So I don't know if this is the right forum for this, but here it is anyway. I currently have a D90 with an 18-200 DX lens and a 50mm f1.8. I would love to have some much improved low light capability via less noise at higher ISOs. I don't really like to take my D90 beyond 800. From what I gather, the D7000 is a good upgrade to the D90 in the areas I am looking for, and sticking with DX helps with my current lenses. This is a cheap/easy upgrade assuming I can unload my D90.
I also have a smokin' deal lined up on a lightly used D700, but I don't know if I can afford adding a bunch of FX lenses to my arsenal. Then there is the whole, do I bite the bullet and go for the D600 if I do decide to go FX.
1.) Is a D90 to D7000 jump worth it in terms of low light performance and dynamic range?
2.) Would it be better to skip the small jump to the D7000 and try to get into FX if I can, even if I need to shoot mostly in DX mode for a long time.
#1. "RE: D7000 vs D700 vs D600 to upgrade from D90" In response to Reply # 0
Port Charlotte, US
"1.) Is a D90 to D7000 jump worth it in terms of low light performance and dynamic range?"
While the D90 is a great camera, the D7000 does have improved low light capabilities. I can shoot 1600 or even 3200 ISO and feel comfortable in most cases. It also has several improvements over the D90 in addition such as dual card slots, 100% view finder, etc.
"2.) Would it be better to skip the small jump to the D7000 and try to get into FX if I can, even if I need to shoot mostly in DX mode for a long time."
The D7000 jump would be less financially traumatic, but you may want to consider something other than the 18-200 DX lens. Some users have reported that the 18-200mm appears soft with the D7000.
Shooting in a DX mode on a FX camera for an extended period would not be fun. Invest in glass over time and then make your move to a FX camera.
"Red is gray and yellow white, but we decide which is right ....and which is an illusion"
#2. "RE: D7000 vs D700 vs D600 to upgrade from D90" In response to Reply # 1
My D7k performs very well. I came to it from much less capable cameras, so the learning curve has been a little long, but the more I practice with it, the smarter it seems to get, especially as I get into video - the main reason I moved to the D7k from a D80.
I'm a little puzzled by the "invest in glass over time" comment, though. Is that suggesting FX glass would work well on the DX camera? Or only if I plan another camera upgrade. (Though I haven't really studied it, the D600 does look inviting. OTOH, I think were I to upgrade from the 7k, I'd make a bigger jump.)
#3. "RE: D7000 vs D700 vs D600 to upgrade from D90" In response to Reply # 2
Yes, FX glass works on a DX camera. It works really well actually because it's not using the outside edges of the lens where any imperfections are typically located. 100% of a DX sensor will be looking at the "sweet" spot of the lens. (Very simple explanation)
"Good" glass on an "ok" body is better than "ok" glass on a "good" body. I wouldn't even be having this discussion if I didn't have some good deals lined up on a used D7000 or a D700. Plus, investing in FX glass now makes the jump to FX body later on much easier. In my scenario right now, I really should buy some FX glass too if I went to a 700/600, unfortunately that's not in the cards right now.
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?
#5. "RE: D7000 vs D700 vs D600 to upgrade from D90" In response to Reply # 0 Sun 07-Oct-12 07:23 AM by km6xz
St Petersburg, RU
Yours is a very common question now that "affordable" FX cameras are available(used D700 or new D600). I would say there is not enough information to give a good answer, so much depends on subject matter, style of shooting, display media and not the least of which is, how much long term commitment to acquiring the lenses that these higher res new cameras deserve. The body is the very cheapest aspect of moving to FX. If a survey of FX shooters was taken you would probably find that their lenses total about $10,000 and much more if they are into sports, wildlife and worst of all, birds-in-flight. Shooting above 800 ISO generates noise you do not like. OK, what light conditions are you in, what shutter speeds are you needing for the subjects and do you exploit augmented lighting to its best advantage? The D7000 will give a stop advantage and at low ISO, very few cameras ever made are lower noise...only newest Nikon models, D800, 600, 4, 3x. If you stayed with DX, as most people should, there is none-better than the D7000. Your 18-200 is causing some of that noise by having to shoot higher ISO than the scene would normally need with faster glass. Can you post a photo or two which shows typical subject matter and lighting conditions? That would help in giving either camera change advice or technique advice to get the most from what you have.
#6. "RE: D7000 vs D700 vs D600 to upgrade from D90" In response to Reply # 5
After borrowing a D7000 for a day I gave my daughter in-law my D90 and got a D7000 body. Others have have described the improvement in quality which is quite noticable.
As to glass I never understood the dont bother using FX lens on a DX body. If you want the best image and can afford it many of the FX pro zooms etc deliver a better picture. In most situations I would challenge people to tell me whether a picture was shoot on a D7000 or one of the better FX bodies when high quality lens are used.
But there are exceptions like the 35mm F1.8 FX lens which is one of Nikons few real bargains.
#7. "RE: D7000 vs D700 vs D600 to upgrade from D90" In response to Reply # 6 Sun 07-Oct-12 07:26 AM by km6xz
St Petersburg, RU
While the wider image circle helps corner to corner performance Fx, FX are not always better. Good lenses do help images a bit, I would much rather have great lighting with modest lenses than great lenses with poor lighting, and luckily great lighting is a lot cheaper and flexible than highly specialized expensive lenses. After taking care of those two important variables, a camera comes further down the list in image quality determinants. Luckily the elements that make an images really interesting or suitable for hanging on a friend's wall, are not expensive but require more input and control from the photographer in selecting the subject and controlling or, adapting to, the conditions best. The 35 1.8G is limited to the Dx image circle so it is not suitable for FX. The 50 1.8G and 85 1.5G both have a FX image circle so work well on either FX or DX. Stan St Petersburg Russia
#8. "RE: D7000 vs D700 vs D600 to upgrade from D90" In response to Reply # 0
Something to think about:
I once read years ago and firmly believe it (I paraphrase): "The most important aspect of your photograph is the light, second, your glass and finally your sensor." Orginally the third aspect was film, "sensor" substituted. Personally, I would stay with the D7000 and buy the best glass you can afford. The 24-70 f2.8 would be great and if you can stand prime manual focus lenses, Zeiss FE.2 mount glass (I know, blasphemy!).
#9. "RE: D7000 vs D700 vs D600 to upgrade from D90" In response to Reply # 0
I think there are a lot of ways to think about this. But first of all, I should tell you that my context is that I was a Canon shooter until I jumped over to the D7000. I had Canon full frame (5D) and APS-C (DX) cameras, and used to shoot weddings (so I am into high ISO capability).
I think there is a certain amount of prestige that goes with full frame, but if you have been a D90 shooter, I think the D7000 will suit you fine, and the DX lenses will save you from lugging around some weight. Practically speaking, your only loss will be emotional.
I'm not saying there aren't reasons to go FX, but I will say that when I put full frame emotion aside, I couldn't be happier with my D7000 and haven't yet found a reason to really want or need full frame.
As for pixels, I also don't want any more. I'm pretty maniacal about my backups and I often shoot in quantities. It is also not unusual for me to shoot RAW + JPG. I'm sitting with 7TB of disk space on my desk and I don't need that to grow any faster because I've now gone to more megapixels. I also don't need my editing of file transfers to be slower because of larger file sizes. These file sizes are big enough to do anything that I can ever think of.