Upgrade to FX from D7000

kratos

Senior Member
This thread might be similar to others but since every D7000 owner have their own experiences, I am posting it any way.
I have been using D7000 for 4 years and I am glad that I chose this for my entry into DSLR. Its a great camera overall and even today I won't even think about replacing it for any other APS-C. But as any other person, I am also after better tech always.
First of all, Let me make my position clear. I am just an enthusiast, not a professional. I have covered the basics of DSLR, have tried popular techniques like timelapse/hyperlapse, long exposures, all types of focus methods. I enjoy shortcuts and more buttons on camera, lately I am getting biased towards using back button focus. So all basics covered.
I have following lenses:-
nikon dx 18-105 (kit lense)
nikon fx 50 mm 1.8D
tamron fx 70-300 VC -- will probably sell this. zoom is not enough even on dx.
tamron fx 28-75 f2.8 DI -- planning to use this with FX for daily use

Now to my main question. Even though I enjoy using D7000, I think I can do better with FX sensor. I am interested mostly in still pictures, in fact I never shot a single video using my D7000. I mostly do landscape, wildlife is limited to zoo, and portraits are limited to family, I use DOF for flowers, birds and small objects here and there.
I would really like to be able to use the DOF of an FX camera and the light sensitivity which I presume that should be 1.5 time better at least. Now since this is just the hobby, I have limited budget and I can only afford own just one camera. I am currently in Australia and thinking of selling my D7000 with 18-105 kit lense which should get 700~800 $ back to me.

I am looking for one of the three cameras (used) - D700, D750, D800. A fairly used D700 will cost me around the same for which I will sell my D7000.
D750 will cost around 1300-1400 $ and D800 around 1700$. Going to a D700 ideally should not cost me any money since all my lenses except the kit one are FX lenses.
But I was thinking whether I should settle for D700 or wait some time, save money and switch to D750 or D800. This is where I need your help. Since I am limited by my budget, a lot of my knowledge about other cameras comes from youtube and google. But hey, there is no better forum you could ask this question to.....
 
Go with the D750. It is a great camera and will feel a lot like your D7000.

Are you talking US dollars? That would be a high price for a D7000. I had a D7000 a did sell it about a year ago here in the US.
 

kratos

Senior Member
Go with the D750. It is a great camera and will feel a lot like your D7000.

Are you talking US dollars? That would be a high price for a D7000. I had a D7000 a did sell it about a year ago here in the US.

Thanks Don.I am talking AUD. The only thing keeping me away from d750 is the shutter speed 1/4000.Don't really understand why nikon did it. I dont use 1/8000 but certainly I have gone above 4000 on my d7000 (rarely though). So yes, when I finally go for the buy, I might consider D750 just for the price.
 
Last edited:

Fortkentdad

Senior Member
I went for the D610 - which was (and is) the least expensive way to get to FX if buying new. There were issues with the D600 but I've never had any with the D610 and have no problem recommending it. The D750 has more to offer and the D700 should be less used (although it may compare favourably with the D600 or D610 used). The D800 (or D810) would be the best of the bunch you are looking at but you can expect to pay a premium.

All depends on the width of the wallet in you pocket. If I could afford the D800 /810 that would be my first choice.

I'm glad I went FX when I upgraded from my D5100. Having said that the APC has a lot going for it - I added a D7100 to my arsenal not that long ago. Get the best of both worlds.

BTW I have tried a Kenko 1.4 on that Tamron 70-300 and it does work - but it isn't a 200-500 (nor anywhere near the price of that big one).
 

kratos

Senior Member
Hmm thanks everyone for the replies. Have got some more important things. So this fx things will have to wait a little longer than I wanted. I hope my patience will have its reward.
 

Fortkentdad

Senior Member
Always better to get the glass first and then the body. That is what it did. The glass will work great with the DX bodies


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

once you see FX in your future getting good glass is critical. a good 70-200 is one of the standards, a nice niffty 50 is a great addition and probably the least costly bit of fx glass you will ever get. depending on your lens lust fx glass costs far more than your body but should last longer
 
once you see FX in your future getting good glass is critical. a good 70-200 is one of the standards, a nice niffty 50 is a great addition and probably the least costly bit of fx glass you will ever get. depending on your lens lust fx glass costs far more than your body but should last longer


I started off with the 24-120 to replace my 18-140 on my D7100. It is a good all around lens on the D750 but I really did miss the wide portion on the D7100. I use my 16-28 on my
D750 more than any other lens. I really like the wide angle shots. So the choice of lenses is all dependent on your shooting habits and your budget. FX glass is expensive.
 

Fortkentdad

Senior Member
I started off with the 24-120 to replace my 18-140 on my D7100. It is a good all around lens on the D750 but I really did miss the wide portion on the D7100. I use my 16-28 on my
D750 more than any other lens. I really like the wide angle shots. So the choice of lenses is all dependent on your shooting habits and your budget. FX glass is expensive.

For sure, I have a 17-35 Tamron FX lens and use it a lot - the 24-70 2.8 is a superior lens but much heavier and the difference on an FX between 17 and 24 is noticeable. Received a Siggy Artsy 50 1.4 for Christmas and love it - works well on FX and DX. Same goes for my 85 1.8. Generally FX lenses are fine on a DX, but you do pay that FX premium in most cases.

I had some older AF-D lenses that are still good glass and can be had for far less. And they tended to be much smaller than todays - in part because they have not focus motor, V.C. and other bells. Just good glass. I gave these to my daughter-in-law with my D90 as she is interested in the hobby. But good vintage lenses are one way to go FX on a budget. I still look for a bargain.
 

spb_stan

Senior Member
First post, and being a contrarian: I did not read anything in your post that suggests that you have exhausted the D7000 or doing something that would give visually more compelling images going to FX. It is expensive and it is very rare a subject or print size that a difference can be seen. If you really want to extend your photography, camera bodies are not the answer, lighting and lenses however are a much better investment for best return. A couple good primes, such as any of the excellent f/1.8G primes will be a big step up over the slow zooms. For example if you do portraits, a 85 1.8G is really hard to beat for less than 2-3 times the price and gives a field of view on DX that is very nice for head shots.
Lighting is the best return on investment, better than lenses in value. A few speed lights and low cost flash controllers and a few modifiers can result in pro studio images with a bit of learning and practice and only cost a couple hundred dollars.
Can you post an image you like but feel would be more compelling shot with Fx?
Regarding the cameras, every one mentions is better than the D700 for image quality but the D700 is a great handling camera. If it fails however, many of its parts are becoming unavailable. If you are serious about fine art, stock, studio work, the D800, used is the best deal. If you want a general purpose Fx, the D750 is an excellent performer. The image quality of the D610 for general photography is excellent also and a used one is a bargain.
IF you want to spend $5000 on lenses and a used FX body, and not hurt, go for it but if you are tight for the lens investment, don't move to FX. The lenses you want are all well over $1000 each. Closer to $2000.

Regarding image quality, any camera made is easily capable to capturing any image you see on gallery walls. It is NOT the camera that makes the images worth viewing. I switched from film to DSLR only 10 years ago and had no F mount lenses but build up a decent collection of fx lenses and have at least $15,000 invested to cover what you have now.The lenses I would like, I can't afford...like but not need. If starting with digital now, I would stay with Dx until needed if ever, and get a few very good lenses and 1 light general purpose zoom: 20 1.8g, 35 1.8g 85 1.8g and a light slow aperture plastic zoom. If doing more landscape, an ultrawide zoom like a 10-20 or 1-24. Aperture is not terribly important on an ultrawide since landscape is usually done on a tripod and longer exposures stopped down is the norm. The light 1.8G lenses listed about are better than any zoom. There might not been a better AF 20mm lens in existence than that Nikon 20. I have the very good 14-24 2.8 and at 20mm that low cost prime is better in all respects.

Lets hear more of what you are shooting and in what conditions, and see some images you think would be better with Fx. We might be able to help you up your game and save you a lot of money.
 

01301johnny

Senior Member
Hello Listers,

Our Nikon family includes 2 D7000 and one D700. Two + years ago the D700 was my step into FX and at the time the price of $850 made it happen. The d700 is really easy to use and it will be a keeper. Yes I would like something with higher resolution ...perhaps sometime in 2018.

In the mean time I agree with others getting more FX glass is a good route.
 
Top