Is this a worthy upgrade?

tomh1982

tomh1982

Messages
1,605
Edit My Images
No
I know this is probably a stupid question but I currently am using a Pentax k5 & have been offered a Nikon d700. Just wondering if the picture quality will be massively better with the Nikon or am I better saving the money and keeping the Pentax?

I mainly use my camera for landscapes so not bothered about frame rate or high iso.

Views, advice, Pros and cons would be great fully received!

Cheers t
 
As much as I love my K-5 (and think it is probably still the best performing crop camera in it's class, especially for the price) I would imagine the D700 to be in another league entirely when it comes to landscape photography.

Better ISO performance, DOF and the fact you can get in more of the view must all be pretty useful :)
 
Personally if you are really looking for a camera for landscapes, I would look to a full frame camera. The Nikon D700 is streets ahead of the Pentax in almost all departments as Mike mentioned.
 
I think this can only be answered if you have a clear idea what lenses you'd be switching to. A K5 with a great lens will be much better than a D700 with a poor one. All else being equal I'm sure you'd like the D700.
 
gad-westy said:
I think this can only be answered if you have a clear idea what lenses you'd be switching to. A K5 with a great lens will be much better than a D700 with a poor one. All else being equal I'm sure you'd like the D700.
Click to expand...

That's the problem, moving systems can be an expensive business depending on what equipment you have already and want to replicate
 
thanks for the comments and advice! it is very tempting but i really only want to go for it if image quality will be well increased. what kind of lenses do i need to look for?
 
I have the Nikon 24-70 f2.8. I use it on my D7000 which is crop sensor although the lens is really designed for full frame.
Its Nikons flagship standard zoom and cost in excess of £1200 new. Its my most used lens and wouldnt be without it
 
gad-westy said:
A K5 with a great lens will be much better than a D700 with a poor one.
Click to expand...

No it won't. Full frame makes up for pretty much any lens shortfall (other than crappy AF) in terms of image quality. Unless he was shooting portraits and went from a K5 and 50 1.4 to say a 28-300, the D700 will always outperform the K5, pretty much.
 
If you are so much into your landscape/UWA you can couple the D700 with the legendary (both in IQ and size) 14-24... The lens alone is about as expensive as the D700 alone. If you can afford the jump go for it.

Love my K-5 but if weight/size was not an issue for me (which unfortunately it is) I'd have a D700.
 
Ksanti said:
No it won't. Full frame makes up for pretty much any lens shortfall (other than crappy AF) in terms of image quality. Unless he was shooting portraits and went from a K5 and 50 1.4 to say a 28-300, the D700 will always outperform the K5, pretty much.
Click to expand...

Erm, you seem unsure. I have both a D700 and APS-C Nikons. I've got some great lenses and I've had some poor ones, some really poor actually. If I put something like a 24-120 3.5/5.6 on my D700 and a 24-70 on a crop body, I'd choose the crop body every time. I stand by my original point, in that there is no point stretching to buy a D700 then putting a mediocre lens on it as you could end up going backwards.

Agree with viewfromthenorth that a 16-35 would be a great choice though they're a b****r to get hold of. I gave up!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top