Nikon D7000 vs D700

[thltetek]

DX body to attach the FX pro zoom lens is just look nice only.
For excepted the 70-200 VR That is no comment.

In my opinion for D7000 is quite useful already, maybe you just worry after tomorrow may jump to FX body.

At this time if you can afford on FX pro zoom lens an just go ahead, even mine also have one for 24-70mm f2.8G.

For all FX prime standard lens, if you wanna play with HD output may consider as G version.
If you still like the AFD on screw drive for f1.4D also worth buy. Nobody can avoid you.

But when you are using the DX body at lease you have to get another DX lens for cover wide end in 24~28 equal to 35mm FX length.

That is what I can advice you

I know that many would feel getting a 24-70 on a DX body is just to look cool or pro, but I'm choosing it because it can quite serve as a general lens and I'm looking in the long run. Cos I would definitely opt to upgrade to a FX body down the road, maybe like 3-5 years from now.That's why I had chose the 24-7. I did not choose prime because it would be less versatile although some may say the opposite. And if I would go for a prime, I'll want the 85mm 1.4G, but the price is similar to that of 24-70. Furthermore, 85mm is more of a portrait than general lens, that's why I went for the 24-70 too

 

[thltetek]

In addition, I note that the TS has not stated any requirements for a wide angle lens.

Yup, I'm not really looking for a wide angle lens for now, that's why I went for the 24-70 instead. If I want a wide, I would go for the 16-35 anyway, not the 17-55

 

[daredevil123]

Yup, I'm not really looking for a wide angle lens for now, that's why I went for the 24-70 instead. If I want a wide, I would go for the 16-35 anyway, not the 17-55

"went"? so you already bought? If you already bought, then there is no point to this conversation anymore. Just use what you have.

BTW, the 16-35 does not perform very well on crop. At least not as good as the 17-55.

 

[thltetek]

How does the maths work out?

Let's assume 2nd hand prices since the d700 isn't really available new. Prices below my estimate:

d7000 + 24-70 ($1300 + $2200) = $3500
d700 + 50 1.8 G ($2200 + $250) = $2450

You still have at least $1000 more to spare. (Of course it will be very different if you are getting it all first hand.)

With that $1000 you can still get a 2nd hand tamron 28-75 2.8 with some left over... top up a bit more and you can get a new sb910 even.

Personally I wouldn't get the d7000 + 24-70 because of the balance issues... heavy lens with a camera body your small finger may not be able to grip.

*Alternatively, you can get the d7000 and some primes which are full frame compatible??

---

Myself I'm aiming for a 2nd hand set up with the following:

d700 + mbd10
20mm 2.8 D
50mm 1.8 G
85mm 1.8 D
180mm 2.8 D
SB 910

.... and a tamron 28-75 2.8 for when I need to cover company events.

Yea I also heard about the balance issues cos 24-70 is quite a heavy lens. If I go for the D700, for primes I'm looking for either 85mm 1.4d or the 135mm D, and would prefer the 135mm first. But for now, I won't have enough budget to get the 135mm since it is quite expensive. That's why I'm thinking of getting a DX body andsave up for FX lens, so that when I'm upgrading to FX in the future, I'll be able to use them on the FX just like how I did on the DX

 

[thltetek]

but i guess the important questions we need to find out

a) what do you normally shoot? (your requirements in terms of focal lengths... wide angle... medium zoom... tele)
b) your budget
c) do you have plans to go full frame if you choose the d7000

I usually shoot nature like flower or portraits, not really landscape for now as no time to travel around. Thus wouldn't really need a wide angle lens. I would prefer primes like 50mm, 85mm or 135mm or mid range zoom like 24-70. And yea I have plans to go full frame if I get the D7000, but definitely not any time sooner. Maybe like 3-5 years from now. That's why I'm getting FX lens instead of DX lens like 17-55mm although I know it is a great lens for DX body

 

[thltetek]

"went"? so you already bought? If you already bought, then there is no point to this conversation anymore. Just use what you have.

BTW, the 16-35 does not perform very well on crop. At least not as good as the 17-55.

I haven't bought it that's why I'm asking here.Maybe that's my grammar error on my part, sorry for that bro. Yea I know, but I'm not plannig to get the 16-35mm on a cro.

 

[daredevil123]

I haven't bought it that's why I'm asking here.Maybe that's my grammar error on my part, sorry for that bro. Yea I know, but I'm not plannig to get the 16-35mm on a cro.

Like I said before. A Tamron 17-50/2.8 or Tamron 28-75/2.8 will be more than sufficient for you for the next few years. No need to get the 24-70. And you can get more lenses or other things with the savings. Learn to expand your budget when it is limited, by getting the best value for the dollar.

 

[thltetek]

Like I said before. A Tamron 17-50/2.8 or Tamron 28-75/2.8 will be more than sufficient for you for the next few years. No need to get the 24-70. And you can get more lenses or other things with the savings. Learn to expand your budget when it is limited, by getting the best value for the dollar.

Okay thanks for your advice. Really appreciate it

 

[daredevil123]

Also, you may think your needs are what they are now. As you shoot more, and get better and learn, your needs will change. Suddenly you will need a lens with large aperture, or you may need wider angles to shoot your environmental portraits...

Do not sell yourself short. Leave some leeway for growth. And to do that, have some budget set aside to account for these growing needs in the coming years.

 

[thltetek]

Also, you may think your needs are what they are now. As you shoot more, and get better and learn, your needs will change. Suddenly you will need a lens with large aperture, or you may need wider angles to shoot your environmental portraits...

Do not sell yourself short. Leave some leeway for growth. And to do that, have some budget set aside to account for these growing needs in the coming years.

Ohh alright then. So I should go for the D7000 and get cheaper and value for money lens?

 

[daredevil123]

TS... you might be interested to take a look at this comparison...

http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/sigm...amrons-new-24-70mm-f2-8-vc-2.html#post7958191

 

[daredevil123]

Ohh alright then. So I should go for the D7000 and get cheaper and value for money lens?

I can't tell you what to do... You alone have to make the ultimate choices.

All I can do is to give you as much info and perspective as possible. You have to pull the trigger.

 

[thltetek]

I can't tell you what to do... You alone have to make the ultimate choices.

All I can do is to give you as much info and perspective as possible. You have to pull the trigger.

Yea true. Thanks for the advice bro. Really appreciate it a lot. Will put more consideration and alternatives to the lenses before deciding

 

[kwanhan]

Ohh alright then. So I should go for the D7000 and get cheaper and value for money lens?

i second this and bro daredevil's advice... you need to shoot for a while before you know what you really need.

don't be in a hurry

 

[kwanhan]

of course, NEEDS and WANTS are very different things :bsmilie:

 

[thltetek]

of course, NEEDS and WANTS are very different things :bsmilie:

Haha that's very true. I always go for the wants without really considering needs for other things. Thanks people for the advice. Really appreciate all your help, will consider carefully and know what's my needs before I go on and get the lens.

 

[spree86]

Cause DX body and using on FX 24-70 and only get the pro feel.
If the 17-55 DX to be the right choice on DX sensor.

(The feels is just like buying small size of shoe or cloth and died died must try be fit your body or foot.)

For the 70-200 VR has most of ppl using on Tele portraits shots.
For me is no comment.

You are greatly mistaken and that is a biased comment. Many people use FX lenses on DX to get great result, especially with corner sharpness. Who says that the 17-55 is the "right choice" for DX cameras? It's all based on personal needs and preferences.

 

[rain5533]

You are greatly mistaken and that is a biased comment. Many people use FX lenses on DX to get great result, especially with corner sharpness. Who says that the 17-55 is the "right choice" for DX cameras? It's all based on personal needs and preferences.

Unless you have few lens..

24-70 midrange Ins't suitable bring for trip or travel?

You really shoot at 24 = 36mm in FX?

Inst very bokeh on 70 = 105 FX?

Everything I can do in the prime of 50mm f1.8g as well.

For the 18mm or 16mm DX inst you really not need them?

That is good idea to buy pro zoom lens?

 

[catchlights]

Bro, I take so long to decide cos I'll be sticking to it for years before changing. So have to consider carefully. Sorry if you find me being materialistic or something. But I'm still a student so would want to keep changing and woknt have the budget to do so too. Hope you understand, thanks

your post history explain everything, for what we know, the more you jump here and there, there less money you have with you, unless you are trading cameras and lenses for profit.

 

[spree86]

Unless you have few lens..

24-70 midrange Ins't suitable bring for trip or travel?

You really shoot at 24 = 36mm in FX?

Inst very bokeh on 70 = 105 FX?

Everything I can do in the prime of 50mm f1.8g as well.

For the 18mm or 16mm DX inst you really not need them?

That is good idea to buy pro zoom lens?

Why must the lens I get be for travel? Can't I get a lens for portrait, street and event purposes? So people buy DX bodies just for traveling? Also, did I say I don't need the wider angles? Different lenses for different purposes. Don't judge what other people need or don't need based on your own preference and make such a sweeping statement as "only to look pro"