I am new here and thought I would ask for an advice.
I am switching from Canon system to Nikon.

I am looking to buy a camera body and am just torn between the choices.
The budget is under $2000 or so, give or take. But I am trying to spend less if I can find a way that meets my needs.

I have already acquired the following lenses: Tokina 28-70 2.8; Nikkor 50 1.8, and older Nikkor 70-210 3,5-5.6

I would love to get the D700, but it is on the more expensive side of my range and I am not sure I would enjoy carrying it, as it is quite weighty and substantial. I am also looking forward to the future as to possibly upgrading any body I buy now. As an investment value, I do not want to loose a lot on the resale a year or two down the road.

I have large hands and therefore, find small grips very uncomfortable.

I could just buy a DX camera, but do not want to loose the wide angle with the DX camera, even though I am open to investing into another lens that would give me the equivalent of 28mm. unless I find a cheap lens that is a great value due to its optical quality. I know Ken Rockwell raves about the cheap 18-55.

I have a 4 year old kid that I shot a lot of photos of, and he is constantly on the move. I also liker portraits, and do occasional nature shots.

Any recommendations on what I should do? Which body would suit my needs with smallest expense?

for portraits or nature I would recommend either used D2x (s) or D200 for its beautiful skin tone and natural colors for landscape. It is also very clean at iso 100. Or D90 for low light portraits and low light nature shots.

Add the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 or 11-16mm f/2.8, a speedlight and a sturdy tripod. it should be less $2k if you get some used gears

Any DSLR body you will get will loose its resale value in a year or two. Camera body is just like a car when it comes to value. Just take advantage of the lower priced camera bodies now that can still produce excellent image.

Dave

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Like Canon, Nikon offers only two full frame DSLR bodies - the D3 series and the D700. Everything else is APS-C (1.6 or 1.5 crop factor).

These days it costs about the same to purchase a D700 (to use the good lenses you've already got) as it does to buy a Nikkor 12-24 DX wide angle zoom and a Nikon D90.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

Hi Igor,

Welcome to Nikonians!
Thanks for the intro.


>I have already acquired the following lenses: Tokina 28-70
>2.8; Nikkor 50 1.8, and older Nikkor 70-210 3,5-5.6

All of your lenses are FX capable!

>I would love to get the D700, but it is on the more expensive
>side of my range and I am not sure I would enjoy carrying it,
>as it is quite weighty and substantial.

You will get used to the size and weight quickly!

>I am also looking
>forward to the future as to possibly upgrading any body I buy
>now. As an investment value, I do not want to loose a lot on
>the resale a year or two down the road.

Unfortunately Digital Cameras are like computers, because for the most part they are. They don't hold their value very well.
All DSLR's drop in value significantly as soon as a new model is introduced regardless of brand.

>I have large hands and therefore, find small grips very
>uncomfortable.
>
>I could just buy a DX camera, but do not want to loose the
>wide angle with the DX camera, even though I am open to
>investing into another lens that would give me the equivalent
>of 28mm. unless I find a cheap lens that is a great value due
>to its optical quality. I know Ken Rockwell raves about the
>cheap 18-55.

Even the kit lenses are optically very good.

>I have a 4 year old kid that I shot a lot of photos of, and he
>is constantly on the move. I also liker portraits, and do
>occasional nature shots.
>
>Any recommendations on what I should do? Which body would
>suit my needs with smallest expense?

If you are looking for a new current body. Consider the D90, D300S, and D700. They are all very capable. The D90 is the smallest and least expensive of the group while maintaining an excellent feature set.
The D300S and D700 are close to the same size and weight with a more robust build quality than the D90 at a substantially higher price point. Go to a retailer and hold the camera's in your hand and decide which one feels best in your hands.
Good Luck and Enjoy your Nikons!

Best Regards,
Marty

I would have to agree with some of the others in favor of the D-90. Although I shoot primarily with a D700 I have owned the D-90 and was very pleased with its features and capabilities. It can be purchased easily for about $700-750 which will save you a considerable amount versus purchasing a D700. Should you go with the inexpensive D90 and wait until Nikon unveils the new D-700s or something similar, the D-700 will take a big hit in it's resale value and you could upgrade at that time and save some money. Welcome to the group and good shooting...bob

would the D90 be fast enough to photograph my 3 year old boy who is constantly on the move?
Is the 11 point AF much worse then the 51 point on D300,D700 for moving subjects?

What would be the wide lens recommendation if I went with the D90?

> would the D90 be fast enough to photograph my 3 year old boy who is constantly on the move?

Emphatically, yes. We regularly see people with D90's shooting 2-3 year olds, birds of prey (eagles, osprey, hawks), motorbikes, air shows, etc. It's worth pointing out that this is a skill, and it can take some practice - even with the best AF systems.

> Is the 11 point AF much worse then the 51 point on D300,D700 for moving subjects?

Of course - for some subjects. It's not so much the 11 points, it's the extra tracking capabilities. But for most folks, that's not the thing they use. If you're just trying to keep track of a 3-year-old and you are either stationary or not moving too much, the lower model bodies are plenty. (Even the 5-point models.) Where the CAM3500 (D300 and up) comes in is if you're bouncing around in a jeep trying to keep a gazelle or leopard in focus.

> What would be the wide lens recommendation if I went with the D90?

If you're on a budget, the Sigma 10-20/f4-5.6 HSM, which runs about $450. My impression is that the Tokina 12-24/f4 is about the same price.

But I'd start with the 18-55VR and see if you even need anything wider.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

If you're on a budget I think the D90 is a good choice. While I don't always agree with Ken Rockwell, the 18-55 is a good lens, and if you want to go wider on a budget, the Sigma 10-20 is also a good lens.

Randy

If I order Tamron 17-50 2.8 should I also get the excellent Nikkor 35 1.8?
Or would it be redundant to use with D90?

Hi Igor,

It depends! The 35mm f/1.8 prime is 1 1/3rd stops faster than the f/2.8 zoom. It is also significantly smaller and lighter.
The advantage of the zoom is vesatility!
If you don't need the additional speed, the 17-50mm should be enough to cover the 35mm focal length.
Good Luck and Enjoy your Nikons!

Best Regards,
Marty