I shoot a wedding or two, do a lot of outdoor portrait sessions and some parties where I need hi iso performance.Currently using a 7000 and 17-55, 7-200 and 85 1.8. My budget is $3k, what do I buy?? will the 800 disappoint me in terms of high iso performance? I only have the 7000 to compare to so I assume the 800 will be at least one-two stops better Not concerned with the big file size. For the $3k is the best I can do or is it a D700 or D3 for me?
With a 3k budget, I'd probably get a D700 and some fast primes. A 50/1.4, a 35/2, and a D700 would work quite well and still cost less than one D800.
By the way, the D700 is rated 1 stop better than the D7000, while the D800 is rated .3 better than the D700, so there's not much of an advantage in terms of noise going from the D700 to D800 in comparison to going from the D7000 to the D700. However, keep in mind too that the one stop boost just means that you'll be able to shoot at, say, 6400 on the D700 with the same noise levels as you'd get from shooting at 3200 on the D7000. It's not a night and day difference by any means.
I don't know about that .3 figure. Most of what I've seen puts it more than that, but that's just what I've seen.
If you can wait a while and gather a little more money, the D3s would be the ideal camera for what you shoot. While some may not think one stop is that big an advantage, if you're in a dark church that one stop would be the difference between 1/200 and 1/100 sec with your 70-200 at 200mm. Quite a difference when the B&G are coming down the isle right after the ceremony.
I went from the D700 to the D3s and I think it's more like 1 and 1/2 stops between those two cams. IMO.
yep, i keep thinking about the d700, but i keep hearing "its old technology"......what i really want is a D400..........when Nikon, when?? I dont think I can afford the D3S, I do think its what I really need, but cant afford it.
boshek wrote:
My budget is $3k, what do I buy?? will the 800 disappoint me in terms of high iso performance?
The D800 is the best you can buy; and based on my first couple of weeks with it, I'm very comfortable shooting at ISO 6400 if I have to. There is noise, of course, but it is easily cleaned up in Lightroom to whatever degree you wish (inevitably losing a little detail, of course). The 36MP is just incredible as well. The AF and metering from the D4, with 36MP that can do ISO 6400... no, I don't think you can do better.
If you couldn't afford the $1000 difference in body cost, then the D700 is still a fine machine. But I think anyone who can afford it would be a fool to get a D700 over a D800, simple as that. The D800 is better in every single way. Every. Single. One.
But you may not need or want to go that route. You don't always need or want "the best". If the D7000 is good enough for you and provides good results, then I'd buy another D7000 and upgrade to D400 bodies when those come out. There is a huge -- huge, I tell you -- cost jump when going to FX, and the body is just the beginning of the series of sticker shocks! Don't just jump into the body because it's better... look at the whole picture of what it means to you now and what it'll mean in the future. Think of weight, size, and cost... all are going to go up by a lot if you go FX.
Not sure if the 7000 is good enough, I feel like there is almost always something better out there. going FX seems like the way to go if I want to get to the next level. I'd love to know when the 400 is coming out but I do need another body by early next month.
boshek wrote:
Not sure if the 7000 is good enough, I feel like there is almost always something better out there. going FX seems like the way to go if I want to get to the next level. I'd love to know when the 400 is coming out but I do need another body by early next month.
See, that "if I want to get to the next level" part is where we can't help you unless you provide a whole lot more detail. Next level in what? FX will always have better ISO performance and a shallower DOF (portraits). DX will always be smaller, lighter, hugely cheaper, and have deeper DOF (macro, landscapes). They're different tools... neither one is "better" than the other overall. The question is, which is better for you? And for that, we don't have enough information.
If you're excited about what is probably going to be a 24MP DX D400 with slightly better ISO performance than the D7000, then you should probably stick to DX and wait it out. Remember, this is a release year, especially given that Nikon had its hands tied behind its back for a large part of last year. I'd personally bet good money that we see a D400 in the next 3-4 months, maybe 6 months at most, because Nikon has sold a metric ton of D300 bodies and only some of those shooters will be going to FX. Many more will want to stay with DX, and they need an upgrade body, and Nikon will fersure give them one.
OTOH, if a D800 gets you all fired up about the things you could do with it, that you never could before with your current gear but always wanted to, then follow your heart and go for it. As I said, unless you NEED the highest possible ISO or the 10fps frame rate, then IMHO the D800 is the single best DSLR to buy on the market today... and at $3,000 it's a steal.
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
See, that "if I want to get to the next level" part is where we can't help you unless you provide a whole lot more detail. Next level in what? FX will always have better ISO performance and a shallower DOF (portraits). DX will always be smaller, lighter, hugely cheaper, and have deeper DOF (macro, landscapes). They're different tools... neither one is "better" than the other overall. The question is, which is better for you? And for that, we don't have enough information.
If you're excited about what is probably going to be a 24MP DX D400 with slightly better ISO performance than the D7000, then you should probably stick to DX and wait it out. Remember, this is a release year, especially given that Nikon had its hands tied behind its back for a large part of last year. I'd personally bet good money that we see a D400 in the next 3-4 months, maybe 6 months at most, because Nikon has sold a metric ton of D300 bodies and only some of those shooters will be going to FX. Many more will want to stay with DX, and they need an upgrade body, and Nikon will fersure give them one.
OTOH, if a D800 gets you all fired up about the things you could do with it, that you never could before with your current gear but always wanted to, then follow your heart and go for it. As I said, unless you NEED the highest possible ISO or the 10fps frame rate, then IMHO the D800 is the single best DSLR to buy on the market today... and at $3,000 it's a steal....Show more →
FX= better ISO performance, shallower DOF and a new AF system. Dont need 10fps, or I dont see me ever shooting at 12,800, right now I am using my D7000 at ISO 800, never really go above that but I may see what it can actually do at 1600-2000. Thanks for taking the time to give me the pros and cons. I think the D800 is my future since I cant wait 3-6 months for another DX body. And I am sure that if the D800 doesn't do it for me, then I can always sell it and go for a D400 if and when it does come to fruition. If the D800 allows me to shoot at 3200 when necessary then I will be as happy as a pig in %^%#@!
I think the main point Rodolfo makes is that FX-compatible glass is much more expensive, unless of course you're planning on using the D800 in DX mode? Then the D7k has more pixels per duck, so to speak
For all practical purposes, the d7000 doesn't have any meaningful increase in resolution than the d800 in dx mode, or more pixels per duck. It is misleading to make the statement that the d7000 has more pixels per duck, though in the literal sense it does indeed.
Not to derail your thread, but one of the posts above lead me to believe that the rumored D400 would be an FX body? I don't follow camera rumors or trends so, is this what people are anticipating? If so, that'd be fantastic. What I've been waiting for is essentially a D700 with the D3s sensor so if that's what the next body might be then, fantastic.
The D800 looks great but I really need a body that, with the grip and larger batteries, can give me the 8 FPS that I get with my D3 and D700 bodies. If the D400 will have less than the D800's 36 megapixels, allowing it to have a faster frame rate AND be FX then I'd be a happy camper... now if they'd also add a voice tag feature I'd just fall over with appreciation... I get tired of owning D700 bodies for covering news AND D3s bodies for sports.
boshek wrote:
FX= better ISO performance, shallower DOF and a new AF system. Dont need 10fps, or I dont see me ever shooting at 12,800, right now I am using my D7000 at ISO 800, never really go above that but I may see what it can actually do at 1600-2000. Thanks for taking the time to give me the pros and cons. I think the D800 is my future since I cant wait 3-6 months for another DX body. And I am sure that if the D800 doesn't do it for me, then I can always sell it and go for a D400 if and when it does come to fruition. If the D800 allows me to shoot at 3200 when necessary then I will be as happy as a pig in %^%#@!...Show more →
The D7000 will do 3200 reasonably well, and 1600-2000 very well, and the new AF system will surely be in the D400 as well. Sounds like you don't get a huge benefit from the change to FX, unless you'd like to print large in which case the 36MP is a bloody godsend. And the D800 has still not cleared its initial backorders, so to find one within the next 2-3 months you'll have to do some active searching, and then get a little lucky.
If you need a second body soon, I still think another D7000 (esp. used off B&S for $900 or so) may be your best bet for now. Later you can go to a D400 or D800 depending on both your needs and wants (i.e. doesn't sound like you need the D800, but maybe you just want one and there's nothing wrong with that).
bblanco wrote:
Not to derail your thread, but one of the posts above lead me to believe that the rumored D400 would be an FX body?
I would say that the "prevailing rumor" is that Nikon is going to use the D300/400/500 models for DX, and the D700/800/900 for FX. Larger sensors are exponentially more expensive, and the D300 needs an upgrade path, so I would personally expect the D400 to be a 24MP DX body with the AF and metering from the D4/D800.
Frame rate is a big question. I'm guessing that the limitation there will be data processing and throughput. The D4 can process 10 frames of 16MP per second (160MP/sec) at what is probably the EXPEED processor's full capacity or very close to it. The D800 at 4fps is processing 144MP/sec. So, if the D400 is 24MP, then one can reasonably expect it to hit 6fps (also 144MP/sec). A frame rate of 7fps would imply a processing rate of 168MP/sec, which may or may not be possible given current processing capacity... but I think it's more likely that Nikon will stick to 6fps.
Still, who knows? All of this is just reasonable speculation? We've all been wrong before. No one expected the D800 to be what it is at 36MP. So it's best to wait and see, and shoot happily in the meantime.
Not concerned with the big file size. For the $3k is the best I can do