D90 v D700

[D_O_H]

My old Oly 8080 died on me and I'm looking to upgrade. Any thoughts on whether the D700 is worth the extra money? How big are the advantages of full frame sensor over APS-C? I figured there'd be a thread or two on this already, but couldn't find one (though I'm admittedly crappy at searching this board).

Also, would welcome any feedback on the rig I'm putting together:

D90 or D700
Ike housing
EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS (something else for topside if I go with the D700)
10-17 Tokina (12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX Sigma if D700)
60mm macro Nikkor EFS

I already have a DS-125 strobe.

About me: my rig is probably about 1000X better than I am a photographer, but I hope to continue to shrink that number. I dive mostly in murky Northern California waters but get a week or two per year someplace tropical and clear. I'm happy to spend the money on quality gear, but don't want to spend money unnecessarily.

Bonus question: I'm also a little lost when it comes to selecting the right port. Am I correct that I don't want a dome with the macro lens and can't have a flat port for the wide angle? It would be nice to just have one port, but that's not looking likely.

Thanks!

--Scott

 

[Chuck Tribolet]

Flat port for macro, THE RIGHT DOME port for wide angle. The dome has
to be positioned correctly relative to lens to work right. (Executive summary:
you want the lens looking perpendicular to the glass dome in all directions.
Google "dome port" "nodal point" for more info.) Ike probably has a
chart on their website that will tell you what the right port is.

 

[John Gulliver]

Flat port for macro.

I may be showing my ignorance but could he not get away with just a dome port if he used a dioptre on the 60mm lens?

 

[kidsdream]

I have a D200 and if I was going to upgrade the D300 would be the way I would go. Great low light focusing and many other features that are great underwater (or topside).

The D700 is has full frame sensor (not really a benefit UW). More housing options with the 300 as well - I would recommend the Aquatica or Sea & Sea housings as "mid" range choices.

 

[Mariozi]

Well I have upgraded from the D80 to the D300.
Although I like the image quality of the D700, I really like the DX lenses for underwater work.
Both ways are right I guess, the D300 has more housing options.
But anyway, the D400 seems just around the corner...
I would consider the old AF-D 60mm/2.8 micro, cheaper with a bigger working distance.
The D90 would do anything the D300 do, maybe even better, but without the weather sealing and other things, but you will get the video.

 

[D_O_H]

D300... Great... Another option for me to think about.

Why isn't the full frame sensor a benefit underwater? I've seen that in a couple threads but don't understand why.

 

[Mariozi]

It is not that it's not good. D700 has amazing good image quality.
My reason for loving the DX it that you can use a nicer combination of lenses, like the amazing 10.5mm fisheye that focuses "on the dome" (meaning I can get closer and "blow up" the size of even smaller subjects), and that for the price of a 105mm and a 60mm I get a 150mm and a 90mm!!! The 10-17 from Tokina is a good lens as well, as is mine Sigma 10-20... and others.

 

[Christian]

I can't see why you would chose between the D90 and the D700. The D300 or the D700 would make more sense to me. They are the same type of housings, but with different sensors. Better AF and more direct button access to variuos focus modes etc., sturdy weather sealed hosuings built out of magnesium...

The D700 will give 'cleaner' images in dark conditions, high ISO shooting. UW that translates to wide angle, natural light, high ISO photography in murky conditions. But the D300 is also pretty good for that, just that the D700 is a tad better.

Optics for the full frame sensor will be more expensive than for DX, for e.g. wide angle most opt for the Nikkor 17-35/2.8 and then a 15 or 16 mm FE (Sigma or Nikon). The new 14-24 seem to have problems behind a port since it can't be fitted with a dioptre, which is usually needed for wide rectilinear lenses. For a DX-sensor the most popular choice is the Tokina 10-17 FE zoom. There's nothing similar available for FF. Another popular choise is the Nikon 10.5 FE and a wide rectilinear zoom as a compliment. You will need a dome port for these lenses. Fisheyes normally don't demand very wide ports, but wide rectilinears do.

good luck

 

[bet]

They really are completely different bodies. The price difference alone is enough to say they aren't comparable. I could see the D300 vs D700 or a D90 vs. D300 but making the jump between the two is difficult IMO. Depending on your shooting, the size alone may make the difference. Not to mention lenses that you currently have and use. You mentioned the 18-200, there really isn't a comparable single lens for a full frame sensor.

You mentioned your rig isn't as good as your photography. In 2 years the bodies will have changed dramatically again. The D90 is a heck of a good camera, right now for the for the price. If the 8080 wasn't holding you back then it highly unlikely the D90 will either. The performance at high ISO is very good for the price (some argue equal or better than the more expensive D300) and it does offer an easy to use LV and video ability (not great but better than nothing). Personally I would look at the D90 and spend the difference on some fast and/or really nice glass or in the case of underwater photography a nice a housing and/or strobe.

From a general photo point of view (not really considering under water) check out the forums at nikonians.org for some in depth pros and cons of the D90, D300 and D700.

 

[Chuck Tribolet]

I may be showing my ignorance but could he not get away with just a dome port if he used a dioptre on the 60mm lens?

It would have to be a relatively minor diopter (I think), and it would
have to be just the right dome port. I've never heard of anybody
shooting macro with a dome port.