Upgrade from D90 to ???

Samko

Hello everybody.
( my english is not the best

Just now im using the D90, and im happy with it until now. I have only taken photos for a year now, and im slowly finding my "style".
The thing is, i like shooting landscape and stars and when im not shooting that i like to shot night photos ( on street at night ) . For me photos look a lil bit boring during the day.

Now, im "new" at this, but i have found out that the D90 dont let me take the photos i like due to its ISO( noise ), i dont like to pump it over 800 iso, that result in i need to have long shutter speed to get the photo, but thats a problem when the subject is moving at poor light.

I have been looking for a better low light camera ( noise/iso ) and i fall back on the D700. Reason is, people say it performs well in low light, and i like the 12mp becouse of the file size. I dont crop that much, i try to take the photo as close to perfect as i can when im shooting. Plus the fx will give me wide view ( landscape ) , lowlight ( street ). Im not into video with my photo camera so im not gonna miss that. ( i think i can get a D700 for +- 550 € )

Is it a wise idea to get a D700 ? Or do a have a better choise than that for my style of photography ?

Thank you, hope you understand what i wrote.

NSXTypeR

If you have the full frame lenses already, then you can upgrade to the D700. But if you don't, I'd stay with DX. Try a D5200 or D5300.

Msmoto

For sure, the move to full frame is a large investment in glass. I agree with NSXTypeR but might suggest the D7100. One other thought is what lens you are using. If, you do not have any fast lenses, that is f/1.8 or f/1.4, maybe this would help in low light.

As a D90 owner, I think this is still a decent body which can do much in the right hands.

Samko

Nsx, i need to have that little screen on top and 2 wheels to control my camera, i like to shoot in M and the little display on top dont light that much up at night, it show just what i need. How is the 35mm 1.8 for FX for a start ?

Msmoto, i dont have any lensen at 1.4 or 1.8 , i dont wanna invest fast glass before i have made up my mind. Im not sure how much it will help on fast shutter. Lets say a night photo in the city , a little light from the shops , and i want to take a photo of a bike driving at 10kmh, is.it possible to freez him with 35mm 1.8 iso 800 ?

In my mind ( d700 ) 35mm1.8 iso 3200 , i will be able to frezz him , am i wrong on that ?

NSXTypeR

Taking photos with a D700 and a DX lens is not recommended, but doable. If you want to keep the two wheel controls, you should stay with the D7000 or D7100 then.

The 35mm 1.8 is a fast lens, but it really depends on situation and how much light you have. I can't predict how much light you can work with.

Samko

I was thinking on a 35mm 1.8G ED if possible on a D700. Are D7000-7100 much better in lowlight then a D90 ? I have been looking a little bit at the d7000 but i dont see it as a BIG jump from a D90.
I use a lens 35-135mm 3,5-4,5 , it is a old lens, but i really like taking photos with it so it will be nice if i coud keep and use it on my new body.

henrik1963

@Samko: I moved from D90 to D700 and was happy. But that was more than two years ago.

First: Coming from a D90 you would not be happy with D5xxx or D3xxx even if the sensors are better - and they are. There is more to a camera than the sensor. VF and controls are much better on a D90 than on D5xxx or D3xxx.

D700 is an amazing camera compared to a D90. You get the pro controls and better VF. But you will only get about one stop better high ISO. If your limit is ISO 800 on the D90 you will find that ISO 1.600 is your limit on the D700. Can you push the D700 to ISO 3.200? That depends on what you shoot. Some subjects hide noise better than others. And your ability to post process will make a big difference here.

I have been shooting D800 for two years now. And for most subjects that gets me one more stop of usable ISO - not that the D800 is better in handling noise than the D700 - it is about the same. But you can down sample from 36MP to 12MP and you will not see the noise. My limit on the D800 is ISO 3.200. On the D800 you will see noise from ISO 800. But you have a lot of MP. So it is no problem using noise reduction. But again it depends on what you want to do with the pictures.

If you are on a budget a D700 may be a good camera to get. Just know that you need fast glass if you want to shoot in the dark. Fast glass is expensive thus negating some of the savings you get from going with the D700 in the first place.

The logic upgrade would be a D7100 if you want to stay with DX cameras. But here you would run in to another problem. There is no fast wide primes for DX. You end up paying more for wide lenses. I don't know how D7100 handles at ISO 3.200 as I have never shot one.

Maybe the D610 or D750 are worth looking in to as they seem to hold up pretty well at ISO 3.200. Just know that very few cameras are anything close to noise free at ISO 3.200.

I will stop before this post gets any longer :-)

NSXTypeR

I was thinking on a 35mm 1.8G ED if possible on a D700. Are D7000-7100 much better in lowlight then a D90 ? I have been looking a little bit at the d7000 but i dont see it as a BIG jump from a D90.
I use a lens 35-135mm 3,5-4,5 , it is a old lens, but i really like taking photos with it so it will be nice if i coud keep and use it on my new body.

You should look into DX and FX as a system. DX- like the D90 has a specific set of lenses that work well on one system but not the other. It will not work well on a full frame camera like the D700 because you are cutting out the frame. I am not familiar with the 35-135, but I think that might be a FX lens. That would work fine on a D700. The 35mm 1.8 DX is optimized for DX cameras like the D90 though.

Read this article.

http://photographylife.com/nikon-dx-vs-fx

Ironheart

@Samko, f/1.8 to f/3.5 is two stops. D90 to d700 upgrade is one stop.
Buy the DX 35mm f/1.8 and spend the rest on wine, women, and song, because you will be that happy. Best $200 I ever spent.

WestEndBoy

@Samko, f/1.8 to f/3.5 is two stops. D90 to d700 upgrade is one stop.
Buy the DX 35mm f/1.8 and spend the rest on wine, women, and song, because you will be that happy. Best $200 I ever spent.

This is absolutely correct. I was begging to know kind of lens you were currently using when I started reading this thread. Then until I got to Ironheart's post, I was begging to tell you exactly the same thing.

Samko

Thanks everybody.
Henrik, thanks for the post.

You have all put things in a nice perspectiv. I think im gonna stick with the d90 and hunt down a fast lens, i have been looking at the 35mm 1.8 dx. I hope it will help.

I get desperat because i miss a lot of shots at night, delete a lot of them and many i dont even wanna try to capture it becouse i now they will come out blurry or noisy.

WestEndBoy

You may still want to upgrade to FX eventually, but spending a couple of hundred bucks on the 35 1.8 will get you a long way, perhaps enough.

NSXTypeR

I also second (third?) the 35mm 1.8 DX. It's one of my favorite lenses, you'll get a lot of use out of it.

Photobug

I got my wife the D90 a few months after it came out. Excellent camera for her and the way she uses it in "P" mode.

I am some what prejudice and recommend you stay in DX format and buy a used, new or refurbished D7100. Every once in a while you can get some great deals on resfurbished D7100 with great warranties.

The shift from DX to FF is a big one, especially to invest in quality glass. DX will be so much easier with the 1.5 reach and the 1.3 crop helps even more. For wildlife and stars it maybe better.

Reading between the lines it looks like you are already convinced on moving to FX. If that is what you want to do, avoid the D700. It's technology is long and in the tooth. Consider a D610 refurbished model or new one. If you have the bucks to buy FF lens and a D750 you will be set for a long time. I would suggest you avoid the D600 even though there are users on here that have not have the dust and oil issues that lead to the death and early replacement of the D600.

Msmoto

On.e of my lenses I really like is the Sigma Art 35mm f/1.4.... A " normal" lens for crop sensor bodies, IMO.

tcole1983

Having just gone from a d5000.. d90 equivalent to a d5200...d7100 equivalent. Much better ISO performance. You should see better autofocus performance and get a fast lens and you will add even better low light performance. It would be a significant upgrade. If you really want to spend and get into it go FX for even better low light performance....if that is specifically what you are looking for.

I specifically don't love my 35 f1.8 but just because I don't have much use for it and not for performance. It is only slightly faster than my 17-55 f2.8 so I don't usually bother with it. If you are shooting with a variable aperture lens and will gain a couple stops it might be more worth it.

Samko

Yea i know i will get better iso on a news version of D90(D7100). I was thinking on FX because of i love shooting, landscape and night .... Wide and high ISO. That is why FX came into my mind. But the price of glass for a FX body is something i need to look at, if the price is to high i will stick with DX.

spraynpray

I get desperat because i miss a lot of shots at night, delete a lot of them and many i dont even wanna try to capture it becouse i now they will come out blurry or noisy.

Sounds like a good tripod would serve you so you can keep the ISO at the low level it needs to be with the old D90 sensor and so get sharp shots.

tcole1983

Well fx wise the 50 f1.8 is relatively inexpensive. It just depends on what other lenses you need or want. There are a few reasonably priced fx primes but most other zooms are expensive compared to the dx counterparts. We still have no idea what lenses you use so hard to judge much.

NSXTypeR

For FX you can take a look at the 24-85 AF-S. Maybe not wide enough, but it's not absurdly expensive.

Samko

I have a tripod, but i dont take it with me , its to much .

Fx lensens, i would be glad with 12- ....+ mm , 50mm and one 300mm. All fast. That its a wish on a fx.
Dx lenses , shood be 10 - ... Mm , 35mm and 200 mm , but there is the problem, i not sure they are fast to frezz action at night .

henrik1963

@Samko: You need to make a long term plan. You want to end up with everything from super wide to tele. That is going to cost you a lot of money if you want to shoot in the dark at all FL from 12-300.

You will find that sometimes it is cheaper to add an extra body that to add an extra lens. Say you have 200mm at F2.8 and you want to add 300mm at 2.8. It is far cheaper to add a D7100 than a 300 2.8.

Whatever you buy now you better make sure that it fits into your long term plan. If you have some money to spend now it may be a better plan to buy something like a Sigma 35 1.4 Art and use that on your D90. That will give you 2 stops of light and supersharp pictures. It is way more expensive than a Nikon 35 1.8 DX but it fits better into your long term plan.

One way to save in the long run is to buy the right thing the first time.

It sounds to me that your plan should include good fast FX glass but both a FX and a DX body.

I have found that starting out with good glass is a better way than starting out with a body.

Samko

@henrik
I get the point, i have never tought off that it was cheaper to add a body than glass.

I have been thinking about it for some time now, i think im gonna stick with dx, because im not a pro, im just a amateur photographer that like taking "nice" photos. Its a hobby, no money in it for me. FX would maybe be a overkill for me, both in price and also in use since im just doing it for myself.

I have looked at the d7100 ( not sure if D7000 can do the same) it can do a extra crop mode, and when it allready is a crop that must mean it will give me "extra zoom", if i understand it right. The downside is the non wide glass, and the small buffer when shooting 6-7fps in NEF, plus i dont know what i think about 24mp. I have no problem with 12mp, size and IQ is just fine with me.

I dont think there is a camera that will fill out my wish ( not need ) 100%.
So i will just live with it. I love my D90, and i dont care if its only 12mp and all the other "bad" things. Its just annoying that i cant take fast photos at night, and that is what i like to do.

So a D7000/7100 and a fast lens 1.4/1.8, i believe it will fill the gab, plus it must be a nice camera to have for many years. Keep all the glass i have now would not be bad.

Im i all wrong ?

henrik1963

@Samko: DX is fine. In fact it is more than fine. If you are OK with 12MP why not start with a faster lens?

Try to get a good fast prime for your D90 and see how it works. You will be surprised how well your good old D90 performs. Best of luck.

Samko

@henrik

I will, i will get a fast lens and take it from there. I dont have money to get a d7xxx now anyway. If my d90 can handle dark im gonna be glad.

Thanks for talk and tips

WestEndBoy

Buy the 35 1.8 for $200 and see if it is enough. If it isn't, a newer DX camera will help little - you will need to go to FX.

If it is you are set.