I have a smokin' deal lined up on a lightly used D700. I am currently in a D90 right now with only an 18-200 and 50 f1.8. I won't be getting any new lenses for a while, but want some much improved low light performance and dynamic range.

If I decide I can handle the jump to full frame, which would be a better investment? A used D700 or the D600?

This is strictly hobby type use, I don't really do video, and I love everything about my D90 except low light performance. I would also be going with DX mode mostly for a long time.

Thoughts?

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Hi Michael,

I was in the same boat a few months ago - had a D90 and jumped on a D700 (used mint). Like you i have zero interest in video, so the D700 was a no brain decision for me.
Haven't play with the D600 so far, but, except for the MP, i'm not sure that it's "better" than the D700.
You'll be shocked about the low light capabilities of ths machine, if you follow that route.

José

Nikonians!!! My best investment made after my camera!!!

D700, D90, F80, F Photomic FTn

I'd only jump depending on the price. At $2100 I'd get a new D600 over a used D700 unless the savings were substantial.

mVs
D2H, D2x, D300s, D700 & D800

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I'm looking at $1200 for a pristine D700. From my research that seems to be a pretty fantastic deal.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Espeto, do you have FX lenses? I'd mostly be using this in DX mode for a while as I save up for new glass.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

My FX lenses are:

28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D
70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G
20mm f/2.8D
35mm f/2D
50mm f/1.4G
85mm f/1.8D

Planning to get in a near future the 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II, and later on the 24-70mm f/2.8G.

José

Nikonians!!! My best investment made after my camera!!!

D700, D90, F80, F Photomic FTn

Would you still make the jump if you only had a 50mm FX lens and were going to be in DX mode most of the time for a good long while?

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

You're right, that's a smokin deal for a pristine D700. But, if you are going to be using mostly DX lenses, I wouldn't buy either, although you would probably be happier with the D600 in DX crop mode solely because it has double the mega-pixels. Unil recently, I had never been a fan of the DX sensor, but if high ISO is your main objective, you might want to consider the very capable D7000 or even a D3200 which has the best sensor that Nikon has ever put in a DX camera to date. Your lenses would be less expensive and you will have solved your high ISO dilemma. Keep in mind that if you opt for the D3200 you need AF-S lenses to autofocus so your 50mm 1.8D won't autofocus. However, considering that the D3200 is $650.00 new with a very capable and sharp 18-55 kit lens you should have some extra money to replace your old 50 with the 50mm 1.8g or whatever else suits your fancy.

jP

I have another thread going in the D7000 forum about the jump from the D90 to the D7000. If I stayed DX, that's the route I'd take. That, or just keep my D90 and save up to buy faster FX glass.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>I have another thread going in the D7000 forum about the jump
>from the D90 to the D7000. If I stayed DX, that's the route
>I'd take. That, or just keep my D90 and save up to buy faster
>FX glass.

I posted this in the other thread, but I'll do it here as well:
==============================
One other thing to consider is those pesky MP (Megapixels). I don't want to get into a discussion on the value of MPs or that MP isn't everything, Duh; but anyway:

D90 DX = 12.2 MP
D7000 DX = 16.1 MP
D700 FX = 12.1 MP
DX = 5.1 MP
D600 FX = 24.2 MP
DX = 10.3 MP
D800 FX = 36.2 MP
DX = 15.4 MP

Another thought if you are considering biting the bullet for what currently is arguably the best DX camera in Nikon's lineup, DX7000; there is the highly rumored D400/D7200/D7300. In my opinion, that should be announced no later than spring of 2013. Then you would have the opportunity of a better DX camera or less expensive new or slightly used D7000. I jumped for the D7000 because I needed it for a particular event.

In my opinion, I think that I would be very unhappy shooting with a DX lens on a D700. In my opinion, if you go D700, you should be thinking FX glass. Can 5.1 wonderful MP be better than your current D90 12.2MP?

Charlie

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

No,

I would stay with DX and would save for better glass. And i don´t consider the D7000 that "huge" upgrade from the D90 (i was in the same boat as well 2 years ago and decided to keep my D90). I'd rather have a D300s than a D7000, though the D7000 is newer thecnology than the D300s.

José

Nikonians!!! My best investment made after my camera!!!

D700, D90, F80, F Photomic FTn

It really comes down to, in this order:

-Video
-Pixels
-High ISO

If you don't see yourself using any of these, then perhaps you can get a better deal on a used D700 and save money.

But you trade some things with the D600, too, like some metal on the front of the body, a PC terminal, and a 10-pin remote terminal...as well as absolute fps with the grip.

An undeniable paradox: To think that there is any such thing as an absolute rule is at worst naïve, and at best, shortsighted. There is no such thing as an always-true, all context- or situation-salient, absolute rule that always holds true…including this one!

I have shot the last 3 years with a D700, used DX and FX lenses, great camera. You will like the lowlight capability . I just upgraded to a D800E, another great camera but very similar to the D700. I suspect compared to the D600 the D700 will hold its value better.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Just a thought but if you are buying a $2600.00 D600 kit with a 24-85 lens you could pick up the Pristine D700 plus a 24-120 for it for the same price. Even the D600 alone at $2200 gives you almost $1000 bucks to get a new FX lens.

I have a new D700 I picked up just before they were discontinued and I love it. I'm working with old manual glass right now but I sure love the feel of the camera.

Karen

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

In DX mode, the D700 slightly under-performs the D7000 and D90, according to Bill Claff's tests. Regardless of which nudges out which, if you get a D700 for improved low light work you need to shoot it in DX mode, fill the frame, and use as a fast a lens as you would use shooting DX with the correspondingly shorter focal length.

(that last part about the lens sets up some interesting mathematical comparisons that nullify a lot of FX advantages at certain focal lengths, not all terribly long)

And that would generally apply to any newer FX camera although the D600 will best the D700 a bit.

The magic of the D700 is the sensor size, not the sensor itself. Contrary to some popular belief .

I love my D700 but I would not go around shooting it in DX mdoe all the time. Especially with the choices now and the slightly inherently better D90 sensor.

A D7000 would not help you either.

_________________________________
Neil
Nikonians Team
My Gallery

I have been using a D700 for over four years and I have no desire to "upgrade" to a newer model which will be "old" in a couple of years anyway. If you can get a good D700 for $1,200, I believe that this is an excellent opportunity. I suggest you sell the 18-200 DX lens and acquire a nice FX zoom. The FX equivalent for the 18-200 is the 28-300. According to your gallery, you like to photograph birds and you might also want to consider the 70-300. I do not recommend using a DX lens on the D700.

Tristan

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Thanks all. I jumped on the D700 and will be selling the D90 then saving up quickly for a good FX lens.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I just saw this, so I wanted to weigh in for others looking to do something similar.

On the negative side, the D90 actually has a very slightly better dynamic range than the D700, 12.5EV versus 12.2EV per DXO. That may not be much of an issue in real life I suspect. The most significant hurdle is that the FX upgrade comes with a pricetag (lens costs). The 18-200 is nice though (I'm in the market for one for the D5100 to replace the 18-55/55-200). But FX lenses... that's where the biggest jump in performance lies. The 85 1.4 and the 14-24 2.8 are amazing, it's tough to come close with a DX. Lens costs are roughly DX times 3 or more... and there's the pro-sumer line versus the pro line. Build quality and aperture capability are often the most significant differentiators.

Other than that, the D700 will focus so much more accurately and faster(especially with a great lens), much faster frame rate in RAW, you no longer have to hold ISO to under 800, the DOF will additionally stretch the creative envelope, the viewfinder is so nice, etc. I switched from a D300S to the D700 a year ago (about the same basic thing you have done) and it's a whole new level of capability for me.

>Thanks all. I jumped on the D700 and will be selling the D90
>then saving up quickly for a good FX lens.

FWIW...

I have the 24-70mm 2.8 Nikkor and it's on my camera about 75% of the time..

With the D700...it's a very powerful combo...

As well, I own the Sigma 70-200 VRII and it's stellar...a little slow sometimes on the focus...and, again, we are speaking tenths of second..but, it's spot on and about $1K less than an equiv. Nikkor....

Save a few bucks and pick up the external battery pack...it feels great in your hand and you can shoot at 90 Degrees...as well, with the extra pack and litihum batteries, you'll never run out of go-juice.

Very happy with my decisions...

BTW, I have the D7K and love it...but, the D700, for whatever reason, my pics pop !!!

dc

Visit my professional gallery.