What to buy - Nikon 24-70 f2.8 with or w/o D700

Nikon AF-S DX 18-105 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR

01/04/2010 08:53:50 PM · #1

Have D90 and 80-200 f2.8. Rarely use the lens. Want to get the 24-70 f2.8. Will sell the big zoom.

The question is this:

Should I sell the D90 and the big lens and put all that towards the 24-70 WITH the D700 FX body?

I've never owned an FX. Are these cams really that much better than the DX? I'm familiar with the crop factor. What other advantages does the D700 have over the D90? Or the FX have over the DX in any camera.

I have my third paid gig coming up in March. However, this will be my first "big" one. It will be a party at the aquarium in New Orleans. I will be taking 20 set-up shots of the honorees...3 of which will go into the local paper. I will also take candids throughout the night that the guests can purchase.

The 24-70 is going to be purchased regardless. My 18-70 3.5-5.6 isn't going to cut it. However, I'm wondering if I should go ahead and get an FX and get it over with.

This gig could lead to other paid jobs over the course of the next several years so I want to do it right.

I know the camera is not magic and it will be up to me to get the shot right...so no warnings needed in that area !

Thanks for your input.

Message edited by author 2010-01-04 21:32:07.

JimiRose

Nikon D90

01/04/2010 09:14:29 PM · #2

I don't really know about Fx to be honest, but I shot a wedding and I've done a lot of work at parties in nightclubs with a D90 last year it performed admirably. My humble advice would be spend the money on the lens and a decent flash rather than the body unless you need the extra pixels.

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

01/04/2010 09:28:01 PM · #3

Thanks...both the D90 and the D700 are 12mp as far as my understanding goes. I just don't know how that FX improves over the DX sensor.

Originally posted by JimiRose:

spiritualspatula

01/04/2010 09:59:51 PM · #4

Originally posted by kenskid:

Thanks...both the D90 and the D700 are 12mp as far as my understanding goes. I just don't know how that FX improves over the DX sensor.

Originally posted by JimiRose:
I don't really know about Fx to be honest, but I shot a wedding and I've done a lot of work at parties in nightclubs with a D90 last year it performed admirably. My humble advice would be spend the money on the lens and a decent flash rather than the body unless you need the extra pixels.

D700 low-light performance is light years ahead of the D90. Has to do with pixel density. Check out the sensor ratings.
For large groups, you still may want to supplement lighting, but remember that with improved low light performance any supplement you provide will be worth more due to the enhanced sensitivity.

01/04/2010 10:08:48 PM · #5

Thanks...lots of my "family" pics are taken inside an auditorium. The kids do a lot of plays and such. No flash is allowed. I knowt the 2.8 will help with that but wasn't sure what to expect from an FX vs a DX in the same situations with the same lens.

Wow...thanks for that link...I'm looking at it now.

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

Originally posted by kenskid:
Thanks...both the D90 and the D700 are 12mp as far as my understanding goes. I just don't know how that FX improves over the DX sensor.

Originally posted by JimiRose:
I don't really know about Fx to be honest, but I shot a wedding and I've done a lot of work at parties in nightclubs with a D90 last year it performed admirably. My humble advice would be spend the money on the lens and a decent flash rather than the body unless you need the extra pixels.

D700 low-light performance is light years ahead of the D90. Has to do with pixel density. Check out the sensor ratings.
For large groups, you still may want to supplement lighting, but remember that with improved low light performance any supplement you provide will be worth more due to the enhanced sensitivity.

Message edited by author 2010-01-04 22:10:20.

chromeydome

Nikon D7000

Canon EF 500mm f/4.0L IS USM

01/04/2010 10:13:20 PM · #6

I have the D90, opting to invest in FX lenses ahead of the day when I buy a d700 or better. My friend has the d700.

For set up shots with studio lighting or speedlites, the D90 performs wonderfully well, and you should be fine. For low light work, the D700 will be much much much better--higher iso with low noise. If you planned on available light candids in the aquarium setting, a D700 would help you for sure. However, if you meant by candids that you would work with your camera and speedlight, the d90 will be fine.

You could rent a d700 ahead of time, take both to the aquarium, and scout/test things out. If the d700 would really help with this event, but not be necessary right now for all your shooting, you could also rent it for the event.

You'll never regret good, fast, FX ready glass :-) Your wallet might, but you won't...

Magnumphotography

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/04/2010 10:13:43 PM · #7

//www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/294|0/(appareil2)/296|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Nikon/(brand2)/Nikon
That link is very interesting! Thanks for sharing Spiritualspatula!

spiritualspatula

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR DG IF-ED

01/04/2010 10:22:26 PM · #8

I'm obviously a D300 owner, and the D90 is the same chip. As much as the D300 was an improvement upon the D200, the D700 is in a league of its own for low light performance. It was the same when the 5D first came out, and now the 5D MKII. Low light performance is linked to pixel density. FX chips have more real estate to contribute to each pixel, so their density and low light performance will be improved. Fast glass helps, obviously, but the two together are impossible to beat.

Drake

Nikon D850

01/04/2010 10:32:49 PM · #9

I have the D700 and it is excellent in low light / high ISO situations - with no noise.

I also have a 28-70 f2.8 lens which is my work horse for indoor shots. I own a D300, and it does a great job - but not a good as the D700 in low light.

What ever you do, go for the best glass you can afford - and upgrade camera bodies as you can.
Drake

Covert_Oddity

01/04/2010 11:05:59 PM · #10

I would say the D700 + 24-70 if you can go for it as it's a combination I use all the time.

Low light performance on the D700 is excellent, I have absolutely no hesitation in pushing the ISO up to 1600 and sometimes beyond when required.

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR DG IF-ED

01/05/2010 09:30:40 PM · #11

Thanks for all the input....one more question...

If you could buy ONE right now...would you get the lens and use with the D90 or the D700 body and a f3.5-5.6 type kit lens?

ErikV

Nikon D7000

01/05/2010 10:11:15 PM · #12

The outstanding 24-70 lens will be good for 20+ years; the outstanding D700 will be outdated in 5-7 years. I have a D80 (not all that different from a D90) and it works real well with the 24-70. I would also be concerned that a cheap lens will look pretty bad if you pair it with the D700 because the D700 will magnify its limitations -- plus in the long term you have no use for such a lens, so it will be wasted money. So I would get the lens and use it with the D90.

ETA: one of my better shots with the combination of D80 and 24-70 lens

Message edited by author 2010-01-05 22:16:31.

Covert_Oddity

01/05/2010 10:39:06 PM · #13

Originally posted by ErikV:

I agree with getting the lens and using it with your existing body, but only if you do eventually plan to upgrade to a full frame. Paying a premium for the 24-70 seems like a bit of overkill to me if you only ever use it on a DX sensor. Going for the camera with a "temporary" lens just seems like a waste of money in the long run.

chromeydome

Nikon D7000

01/05/2010 10:42:00 PM · #14

Well, I DID make that choice: a D90 and primo glass. If I had to work in low light, hand-held, high ISO situations as a regular thing, I might have chosen differently (but you'd still want a great lens for that situation, too). A d90 with a 24-70 2.8 and an 85 1.4 is a sweet setup.