Buying Advice: D300, D200, or 70-200 VR?

[Clix Pix]

I currently have a Nikon D50 (with about 9500 clicks), a SB-600, Nikon 18-200 VR, and a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8.

[snipped]

But is it worth having a D200 and D300 with the lenses i have???

Probably not. One thing which many people find when they buy a more advanced camera body is that suddenly their consumer lenses don't seem to do as well, the images don't look as great. One reason of course is the camera's resolving power.

Rather than putting the money into a new camera body right now you might want to concentrate on developing a strong lens collection. That in the long run will serve you much better than using your current lenses on a D200 or D300. Buy a pro-quality, fast lens and try it out on your D50 -- I think you will be more than pleasantly surprised. The D50 is really an excellent camera. True, it doesn't have some of the features available on the D200 and the upcoming D300 but it more than can hold its own when shooting with good lenses.

The D80 is a nice camera, too, but my recommendation is to skip that. Put the money into lenses, really good high-quality fast lenses and wait for a good opportunity to pick up a D200 later on. The 70-200mm f/2.8 VR is an outstanding lens. The 80-200mm is also an excellent lens. I would unload that Tamron 28-75mm and look for a good deal on Nikon's fabulous "Beast," the 28-70mm. There will be a lot of those on the market eventually as people begin buying the new 24-70mm that will be its replacement.

Really, do think about all this and buy a good lens or two now and wait a few months for that new camera body. As over the next few months people are able to purchase a D300 you'll see more and more D200 camera bodies going on the market at great prices. That's the time to buy. As for the D300, if you haven't already been on a camera shop's pre-order list since the end of August/beginning of September and/or if you haven't actually already prepaid for the camera, you aren't going to have one in your hands for a long, long time.

Right now concentrate on building up your lens collection and see what a difference good lenses can make. They really have a much stronger impact on an image than the camera body.

 

[ACbc]

I bought a Nikon 80-200 2.8 for less then $700.00 MINT on ebay, more then half of the VR I could not be happier, made a HUGE improvement in quality of my pictures, i shoot with a nikon d70, I can tell you i used my brother in laws d200 with the 18-200vr and was not impressed with it, it hunted and searched all over the place! The 80-200 is very very fast!! The only draw back is you have to be back at least 6ft to focus, I do not miss the vr never had it, so I don't know what im missing, but for the price difference of a back up body, nope don't need it! I don't know how the D50 would be limiting you, your skill may, but the body, probably not, photographers had way less then we have now years ago, and look! If you have the money, buy the 80-200 with a nice d80 keep your d50 keep a lens on each, and you will be happy. Not too much difference in the D200 and D80 metal or plastic read Hogan's reviews! He actually LOVES the D40!

Well for those that are curious, i ended up buying the 70-200 VR. I'll be able to use this now and the plan is to get a D300 after the first price drop. Having the 18-200 VR, i realize the power in having VR. For weddings, many times i'll have to shoot wide open on 1600 ISO at 1/30 second shutter speed. can't do that at 200mm without VR.

Of course the D50 is limiting compared to the D300. are you kidding? There are many 'skills' involved with being a photographer, so i'm not sure to what you are referring to there, i don't claim to be an expert, but i know how to push the D50 as far as it goes. You don't have the same ISO range, you don't have the ability to change ISO in less than 1 EV. This is extremely important to have if you shoot in conditions where the lighting changes very quickly and you need to be fast in adapting to those conditions. You don't have the A/F system in a D50 compared to a D300 (or D200), important if you are shooting any kind of moving target....especially in low light (where auto focusing takes a little longer). The D50 shoots 3 frames per second whereas the D300 shoots 5. I could command my SB600 with the on camera flash with a D300 whereas I can't on a D50. I get double the megapixels...which comes in handy if you ever need (or would like) to crop. The metering and auto white balance will probably be better on a D300 than a D50, etc etc....

Those features may not be as important to someone shooting set pieces, where you can really be calculating in terms of your exposure, focus, etc.. but if you need to shoot fast and capture candid moments, the D50 really doesn't cut it. I think i said earlier, i thought about upgrading to a D80...but if i did...i know for a fact after a few months with it, i'd be itching to upgrade to a D300. So i'm just gonna wait it out.

 

[ACbc]

Really, do think about all this and buy a good lens or two now and wait a few months for that new camera body. As over the next few months people are able to purchase a D300 you'll see more and more D200 camera bodies going on the market at great prices. That's the time to buy. As for the D300, if you haven't already been on a camera shop's pre-order list since the end of August/beginning of September and/or if you haven't actually already prepaid for the camera, you aren't going to have one in your hands for a long, long time.

Right now concentrate on building up your lens collection and see what a difference good lenses can make. They really have a much stronger impact on an image than the camera body.

Yes...this is exactly my mentality...which is why i was a bit suprised that so many ppl suggested getting the D300 first. I can get by on the D50....lenses would last longer and i'd see a huge improvement with better glass on the D50 anyways. I did find a place that didn't have any pre orders for the D300 yet, so they were sure i could get one as soon as they got em...but i decided to hold off. Get better glass, and buy a D300 down the road. So a 70-200 VR is on the way. either the 28-70 or 17-55 f/2.8 will be next. I do like to shoot wide a lot too, so i am leaning towards the 17-55. I might pawn off the tamron, but i also might keep it. For what it is...i think it's worth what you pay for. 28-75 is a very useful range...having the fixed 2.8 aperture is nice...and for travelling purpose...the lense is tiny and it weighs nothing. i'm not sure i'd get much more than a few hundred for it anyways...so it might be worth keeping.

 

[Clix Pix]

I think you will be VERY happy with that 70-200mm VR! It is one terrific lens! Eventually pick up a 1.4x or 1.7x teleconverter for it and you can extend your range a bit.... It works nicely with both of those, but not quite as well with the 2x TC. I have found the 70-200mm VR to be surprisingly versatile and useful in any number of shooting situations. Good choice!

Since you already have the Tamron 28-75mm, probably your next lens purchase should be the Nikkor 17-55mm to get you that wider perspective, but at some point you'll probably want to take a good look at the Nikkor 28-70mm, too, "the Beast," because it is an excellent lens with excellent IQ. It's not small -- hence the nickname "the Beast," but it does the job so many times in so many situations!

Eventually prices will come down on gently-used D200's as more and more people are able to purchase the D300, or you might get lucky and find a D300 somewhere at a decent price. When you're ready to actually buy, it definitely would behoove you to check back with that place you mentioned to see if they have any D300s available....

Happy shooting with the 70-200mm VR!

 

[Abstract]

.....I don't know how the D50 would be limiting you, your skill may, but the body, probably not, photographers had way less then we have now years ago, and look! If you have the money, buy the 80-200 with a nice d80 keep your d50 keep a lens on each, and you will be happy. Not too much difference in the D200 and D80 metal or plastic read Hogan's reviews! He actually LOVES the D40!

I agree that the D80 may be good enough. Nearly identical AF system, same viewfinder, very similar sensor, arguably better image quality (from JPEGs directly out of camera), and plastic body rather than magnesium alloy, which may not even be a bad thing. After all, companies use alloy may be due to a much higher perception of camera quality and durability, not to make it a lot stronger than plastic composites (which are very strong). It's the same psychological reason why expensive wine comes in heavier bottles.

However, to say that the D50 isn't limiting is wrong. Yes, many years ago, photographers had less advanced technology and were still able to make money. However, everyone had similar equipment, and therefore, had the same limitations with their equipment. That's why people made money with lesser equipment ---- EVERYBODY had comparable equipment. If you compare good DSLRs released over the past 4 years, then no, there isn't a massive difference, and you may even get by with a Nikon D100.

Even I'm limited by the D50. I'm not making money off my photography, so I can spare 15 seconds to dig through menus just to change the metering mode from Matrix metering to spot. However, I'm at the point where I need to get a better camera, so would a man who makes money from his photography.

Well...the 24 to 70 Nikkor is a great option....but for that range, i can at least 'get by' with the 28 75 2.8 tamron that i have. the lense is great when it focuses well...the problem is it doesn't always focus well. don't know if it's the lense, or the d50.

However...i think some softness in pictures can be attributed to the Tamron 28-75 that i'm using. I can't be a 100 percent sure of it....but i'm pretty sure this lense just doesn't focus as well as the 70-200 would.... heck i'm almost positive that it doesn't focus as well as the 18-200.

Focus problems are probably not the lenses fault, it's the D50. The softness is probably not a lens issue either, and getting the 17-55 mm will probably not give you much sharper photos. You need to realize that the Tamron you own is popular for being VERY sharp. The only lens related problem you may be having is that it may suffer from a front or back focus problem, but every manufacturer makes lenses that focus incorrectly. If you get a good copy of the Tamron, and a good copy of the Nikon, the Tamron probably has comparable sharpness.

And if you really want to save money, you're better off getting the Tamron 17-50 mm f/2.8 rather than Nikon's 17-55 mm f/2.8. You can argue that the Nikon focuses faster because it's an AF-S lens, but the motor in the D300 will likely be so strong that the Tamron may actually focus as fast as the Nikon.

 

[Westside guy]

Probably not. One thing which many people find when they buy a more advanced camera body is that suddenly their consumer lenses don't seem to do as well, the images don't look as great. One reason of course is the camera's resolving power.

I would argue this point, since people like Thom Hogan have shot using the Nikkor 18-200 on a D200 and said "it keeps up with the camera" (although DPreview might add "maybe not in the corners" ). I think a lot of times these problems are due to less-than-great technique - with a 6MP camera you have more wiggle room (literally) than with a 12MP camera, simply because the photosites are twice the size.

I don't disagree with your conclusion, though, that glass is more important than the camera. Having said that, I plan to move from my D70 to the D300 at some point in the next year (and hopefully sooner). At the same time, I'm hoping to buy the new 24-70 f/2.8 though.

(And at that point my neighbors will start complaining about the burning plastic smell coming from my credit card...)

 

[Clix Pix]

I think a lot of times these problems are due to less-than-great technique - with a 6MP camera you have more wiggle room (literally) than with a 12MP camera, simply because the photosites are twice the size.

Yes, this is very true and many times people moving from a 6MP camera to a 10 or 12 MP camera struggle with needing to refine and improve their technique, because indeed the 10 or 12MP camera is much less forgiving!

The quality of today's consumer lenses has improved significantly over that of the ones brought out in the past. The IQ of the 18-200mm VR is pretty good, regardless of what camera it is used on. However, put the often-maligned 70-300G on a D200 or D2X/s and you'll quickly become aware of the lens' shortcomings!

 

[compuwar]

I agree that the D80 may be good enough. Nearly identical AF system, same viewfinder, very similar sensor, arguably better image quality (from JPEGs directly out of camera), and plastic body rather than magnesium alloy, which may not even be a bad thing. After all, companies use alloy may be due to a much higher perception of camera quality and durability, not to make it a lot stronger than plastic composites (which are very strong). It's the same psychological reason why expensive wine comes in heavier bottles.

It depends so much on the material and thickness that it's not even worth the conjecture of a blanket statement though. Two of my clients are plastics manufacturers, and there is sooo much variance in materials (the resins you start with) and processes and formulations that most plastics manufacturers specialize in only one or two processes.

However, to say that the D50 isn't limiting is wrong. Yes, many years ago, photographers had less advanced technology and were still able to make money. However, everyone had similar equipment, and therefore, had the same limitations with their equipment. That's why people made money with lesser equipment ---- EVERYBODY had comparable equipment. If you compare good DSLRs released over the past 4 years, then no, there isn't a massive difference, and you may even get by with a Nikon D100.

But that's the point- no massive difference = being perfectly able to get by with something "lesser." It might take more skills as a photographer, it might take more planning, different lighting, or even a bit more luck- but the "limitations" most folks worry about are normally easily avoided unless someone's shooting into the corner cases- in which case they'll need a specific feature.

Even I'm limited by the D50. I'm not making money off my photography, so I can spare 15 seconds to dig through menus just to change the metering mode from Matrix metering to spot. However, I'm at the point where I need to get a better camera, so would a man who makes money from his photography.

But why not just shoot the scene +/- one or two exposures? That shouldn't take more than two seconds. Once you get used to it, you should be able to spot meter off of something with a good estimate of the hue and adjust for the particular scene- which is much better than letting the camera do it all, as you'll have to learn how your equipment exposes. Matrix metering is unreliable because the camera changes its exposure based on a database of values you don't have access to- while it's right a lot, when it's wrong, it's wrong. Use center weighted or spot and you're choosing what to meter off of and you can compensate for that in seconds. Check the histogram after the shot and you're pretty set.

You can argue that the Nikon focuses faster because it's an AF-S lens, but the motor in the D300 will likely be so strong that the Tamron may actually focus as fast as the Nikon.

That's conjecture- the D300 uses the same base battery voltage as the D200, which doesn't drive the screwdriver focus motor any faster than most of the line that isn't the D2 series. My conjecture is that Nikon didn't step down the voltage in the D2x to the focus motor, because it's faster than the D200 with the same lens/photographer combination. AF-S lenses need a shorter shaft for the motor, so unless they have different gearing, I'd expect the edge to go there. Unfortunately, I don't have a pre-AF-S and AF-S version of a lens to test that hypothesis on.

 

[seany916]

now that you have the 70-200 (great choice), just get the D300

then you'll never look back and regret anything

no lingering questions on your mind

you won't buy the D300 7 months from now kicking yourself for not getting it earlier

Pay a few bucks more for the D300 over the D200. Why buy older technology to save a few bucks? I don't like being a beta tester, but I don't like buying older technology either. It doesn't make sense.

I'm sure you can find a D100 "that takes pictures just as well as it did the first day it was released". So what?

Spend a few bucks and get what you want. No regrets. The only people that have regrets are the people that truly can't afford something and buy outside their means (then stick with the D50, which is an AWESOME camera), or the people that waited too long to get something they've wanted for a long time and should have gotten it in the first place.

 

[Abstract]

But that's the point- no massive difference = being perfectly able to get by with something "lesser." It might take more skills as a photographer, it might take more planning, different lighting, or even a bit more luck- but the "limitations" most folks worry about are normally easily avoided unless someone's shooting into the corner cases- in which case they'll need a specific feature.

I realize this, but if he feels he's being limited by his camera, and not the lenses he's using, then fix the real problem and get a better camera. Surely getting a camera that you need is better than getting a lens that you "want". The 70-200 mm is supposed to be a fantastic lens, and getting lenses is usually a better investment than getting another camera body. However, this doesn't apply to all situations.

Q: "I have a problem with focusing, especially on moving objects and on low light."
A: "Invest in good glass like the 70-200 mm, and ignore your real issues, which will continue to hinder you with your other lenses."

His argument was that people used to be able to get by on lesser equipment, but an event shooter who uses a camera from the 1970s TODAY won't be able to keep up with a D80, D200, or D300 shooter if their skill level is the same. You can't compare cameras from different eras like that, although comparing cameras released from within the past 3-4 years is reasonable. If he had a D80, I wouldn't recommend that he upgrade to a D200 or D300. I'd say "Invest in better glass."

But why not just shoot the scene +/- one or two exposures? That shouldn't take more than two seconds. Once you get used to it, you should be able to spot meter off of something with a good estimate of the hue and adjust for the particular scene- which is much better than letting the camera do it all, as you'll have to learn how your equipment exposes. Matrix metering is unreliable because the camera changes its exposure based on a database of values you don't have access to- while it's right a lot, when it's wrong, it's wrong. Use center weighted or spot and you're choosing what to meter off of and you can compensate for that in seconds. Check the histogram after the shot and you're pretty set.

How is this relevant to what I said? I said it takes me 10-15 seconds to change from Matrix metering to spot metering, and it would be better for me if this process was quicker (for obvious reasons). If I have time to take a photo, I want to use spot metering because I want to be a better photographer, and one who gets the metering correct (or more correct) the first time around. If I don't have time to sit there and work on it, I want to use matrix metering. With my D50, I had a good feel of how much exposure compensation I'd need to get a correct exposure, and even then, I'd still underexpose sometimes. The D50 and D80's matrix metering is easily tricked by a small point, or small points of light near the centre region of the frame. According to Thom Hogan, this isn't the case with the D70, D100, D200, etc.

Anyway, I can go through the menus to switch to spot metering. For what I shoot, nothing on the D80 or D200 will make me a better photographer. I have essentially the same settings on my D50 minus the group dynamic AF, which would be nice. I can say the same thing about every photographer with a better camera......they can all survive with a D50. It'd just be more difficult, take more time, and result in less keepers. However, it's perfectly possible to take the same quality shots with a D50.

I can swim with one arm as well. I just choose to use both.

That's conjecture- the D300 uses the same base battery voltage as the D200, which doesn't drive the screwdriver focus motor any faster than most of the line that isn't the D2 series.

Really? I read somewhere that it did. However, you're probably right about the motor being the same strength. It's just that people always say the focusing is faster on the D200 than on the D50. It could simply be the better AF system rather than a better focus motor. Not sure.

 

[compuwar]

Q: "I have a problem with focusing, especially on moving objects and on low light."
A: "Invest in good glass like the 70-200 mm, and ignore your real issues, which will continue to hinder you with your other lenses."

But you're assuming that there's not a fix for his current body, such as (a) shooting at the hyperfocal distance, which will make him a better photographer, (b) shooting with IR assist which will be significantly cheaper, or (c) shooting with more light, which will get him better pictures. The easy answer isn't always the best answer, and throwing equipment at the problem hardly helps someone grow as a photographer- in this case what happens if the movement is head-on to the camera and the venues get even darker?

His argument was that people used to be able to get by on lesser equipment, but an event shooter who uses a camera from the 1970s TODAY won't be able to keep up with a D80, D200, or D300 shooter if their skill level is the same.

While I don't totally buy into the predicate, the obvious answer there is to increase your skill level until it's all marginal difference. I know lots of photographers who could handily "keep up" with a '70's camera- because they understand photography and they're not letting the camera compensate for their lack of skillset.

You can't compare cameras from different eras like that, although comparing cameras released from within the past 3-4 years is reasonable. If he had a D80, I wouldn't recommend that he upgrade to a D200 or D300. I'd say "Invest in better glass."

I can go out with a 60's 4x5 view camera and blow away any APS-C or 35mm landscape picture using an uncoated 1930's era lens. Yes, a lot depends on what you shoot, but the camera is still a tool, and a good mechanic with a functional tool is better than a bad mechanic with a brand new set of tools in all but a few corner cases.

How is this relevant to what I said? I said it takes me 10-15 seconds to change from Matrix metering to spot metering, and it would be better for me if this process was quicker (for obvious reasons). If I have time to take a

I gave two options that are significantly quicker than changing metering modes that will give you the same results, one with less effort and one with more effort.

photo, I want to use spot metering because I want to be a better photographer, and one who gets the metering correct (or more correct) the first time around. If I don't have time to sit there and work on it, I want to use matrix metering. With my D50, I had a good feel of how much exposure compensation I'd need to get a correct exposure, and even then, I'd still underexpose sometimes. The D50 and D80's matrix metering is easily tricked by a small point, or small points of light near the centre region of the frame. According to Thom Hogan, this isn't the case with the D70, D100, D200, etc.

So, on the D50 you have two quick choices for avoiding matrix metering switching- bracket the shot (either with an automatic function or just dial in some compensation and shoot again or just do spot metering and learn what tonal values do on your camera- pretty-much follow the old zone system approach to calibrating your eye and equipment. You can also do the fuzzy towel thing, but it's more of an up-front time investment.

Obviously, anyone can choose between "become a better photographer" and "buy more point-and-shoot capability-" I'm just not a fan of the latter.

For the last month, I've been playing with matrix metering on my D2x for landscapes, and honestly I don't see an advantage to using it over center-weighted or spot metering- it misses enough that I'm happier with a constant process that produces results every time than one-offing anything that might hurt the CPU's interpretation. Use a crutch too much and your leg atrophies. Use a function too much and your skills atrophy.

 

[Crohny]

I am in the same situation as you. I work with a D70 and really want to upgrade. If you want a full frame DSLR then wait for the D300. If you don't care about that as much get the D200. I'm wanting one or the other myself and I think I'm going to end up with a D200 in the future. Your lenses are good enough for now. Worry about the camera body since you have decent lenses. You'll see a good change in the quality of your work with either of those bodies. If you're not looking for a full frame DSLR and not interested, then don't spend the extra money. The D200 is tried and true. It does it's job very well.

 

[sblasl]

I did not think the D300 was full frame, doesn't it have a Crop Factor of 1.5. The D3 is Full Frame.

If you want a full frame DSLR then wait for the D300. If you don't care about that as much get the D200.

 

[termina3]

If you want a full frame DSLR then wait for the D300.

The D3 (@ $5000) will be the first full-frame digital camera from Nikon. The D300 will have the same DX format sensor...

 

[Crohny]

I did not think the D300 was full frame, doesn't it have a Crop Factor of 1.5. The D3 is Full Frame.

Totally correct on your part. I was thinking of the D3 instead of the D300. Please for give my ignorance.

 

[ACbc]

I can go out with a 60's 4x5 view camera and blow away any APS-C or 35mm landscape picture using an uncoated 1930's era lens. Yes, a lot depends on what you shoot, but the camera is still a tool, and a good mechanic with a functional tool is better than a bad mechanic with a brand new set of tools in all but a few corner cases.

Yes...it depends a lot on what you shoot. I like shooting in ambient light (need faster glass and better noise control at high ISO) and i shoot moving subjects (need faster focusing lenses and a better autofocus system). Yes i can 'get lucky' every once in a while and get a shot in focus....but i don't like leaving things to luck. i'd rather have the equipment where i feel confident that when i see a moment and take a picture, it'll be in focus. landscape photography (and no disrespect to them at all, because its just a totally different form of the art of photography) doesn't require instant focusing and dealing with ambient light as much. the needs are different. The equipment is available...and while i don't have 7 or 8 thousand dollars in hand to buy a D300, 17-55 2.8 and a 70-200 vr all at once, i certainly have the income to buy them in steps.

the picture doesn't just equal the skill of the photographer...the picture equals the photographer and the equipment used. I don't want to think that buying a new lense is a 'cop out' move to improve myself as a photographer. I constantly review my shots and look at others work to see where i can improve. unfortunately, it is a cold hard fact that equipment makes a big difference. especially when shooting weddings...which is where most of my money (from photography that is) comes from. outdoor portraits/events and what not, aren't so much of a problem with the equipment i have now. anything indoors is a bit of a struggle.

 

[Abstract]

But you're assuming that there's not a fix for his current body, such as (a) shooting at the hyperfocal distance, which will make him a better photographer, (b) shooting with IR assist which will be significantly cheaper, or (c) shooting with more light, which will get him better pictures. The easy answer isn't always the best answer, and throwing equipment at the problem hardly helps someone grow as a photographer- in this case what happens if the movement is head-on to the camera and the venues get even darker?

True, even using a flash would help a lot. He does rely on "ambient" lighting, although I think an SB-400 (or SB-600) flash will be fantastic and a better purchase than a 70-200 mm lens, which won't help his lens focusing issues at all.
I don't disagree with you, but I think spending money on the lens was a bad idea. I would have gone for the camera + a flash first, and THEN the lens. A better AF system would result in less focus hunting, although we've never really seen him shoot a wedding, so who knows what method he uses to get a focused shot when his lens hunts.

While I don't totally buy into the predicate, the obvious answer there is to increase your skill level until it's all marginal difference. I know lots of photographers who could handily "keep up" with a '70's camera- because they understand photography and they're not letting the camera compensate for their lack of skillset.

Maybe an old camera can keep up with a new camera in the hands of the right person, but even then, the new camera may simply be non-limiting. Otherwise, you wouldn't have bought an expensive Nikon D2x, right? It didn't improve your photography skills, but it will complement your ability. Like I said, I think we can all survive on Nikon D50s, but would you want to?

While I don't shoot birds, for bird-in-flight "panning" shots, I wouldn't want to go all manual. I guess you could. In the open, the shutter speed can be set since light doesn't really change quickly over short distances (and time periods), and aperture can be left alone. Manual focus can give fine adjustments well. However, I think Aperture priority and a decent AF system makes life easier, even for the skilled.

So, on the D50 you have two quick choices for avoiding matrix metering switching- bracket the shot (either with an automatic function or just dial in some compensation and shoot again or just do spot metering and learn what tonal values do on your camera- pretty-much follow the old zone system approach to calibrating your eye and equipment.

Yeah, I also want to get it right the first time. I certainly know I can bracket. I can also take a shot, check the histogram, adjust accordingly, then take another shot. However, that requires 2 shots (no thanks). I just want to be better than that. Getting exposure correct will also improve dynamic range in my photos and reduce the amount of visible noise.

Essentially, without buying a film SLR, I want to "pretend" I'm using film, have a limited number of shots, and take as few as possible to get it right. I hadn't take many shots with my D50.

Obviously, anyone can choose between "become a better photographer" and "buy more point-and-shoot capability-" I'm just not a fan of the latter.

Did you misunderstand what I meant? I wouldn't buy a camera because of better matrix metering. I meant I don't want to say the camera is a limiting factor. Ever. I wanted to buy a new camera because the body gives me more control, a decent viewfinder (!!!), and better AF. From there, the D300 offers you much improved AF.

I think I'm buying a D80 soon, regardless of whether I can remove the filter on my D50's sensor. It'll be a fun experiment.


I usually had to shoot at ISO 1600 at concerts, which the D50 was good at. The focusing stinks, though. The centre AF point is good enough (for me), while the non-middle AF points were useless and never focused. I could use the centre AF focus point, but the "focus and recompose" method is completely flawed at short distances. Some photographers do it all the time, but it's not good enough in front of the stage.

For the last month, I've been playing with matrix metering on my D2x for landscapes, and honestly I don't see an advantage to using it over center-weighted or spot metering- it misses enough that I'm happier with a constant process that produces results every time than one-offing anything that might hurt the CPU's interpretation. Use a crutch too much and your leg atrophies. Use a function too much and your skills atrophy.

Matrix metering has only one real benefit, which is speed/convenience. I'm so used to my D50's matrix metering that one shot is usually good enough for landscapes. Either I set the exposure compensation correctly the first time, or if I want to be more sure, I'll zoom in and measure the exposure at one part of the frame, and then zoom back out, set the exposure manually (or adjust it as necessary), and shoot. I tend to use matrix metering in social situations. Being a university student, I find myself in those circumstances quite a bit.

 

[Abstract]

(snip)

I agree with you about your need for a good AF. Also, the viewfinder of the D50 is so bad. However, the D50 is one of the 3 best Nikons to own for low noise, the original 6 MP D40 supposedly being the best. While the D80 and D300 are good cameras, I doubt the D300 is going to match the ISO performance you have now. The D80 doesn't, but it's pretty much all the same, isn't it. Totally overblown subject area. However, if you want less noise, Noise Ninja is a much cheaper solution than a new camera.

I just don't think you should buy a D300 one day, look at the ISO 1600 results, and think "WTF?"

 

[compuwar]

I like shooting in ambient light (need faster glass and better noise control at high ISO) and i shoot moving subjects (need faster focusing lenses and a better autofocus system). Yes i can 'get lucky' every once in a while and get a shot in focus....but i don't like leaving things

Luck doesn't go with prefocusing and hyperfocal distance, so depending on your DoF requirements you can remove those from that equation. Also, I've shot motorsports and airshows with a Fuji S2Pro just fine- and that AF system wasn't ever considered speedy.

I was mostly talking about the "need" to upgrade bodies though. I will say this- and don't take it wrong, but a lot of the time someone says "I like shooting in ambient light," what they mean is "I don't know how to light with strobes/reflectors where it doesn't look like blatant flash photography." The more you control the light, the more you control the results. Nikon does pretty well at balanced fill flash, though I normally need to tone it down some (generally 1-1.5 stops) to get a good balance with ambient, but having 2-3 strobes for most of the time is a much better solution for predictable results. Also, if you can get your lights high enough and diffuse them well then you won't get the same sort of issues you get with a flash on a bracket at an event or wedding, because what most folks hate is the light coming right at their eyes from photographer level.

I constantly review my shots and look at others work to see where i can improve. unfortunately, it is a cold hard fact that equipment makes a big difference. especially when shooting weddings...which is where most of my money (from photography that is) comes from. outdoor portraits/events and what not, aren't so much of a problem with the equipment i have now. anything indoors is a bit of a struggle.

Spend some serious time on strobist.blogspot.com, his work is some of the highest quality "go shoot some random folks doing something" that I've seen.

If Chuck Gardner's still bumping around here, he's got a lot of good stuff on his site and on DPR too and maybe we can get him to chime in here too.

 

[compuwar]

True, even using a flash would help a lot. He does rely on "ambient" lighting, although I think an SB-400 (or SB-600) flash will be fantastic and a better purchase than a 70-200 mm lens, which won't help his lens focusing issues at all.
I don't disagree with you, but I think spending money on the lens was a bad idea. I would have gone for the camera + a flash first, and THEN the lens. A better AF system would result in less focus hunting, although we've never really seen him shoot a wedding, so who knows what method he uses to get a focused shot when his lens hunts.

I totally agree that flash is higher on the list (though I'd say an SB-800 and two SB-600's with stands and brollies are probably the minimum.) IR assist from a flash would help with focus hunting, as would an IR light source.

Maybe an old camera can keep up with a new camera in the hands of the right person, but even then, the new camera may simply be non-limiting. Otherwise, you wouldn't have bought an expensive Nikon D2x, right? It didn't improve your photography skills, but it will complement your ability. Like I said, I think we can all survive on Nikon D50s, but would you want to?

Actually, the D2x purchase was because I hated having to change CF cards *and* batteries so much with the D200. As a bonus, I got better birds-in-flight capability (a corner case,) and a camera with ergonomics that just "feels better" than the D200 or my S2Pros did. If it weren't for the battery issue, I'd still have a D200 (which only replaced the S2Pro when I had a complete failure and knew it was time for a new body.)

While I don't shoot birds, for bird-in-flight "panning" shots, I wouldn't want to go all manual. I guess you could. In the open, the shutter speed can be set since light doesn't really change quickly over short distances (and time periods), and aperture can be left alone. Manual focus can give fine adjustments well. However, I think Aperture priority and a decent AF system makes life easier, even for the skilled.

I predominately shoot birds. That's a corner case though- which is where specialized equipment becomes anything from convenient to necessary (and sometimes the whole range depending on the results you're looking for.) You're not going to sell a lot of bird shots with a 50mm lens either.

Yeah, I also want to get it right the first time. I certainly know I can bracket. I can also take a shot, check the histogram, adjust accordingly, then take another shot. However, that requires 2 shots (no thanks). I just want to be better than that. Getting exposure correct will also improve dynamic range in my photos and reduce the amount of visible noise.

Sure, but there is often more than one "correct" exposure for a scene unless you're just looking for max DR and doing everything else in post, in which case the fluffy white towel is destined to be your best friend (and it's probably a better overall strategy but it's less "pure" and more "work.")

Essentially, without buying a film SLR, I want to "pretend" I'm using film, have a limited number of shots, and take as few as possible to get it right. I hadn't take many shots with my D50.


Did you misunderstand what I meant? I wouldn't buy a camera because of better matrix metering. I meant I don't want to say the camera is a limiting factor. Ever. I wanted to buy a new camera because the body gives me more control, a decent viewfinder (!!!), and better AF. From there, the D300 offers you much improved AF.

I think I'm buying a D80 soon, regardless of whether I can remove the filter on my D50's sensor. It'll be a fun experiment.

It'd be sort of interesting to take a glass cutter to one of those Tiffen hot mirror lens filters and see if you could get it to fit in place of the current one- that's about a (USD) $65 experiment.

I usually had to shoot at ISO 1600 at concerts, which the D50 was good at. The focusing stinks, though. The centre AF point is good enough (for me), while the non-middle AF points were useless and never focused. I could use the centre AF focus point, but the "focus and recompose" method is completely flawed at short distances. Some photographers do it all the time, but it's not good enough in front of the stage.

If you've got the eye for it, you can do it in servo mode ok- but one of the nicest things about the long primes are the AF override buttons that allow you to do it in AF-C mode with your non-shutter hand. I do think the new AF points will be more handy on the D3/300 than anything else, although I'm sort of interested in how the shadow details are at high-ISO for night-time cityscapes.

 

[Abstract]

I totally agree that flash is higher on the list (though I'd say an SB-800 and two SB-600's with stands and brollies are probably the minimum.) IR assist from a flash would help with focus hunting, as would an IR light source.

I wrote that before I realized he was shooting weddings. By "event", I thought he meant birthday parties or something, where an SB-400 is great because it never intimidates anyone.

With regards to flash setups, I think most guys doing it alone will opt not to have reflectors everywhere. If he had someone helping him, that would be a different story. However, by himself, I think it'd be difficult. I'm speaking from very limited photography experience, though.

Sure, but there is often more than one "correct" exposure for a scene unless you're just looking for max DR and doing everything else in post, in which case the fluffy white towel is destined to be your best friend (and it's probably a better overall strategy but it's less "pure" and more "work.")

To me, "correct exposure" translates into "the exposure you are aiming to get". If it's a landscape, max DR is good in most situations. It really depends on what you're shooting though. In Japan, I had to sacrifice the sky many times because the interesting stuff was on the ground.

But nailing the exposure the way I envision it is something I want to be good at.

Actually, the D2x purchase was because I hated having to change CF cards *and* batteries so much with the D200. As a bonus, I got better birds-in-flight capability (a corner case,) and a camera with ergonomics that just "feels better" than the D200 or my S2Pros did. If it weren't for the battery issue, I'd still have a D200 (which only replaced the S2Pro when I had a complete failure and knew it was time for a new body.)

Haha, this may be true, but none of this is "necessary" and can't be done with the D200, some extra batteries, and larger CF cards, right?

I'm going to replace my D50 with either the D200, D80's replacement, or the D300. Nikon's prices in Australia are so screwed up that the D80, at release, used to cost almost the same price as the D200 did in America. Now that the Australian dollar almost being equal to the US dollar, Nikon has now priced things more fairly than before (by ripping us off by a smaller %), so the D300 suddenly seems worth the cost.

If you've got the eye for it, you can do it in servo mode ok- but one of the nicest things about the long primes are the AF override buttons that allow you to do it in AF-C mode with your non-shutter hand.

It really depended on the type of concert I shot. Most of the time, I had to stand between the stage and a metal barrier 4 feet in front of the stage at mid-sized venues. "Focus and recompose" doesn't work at that distance. You really needed AF-S lenses if you wanted to focus and recompose so that you could tweak the focus with one hand if you need to.

I've never shot large concerts because I never got that far. I stopped enjoying concert photography after only a year. It sounded awesome at first, but eventually, I felt obligated to go, never listened to the music, and NEVER enjoyed myself. In fact, I dreaded going, especially when I knew I would hate the music and band.

And there's nothing like going to a metal concert, where drunk people jump around behind you, tap you on the shoulder, and demand that you take a photo of him and his friends every 5 minutes. Sometimes, if we looked like we needed help, security would warn them, but most security didn't care as long as they didn't start fighting. Then there's the issue of plastic beer cups being thrown in your direction while you're shooting.

My friend ended up getting really into it, and sometimes shot 3 gigs in one week. We're both post-grad students and need to go to uni early the next day.

I do think the new AF points will be more handy on the D3/300 than anything else, although I'm sort of interested in how the shadow details are at high-ISO for night-time cityscapes.

If the 40D is anything to judge by, DR in the shadow range has gotten better with technology, and highlight DR is still 3 stops. Most of the time, I care more about highlight detail, which is too bad.

Also, the AF coverage of the D300 appears a lot better than that of the D3. The D3's AF-points are too clustered around the centre of the frame. They'll probably get it right when the D4 comes out 3 years from now.

 

[ACbc]

Abstract...compuwar... (and everyone else that has chimed in on this thread)thank you very much for your opinions. I find it valuable to hear about how other people approach things. I don't really have any good friends that are into photography, i've been more or less self taught and always try to get a tip here or there when i am around a 'real' photographer.

of course, there's so many ways to approach certain situations, i'm sure we will all never completely agree, but i find your opinions valuable nevertheless and thank you for sharing them.

just an FYI, before i did my very first wedding a while back (free, for a friend of course), the first things i bought to prepare were the tamron 28-75 2.8 and an SB600. when using the flash, i never really liked it on auto, so i usually go full manual at that point and experiment. usually with the flash set to 1/64, bounce off whatever i can and go from there..

strategically using mutiple speedlights or strobes is something that is foreign to me, but like someone said...i feel like it's a bit tough when you're own your own.

anyways, regardless of what i would have bought, i dont really see it as a 'waste' of money. i am trying to buy equipment that i know i can use for a long long time. i think the 70-200 VR will be a lense that will last me many years, so regardless if a body would have helped me more or not, i don't see it as a waste of money at all.

 

[compuwar]

strategically using mutiple speedlights or strobes is something that is foreign to me, but like someone said...i feel like it's a bit tough when you're own your own.

Seriously consider at least one more flash, two stands and umbrellas for them, it's a relatively small investment, and if you start out at strobist.blogspot.com, you can experiment and you'll get so much better results.

Heck, shoot teddy bear portraits if you have to- shoot self-portraits on a timer- just get used to lighting. Flashes are a bit more difficult than strobes due to the lack of a modeling light, but for fooling around the house you can use a couple of relatively directional desk lights and a mirror to see the effects if you can't get someone to pose for you.

anyways, regardless of what i would have bought, i dont really see it as a 'waste' of money. i am trying to buy equipment that i know i can use for a long long time. i think the 70-200 VR will be a lense that will last me many years, so regardless if a body would have helped me more or not, i don't see it as a waste of money at all.

It's a good lens (and second to lighting, I think it's the way to go- but don't skimp on lighting. Once you learn to light well, you'll see a huge difference. Control the light, control the results.