Planning future upgrades, body or lens

Krs_2007

Senior Member
I currently use a D7000 and mostly shoot sports with about 20 percent being portraits. I have a few questions to assist me in moving to the next direction of equipment.

My future plans are to go to FX, so keep that in mind.


1- With sports this lens does great providing I have enough light, not so good for indoors sports or night time sports with stadium lights. (AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED). So I was thinking to achieve the lower light capability was to upgrade to a 70-200 2.8. I know this would achieve great pictures but it also would limit me on the long end if I switched to FX. Teleconverter could be a solution to that, but would come later. A zoom is needed because of close up shots, so a prime would not work for me unless I ran with 2 cameras. I know staying with the DX then I can factor in the crop for the 70-200 and wouldn't really need to the tele for 90 percent of my shots, but the tele would give me greater range with DX and FX.

2 - Now with this lens AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED, would I be able to achieve a little better low light capability if I upgraded to a FX camera like the 600. I have heard mention of better low light performance with FX bodies, but no mention of the lens being used.

So basically I am trying to figure out if I want to keep the DX and purchase a f2.8 lens or keep my current zoom which is an FX lens and upgrade to a FX body. Both being about the same price, which got me to thinking and thats usually trouble, but I cant do both at the same time right now.

Any help or comparison pics would be great, Hope my questions make sense.
 

stmv

Senior Member
if you are thinking reach,, then I would consider keeping the 7000, but in reality, often you do not need such reach, I often find myself moving to 105 or even 85 in many indoors venues, unless I am in some large stadium I suppose. The D700 is an awesome indoor FX camera if you look for a nice clean copy.
 

Dave_W

The Dude
Having owned both DX and FX cameras, I would say spend your money on FX instead of glass. You'll never regret the decision.
 

Krs_2007

Senior Member
if you are thinking reach,, then I would consider keeping the 7000, but in reality, often you do not need such reach, I often find myself moving to 105 or even 85 in many indoors venues, unless I am in some large stadium I suppose. The D700 is an awesome indoor FX camera if you look for a nice clean copy.

This is very true, I have been looking over my pics from year and what you say is true for me. Most of my wrestling shots were with the 105 and even some of the basketball shots. The 70-300 is mainly for baseball and football, but here lately they have been letting me get on the fields so its not that big of issue for now.
 

crycocyon

Senior Member
I would get the faster glass, the 70-200 2.8. Later on you can always get a D600 but for now you want the greater flexibility a faster lens affords. When you do plan to switch to FX, you won't be limited because they have a DX crop mode so you can shoot in both formats taking advantage of the different reach of the lens.
 

JDFlood

Senior Member
You could play it either way and get a benefit. I think either makes sense. The advantage of the D600 (I wouldn't get a 5 year old camera now ((D700))) is the new very sensitive full sized sensor. This puts you in the really good pro-sumer body. Should be good for ten years, unless you choose to upgrade in four or five. The glass, tends to hold it's value... if you ever sell it... not sure why you would. OK, I would do the body, because you will get benefits on all your photos from the great sensor... do you do post processing? It really helps if you do, since the FX sensor has a huge capability to lighten the dark areas and choose your balance. Just don't buy a DX lens so you can upgrade later and not have to swap lenses to FX. I think you can do either and feel comfortable you are doing the right thing. JD
 

Krs_2007

Senior Member
Thanks for the responses. At this point I am leaning towards the body, the zoom I have is FX and I have a 50 FX lens as well so I would rather spend the money now on the FX body and see where that leaves me later. I just got to thinking about the simple fact that I would get more use out of the body then the lens. So going to start looking at getting the D600, currently reading as much as I can about it and it seems like it should be an easy jump from the D7000.
 

Krs_2007

Senior Member
I was talking to the camera store and they indicated that this is not happening as much as it did in the beginning and. So not sure, but I am worried about as well. I feel pretty sure I can do the cleaning if needed. I hope to have mine by the end of the month, going to keep reading about this issues. The thing I always see in these cases is we only hear about the problems and never really hear from those that dont have the issues unless you find a post on the forum here. It would be nice to know how many actually had the issues versus those that didn't.
 

Krs_2007

Senior Member
I wonder if getting one from B&H that is refurbished from Nikon would be worth the 300 in savings. Never bought refurbished, always been to nervous to do so.
 

Dave_W

The Dude
I wonder if getting one from B&H that is refurbished from Nikon would be worth the 300 in savings. Never bought refurbished, always been to nervous to do so.

I am nervous about it, too, but many people here have bought refurbs and had good luck with them. The one thing that bothers me is that Nikon doesn't give the same warranty on refurbs as they do their new cameras. You would think having fixed it they would be more than willing to put the same warranty but they don't. That bothers me a little. However, I think B&H will sell you a 3rd party warranty fairly cheap.
 

JDFlood

Senior Member
I have quite a few refurbished lenses. All have been great. My theory is that any products that have been sold and returned end up "refurbished". So usually, box was opened and little else, then Nikon inspects and sells as reverb. So most likely it is new / inspected. Anyway, that's just my guess. JD
 

Krs_2007

Senior Member
I would imagine your right, just wish they would increase warranty. I might wind up going this route to save some money for a lens. I have an 18-105 that is DX, but I want get something similar in the FX format. Kind of thinking of getting the kit lens as the others I have are FX, but I like having something in between for general shots.
 

SkvLTD

Senior Member
And this is to clarify it for myself as well, but DX crop is merely a field of view crop, so it only appears a bit more zoomed in without any real effect on the reach of zoom, correct? So say 300 is still whatever zoom and focal factor it is on both formats, but DX just limits the maximum field of view by 1.5x.

If that is so, then to get actual better reach out of a 200, you'd need a tele converter. Just switching to DX format would only cut out some of the field of view, correct?
 

JDFlood

Senior Member
The crop is a function of the camera (sensor size) not of the lens. So, the innate "magnification" of a 200mm DX and FX is the same... Since an FX lens will work on either body, it produces a 200mm telephoto effect on a FX body and a 300mm effect on a DX body.

The DX camera, given it's smaller sensor size ( and equal distance to the sensor) only captures the center part of the image projected by the FX lens which is what gives it it's appear ant higher magnification. JD
 

JDFlood

Senior Member
I would imagine your right, just wish they would increase warranty. I might wind up going this route to save some money for a lens. I have an 18-105 that is DX, but I want get something similar in the FX format. Kind of thinking of getting the kit lens as the others I have are FX, but I like having something in between for general shots.

If it is of any help, I have bought Nikon lenses for over 40 years, have about 20 now, and never had one fail. JD ( dropped and broke one, but never a failure).
 
Top