300.


>(though probably equal
>to the D300s) and it has all the scene modes on the dial
>control (nightime, sports, etc) that you are used to on the
>D5000 and your P6000.

Again Refer to White paper on RAW.

>If you want the professional version of the DX (though many
>also use the D90) then the D300s is the next step. If you get
>this camera, you will be reading books and following templates
>to get it set up so it can shoot what you want to shoot
>without maximal fuss. Thom Hogan and others offer great
>guidebooks with setting templates so it is NOT that difficult
>to do.
>
>Also -- if you stick with the DX camera, get DX lenses. They
>are optimized for the best image quality on DX cameras. The
>Nikon 17-55 2.8 dx lens is considered by many (including
>myself) to be one of the best Nikon lenses they make. The 35mm
>1.8 is also getting great reviews. You can keep your wideangle
>lens and will be happy, but most DX users actually don't use
>NIkon lenses for wide angle -- the most popular wide angle
>lens for DX Nikon cameras is the Sigma 10-20mm lens which is
>wildly popular. If you stick with Nikon, their 12-24 DX is a
>great lens. Add a 70-300 VR and you will be covered for all
>situations.
>
>Many users, though DON'T use Nikon lenses -- the Tamron 18-270
>dx lens, for example, is terrific, and you don't really need
>to swap lenses at all. It's an award winner that was new last
>year. The Nikon equivalent (18-200VR) is very popular, but
>doesn't have the same range.
>
>SO -- my suggestion -- Decide if you want DX or FX, and stick
>with it. Purchase appropriate lenses for that format and STICK
>WITH IT. Don't purchase for what others suggest you might want
>in the future.
>

I will leave you with this.

Write down you photography goals both short term and long term.
Then evaluate what is the best path.
The camera and lens may be a write off if you are an independent agent.

As far as glass. Zeiss may well be the best. But there is Nikkor Pro glass which is only second to Zeiss. Even that is debatable to some.

Michael P. Meyers

http://www.artizencreations.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

> They all have the same sensor. How is it that the D90 gives a better RAW image than the D300.

The D90 came out after the D300. It is true that they use the same sensor, but I believe they use different processors. At the very least the firmware is different. In tests like DXOMark the D90 performs better in some tests than even the D300s, particularly in dynamic range. Whether or not the performance differences are meaningful and noticeable is a different question. I do not think they are enough to sway the decision for a new DLSR user to purchase one camera over the other though.

Edit: The full DXOMark URL I used for the link didn't display very well by the forum software, so I changed it to a more general link.

Danny
A Nikonian in North Carolina

Danny,

Thank you for the link.

Michael P. Meyers

http://www.artizencreations.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

John, you've gotten a lot of good suggestions and opinions. The choice of what camera and lens(es) to purchase is inherently an individual one.

For camera bodies, some just want a glorified point and shoot. Many hobbyists appreciate the additional features on the intermediate models. Semi-pros and pros need more advanced features. Some people prefer DX cameras for the extra reach; others like FX for its low light capability. For some, weight is important. Megapixels can be a condsideration depending upon how much you enlarge and crop. Etc.

For lenses you get into discussions of DX versus FX, zoom versus prime, Nikkor versus third-party, and VR versus fast glass (if not both).

Ultimately what works best for you depends upon what you want to shoot, what you want to spend, and how much time and effort you are willing to dedicate to photography. There is no one right or wrong combination.

My first suggestion would be to determine if the 14-24 lens gives you sufficiently wide focal lengths for your interior real estate photos. If so, keep the lens with either the D5000 or a D90. (I'd lean towards the D90 if cost isn't your concern.) This is a great combination that you can grow into and won't be too expensive.

If you want wider focal lengths, then the choice is more difficult. The simple, and least expensive, solution is to buy the 10-24 DX lens and pair it with the D5000 or D90. The other, more expensive option, is to pair the 14-24 with a D700. The low light capability of the D700 alone might tip the scales in this direction, particularly if cost is not an issue.

I would only get a D700 if you're willing to invest some time and effort into learning basic photography principles. It's not difficult. Bryan Peterson's Understanding Exposure, along with a book on the D700 (two books), is all you need. You can use the D700 as a glorified point and shoot, but really the camera is designed to be customized by the user. If you haven't already done so, check out the D700 setting spreadsheet pinned to the top of the forum. It will give you an idea of what you can do to customize the camera. Not that you have to do so, but you'll get an idea of what is possible. Don't let lack of knowledge be a deterrent unless you know that your approach to photography won't go beyond point camera, press shutter release.

Generally in reading through the thread, my thoughts and opinions seem to be similar to Scott's and Tristan's.

For what it's worth, when I upgraded my D70 I wanted a D700. At the time a D700 was cost prohibitive considering the outlay for new lenses that would have been needed. So I got a D300 and really like it. For the cost of a new D700 I was able to get a D300, a 17-35 f/2.8 (used), and a 35-70 f/2.8 (used). At some point in the future I will buy a D700 or its successor. And when I do, I won't have to buy new lenses.

No matter what you choose, you can't go wrong.

Garrett

stuff: D300, AF-S 17-35 f/2.8, AF 35-70 f/2.8, AF-S 80-200 f/2.8, AI-S 50 f/1.8

and: D70, AF-S DX 18-70 f/3.5-4.5, AF 70-300 ED f/4-5.6

This is my Nikonians gallery.

Thanks for the reply, Garrett. As I've said, this has been a VERY informative topic for me. I learn more with each post. At this point, I have definitely decided that I'm returning the D5000 and will probably purchase the D90 along with the Nikkor 20-200mm VR lens to go along with it. I believe that I can probably find that combination in the $1500.00 range and it will probably serve most of my purposes. If the 14-24mm f/2.8 Nikkor lens doesn't work out for my real estate shots, I may opt for the Sigma 10-20mm. I realize that if and when I trade up to an FX body, these lenses simply won't work. That said, the 14-24mm I own will work beautifully, and I should be able to sell my D90 with those two lenses for a reasonable price when the time comes. From all I've read, the D90 seems like it will be FAR less of a learning curve for me than the D700. While I don't have an aversion to learning as much about photography as I can, my aspirations aren't to become a photographer as a profession. I think the D90 will allow me to get up and running a bit quicker with a bit less studying. From all I've read, it's considered a very good camera and most seem to think the D90 is well worth slight difference in cost over the D5000. The LCD screen alone seems to make it worth it. It also appears from what I've read that although the D90 isn't quite the D700 in terms of performance in low light, it is certainly a step up over the D5000 in low light, so this looks like it might be an intelligent compromise for me. I'm not sure that I'm prepared to forego my "scene dial". I think I still need that crutch at my fingertips.

John

You have begun what may be a never-ending treadmill of equipment upgrades and trade-offs.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I just wanted to take a moment and thank all who offered my advice in this thread. This thread motivated me to read as much as I good about what I'm about to get myself into

I decided to return my D5000 to Costco for the D90, which is due to arrive on Monday. After all the reading I did, I simply felt as though the D700 was going to be more camera than I was capable of handling! The D700 REALLY appealed to me from the low light capability I read about it. It seems that flash photography and deploying your flash the proper way is even more convoluted than learning a new camera. Hopefully, I'll simply learn how to use by SB-900 properly. My wife's vote was for the D700, because she feels that cameras should never, ever use a flash (she is simply annoyed by flashing cameras).

I picked up the 18-200 VRII lens to go along with the D90, which seems to be a reasonable lens, from what I've read. I've also picked up the Nikon 50mm 1.4G prime lens. I've decided to hold onto the 14-24mm Nikkor (still can't seem to find a single bad word about this lens, ANYWHERE). I'm also going to pick up the Tokina 11-16 2.8 lens for my interior real estate shots. I feel like this should give me all the focal length that I need, as just a casual picture taker. I am going to do my best to not fall for the upgrade bug (although, I guess I already have become a victim of it) and purchase the 70-200 2.8 and the 24-70 2.8 lenses. I'm hoping that I won't come up with a reason to justify it. Maybe if I simply stop reading about how aperture drives the low light capability, I can stop this addiction before it starts Thanks again to all, for the invaluable knowledge passed along to a guy who is completely clueless, when it comes to photography!

John

I would like to address the concept that the D700, or any of the DSLR cameras, is really "complicated" any more than the photography of film SLR cameras. I mean compared to the entire PHOTOGRAPHY technology of film. The D700 can be used pretty much as a point and shoot camera, by using the default and Program mode settings, or a simple manual camera like the FM series, or whatever camera you were familiar with. Just ignore the controls that are unfamiliar. If they get moved, re-set with the two-green-button restore.
ISO, shutter speed, aperture, focus, all can be done manually for "simplicity" or left on the automatic settings.
Consider that the modern DSLR controls do not compare to just a film camera, but to a film camera, the FILM, and to the chemistry of negative development and now even much of the techniques of darkroom printing. All combined in DSLR camera controls.
But users of film cameras in those earlier years, and also now, did not need to know or understand film properties and development, anything more than to buy a fast or slow daylight film, shoot it, and leave the processing up to someone else. The digital equivalent of this would be to just shoot the DSLR camera on its default settings and just print or use the images as they come.
And as mentioned in the previous posts, just as it was possible to later learn darkroom and developing skills, it will be possible to later learn what all those image settings do. ( The focus choices are admittedly pretty complicated, but if left alone on the simplest settings, they are invisible until understood and needed).

Visit my Nikonians gallery.