Would this move be stupid?

[rasputin]

I'm planning on being very generous to myself () due to getting a new job, was going to spend £500-600 on a new lens or some-such thing.

But, what if...

I sold both my camera bodies (Sony A300 and A350), Sony flash and all lenses - that would give me about enough for either a Nikon D300, which has the features I'm after (decent ISO performance, micro focus adjust, fast frame rate, lens hire availability)

That would leave me the £500-£600 for lenses and a flash. Not much .
It would probably be enough to cover the same range I have now though, if I buy s/h - Sigma 10-20mm, Tamron 28-75mm, Sigma 70-300mm APO, and Jessops 360AFD flash.

So.... What do others think? Reasonable idea? The only thing I really don't want to lose from the Sony is the image stabilisation, which is fantastic, but I'm guessing the high ISO performance of the D300s will make up for that, until I can afford stabilised lenses.

Yay or nay?

[ian in lancs]

my view the D300, SB-600 and the Nikon 18-105VR lens stunning combination - you wont look back!

Edited by ian in lancs on Friday 23 April 18:08

[Simpo Two]

Seems sound to me. Nowt wrong with s/h lenses.

rasputin said:

That would leave me the £500-£600 for lenses and a flash. Not much

No but your income will continue to accrue which means you get what you want eventually.

rasputin said:

The only thing I really don't want to lose from the Sony is the image stabilisation, which is fantastic, but I'm guessing the high ISO performance of the D300s will make up for that, until I can afford stabilised lenses.

Very few people actually need stabilisation, just like they don't need to buy bottled water. Just concentrate on the settings and technique and you'll wonder what the fuss was about.

[andy-xr]

rasputin said:

I'm planning on being very generous to myself () due to getting a new job, was going to spend £500-600 on a new lens or some-such thing.

But, what if...

I sold both my camera bodies (Sony A300 and A350), Sony flash and all lenses - that would give me about enough for either a Nikon D300, which has the features I'm after (decent ISO performance, micro focus adjust, fast frame rate, lens hire availability)

That would leave me the £500-£600 for lenses and a flash. Not much .
It would probably be enough to cover the same range I have now though, if I buy s/h - Sigma 10-20mm, Tamron 28-75mm, Sigma 70-300mm APO, and Jessops 360AFD flash.

So.... What do others think? Reasonable idea? The only thing I really don't want to lose from the Sony is the image stabilisation, which is fantastic, but I'm guessing the high ISO performance of the D300s will make up for that, until I can afford stabilised lenses.

Yay or nay?

The D300's great at high ISO's when you have light. When you're increasing ISO and aperture to make more light, it's quite noisy above 400, blotchy at 800 and unuseable at 1600. 3200's just a no-no. Bear in mind this is say, trying to create light in a dark alleyway.

Shoot in daylight, aperture priority at 1600 ISO (because you forgot to change it), no problem at all. Bit of Noise Ninja straightens everything out. Just be aware it's not got the capability of the D700 with low light situations

AF fine tune is good when you have a slight back or front focus issue, when I got my D300 I turned it on and up, not realising what I was doing. I thought I was going to make my images sharper. In reality, I made my camera miss what I was focussing on. At F1.4, that hurts a bit. Live n learn!

Overall it's a great camera. Far better than what I can do with it. I'm thinking of upgrading mine to a D700 as I'm going for different lighting setups and may need ISO1600 more than I have done previously, but I'm conscious I only have 2 lenses, and would end up buying a 70-200 2.8 @ £2k

If you do get a D300, get a Tamron 90mm as well, it's magic. Flash wise, SB-600 might be worthwhile, depends what youre thinking of lighting I guess

Overall I think I'd say stick, or go at it with more money

[Muska]

To say a D300 is unusable at ISO1600 is just wrong. Correctly exposed it will be perfectly useable. I've had useable images at 1600ISO from a D200 and a D80, reading the histogram and getting the exposure right is imperative.

[Simpo Two]

andy-xr said:

The D300's great at high ISO's when you have light. When you're increasing ISO and aperture to make more light, it's quite noisy above 400, blotchy at 800 and unuseable at 1600.

Something seems very odd there Andy. You seem to be describing a D70!

[andy-xr]

I know what you mean as well.

Dont get me wrong (and poster above - completely agree). I've had useable images at ISO3200 with a flashgun attached at F8, and the same at 1600 in daylight. My point was, to increase ISO and aperture because you plain just dont have a good lighting solution, it aint great over 800.

Edited by andy-xr on Friday 23 April 18:31

[rasputin]

Thanks all. Keep the opinions coming!

I meant D300s rather than D300, by the way.

And would also consider a 7D if I went down this route. I assumed the ISO performance would be worse because of higher pixel density, but looking at samples it seems that may not be true?

Edited by rasputin on Friday 23 April 18:31

[Muska]

It wont be as good as a D3/D700 but it will be better than a D300.

I can't speak for the 7D as i don't use Canon.

Andy, would you have an example shot of the situation you're trying to describe?

[andy-xr]

Muska said:

It wont be as good as a D3/D700 but it will be better than a D300.

I can't speak for the 7D as i don't use Canon.

Andy, would you have an example shot of the situation you're trying to describe?

Hang fire while I raid my Flickr and storage drive. Will update again later

On account of some of my more recent work being completely NSFW, I just did a couple of shots.

Lets say I want F1.4 because it's fun and thats the best I have available to me. And the light meter says that at ISO200, to get F1.4 I'd need to shoot that at 1/2 a second so you have an idea of the light levels. I'd rather have a shutter speed somewhere around 1/40th or 1/60th as a minimum because I'm hand holding at 1.4 on a 50mm and my technique aint great, so I increase ISO. In this case I went to 3200 - I realise that we were talking about 1600, so I'll do some more when there's a more favourable light

Here's a 100% crop and a resized frame shot on my D300 at 1/40th, F1.4 on a 50mm at ISO3200. No adjustments made from the NEF.

Edited by andy-xr on Friday 23 April 19:50

[Simpo Two]

andy-xr said:

Lets say I want F1.4 because it's fun and thats the best I have available to me. And the light meter says that at ISO200, to get F1.4 I'd need to shoot that at 1/2 a second so you have an idea of the light levels.

Half a second at f1.4 is well beyond the bounds of what I'd call 'normal' photography. It's god's way of saying 'put some fking lights on'. That's fine but I don't think the OP should be distracted by these extremes.

[Furyous]

Sell the Sony stuff, buy a new body and get good used glass from Mifsuds, MBP, TP fora etc.

[Simpo Two]

^^^ Spot on.

[Muska]

I'm with simpo thats pretty extreme. But we were talking about ISO1600, not 3200, which is a stop higher... I've shot some dark receptions and at f1.4 never come across half a second time required before.

I'm going to take a shot with my D200 in a minute at ISO1600 to add to the thread.

I agree about selling the sony stuff though.

[itsnotarace]

ISO400 on my D200 gives similar results to ISO800 on my D300, so it's better by a stop.

I would class IS01600 on the D300 to be just about usable depending on subject. I would never go above this and expect to sell a shot. ISO3200 might be fine for holiday snaps but not for clients.

[Muska]

Ok,

D200 & 24-70mm f2.8 @2.8, 50mm, 1/50th, ISO1600.

Straight from camera

My black and white conversion. no noise reduction in either shot.

And just to give contrast, here is ISO6400 from my D3:
24-70mm f2.8 @2.8, 50mm, 1/200th, ISO6400.

Straight from camera

My black and white conversion, again no noise reduction.

Perhaps it's relative to the work you produce. I'd have no quarms handing over a well exposed and edited ISO1600 shot from my D200, but I think it's acceptable for wedding work that sometimes you can only work with what light is available - I'm sure Simpo can back me up with that. If you're talking studio work, or motorsport then I can see your point.

I'm aware this has gone a little OT so apologies to the op.

Edited by Muska on Friday 23 April 21:56

[RobDickinson]

rasputin said:

And would also consider a 7D if I went down this route. I assumed the ISO performance would be worse because of higher pixel density, but looking at samples it seems that may not be true?

7D sensor is a touch better than the D300s one and you get more resolution. It also shoots 8fps at full rez/bit depth unlike the D300s.

But saying that trheres no evidence 14bit files are worth bothering with and the D300s is overall as good as the 7D if you ignore movies. The twin card slots is handy too.

I have a 7D, friend has a D300 (not s), both work well both produce great images, see wich operationaly you get on with.

I will say canons 17-55 f2.8IS is as good or better than the nikon equivelant, but with IS, and about 2/3rds the price (tho neither are cheap). IMO for the nikon go for one of the 2rd party 17-50f2.8s or something.

Also take a long look at the lenses. Canon have a good f4 pro range (24-105, 70-200, 17-40), which nikon is catching up, no decent 100-400, canons 10-22 is great,no 400/5.6, mpe65, but a better 70-300, 35f1.8 , cheaper 200/2, 200-400 etc

Neither range is 'better' but one may suit you more than the other.

[ian in lancs]

andy-xr said:

Overall it's a great camera. Far better than what I can do with it. I'm thinking of upgrading mine to a D700 as I'm going for different lighting setups and may need ISO1600 more than I have done previously, but I'm conscious I only have 2 lenses, and would end up buying a 70-200 2.8 @ £2k

Oh, yes! My adding a D700 to my D300s cost me the 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 lenses as well....

Interestingly in the ]portrait] studio I'm using the 24-70 on the D300s and 70-200 on the D700. The former effectively being a fantastic 36-105 3/4 body portrait lens the latter combo head/shoulders. And I totally get why the 24-70 and the 700 is the wedding 'togs favourite. Both top camerasm and top lenses all i use now!

[cirks]

A question was asked about the 7D. Well, I'm perfectly happy with the high ISO. The following are at 3200 hand held (slow shutter) using 10-22mm. At 100% they're grainy but, how often do you need to look at 100% crops? The high ISO has allowed me to do more indoor stuff where flash often isn't allowed and also helps with flash/macro and also sports shots. Massive improvement from my 20D.

Original - 12mm f9.0 1/8th

100%

100% with Ninja (default)


Original - 21mm f11 1/40th

100%

100% and Ninja

[rasputin]

Thanks for the tips and samples, very helpful.

Lots to think about. I'll have a play with both if any local shops have them available.

Video isn't something I'm bothered about. I might use it sometimes if it's available, but it definitely wouldn't sway my decision either way. Resolution might, though - it makes the 7D quite tempting!