A while back I posted about issues with my D90 and inconsistent focus with head shots at 2.8 which was not happening with my old D40.  I got lots of suggestions which I have been trying.I had decided that I would be upgrading and getting a new camera and really couldn't decide whether I wanted to stick with DX or move to full frame.  I read lots of information online and still couldn't decide so I bought a used D700 that would let me see how I feel about using a full frame and if it wasn't for me I could sell it without losing out too much and at least that way I would know.  The only FF lens I have is the 70-200 2.8 so have been using it with that.  It is a super camera and the iso performance is so much better than the D90 and the auto focus is spot on.  However much the camera feels right in my hand and performs well I am still not 100% sure if FX is for me.  For the type of portraits I take I don't know if I prefer the way they are rendered with the 70-200 on DX (more of the subject in focus and keeping a softer background).  I was out yesterday and took lots of shots with the D700 om full frame mode and also dx mode so I can try and decide once and for all which I prefer.If I decide I prefer DX this is where I am not sure what to do.  My D90 is still having inconsistent focus using that lens and settings.  I had hoped now that the weather was better and I was using faster shutters as suggested this may help but the problem is still there.  I would ideally like to wait until the newest model comes out as I feel the D7100 buffer may not be enough for what I do.As there is no current release date for a new model it is a long time to keep missing shots with the D90 and I have a wedding in August that I was hoping to try and get some shots at.  So I am at a loss what to do over the summer if I decide the D700 isn't for me.OptionsKeep using the D90 for regular shots as any issues aren't quite as noticeable and use the D40 when needing to take head shots although means carrying two camera around.Get rid of the D90 and try to get another camera at a decent used price such as a D300 or any other recommended models?Get rid of the D90 and got back to using the D40 until something new comes out although it may be rather frustrating going back the way.I don't mind spending money the now to sell on a few months down the line but want something with a decent enough re sale value.Any opinions would be appreciated.  Thanks

Penny123 wrote:I bought a used D700 that would let me see how I feel about using a full frame and if it wasn't for me I could sell it without losing out too much and at least that way I would know. The only FF lens I have is the 70-200 2.8 so have been using it with that. It is a super camera and the iso performance is so much better than the D90 and the auto focus is spot on.When I look at options you don't mention keeping the D700 and trying another lens.  You've tried one lens which isn't the focal range you use most (I looked at your Flickr page.  If you gave lessons I might take them).  It sounds like you like this body.  If you add a 28-70 lens which is where a lot of the shots are I suspect you would be happier with the D700.OptionsKeep using the D90 for regular shots as any issues aren't quite as noticeable and use the D40 when needing to take head shots although means carrying two camera around.Get rid of the D90 and try to get another camera at a decent used price such as a D300 or any other recommended models?Get rid of the D90 and got back to using the D40 until something new comes out although it may be rather frustrating going back the way.I don't mind spending money the now to sell on a few months down the line but want something with a decent enough re sale value.Any opinions would be appreciated. ThanksThe D90 isn't "right" now.  Be gentle, but let who ever you pass it to know what they are getting.The D40 is about where the D90 is.I'd guess photography is one of the things you like to do in life.  The D300 option is not expensive now if you go used.  It is close to a D90 (300-400).  If you buy either used you wouldn't lose a lot of money.  I'd try the second lens with the D700 though.FWIW.Grant.

I cant suggest anything. But after looking at your photos i have now lot more respect to nikon 16-85mm lens.

Pi lover wrote:Penny123 wrote:I bought a used D700 that would let me see how I feel about using a full frame and if it wasn't for me I could sell it without losing out too much and at least that way I would know. The only FF lens I have is the 70-200 2.8 so have been using it with that. It is a super camera and the iso performance is so much better than the D90 and the auto focus is spot on.When I look at options you don't mention keeping the D700 and trying another lens. You've tried one lens which isn't the focal range you use most (I looked at your Flickr page. If you gave lessons I might take them). It sounds like you like this body. If you add a 28-70 lens which is where a lot of the shots are I suspect you would be happier with the D700.OptionsKeep using the D90 for regular shots as any issues aren't quite as noticeable and use the D40 when needing to take head shots although means carrying two camera around.Get rid of the D90 and try to get another camera at a decent used price such as a D300 or any other recommended models?Get rid of the D90 and got back to using the D40 until something new comes out although it may be rather frustrating going back the way.I don't mind spending money the now to sell on a few months down the line but want something with a decent enough re sale value.Any opinions would be appreciated. ThanksThe D90 isn't "right" now. Be gentle, but let who ever you pass it to know what they are getting.The D40 is about where the D90 is.I'd guess photography is one of the things you like to do in life. The D300 option is not expensive now if you go used. It is close to a D90 (300-400). If you buy either used you wouldn't lose a lot of money. I'd try the second lens with the D700 though.FWIW.Grant.Thanks, it is difficult as I am really torn.  I took some landscape type shots with the D700 the other day with the 70-200 which is actually a really good focal length for these things on full frame and very happy with the quality, contrast and sharpness (this could however be because it had my good lens attached)I think what my main concert was that I wasn't as pleased with the way portraits are rendered in full frame, with DX and that lens I am getting more of the subject in focus whilst keeping that lovely creamy background.  The full frame images have less of the subject in focus and less of a blurred background which for what I like gives less impact.  So for the portraits I like maybe DX is better for me but then I am stuck with a camera that is faulty with these shots

Dagalbaji wrote:I cant suggest anything. But after looking at your photos i have now lot more respect to nikon 16-85mm lens.ThanksIt is not a bad lens and is the one always attached to the camera as a walk around as it has great reach.  If it were a little faster then i'd be happy

Penny123 wrote:Thanks, it is difficult as I am really torn. I took some landscape type shots with the D700 the other day with the 70-200 which is actually a really good focal length for these things on full frame and very happy with the quality, contrast and sharpness (this could however be because it had my good lens attached)I think what my main concert was that I wasn't as pleased with the way portraits are rendered in full frame, with DX and that lens I am getting more of the subject in focus whilst keeping that lovely creamy background. The full frame images have less of the subject in focus and less of a blurred background which for what I like gives less impact. So for the portraits I like maybe DX is better for me but then I am stuck with a camera that is faulty with these shotsHmmm.  When you first started posting about upgrading, I thought FF would be a good match for you, but if that's the "look" you like, maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to sell the D700, get a D300S or D7100, and then also look into a 300/4.  The AF-S version is recommended if you want to do running shots of your dog -- it is hands down my favorite lens (on the D700) for whippet action.The old screw-drive version also looks great, if you want to do mainly portraits and/or are on a bit of a budget.Either way, they are both stunning lenses and on DX will give you even more of the compressed look you like.  Or if you want to keep using the D700, a 300/4 will give a similar look on that body to what you get with the 70-200 on DX, only it will possibly be sharper?Only problem could be, when you have the 300/4 and 70-200, it's easy to fall into the trap of wanting to carry them both, because they are such great lenses!  At least, that's how I feel as an owner of the 70-200 VR.  If you have the VRII, however, the image quality might be close enough to the 300/4 that the prime doesn't impress quite as much.If you have the old 70-200 VR like I do, another option could be to trade it for a 70-200 f/4.  That will save a little weight, and it won't be quite as bad carrying a 300/4.If you want to stick it out with the D700 for a while longer, the Tamron 28-75/2.8 is a terrific and inexpensive landscape lens for that body, and it's very lightweight in comparison to the Nikon 28-70.  Not as nice a zoom range as your DX 16-85, however.More and more it seems like DX really might be the more suitable system for the kind of shooting you want to do.Julie

windsprite wrote:Penny123 wrote:Thanks, it is difficult as I am really torn. I took some landscape type shots with the D700 the other day with the 70-200 which is actually a really good focal length for these things on full frame and very happy with the quality, contrast and sharpness (this could however be because it had my good lens attached)I think what my main concert was that I wasn't as pleased with the way portraits are rendered in full frame, with DX and that lens I am getting more of the subject in focus whilst keeping that lovely creamy background. The full frame images have less of the subject in focus and less of a blurred background which for what I like gives less impact. So for the portraits I like maybe DX is better for me but then I am stuck with a camera that is faulty with these shotsHmmm. When you first started posting about upgrading, I thought FF would be a good match for you, but if that's the "look" you like, maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to sell the D700, get a D300S or D7100, and then also look into a 300/4. The AF-S version is recommended if you want to do running shots of your dog -- it is hands down my favorite lens (on the D700) for whippet action.The old screw-drive version also looks great, if you want to do mainly portraits and/or are on a bit of a budget.Either way, they are both stunning lenses and on DX will give you even more of the compressed look you like. Or if you want to keep using the D700, a 300/4 will give a similar look on that body to what you get with the 70-200 on DX, only it will possibly be sharper?Only problem could be, when you have the 300/4 and 70-200, it's easy to fall into the trap of wanting to carry them both, because they are such great lenses! At least, that's how I feel as an owner of the 70-200 VR. If you have the VRII, however, the image quality might be close enough to the 300/4 that the prime doesn't impress quite as much.If you have the old 70-200 VR like I do, another option could be to trade it for a 70-200 f/4. That will save a little weight, and it won't be quite as bad carrying a 300/4.If you want to stick it out with the D700 for a while longer, the Tamron 28-75/2.8 is a terrific and inexpensive landscape lens for that body, and it's very lightweight in comparison to the Nikon 28-70. Not as nice a zoom range as your DX 16-85, however.More and more it seems like DX really might be the more suitable system for the kind of shooting you want to do.JulieThanks for taking the time to respond.  I am getting a headache with it now lol  I just want to be out there annoying photography with a camera I love and that works!  I am finding it very difficult to part with the D700 as it feels good in my hands, I never thought a bigger and heavier body would but it does.  I have the vrii version of the 70-200 and I love it, it really gives images more of that wow factor.The pros of the FX for me is the better iso performance at 800 which started to effect shots with the D90 and the wonderful AF.  I took some shots of blossom trees with the D700 and was very happy with them.. whether the quality was down to the camera or the 70-200 attached.  Another pro is it makes the 70-200 a more versatile lens.My dog is 11 now so I could probably cope without the reach for action shots but the portrait issue is the only reason for me swaying away from fx.  Portraits I have taken with the DX and that lens, the background is so creamy and the subject really jumps out.  I have taken over 800 the other day in both dx and fx of her to compare so once I have them sorted I can really try and decide.I guess a newer DX will maybe give me the improvements that the D700 is.  The shallow raw buffer of the D7100 put me off a bit but I could always get one to keep me going until something else comes out or go for the D300s instead and upgrade when a new model comes out.

Are you sure you are not overplaying the buffer issue? If Rudy, Kris, Jim and so many excellent photographers here can manage with it, I don't think it would be much of a stumbling block. It is the top af system that might really make a difference for you. Getting new would really be a nice treat, too. It is the best dx body available today. The af of full frame and the rendering you like. -- http://www.flickr.com/photos/brev00

I would use the D700 and 70-200 f/2.8.

D7100 is the obvious upgrade from D90

Appreciate all the feedback. I am so torn as the landscape shots with the d700 and 70-200 are really nice and I love the feel of the body.What had worried me a bit with the d7100 is all this talk of technique without tripod etc as 95% of my shots are handheld out and about. Perhaps I need to buy a d7100 too and decide what I like! -- http://www.flickr.com/photos/sarahb86/

Wait for the D9300 (rumor) DX body.

Penny123 wrote:Appreciate all the feedback. I am so torn as the landscape shots with the d700 and 70-200 are really nice and I love the feel of the body.What had worried me a bit with the d7100 is all this talk of technique without tripod etc as 95% of my shots are handheld out and about. Perhaps I need to buy a d7100 too and decide what I like! -- http://www.flickr.com/photos/sarahb86/I don't think it is all that tricky.  From what Mosswings has shared, it seems to be a matter of upping the shutter speed some--from 1/(1.5 x fl) to 1/(2 x fl)--and inching up the iso to compensate.  Of course, I am still happy with my 12 mp D90 so it's a shame you got a dud.  When I finally upgrade, the new cameras will be 48mp.

I will give it some time before I jump into anything as I do really like the D700 and it has just the right amount of pixels for me.  Unless I am needing to crop heavily 12mp has always been good for me.  I took some shots of deer the other day but only had the D700 with me and 200mm wasn't quite enough so I shot in DX mode which only give 5mp... that isn't enough for further cropping unfortunately.  It is a pity about my D90 and rather annoying as it is a very good camera otherwise.

Penny123 wrote:Thanks for taking the time to respond. I am getting a headache with it now lolI know the feeling. As many cameras as there are out there, it seems difficult or impossible to find one that does it all.I just want to be out there annoyingenjoying?photography with a camera I love and that works! I am finding it very difficult to part with the D700 as it feels good in my hands, I never thought a bigger and heavier body would but it does.I've owned a lot of cameras of various brands, and the D700 is the one that seems to fall into my hands in the most natural way. That said, I added a D300 last year and found it pretty similar but not quite as heavy. The D300S comes even closer, if I'm not mistaken.I have the vrii version of the 70-200 and I love it, it really gives images more of that wow factor.As I mentioned, I have the old version, which is not as good in some ways, but I just love it for action shooting, portraits, landscapes, flowers, everything.The pros of the FX for me is the better iso performance at 800 which started to effect shots with the D90 and the wonderful AF. I took some shots of blossom trees with the D700 and was very happy with them.. whether the quality was down to the camera or the 70-200 attached.Probably both the sensor and the lens play into it.Another pro is it makes the 70-200 a more versatile lens.Yes. It's a pain when you want reach, but for most everything else 70-200 is a more workable focal range on FF.My dog is 11 now so I could probably cope without the reach for action shots but the portrait issue is the only reason for me swaying away from fx. Portraits I have taken with the DX and that lens, the background is so creamy and the subject really jumps out. I have taken over 800 the other day in both dx and fx of her to compare so once I have them sorted I can really try and decide.You never know, maybe you'll like the look of the FF shots when you get used to them. If not, have you considered adding a 1.4x teleconverter? That will give you approximately the same look as the DX camera. The Nikon 1.4x is good enough that you will see hardly any loss of sharpness. A teleconverter can make the bokeh rather less pleasing, but it's not always a problem. Usually it's worth the tradeoff to get the extra reach or compression effect.All this is why I thought a D800 might be a good choice. An in-camera DX crop still leaves 16MP, so it's almost two cameras in one. It's just that the frame rate is disappointing for a whippet owner.I guess a newer DX will maybe give me the improvements that the D700 is. The shallow raw buffer of the D7100 put me off a bit but I could always get one to keep me going until something else comes out or go for the D300s instead and upgrade when a new model comes out.It may be wise to either stick with what you've got now or spend as little as possible on a DX body (or try a teleconverter on the D700), because I think (hope) some better cameras will come out before long, where you won't have to decide between reach, frame rate/buffer, AF, build quality, and clean high ISO.Julie

windsprite wrote:Penny123 wrote:Thanks for taking the time to respond. I am getting a headache with it now lolI know the feeling. As many cameras as there are out there, it seems difficult or impossible to find one that does it all.I just want to be out there annoyingenjoying?photography with a camera I love and that works! I am finding it very difficult to part with the D700 as it feels good in my hands, I never thought a bigger and heavier body would but it does.I've owned a lot of cameras of various brands, and the D700 is the one that seems to fall into my hands in the most natural way. That said, I added a D300 last year and found it pretty similar but not quite as heavy. The D300S comes even closer, if I'm not mistaken.I have the vrii version of the 70-200 and I love it, it really gives images more of that wow factor.As I mentioned, I have the old version, which is not as good in some ways, but I just love it for action shooting, portraits, landscapes, flowers, everything.The pros of the FX for me is the better iso performance at 800 which started to effect shots with the D90 and the wonderful AF. I took some shots of blossom trees with the D700 and was very happy with them.. whether the quality was down to the camera or the 70-200 attached.Probably both the sensor and the lens play into it.Another pro is it makes the 70-200 a more versatile lens.Yes. It's a pain when you want reach, but for most everything else 70-200 is a more workable focal range on FF.My dog is 11 now so I could probably cope without the reach for action shots but the portrait issue is the only reason for me swaying away from fx. Portraits I have taken with the DX and that lens, the background is so creamy and the subject really jumps out. I have taken over 800 the other day in both dx and fx of her to compare so once I have them sorted I can really try and decide.You never know, maybe you'll like the look of the FF shots when you get used to them. If not, have you considered adding a 1.4x teleconverter? That will give you approximately the same look as the DX camera. The Nikon 1.4x is good enough that you will see hardly any loss of sharpness. A teleconverter can make the bokeh rather less pleasing, but it's not always a problem. Usually it's worth the tradeoff to get the extra reach or compression effect.All this is why I thought a D800 might be a good choice. An in-camera DX crop still leaves 16MP, so it's almost two cameras in one. It's just that the frame rate is disappointing for a whippet owner.I guess a newer DX will maybe give me the improvements that the D700 is. The shallow raw buffer of the D7100 put me off a bit but I could always get one to keep me going until something else comes out or go for the D300s instead and upgrade when a new model comes out.It may be wise to either stick with what you've got now or spend as little as possible on a DX body (or try a teleconverter on the D700), because I think (hope) some better cameras will come out before long, where you won't have to decide between reach, frame rate/buffer, AF, build quality, and clean high ISO.JulieThanks, yes that is why I am so annoyed about the D90 having inconsistent focus as ideally I would have liked to use it until the next cameras come out but I don't want to be missing shots in the mean time or keep throwing money around.  The reason I had gotten used to needing more buffer was because of the D90 problems I have been firing off multiple shots in the hope of one coming out ok.  Maybe the jpeg buffer of the D7100 would be ok for action shots depending on how the D7100 jpegs look, I was never very happy with the the D90 jpegs which is why I initially moved to RAW.  Oh it is a mine field out there!http://www.flickr.com/photos/sarahb86/

Your making my head spin, I think I would shoot myself and get it over with.

Trust me, I am close to shooting myself!Saying that, I am rather happy with this shot I took with the D700 today.

All kidding aside, can't go wrong with an FX. D90 was a great camera but your skills and requirements will outperform it.