Pros/cons of upgrading from D90 to D700?

[TroyP]

I'm considering upgrading my camera body from D90 to D700, but need to convince myself it's going to be worth it.

Can anyone think of more major points to add to the list?

Pros:

• 51 focal points
• better quality images? (but is it really noticable on the web?)
• can bracket 7(?) exposures at a time

Cons:

• $2000 upgrade
• 9 focal points
• Can only bracket 3 exposures at a time

 

[bornwild4]

One thing to include are the lens $$$ on FX

 

[TroyP]

One thing to include are the lens $$$ on FX

Well I recently sold 2 of my lens in preparation (70-300mm and 70-200mm F2.8). I was planning on getting 28-300mm lens, but changed my mind after feeling it was not a big improvement over my 18-105mm kit lens.

I now only have:
D90
18-105mm F3.5-5.6 kit lens
50mm F1.8 lens
11-16mm WA tokina lens

I was thinking of selling the D90 & kit lens, buying D700 + maybe 28-300mm.
I'm mainly doing portraiture shots now, so something like 24-70 is optimum, but 28-300 would be more versatile.

 

[bornwild4]

Well I recently sold 2 of my lens in preparation (70-300mm and 70-200mm F2.8). I was planning on getting 28-300mm lens, but changed my mind after feeling it was not a big improvement over my 18-105mm kit lens.

I now only have:
D90
18-105mm F3.5-5.6 kit lens
50mm F1.8 lens
11-16mm WA tokina lens

I was thinking of selling the D90 & kit lens, buying D700 + maybe 28-300mm.
I'm mainly doing portraiture shots now, so something like 24-70 is optimum, but 28-300 would be more versatile.

I recently upgraded to D700.
One thing for sure, you can feel the different is the wideness :bsmilie:
On my 24-70mm.. to me very wide....

Now, I like to use on my 85mm F/1.4
Still acceptable for me to move around at that range.

 

[bornwild4]

To me, if you like to shoot portraiture shots after upgraded to FX..
You can consider 85mm F/1.4d. Just my point of view

Good lens.

 

[TroyP]

Of course the same lens looks wider on an FX, but isn't using 85mm on FX a similar viewing angle as using 50mm on DX? It still doesn't justify getting an FX body, since I can just get a wider lens to use on DX. :dunno:

 

[ExplorerZ]

Of course the same lens looks wider on an FX, but isn't using 85mm on FX a similar viewing angle as using 50mm on DX? It still doesn't justify getting an FX body, since I can just get a wider lens to use on DX. :dunno:

the amount of DOF of 85mm and 50mm is different, and so is the perspective

 

[TroyP]

the amount of DOF of 85mm and 50mm is different, and so is the perspective

Yeah, some difference in perspective. How is the DOF different? Will Bokeh be diff too?

 

[bornwild4]

Yeah, some difference in perspective. How is the DOF different? Will Bokeh be diff too?

When im on DX with 50mm F/1.4... To me there is clear different between 50mm on DX
Compare to FX 85mm F/1.4 in DOF.

Maybe just me

 

[ExplorerZ]

Yeah, some difference in perspective. How is the DOF different? Will Bokeh be diff too?

when composition is the same, u still get lesser DOF from the 85mm on FX. same as y PnS always have got more DOF compare to dSLR even in equiv focal length and aperture.
and bokeh is the QUALITY of the out of focus area... it depends on the lens design

 

[TroyP]

Hmm, well i'm not really sold on full frame idea yet. I could get D7000 which is cheaper and has 51 focal points :dunno:

 

[brapodam]

Hmm, well i'm not really sold on full frame idea yet. I could get D7000 which is cheaper and has 51 focal points :dunno:

D7000 does not have 51 AF points. It has 39 AF points.

I think you can stick to DX though, since you currently only have 1 FX lens. IMO I would rather spend on better lenses than going FX and getting something like a 28-300. A 28-300 won't give you as good subject isolation as a fast lens (since you mention you do portraiture)

 

[bornwild4]

Hmm, well i'm not really sold on full frame idea yet. I could get D7000 which is cheaper and has 51 focal points :dunno:

D7000 has 39..
D300s has 51.

One feature that I should probably mention in this section is the D700's Chromatic Aberration reduction function. It removes chromatic aberration on D700

D700 auto corrects for chromatic abberation and purple fringing.
Cut short, you don't do any post-processing. I know NX2 can do that too.

 

[jeff7id]

D7000 has 39..
D300s has 51.

One feature that I should probably mention in this section is the D700's Chromatic Aberration reduction function. It removes chromatic aberration on D700

D700 auto corrects for chromatic abberation and purple fringing.
Cut short, you don't do any post-processing. I know NX2 can do that too.

Both D700 and D300s has Chromatic Aberration Reduction function. :thumbsup:

Attached the link:
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/microsite/d300s/en/image-quality/

 

[TroyP]

Ah, well my point was it has a lot more focal points than D90's 11 points (which is a pain). 39 is much better.
As for the CA, I don't find it an issue on D90. I tend to shoot without lens protectors, which helps prevent additional CA.

When I said portraiture, I mean model photography

 

[jeff7id]

Ah, well my point was it has a lot more focal points than D90's 11 points (which is a pain). 39 is much better.
As for the CA, I don't find it an issue on D90. I tend to shoot without lens protectors, which helps prevent additional CA.

When I said portraiture, I mean model photography

I understand, as my shooting 'Taste' and camera is similar with yours.
And this is not related with AF points, as 1 point is sufficient. Just focus on the eye of the model. Regarding the bokeh (quality), it would depend on the lens construction.

FX camera cons (or DX pros)
1. Full frame won't give you additional benefit if shooting in studio.
2. FX will give you thin DOF, the thinner the DOF, the easier you would get OOF.
3. DX would have advantage in outdoor model photoshoot, for longer coverage.
4. FX lens is expensive. e.g. 135mm f/2 in DX is equivalent with 200mm f/2 in FX. Have you checked the 200mm f/2 price ?

FX camera pros (or DX cons)
1. FX would have advantage in hotel model photoshoot, for wider coverage.
2. FX would have advantage due to better ISO quality when shooting in dim area, while DX might need to compensate with additional flash.

As such, I am still using DX. Just my 2 cents though. :angel:

 

[jeff7id]

If I were you, I would upgrade to D300s :cheergal:

 

[TroyP]

Thanks, well that's my general feel too. I don't have any problem shooting in studio with D90 + kit lens, you typically shoot at F8 anyway.
My main query now is the quality of the full frame camera in comparison to cropped body. Is there a noticeable difference in pics posted online? Or in print? I think online they look the same to the naked eye.

 

[jeff7id]

Thanks, well that's my general feel too. I don't have any problem shooting in studio with D90 + kit lens, you typically shoot at F8 anyway.
My main query now is the quality of the full frame camera in comparison to cropped body. Is there a noticeable difference in pics posted online? Or in print? I think online they look the same to the naked eye.

For posting online, nobody would post in 12 MPixel, due to bandwidth & copyright issue. Re-size the photo to screen size is enough, just nice to view on screen purpose only. So there would be no noticeable difference for viewing online, whether the photo was taken with FX or DX.

For print, how big would you like to print ? Print up to 10R size, should be no noticeable difference.
If you like to print very big for billboard, better to consider with medium format though.

 

[TroyP]

Print A3 - A4 size only. I don't need life-size posters on my wall ;p