I have a D7000, before that, a D70s. Great cameras, but I hate the finders and dealing with crop factors, especially in the wide end of the focal length spectrum. I shoot mostly macro and portraits, and I find those sweet short teles don't look so short and the wides just don't cut it. I tried MF lenses, but the finder stinks and Live View never seemed to get it done for me. Sure, Live View works well for macro, but I don't care for it doing portraits. I like my eye to the finder.

Soooo, that leaves me with one option. Sell my D7K, plus the 3 DX lenses I have. Fortunately I have FX lenses where it counts for what I do. I can make pretty much what a used D700 goes for from the sale of my DX gear.

If you were in my shoes, would you make the move to FX? This is not a spur of the moment idea for me. Been thinking of doing this a long time. With the new cameras coming out, it seems like the perfect time to snatch one up.

George

>...If you were in my shoes, would you make the move to FX?...

I wouldn't, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not a good move for you. Just looking at your post, a few questions:

You say short teles and wides don't cut it. Why? For example, what's wrong with a 10-24 at the wide end, or a 16-85 as a short tele? Both seem like good options within DX to me, and there are lots of other options for both wide angle and short telephotos. Since you aren't specific here about why DX lenses don't cut it, I'm not sure that an FX camera (and lenses) would solve whatever issues you have.

As for macro, DX gives you more depth of field, which you almost always want for macro, so again, maybe DX has an advantage here you'd be giving up by moving to FX.

For me, the big advantages of DX are that I can have a smaller, lighter, and less expensive kit. I'm completely satisfied with the images I get. I understand the advantages of FX, and certainly for some people that's the right way to go. But I do think that a lot of times people just want FX because they think it is better, or more professional, when for what they are doing it really won't make much difference in their photos.

You have to weigh your own specific needs and wants, but I didn't read anything very convincing in your post that made me think that somehow your DX kit is holding you back. What, specifically, do you find in your DX lenses that don't cut it?

Randy

I'll address my main issue first, that being viewfinders. I have an old N8008 and it's like looking into a mini theater, the screen is so much bigger and easier to see than my D7000's. My old D70 was even worse and I don't know how I used that camera. But, I think that gripe was more relevant when I was trying to go MF. I have since given that up and gone with AF, so maybe that isn't as big an issue now. Macro is another reason, since that is pretty much MF even with my AF lens. But, again, with the type of macro work I'll be doing, which is gems and minerals in my indoor mini studio, I can tether and use my computer screen, eventually a laptop when I get one.

Ok, now to lenses. My biggest gripe was at the wide end. I remember when 24mm on a 35mm camera was wide and I loved using the distortion to artistic advantage. With DX, the field of view (not focal length. I understand the difference) is like a 35mm. To get the same field of view of a 24mm, I now need a 16mm. Well, ultra wides tend to be pricey and there are few choices. On the longer end, I have an 85mm f1.8, which with the crop factor now has the field of view of roughly 128mm, call it the equivalent of a 135mm on a 35mm body. Now to get the same field of view of the 85, I would be using roughly a 55mm. But now the perspective changes with the shorter lens. I have to get closer to a subject and you know what that does to noses and so forth.

Hopefully I am not off in left field here. I haven't really shot a lot lately, so maybe my concerns are baseless within the context of what I enjoy shooting. I tend to be circumspect and I try to get opinions and learn from others experiences before I make a move.

Based on what you've said, I think I would be better off keeping what I have, shoot a lot more, then see where I stand. By that time it might be even cheaper to get into a D700 if I so decide to go that route. I have wasted money and time in the past making decisions too quickly before weighing the options open to me.

I value any other input my fellow Nikonians on this forum may send my way. Thanks for helping me sort this out.

George

one disadvantage of the D700 viewfinder is that it is only 97% of the frame.

Mick
http://www.mickklassphoto.com
or
Visit my nikonians gallery

But, compared to the D7K, is it still bigger? Also, which FX has a bigger percentage of the frame? (I'm guessing the D3 or maybe D4)

EDIT: D600 is 100%, as well as the D3. So I was right, mostly.

George

Faulty memory on my part, the D700 is 95%. The D700 is 100% but the magnification ratios are different 0.72x and 0.94x respectively. Your D70 was 95% but with a 0.75x magnification ratio.

The D800 is 97% and 0.7x. The D600, all the D3's and D4 are 100% and 0.7x.

You may be more interested in the magnification ratio than viewfinder coverage, unless you are trying to get your in-camera framing exact.

Mick
http://www.mickklassphoto.com
or
Visit my nikonians gallery

I'm not worried about in camera framing, I can crop in PP. My main concern is a nice big, bright viewfinder. The magnification would certainly help for those macro photos.

George

>Ok, now to lenses. My biggest gripe was at the wide end.

The reason why I switched from DX to FX about four years ago was the extraordinary Nikon 14-24/2.8 lens. This lens on the D700 has opened a completely new field of photography for me. The D700 is an outstanding camera and I personally see no need to switch to the new D600/D800 models - don't know whether this will help you deciding.

Tristan

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Thanks, Tristan. I appreciate all the input I can get. And as I had stated, wide angle lenses were part of my beef with DX, so that input is good.

George

>The reason why I switched from DX to FX about four years ago
>was the extraordinary Nikon 14-24/2.8 lens...

That's a good argument for going to FX, Tristan, and if that applies to George, he might want a D700 and 14-24. I'm using a Sigma 10-20 as a wide angle on my D300, and I know it's not as good as the 14-24.

On the other hand, my 10-20 isn't as big and heavy as the 14-24 either, so George would have to be willing to carry it around for it to really be a benefit. I know lots of people are, but I also read on Nikonians of the people who trade their 14-24 for the 16-35, not because the 16-35 is a better lens, but because it is more portable. And the DX wide angles are more portable still. If you want to carry it, I see the benefit.

Speaking for myself, I have an 80-200 f2.8 that I rarely carry, unless I need f2.8, because it's a load. I'll take my 18-200, or 55-300 instead. That's probably giving up some image quality, but in exchange for a set-up that I'm more likely to have with me rather than leaving it at home.

I completely buy into your argument, Tristan, for some people. But DX has pretty stunning image quality, even if it doesn't always quite come up to FX, and the trade-off is the size, weight, and expense of an FX kit. For lots of people, the "smaller and lighter" is the better choice, even setting aside the cost. That's what I'd think George would need to consider.

Randy

Ok, got a good idea. Keep the D7K, and save up for a D700. Use the D7K and my lightweight DX lenses on the road, and the D700 for macro and portrait work. I'm not in a hurry, in fact waiting might be good to let used D700 prices go down even more. The D700 is a good, tough camera that I should get years of service out of. I don't need the latest and greatest necessarily. Just a good dependable FX.

As far as the lenses you mentioned, that will have to wait. But at least I will have the camera that can utilize them. Nothing written in stone of course. I may find a good deal and jump on it. You never know.

George

Hi,

I made a similar move - upgrade from my excelent D90 to an used D700, and kept the D90 with my DX lenses(+10-24, 16-85 and 35 1.8)as my light kit to travel around. So i do have the best of both. Now saving for the three kings.

José

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

D700, D90, F80, F Photomic FTn

Randy - You obviously have a valid point. I have used for many years the excellent Tokina 12-24 with D70 and D200. However, I believe the weight penalty of the 14-24 is often exaggerated considering the IQ you can obtain. Case in point: a D300 plus Nikon 10-24 weighs roughly three lbs, while a D700 plus 14-24 is about four lbs - in my opinion this is hardly a "deal breaker". For people who are concerned about the weight of their equipment, they might want to consider an entirely different system, e.g. a P&S or the slightly more expensive Leica M9.

Tristan

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Well, I can say with a fair amount of certainty that the 14-24 is not even close to being on my list of lenses to acquire. $2K is way too steep. Unlike that Geico ad, I am not made of money.

George

>
>>Ok, now to lenses. My biggest gripe was at the wide end.
>
>The reason why I switched from DX to FX about four years ago
>was the extraordinary Nikon 14-24/2.8 lens. This lens on the
>D700 has opened a completely new field of photography for me.
>The D700 is an outstanding camera and I personally see no need
>to switch to the new D600/D800 models - don't know whether
>this will help you deciding.
>

I have the same combo - one word - WOW !!!

I had the lense on a D7K, but, when I went 700, it was like a whole new lense...

great fun to lay on the ground and grab some wide angle shots !!!


dc

Visit my professional gallery.

George,

Based on your assessment of your shooting, yes, I would go with FX and a D700 is a very good choice, since you still have a relatively compact camera. A D600 might be better, if you want to spend the money. You'd get some extra MP and dynamic range in something similar to the D7000.You give up bracketing capability and some controls, but you don't have those now in the D7000.

When I went to FX, I really did appreciate the change in my wide angles and normal lenses.

Mick
http://www.mickklassphoto.com
or
Visit my nikonians gallery

Thanks, Mick. Well, maybe what I take from what you say is to wait, save for the D600, and go that way if I decide to go the FX route. The D700 is getting a bit long in the tooth after all. More food for thought.

Also I will find a camera store where I can do a side by side comparison. Nothing like having the real thing in your hands. I may change my mind at that point.

George

>You give up bracketing capability and some controls, but you don't have those now in the D7000.

Hi, just wondering what bracketing capability you don't have with the D7000?

Thanks!

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Flickr page.

>>You give up bracketing capability and some controls, but
>you don't have those now in the D7000.
>
>Hi, just wondering what bracketing capability you don't have
>with the D7000?
>
>Thanks!
With the D700 you do up to 9 shot brackets. The D7000 only does a max of 3.


Mick
http://www.mickklassphoto.com
or
Visit my nikonians gallery

The D7K does one exposure under, one normal, and one over. How is it done in the D700?

George

The normal exposure, plus up to 4 under, 4 over, or both, if I recall correctly.

Mick
http://www.mickklassphoto.com
or
Visit my nikonians gallery

Well, got to finally handle a D600. I love it! Nice bright finder, slightly bigger body than my D7000, which means it fits perfectly in my hands. Controls are laid out pretty much the same. But $2K. Ugh. Going to be quite awhile before I can get one. $2K can buy some good glass too.

George

George I had been using a DK7 and wanted to go to FX for a lot of the same reasons you do. I'm an old film guy and liked not dealing with the crop factor too. So when the D800 came out and the prices dropped I aquired a D700. I absolutly love the D700. The Dk7 sits on the shelf alot. I should mention the D700 with battery pack and 2.8 glass is quite a load,so there is a good arument for keeping a DX kit. just my 2 cents. jim

Coldfront

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I've had a D700 for about 3 years and am still thrilled with it. So much so, that I bought another one. The viewfinder is nice and bright and the absence of the crop factor is a relief to another old film guy. But like Jim mentions, it's a load to carry around all day. That's why I bought a D5100 and Tamron 17-50. MUCH lighter and more enjoyable for a full day of walkaround photography. I'm still waiting on Nikon to put the FX sensor in a D40 body - with a screw-drive. I'll be the first in line to purchase.

Mark
www.markpricephotography.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

With the the numbers of DX cameras on the used market it's going to be tough to sell mine, so I may as well keep it. It sucks that the D700 used is not much less than a new D600. Makes me want to just throw my hands up in the air and scream. Well, maybe cuss.

George

Made up my mind. I am sticking with my D7000. Why? Surprisingly my main reason isn't cost. It has to do with my skill and knowledge level.

Being honest with myself, I know I have been lazy with this camera. I barely know how to use it. So many features I have not learned how to use. So, I ask myself. How do you know you need a D700, or a D600 when you don't even use this D7000 anywhere close to its full potential?

Whoa, talk about hitting yourself right between the eyes with the truth! Sometimes I have to do that to break out of the cycle of thinking I find myself in. I'm such a blockhead sometimes!

So I am taking myself back to school. I have some good books to read and I am going back to square one with my D7000 and give it a chance. Maybe this is all the camera I really need. After that, say maybe in 6 months or even a year, then take stock. By then there may be some good deals in an FX if that's where I decide I need to go.

NAS, take a hike!

George

George,

I'm proud of your self control. I failed under this exact scenario - I traded Mick my D7K and a couple of DX lenses for his beautiful D700. I love it! That said, it is a handful as a travel camera. I took it to Italy last month, and I'm extremely pleased with the images I brought home. My photos inside the Vatican and some other cathedrals are MUCH cleaner than the D90 photos I made a couple of years ago. And I used auto ISO up to 6400 in the D700, as opposed to 1600 with the D90. 6400 vs 1600, and there's no comparison in the quality of the files. D700 is a total winner! A heavy winner, but still...

I found that the strap and the bag you use make all the difference, though, when traveling. I used a Nikonians Pro Sling and was perfectly happy with it. I used the 24-120 f/4 and it's a wonderful single lens travel solution. Again, heavy, but beautiful images. I didn't take a P&S, though, and next time I will have one to accompany the big camera. I'm still struggling with finding the perfect travel bag for the D700, but may try a ThinkTank camera pouch.

Rich

Well, you never know. If the right deal shows up at the right time...I am not ruling out trading completely. Just for me at this time it is wiser to go with what I have and the techniques I will learn can be applied to any camera, so it's all good.

I don't travel, so weight is a non issue. I've never been overseas and I highly doubt I will in the foreseeable future. However, I do agree on the right strap and bag. I like my Black Rapid Sport, but the jury is still out on the bag. Haven't found one that I really like yet.

George