I would get a D3200, coupled with 17-35 f/2.8 and 70-200VR II. Save up another $6K, get a D800 with 24-70 f/2.8.
Entry Level Fx Camera
- Thread starter eloitay
- Start date
I would get a D3200, coupled with 17-35 f/2.8 and 70-200VR II. Save up another $6K, get a D800 with 24-70 f/2.8.
well, if he's going down the route of FX (as opposed to Canon FF), d800 is scarce, so that would provide more time to save money ha...
Even if going Canon 5Dm3, it cost around 4.1k for a camera. He can only afford one more lens. With product and landscapes, deeper DoF is required, so a crop camera is more than enough. Only in portraits, you lose a little in terms of thinner DoF, but still, portraits are still very doable with wider aperture lenses.
If the budget is around 10k, FF makes more sense.
loboclerk
Senior Member
If you do not absolutely need the new features in 5DIII or D800, just get the earlier version and save yourself enough for 1 or 2 more lenses.
D700 is still good if you are talking about an affordable FX body. Doesn't have the huge RAW files like in D800 too. Just lacks some advanced features and video, which many people don't use.
With your budget, you won't be able to get the best FX lenses, but you can get very good set of DX lenses. FX bodies and lenses also tend to be bigger and heavier. Larger mirror slaps harder too.
With that in mind, go try out FX and DX and see if you really really want to go to FX at all. Find out what you want and need, then work towards it.
Still undecided? Get a 2nd hand body and lens, play around with it. You can still change your mind with minimal losses.
D700 is still good if you are talking about an affordable FX body. Doesn't have the huge RAW files like in D800 too. Just lacks some advanced features and video, which many people don't use.
With your budget, you won't be able to get the best FX lenses, but you can get very good set of DX lenses. FX bodies and lenses also tend to be bigger and heavier. Larger mirror slaps harder too.
With that in mind, go try out FX and DX and see if you really really want to go to FX at all. Find out what you want and need, then work towards it.
Still undecided? Get a 2nd hand body and lens, play around with it. You can still change your mind with minimal losses.
Well I finally figure it out, I just going to get FX lens to see if it satisfy me with my current D7000, if it still does not and finally D800 have stock then I will buy it.
Travel I probably getting the 24-120mm f/4
Portrait either the 135mm DC or 85mm f1.8 AF-G
Macro still considering since I do not use them much and it is so damn expensive.
Travel I probably getting the 24-120mm f/4
Portrait either the 135mm DC or 85mm f1.8 AF-G
Macro still considering since I do not use them much and it is so damn expensive.
In my humble opinion sounds like a good plan, i'm actually thinking abt doing something similar...
In the meantime there should be enough time to find out some more infos abt the rumored D600, supposed to be exaclty what you're looking for: an entry level fx
good for you... take it one step at a time, get one piece, work with it, see what your equipment lacks or how you can work around challenges faced, then move forward with next purchase if required or just use what you have to the max...
fmeeran
New Member
Ha ha after got mine D7000 and sold my D700
Cause the D7000 can be better perform than D700.
Asking to be flamed aren't you?
It IS better in pixel density.
rain5533
Senior Member
fmeeran said:Asking to be flamed aren't you?
It IS better in pixel density.
Ha ha
1st in D700 don't have video & autofocus when it is taken.
2nd D700 too heavy at all.
3rd D700 VF only offered for 95% so I have to close until my nose to touch the screen and made it oily, too bad
4th yes D700 is FX and higher ISO, but in the D7000 also can perform as well.
5th D700 only 1 CF slot
If you really wanna to compare the IQ and Detail wise the D700 in FX is a winner.
But also the D7000 in 16Mp of Raw files is pretty nice color for output.
Shaper & clear image.
Finally my best choice still in DX king of D7000.
Last edited:
spree86
Senior Member
rain5533 said:Ha ha
1st in D700 don't have video & autofocus when it is taken.
2nd D700 too heavy at all.
3rd D700 VF only offered for 95% so I have to close until my nose to touch the screen and made it oily, too bad
4th yes D700 is FX and higher ISO, but in the D7000 also can perform as well.
5th D700 only 1 CF slot
If you really wanna to compare the IQ and Detail wise the D700 in FX is a winner.
But also the D7000 in 16Mp of Raw files is pretty nice color for output.
Shaper & clear image.
Finally my best choice still in DX king of D7000.
Haha DX king is not D7000 but if you mean for Nikon then yes it is for the moment. I feel that most users actually do not rely heavily on the video function but rather have higher DR, better noise control, thinner dof and using lenses at wider angles without distortions, which FX wins on all counts.
Cheesecake
Senior Member
Ha ha
1st in D700 don't have video & autofocus when it is taken.
2nd D700 too heavy at all.
3rd D700 VF only offered for 95% so I have to close until my nose to touch the screen and made it oily, too bad
4th yes D700 is FX and higher ISO, but in the D7000 also can perform as well.
5th D700 only 1 CF slot
If you really wanna to compare the IQ and Detail wise the D700 in FX is a winner.
But also the D7000 in 16Mp of Raw files is pretty nice color for output.
Shaper & clear image.
Finally my best choice still in DX king of D7000.
ur 1st point, let me explain to you. ppl who buy D700 do so in full knowledge that it does not have video function. thus, ur point is invalid.
since u need video function, you probably shouldn't get the D700 in the first place. need to do more research and understand your own needs and wants before you commit.
D700 is heavy becos it is geared towards the professionals and advance hobbyists as it has a metal body, not cheap 'high-impact' plastic.
last i know, D7000 isn't that light either (a difference of around 300g). both have magnesium alloy body.
95% VF coverage does not necessarily mean that the screen will be oily because ur nose touches it. it is that oily because the end user probably did not wash his face that well or use a piece of tissue paper to wipe away the sweat etc. thus, another invalid point.
D7000 can perform well, the best in DX format but compared to FX D700, probably a close fight.
ur 5th point is most valid but probably it affects only you and a handful of machine-gunners.
maybe ur shooting style is very aggressive and must burst uncompressed RAW all the time.
thus, the CF cards get filled up as fast as the soldiers drink water during water parade.
Cheesecake said:
I like to imagine avatar's face talking when you explains the above. Wahahha.
I fully agree with everything you said except the last (and maybe except the 4th) I do appreciate the dual slots not becos of the extra photos I can take or store. I used the extra slot for backup mode in case one of the card failed at certain shot. In my point of view, D7000 has quite a bit of distance away from D700 if I look at the overall package.
Cheesecake
Senior Member
i like the new dual card slots in D800/E. the requirement for high capacity cards is here, suddenly, and CF cards, the same capacity as the SD, are very expensive.
thus... SD card slot rox! :bsmilie:
D7000 is a fine camera but com'on, D700 is just... different.
Ha ha
1st in D700 don't have video & autofocus when it is taken.
2nd D700 too heavy at all.
3rd D700 VF only offered for 95% so I have to close until my nose to touch the screen and made it oily, too bad
4th yes D700 is FX and higher ISO, but in the D7000 also can perform as well.
5th D700 only 1 CF slot
If you really wanna to compare the IQ and Detail wise the D700 in FX is a winner.
But also the D7000 in 16Mp of Raw files is pretty nice color for output.
Shaper & clear image.
Finally my best choice still in DX king of D7000.
In the end, the picture is all that matters... which is why IQ matters to me... and why I pick D700.
Similar threads
