I've got a little money set aside and I'm debating whether or not to upgrade my D200 to the D700. I know the D700 is light years ahead of my D200 as far as high ISO performance and focusing speeds are concerned but it's only 2 MP higher in resolution and without the MB-D10, the burst speed (5 fps) is no faster than my D200. I don't do a lot of low light photography and when I do, I just stick to my trusty 50 f/1.4 and most of the stuff I shoot now is racing and car shows during the day when light really isn't a problem (other than having too much of it). Most of my glass is older AF-D stuff and I only have one DX lens (Sigma 10-20) so they'd transition over to the D700 just fine.

Basically, I'm asking if I should upgrade to the D700 just because it's the latest and greatest. If the image quality at all ISO levels is really better than the D200, that's all I need to hear as I'm starting a photography business this summer where delivering the best possible images is paramount. My other option could be to buy more glass, but again, I don't really need much. Sure, the 24-70 2.8 or a 400 2.8 might be nice but for just about everything I've been shooting thus far, I haven't been hurting for new gear.

If I don't buy camera gear, I'll probably just save the money for a down payment on an E46 M3 that I plan to pick up by the end of the summer.

What should I do???

 

In my opinion, the added megapixels is irrelevant. If you are starting a professional photography business, the benefits of upgrading to a FX body and FX lenses should be conclusive.

The D200 is a great camera, but it's poorly designed in terms of functionality. The D90 which I personally shoot with, outperforms the D200 in every which way. If money is no object, get the D700. However, as you may already know, the D90 is similarly amazing at high ISO levels. Good luck.

-Narbeh

 

I had both until recently, I just sold d200 (was my backup) to fund more glass towards the 7.
In my situation and MY shooting needs, the low light flexibility of the 7 has been very benificial and I really enjoy the FF as well. Plus, I was able to go on a shopping spree for new glass.

However I will say that I do miss the reach of DX for motorsports. Image quality of my d200 in good light with good glass was stunning, the 2mp diff was not a big factor for me as I only enlarged my photos to 18x24, so not much was lost.

Something to consider is that an upgrade to the d300 can utilize your dx lens' and has wonderful low light capability (possibility a cost effective alternative 4 u?)

As stated on other threads here, invest in the glass, the bodies come and go, cropped lens are here to stay.

Good luck

 

Thanks for your perspective. If I bought the D700 (or a D300 for that matter) I'd most likely sell the D200 as you did. I tried having a D50 for a backup body when I first got my D200 but it really just sat around and I didn't have a need for it. I'm worried that if I get the D700, I'll have to invest in a lot of new glass, not because I truly need it, but because I'll want it. I had thought about the D300 which seems like a pretty good option so I might try to pick one up if I can find one for about $1K. As you said, crop bodies are fantastic for motorsports because it's essentially a built in 1.5X teleconverter! I guess I'll just have to rent a D700 for a week when I shoot a race and just compare it side by side with my D200. I'm not really in any hurry to buy a new body and there are so many great lens options out there, I just want to make sure I really think everything out before I jump into buying something just because I've got a little extra cash burning a hole in my pocket.

 

I am a Canon guys myself but I have a friend who was thinking of the d700 but ended up with the d300 and he loves it…
These guys have the best review IMO, check it out Nikon D700 Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

 

Thanks Gray! The more I think about it, the more tempted I am to just get a D300 with the MB-D10 grip. I don't shoot in super low light very often so the slight increase in the D300's ISO performance might be good enough for now anyway. If not a D700, I WILL get a D3 some day though.

 

D3x

 

Warning: Thread Jack

What's competitive pricing on a D90 body? I think the Glock 19 may have to go on hold - I really want to get into some video stuff along with shooting as many pictures as possible this summer.

 

Nah, I don't need 23MP! I'd fill up my 16GB cards faster than I do now!

 

Pretty sure you can pick up a body for somewhere between $650-700 and a decent lens (Tamron 17-50 f/2.8) will set you back about $400. Otherwise, you can get the kit with a the D90 and Nikkor 24-105 for about $1090 I think.