Upgrade path for better low light performance

[JDDavis]

I've been following this thread... and have been quietly observing because you have been getting a wide variety of opinions (and also a wide variety of quality). However... the following quote by you is just plain wrong.


You have stated a very basic... yet very common mistake. My recommendation is to purge your brain of "zoom with your feet". That is NOT a zoom. The relative position of your camera and the subject define the photo. Changing that basic relative position, and adjusting zoom to compensate gives you a very different picture. The 2nd and 3rd example on the following site demonstrate this clearly. http://www.shortcourses.com/tabletop/lighting2-16.html

One last recommendation. You will never regret buying better glass. It is almost the only purchase that really matters.

/Jim

Thanks for the link. I've found this before but that's some great info. OK, perhaps technically zoom is not the right word to use. Hopefully you understood that I meant I'm in a fixed position and can't adjust the composition except with a "zoom" lens. Taking a bag of fixed focal lengths is not an option. In both of those scenarios my position and the subjects position are changing but when it is time to capture an image I can't easily move to change my relative position and a wide ranging zoom is indispensable.

Oh, and I'm definitely focusing on the glass first.

Thanks for the link!

 

[flynz4]

Thanks for the link. I've found this before but that's some great info. OK, perhaps technically zoom is not the right word to use. Hopefully you understood that I meant I'm in a fixed position and can't adjust the composition except with a "zoom" lens. Taking a bag of fixed focal lengths is not an option. In both of those scenarios my position and the subjects position are changing but when it is time to capture an image I can't easily move to change my relative position and a wide ranging zoom is indispensable.

Oh, and I'm definitely focusing on the glass first.

Thanks for the link!

Yes, I knew what you meant... just trying to provide good basic information.

The image is always a function of the position of the camera relative to the subject. One way I like to think of it: If we had infinitely perfect glass... and infinitely perfect sensor/film... then all we would need is a single wide angle lens. Any level of zoom could then be accomplished by cropping... and the end result would be the same as having a bag full of lenses.

However, any time the position of the camera changes relative to the subject... then you fundamentally have a different picture.

BTW: I have the Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 and it is a fantastic piece of glass. It is no accident that you see so many of them around.

/Jim

 

[OreoCookie]

I don't think full frame is necessarily better for your purposes: modern crop sensors work very well at rather high ISOs (I use my D7000 up to ISO 2000 or so without hesitation, my X100s with a newer sensor manages ISO 4000 with good results; note that both of these cameras can be pushed higher and what is and isn't acceptable to you may vary). The D7x00-series is also much more than fast enough (my D7000 manages up to 6 fps, the D7100 is even faster and derives its AF system from its full-frame brethren).

Since you are interested primarily in tele lenses, I reckon you need more reach anyway, and thus, I would recommend a D7100 + 70-200 mm f/2.8 lens. This combination gives you a 105-300 mm full frame equivalent lens. You should also have a look at Sigma's 100-300 mm f/2.8 lens. Your current lens is too way, waaaaayy too slow. If you're worried about depth of field, don't, with a fast lens, you'll have the opposite problems. Wide open, when I shoot at 200 mm f/2.8, the depth of field is in the few centimeter range, meaning that if I focus on one eye, the other eye and the nose are often out of focus.

Regarding the different versions of the 70/80-200 mm zoom: I own the 80-200 mm f/2.8 Nikkor. Optically, I love this lens, but compared to the latest version, the AF is comparatively slow (I don't shoot sports so I don't care) and VR (image stabilization) is a really nice thing to have.

So my advice: get a D7100 and a good tele zoom (e. g. the 70-200 mm Nikkor).

 

[daimos]

I switch to video in challenging situations. Instead of chasing the endless upgrade path, I learned to deal with it. My video folder has been growing.

 

[JDDavis]

A little thread ressurection here. For anyone who cares I just wanted to update the thread on my slow and methodical progress towards upgrading my kit for better low light performance (in particular, indoor gymnastics).

Bottom line...just about any new Nikon body and f2.8 lens or better outperforms my D90 and 18-300 on the spec sheet so I am comfortable that any upgrade will be an "upgrade".

I've tested a manual 135mm f2.5 lens on my D90 at an early meet. The results were much better overall with obvious improvement becuase of the f2.5. What I learned...My D90s ISO performance is still holding me back...135mm is just about enough reach (but 200mm on a DX is 90% of the time)...and a manual focus lens, while doable, is not preferred for gymnastics.

I plan on testing some more lens / bodies as the season goes if I can resist simply buying something.

I've narrowed my future purchase down to a few options:

Bodies: D610, D700, and D7100
Lens: Nikon AF-S 70-200 F2.8 ED VR II, Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX DG APO HSM, Tamron SP 70-200 F2.8 Di VC USD

These options are in acceptable price ranges and will more than blow away my current kit. There are some interesting tradeoffs in the bodies. Mainly...the D610 and D700 more than double the low light ISO capability of the D7100....but the D7100 gives me 100mm more "reach". One thing I do know is that 200mm on an FX is acceptable for me (135mm on a DX...202.5mm equivelant worked). One thing I don't know yet is if the real world difference in the ISO performance is worth the extra money and the loss of "reach". I plan to test that.

For the lens I'm leaning heavily towards the Tamron. In testing it held it's own (according to internet sites) against the Nikon and edged it out in a few categories. Real world reviews are very positive on IQ but warn about defective copies. New it's running $1500 and used about $1100. That's pretty tempting. I plan on testing it as well.

Low end option: Used Nikon D7100 + used Sigma 70-200 = $1700
High end option: Nikon D610 + Nikon 70-200 = $4296

That's quite a difference and I think either option would produce more than acceptable results. I'll probably end up somewhere in between. I've found an excellent used Tamron for $1100. The difference between a D610 and a a D7100 is about $800. Nicely enough, a used D700 pretty much splits the difference. More work to do on the body.

Thanks for listening to my ramblings.

 

[Meister]

Low end option: Used Nikon D7100 + used Sigma 70-200 = $1700

I own a D610 but with that pice difference I'd go for the option above.

D700 is a clunky 2008 camera with a meager 12mp and no video.
Unless you get it on a better deal than the D7100 I'd stay away from it.

 

[brent12]

Video?

I was in a similar situation and went for a video camera, less than $1k (Canon) and it worked great for gymnastics. Individual frames not as good as an expensive DSLR taking single shots but for my audience they preferred the videos.

 

[Meister]

I was in a similar situation and went for a video camera, less than $1k (Canon) and it worked great for gymnastics. Individual frames not as good as an expensive DSLR taking single shots but for my audience they preferred the videos.

if the main focus is on home videos, then a camcorder is the way to go.

 

[JDDavis]

I was in a similar situation and went for a video camera, less than $1k (Canon) and it worked great for gymnastics. Individual frames not as good as an expensive DSLR taking single shots but for my audience they preferred the videos.

D&M Productions produces and distributes both video and still photography of my daughter's gymnastics events. She's going to have a lot of material to show her kids one day.

(Dad and Mom Productions is a wholly owned subsidiary of Dad and Mom Inc who also fully subsidizes all of the gymnastics activities. It is currently operating at a substantial net loss.)

I have a Canon HD camcorder. I like their video products. I found I did not like taking video with a DLSR. That's with my D90 though. A new body might change that.

 

[cebseb]

It took me a while, but I read through the thread and found great advice here and there. I'll throw in my suggestions.

Nikon D7100
-D600 felt quite cheap to me and didn't attain as fast of a fps as I desired for moving bodies
-D800 is slow... I love mine, but 5fps is just too slow
-You need to focus on getting a better collection of glass, save a bit on the body to go big on glass
-The buffer may be limiting if you shoot full on RAW, but if you stick to jpeg and 12bit, you're good to go for at least 3 second bursts at 7fps.

Nikon 300 f4
-can be had for a song. Around $900 used and wonderfully sharp and fast focusing. A great lens to match with the D7100's AF module borrowed from the D4.
-very light and matches up quite well with the 1.7 tc II. BOOM, you now have 510mm f7 lens that is still acceptably sharp (if calibrated correctly) and fast in decent light.
If your wallet allows,

Sigma 120-300 f2.8
- the newer version is about $2800, but the older version is about $1700 and is optically the same.
- its a ZOOM! AND a f2.8! Mind blown
- sure it's a Sigma, but their customer service has been way better than Nikon's as of the last few years.

One last thing. Get a monopod and a monopod head.

Enjoy!

 

[JDDavis]

It took me a while, but I read through the thread and found great advice here and there. I'll throw in my suggestions.

Nikon D7100
-D600 felt quite cheap to me and didn't attain as fast of a fps as I desired for moving bodies
-D800 is slow... I love mine, but 5fps is just too slow
-You need to focus on getting a better collection of glass, save a bit on the body to go big on glass
-The buffer may be limiting if you shoot full on RAW, but if you stick to jpeg and 12bit, you're good to go for at least 3 second bursts at 7fps.

Nikon 300 f4
-can be had for a song. Around $900 used and wonderfully sharp and fast focusing. A great lens to match with the D7100's AF module borrowed from the D4.
-very light and matches up quite well with the 1.7 tc II. BOOM, you now have 510mm f7 lens that is still acceptably sharp (if calibrated correctly) and fast in decent light.
If your wallet allows,

Sigma 120-300 f2.8
- the newer version is about $2800, but the older version is about $1700 and is optically the same.
- its a ZOOM! AND a f2.8! Mind blown
- sure it's a Sigma, but their customer service has been way better than Nikon's as of the last few years.

One last thing. Get a monopod and a monopod head.

Enjoy!

Thanks for the info. What about the D610 made it feel cheap to you? To be honest, I've been hoping for a D300 replacement for a while because of the rugged build. I'm not sure if one will ever come. I'm pretty rough on cameras and they are out in the weather. My D90 has actually held up great to all kinds of abuse over the years and it's a plastic body.

 

[cebseb]

Thanks for the info. What about the D610 made it feel cheap to you? To be honest, I've been hoping for a D300 replacement for a while because of the rugged build. I'm not sure if one will ever come. I'm pretty rough on cameras and they are out in the weather. My D90 has actually held up great to all kinds of abuse over the years and it's a plastic body.

The d7100 has a pro level body. Dual card slots and weather proofing. This is as close to a D300 update as you can get for now.

 

[Apple fanboy]

The d7100 has a pro level body. Dual card slots and weather proofing. This is as close to a D300 update as you can get for now.

As I own both, they both have a similar feel. Maybe next months D750 maybe what you are after. At this stage you might as well wait for the announcement. Even if its not what you want, you may find the prices on the older models slide a little.

 

[Meister]

Thanks for the info. What about the D610 made it feel cheap to you?

As I own both, they both have a similar feel.

Nikon D7100
-D600 felt quite cheap to me ...

Why and how is this a quality criteria for a camera?

The d7100 has a pro level body. Dual card slots and weather proofing. This is as close to a D300 update as you can get for now.

the D600 and D7100 have precisely the same body features.

The D610 has the best weather sealing available on a dslr. Search for "making of chasing the light" on youtube

 

[OreoCookie]

Thanks for the info. What about the D610 made it feel cheap to you? To be honest, I've been hoping for a D300 replacement for a while because of the rugged build.

I've owned a few dslrs with a metal shell (Olympus E-20, Nikon D7000) and a plastic shell (Nikon D70 and D80). While there is clearly a difference in feel, I haven't noticed that the ones made of metal were more robust in practice. If anything, my D7000 looks more worn because some of the paint has rubbed off due to me using it (and a few grains of sand). To me, the question is more which kind of plastic is used in the construction. Also, metal and plastic have different failure modes: plastic breaks while metal dents and bends. That being said, if it is only about the feel, at the price level these cameras are at, it's mostly psychology, they're all more than good enough.

 

[Meister]

To me, the question is more which kind of plastic is used in the construction. Also, metal and plastic have different failure modes: plastic breaks while metal dents and bends.

Thanks for pointing this out!

The problem with magnesium alloy is:
- it bends and can cause damage that is not apparent from the outside
- if it does in fact break the camera can not be repaired

The plastics used in high class dslrs are better, since they usually break right away, but can be replaced easily.

 

[JDDavis]

Honestly it's not a feature I've put too much research into (ruggedness). I'm not sure how new models compare to the D90. If someone has the experience it would be good to hear. I haven't worried about it since I've put the D90 through a lot and it's holding up fine. It's been banged off of many rocks and smashed between my back and cliff walls many times. I've managed to crack the LCD protector (that's what it's there for) and crack a plastic piece on a lens and that's about it. It's handled freezing temps, heat, and moisture. The only issue with it is it needs to be cleaned badly. There are some spots but they rarely effect an image.

Based on my experience I've assumed that any new model will be as good or better. When cebseb said cheap I was wondering if he meant quality wise or fit and finish for the money (FX class).

 

[Meister]

Based on my experience I've assumed that any new model will be as good or better. When cebseb said cheap I was wondering if he meant quality wise or fit and finish for the money (FX class).

all fx bodies are weather sealed and rugged. At least as rugged as your D90.

 

[OreoCookie]

The plastics used in high class dslrs are better, since they usually break right away, but can be replaced easily.

Actually, plastics don't necessarily »break faster« than metal, it's that both have different failure modes. For instance, if a fall bends a piece of metal, the part may become unusable. But if the same part were made of plastic, it'd retain its shape until it fractures. I've had this happen with computers: my iBooks looked much better (shape-wise) than my previous MacBook Pro which fell from a meter and a half in a bag. I broke one slr (non-digital), a Nikon F80, a few years ago. It impacted the ground at >30 km/h. The film door broke off, but what killed the camera in the end was a bent mirror box.

Plastic isn't better for everything but nowadays many top-of-the-line lenses use a combination of metal and high-quality plastics for a reason.

 

[Meister]

Actually, plastics don't necessarily »break faster« than metal, it's that both have different failure modes. For instance, if a fall bends a piece of metal, the part may become unusable. But if the same part were made of plastic, it'd retain its shape until it fractures. I've had this happen with computers: my iBooks looked much better (shape-wise) than my previous MacBook Pro which fell from a meter and a half in a bag. I broke one slr (non-digital), a Nikon F80, a few years ago. It impacted the ground at >30 km/h. The film door broke off, but what killed the camera in the end was a bent mirror box.

Plastic isn't better for everything but nowadays many top-of-the-line lenses use a combination of metal and high-quality plastics for a reason.

thank you, this is again an excellent explanation.

 

[OreoCookie]

Honestly it's not a feature I've put too much research into (ruggedness). I'm not sure how new models compare to the D90. If someone has the experience it would be good to hear.

You'll be fine, the D7000, D7100, D600 and D610 use very similar body construction, and the D7000 I have is significantly more robustly built than my previous camera, a D80. Unless you have really extreme needs in terms of durability, they'll do more than just fine.

 

[JDDavis]

*Update*

OK, bringing the post back up. Thanks for all the conversation. I've tested some rental equipment and wanted to update my thoughts. I may try to get an example pic up once I go through them all.

Things I think I have come to realize (I'll put these in my own real world user terms).

The D7100 is roughly "twice as good" as my D90 in my particular low light situations. The D610 is roughly "twice as good" as the D7100 (way better than my D90..duh).

The "reach" of DX is nice to have but not an absolute for my situation. 200mm on FF is doable with cropping (I'm happy that the cropped results are still a big improvement over my current images) and I didn't need 200 all the time.

Bottom line on bodies....The D7100 will suffice and is a big improvement over my D90. The D610 produces even better results for +$800 and opens up the FF world. What I considered potential cons of FF aren't really cons (or they are vastly outwieghed by the pros). Leaning heavily towards the D610. I wasn't super excited about the focus system on the 610 but I attribute that more to me being not that familiar with it.

On lenses...I think the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 is still the king of the mountain but what I found is the Tamron version has got to be the best bang for the buck. I was really happy with the images overall and that's a big savings off the Nikon. I did feel it was a bit softer on the edges though. (I'm not in optimal light though).

One thing I found though was with the D610s ISO capability I did not need to be at F2.8 all the time. If I pushed the ISO towards the D610s upper limit for quality I could go to F4 and still shoot around 160 to 200 on the shutter. That has made me wonder if the Nikon 70-200 f4 is a viable option. I haven't shot with it but on paper (and in reviews) it should outperform the Tamron for roughly the same price. But why give up the access to f2.8? At least with the Tamron the option is there and it performed better at f4 than f2.8.

Thanks for listening to my ramblings. My sights are set (for now) on the D610 and the Tamron 70-200 f2.8. I don't think I'll rent anymore or I might have well just bought something. I'll probably wait till after Photokina to see if anything moves on prices.

 

[nburwell]

The D7100 is a great DSLR body, especially if you aren't looking to get into full frame, or just want to save some money over the D610. But it looks like you have your sights set on the D610 as your DSLR body, which obviously is an excellent choice in it's own right.

 

[Apple fanboy]

I'd be interested to see how much the D610 drops once the D750 is released.

Should be a flood of second hand units on the market after people buy the D750.
That's the way I might go in the new year.

 

[Meister]

*Update*

OK, bringing the post back up. Thanks for all the conversation. I've tested some rental equipment and wanted to update my thoughts. I may try to get an example pic up once I go through them all.

Things I think I have come to realize (I'll put these in my own real world user terms).

The D7100 is roughly "twice as good" as my D90 in my particular low light situations. The D610 is roughly "twice as good" as the D7100 (way better than my D90..duh).

The "reach" of DX is nice to have but not an absolute for my situation. 200mm on FF is doable with cropping (I'm happy that the cropped results are still a big improvement over my current images) and I didn't need 200 all the time.

Bottom line on bodies....The D7100 will suffice and is a big improvement over my D90. The D610 produces even better results for +$800 and opens up the FF world. What I considered potential cons of FF aren't really cons (or they are vastly outwieghed by the pros). Leaning heavily towards the D610. I wasn't super excited about the focus system on the 610 but I attribute that more to me being not that familiar with it.

On lenses...I think the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 is still the king of the mountain but what I found is the Tamron version has got to be the best bang for the buck. I was really happy with the images overall and that's a big savings off the Nikon. I did feel it was a bit softer on the edges though. (I'm not in optimal light though).

One thing I found though was with the D610s ISO capability I did not need to be at F2.8 all the time. If I pushed the ISO towards the D610s upper limit for quality I could go to F4 and still shoot around 160 to 200 on the shutter. That has made me wonder if the Nikon 70-200 f4 is a viable option. I haven't shot with it but on paper (and in reviews) it should outperform the Tamron for roughly the same price. But why give up the access to f2.8? At least with the Tamron the option is there and it performed better at f4 than f2.8.

Thanks for listening to my ramblings. My sights are set (for now) on the D610 and the Tamron 70-200 f2.8. I don't think I'll rent anymore or I might have well just bought something. I'll probably wait till after Photokina to see if anything moves on prices.

thank you very, very much for sharing!
I have the D610 and I am also thinking about the tamron.
Keep us posted about your findings.