Toronto Photography Meetup Group

I don't mean move out of the house, hehe.

My dad has a D90, which I've been using for quite some time now.. I've learned so much about technicalities like ISO, shutter speeds, and aperture settings on it, but still find myself shooting at aperture priority.

With my brother getting into photography also, I'm thinking of getting one camera for myself so that we spend less time quarellnig over who gets to shoot or not. Mind you, we dont go on trips very often, but there are alot more family functions (parties, weddings and such..) and I often go by myself or my friends when I shoot most of pics seen on my flickr.
Now with the tax return and my company's profit sharing this year (plus my savings).. I can probably get a decent d7000 (or D300) plus a 17-55 with room to spare for a third party flash. The problem is though, I can get the 24-70 used or new, and just use the D90 for now.

My question is: Would I be better off with my own camera and lens or should I just invest in the 24-70 and still use the D90? Is the DX lens any worse than the FX in terms of IQ?

Thanks in advance!

What's wrong with shooting at aperture priority? My cameras spends 95 percent their time on 'A'.

You can download software to analyse your typical focal lengths (the name slips my mind at the moment)... you'll be able to tell what percentage of shots were taken at what focal length, and whether a lens capable of 17-24 range would be an important consideration. At the same time, you can figure out if you need f/2.8.

Nothing wrong at all, I value the automation that comes with the camera. Sorry if it meant different, didn't intend to write it like that.

Regarding the aperture, I find myself shooting with my 50 1.8D a lot when it comes to indoor/low light shots.. when I shoot with the 18-70, @50-70, I find it hard to freeze motion. Another reason I'm considering the two lenses is because of the zoom, sharpness @2.8, bokeh... and they look cool

Just wondering if there is any difference between the 24-70 and the 17-55 when it comes to all those things.

I have the 17-55 2.8
It is a great lens. I cannot say exactly how it compares to the 24-70 as I have never shot with one. But I have heard the 24-70 is a better lense, but by how much I don't know and will you actually notice the difference?

I think getting good lenses is very important, however, having your own camera so you can shoot when it's good for you is even more important. No point in having a nice lens if you dont always have access to the camera. Also as Hotwire stated will you miss the wide end if you go for a 24-70? Will you then have to buy another lens to compensate? Remember on a crop sensor that 24 becomes a 36!

At the end of the day you need to do what is best for you, I think you will be happy with either lens ( you can also consider the tamron 17-50 2.8, I've heard that's a really good lens too). As for cameras, unless you need the few exta features of the D300, I'd go with the d7000, newer sensor. I currently shoot the D300s and it is a great camera, but it is also heavier than your current D90, where the D7000 will feel more similar.

I hope I have helped you more than I have giving you more things to ponder lol.

Cheers,

Jordan


Edited to fix mathematical error

I really hope that was a typo... 24 * 1.5 = 36mm effective full frame equivalent FOV.

Thanks Jordan

Do you find the zoom ring on your 17-55 stiff? Heard some say its pretty stiff.. As for the camera, i really dont shoot videos alot, but its a bonus if i encounter a situation where i would want to take a video. I was initially going to get a D300 but the low light performance of the D7000 (from photos I've seen) seem to be the deciding factor, plus the extra mp's means i can print a bigger image.

My only problem with the 17-55.. Is that there will always be the 24-70.

Lol

No that's just my really bad math skills! That's why I didn't go into engineering!

I have had two 17-55's (don't ask) and I don't find if really stiff - I did find my second one a little stiff at first but after you work it in its fine, nothing I would even really notice to be honest.

And yes lens lust is always going to be present when you get into photography, trust me I know, but sometimes you have to compromise a bit. Nothing wrong with upgrading your lenses over time, that's what I have been doing. You can always sell later, and generally lenses hold their value pretty good. If you aren't going to miss the wide angle and plan to go full-frame in the not too distant future then the 24-70 might be the better choice for you, but either option will do you very well.

J.

imho
it seems to be this is a really good time to find a great used dslr due to the fact
so many people are upgrading
if you can find a good camera at a great price i would go for that
as most lens hold their value so the prices dont fluctuate as much as the camera bodies
just my opinion

I think having your own camera will increase your ability to shoot what you like, instead of having to play rock-paper-scissors (or something more fair) with your brother for the camera. It's a worthwhile investment, and noobclicker has a good point that it's a good opportunity to find a used camera. Does your dad have multiple lenses? Perhaps there's an opportunity to share lenses, which may or may not enable to you choose which lens to invest in?

I myself have a Canon, so I don't know much about your lens options, but I think that which ever lens means you get to shoot when you want is better than not being able to shoot.

As to Hotwire's point, I would have loved to have the name of that software 2 years ago, ha. I wrote my own program that analyzed the exif data and spit it out into raw format (for excel) so that I could see what my most-used range was; turned out I used 18-80mm a lot, but rarely used more than 80mm... so I picked up a Sigma 17-70mm, and it lives on my camera. I know it's not the highest quality lens available, but it's always ready to use, and so I find myself able to photograph most things without having to bring a second or third lens with me: to me, this is worth the trade off of some optical quality, since I'm getting a shot instead of not.

I have a program that does what Chris (Hotwire) describes. I think it is called Exposure Plot, but I can check the name when I get home.

What do you expect the D7000 to do for you that the D90 doesn't? I havent used the 17-55, I went from a Tamron 17-50 2.8 to the 24-70 and I can tell you the difference is night and day.

Don't buy a crop SLR, you will regret it, especially when you already have a D90.

These are the cameras that you should be thinking of buying:

-Sony Nex-7
-Fuji X100 (black version)
-Fuji X-Pro (expensive but it will make you feel superior to others)
-Olympus OM-D

Ill check out exposure plot

I thought about the new camera, and as much as I'd like to have fan fx body, the wallet seem to disagree, and i really like nikon or even canon so im not sure id like to try m4:3 yet. The reason im staying with nikon is that i've grown accustommed to the controls and find it difficult to shoot with a canon when i tried my friend's. May i ask what's wrong with a crop sensor?

As for the abilities of the d7000, i'd like to have two sd card slots as i'll be working in the summer as a second shooter/assistant and the boss said to leave him the card after the shoot, and the magnesium top and back and weather seal is a plus. But if i can find a D300 at a reasonable price, i may just take the plunge to make room for a flash.

Something tells me to just get the 24-70, and just save up later for a d700.. Hmm..

Really appreciate the replies and suggestions! Keep them coming

D700 $1800 with grip.... now is the time to get one!

If I get the D700 used, I can only use my 50 1.8D, and I'm worried by the time I save up enough for a 24-70, the D700 will need replacing (shutter malfunction, etc.).. Whereas if I get a good glass, the 24-70 can last a longer time while I save for the FX body.
BUT if I get the 24-70, I won't have my own camera and still use pop's D90.


I just punch him till he lets go

If the D700 is the camera for you, now is the time to get them.
As others have mentioned the lenses don't fluctuate in cost nearly as far or as often as bodies do.
But keep in mind the jump to a full frame means new lenses are required.
The D7000 is a great camera for a crop censor, so consider that.
Either way, it's going to cost a good chunk of coin for you to get where you want to be.

I'm worried if I go full frame I'll only have the nifty fifty as a lens. My initial decision was to get the 24-70, then get a D700 after a few months of saving. But then I'd also like a separate camera to take my little brother out shooting with me, maybe even go to socials with him! That's why I thought of the D7000+17-55 combo.

The D7000 is a very capable camera. Nothing wrong with that and a good 17-55. Having said that, when I first switched to full-frame I did exactly what you described; shot with only a 50 1.4 for several months until I got an off-brand 24-70. The 24-70 on a crop sensor would certainly work... as long as you don't really normally shoot anything in the effective 36mm and under range.

Qualdoth, how did you find shooting with just the 50? Did you shoot any projects and found it sufficient?

The reason why I'm asking is after this semester I'll be shooting weddings and functions for someone as the second shooter, and later on, a primary shooter.

You'd be screwed with just a 50 at a wedding. Keep the 17-55, get a D300 or D7000 and a flash. You're also basically dead in the water without a flash at a wedding. If I dragged a shooter to a wedding, paid or not, and all he had was a D700 and 50mm 1.8 I'd tell him to go home.

I agree, I've done a few weddings as second shooter and as a primary and my 17-55 2.8 worked like a charm. The 24-70 maybe a bit limiting for weddings on a crop sensors you may not have enough on the wide side for group shots, especially if you are the primary. That said if you are going to be doing weddings, especially as a primary you should have a telephoto lens, of some sort for portraits, and a backup body.

In regards to flashes, the sb900/910 is ice on paper but my sb900 overheated and turned off too many times at weddings when you are doing fast paced work. Not sure if the sb910 fully fixes this - I would also suggest a sb700 as a better option. If the sb700 was around when I got my sb900. May have gotten that instead. Luckily I still have my trusted sb600.

Thats what i thought, maybe im not ready to move to fx yet as moving prematurely is kind of a "downgrade" as opposed to "upgrade" in my case.

If you went to an FX D700, you could go to a large list of manual focus lenses, with auto aperture, metering, etc. MF nikon glass (some of the gems) can be had to next to nothing.

D7000 or D300 could also use such lenses, albeit on crop sensor.

We can debate this forever and it will get nowhere. Fact is if you are going to be doing paid work in the near future you will need your own camera stat. Every single body is very capable, even a D70! Doesn't matter if it's DX or FX, it's how you use it. You won't magically become a stunning photographer if a D4 lands in your hands. Just get something and shoot everything you possibly can. If you're getting into weddings, start taking your camera to birthday parties with friends and practice working the crowd. Learn how to control your exposure, lighting, be fluent with your controls. Eventually your personal shooting style will come out and you will know what lenses you will need.

rent lenses from headshots, henrys, vistek or borrow from friends who have it. Every time I have lens lust, I look at this guys flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/mumbleyjoe/ . He does everything with entry level gear.

here's another guy that shoots with a D40 http://www.flickr.com/photos/optimus_prime/

Agreed, i think im over analyzing, and my techy self is wanting the best when its out of my reach for now.

I was only shooting personal stuff with the 50 at the time, so it was actually nice to force me into making it work. However, if you're going to actually shoot events, then as Bart said, you'd be dead in the water with just a 50.

I shot a full wedding season as a primary shooter using a D90 and a Tamron 17-50 2.8. Sometimes I felt a bit embarrased when my second shooters had better equipment. Then I was able to make enough money from photography to upgrade. If you know how to use your camera/lenses to their full potential, you don't need the best. The best just makes it easier, but it wont make you a better photographer.

Thanks guys for the advices, I really appreciate it. I will have to think about this for awhile and weigh out my options.

Okay so after some thought, I've decided to go with the D7000 and 17-55. I agree that it is important to have a camera at hand when I find the need to shoot. So I went to Kijiji and found a good copy of 17-55 and hopped on! My initial thoughts were.. "THIS IS HUGE" When holding it in my hand, it fits properly like a chunky water bottle, kinda like the Fiji water bottles but round instead of square (probably not a good comparison). After a while of playing around with it, I got used to the size, but not so much about the weight. When I got home I compared it to the old 18-70.. let's just say the 18-70 sat in the shadow of the bigger lens. So far I'm liking it, and I can't wait to put it to work!

Now for the body..