Toronto Photography Meetup Group

Need help! I'm looking to purchase a new Nikon camera as I have some paid events coming up this season. Due to expenses I'm limited to funds. My question is would it be better to purchase a D700 and purchase say the Tamron 28-75mm f.28 lense and Sigma's 70-200 f.2.8 lense to get me started? Once more money comes in I can than replace with the better lenses or do I purchase the D300s which I know is not full frame but use that extra money towards better Nikkor lenses? Any advice would be great! I will be shooting weddings, portraiture and sport events.

I shot a number of weddings and events using a D90 coupled with Tamron and Sigma lenses. I then upgraded to a Nikon 24-70 2.8 and used that with my D90 for a number of months before going to a D700.

The difference between my 17-50mm Tamron and the Nikon 24-70 at aperatures below F5.6 was staggering. With the Tamron I had to really work at sharpening any images from 2.8-4.0, even then, they weren't all that sharp.

When I put the Nikon on my D90, the difference was indescribable. It's obviously sharpest at 5.6, but at 2.8, the images are still fantastic. All of the sudden I wasn't as afraid of going to ISO 400-800 with my D90 because I knew the lens sharpness would make up for the noise.

I would go with the D300s w/24-70, amazing focal length on a crop sensor and the D300s will make a great backup once you go to full frame.

Go big. The Sigma 70-200mm is a very capable pro quality lens and the Tamron 28-75 will get you by until you can afford something better. As camera bodies evolve its better to stay as current as possible

Actually I'd go D7000 and the Nikkor, the d300s is in dire need of an update.

Brent

The d300s is a very capable camera what needs to be upgraded?

The D300s is "pro" body, same button layout more or less as the D700, it would just be easier to use as a backup once you upgrade to a D700. They also share the same battery grip if you're into that. I'm not sure how much better the D7000's sensor is, if it's a huge difference, then I suppose go with the 7000. I don't care about the video, etc, so I would only look at sensor performance, AF points, etc.

I don't know much about the Tamron/Sigma mentioned in particular, I'm just making an opinion based on my own Tamron/Sigma experiences.

As a wedding shooter, a backup camera is pretty important, if you start with a D300s (or D7000 i suppose), when you upgrade your body, you will still use the old body. If you start with a D700 then plan on upgrading lenses, you're going to get stuck selling them at a loss, then still wondering what you're going to be using as a backup.

Smartest scenario? I would say D700 + Nikkor 24-70 and rent the 70-200 on an as need basis until you buy one. But I'm not sure if that squeezes into the budget.

If you have a limited budget, invest in lenses and not the body. Rent the higher end body for the paid gigs and expense that directly against the income.

To really answer your question, you'll have to tell us, what events are you going to be shooting? Are you able to use a flash at these events? What equipment do you have now?

You can most likely get away with using what you have now depending on the event.

Renting a camera isn't a bad idea if you have experience with that camera. But, learning the nuances of a newer model DSLR at the paid gig is unfair to your clients. If your are going to rent a newer camera model that you have little or no experience with, you may want to rent-to-learn first. If you plan on shooting a wedding then perhaps shoot a few shots in the venue the day before. Then critique what is going on in the camera. Don't just chimp the LCD either, look at your images on your laptop/home computer.

I found that there were a number of very important settings differences between the Canon MKII and the MKIV that took me a number of test shoots to nail down. If I had gone to a paid gig and simply started shooting based on MKII experience, I would have been PWNED. There were huge differences in how the cameras interpret contrast and to a lesser degree how the cameras acquire and track focus points.

Thank you for all your feedback. I believe you are right about putting the money into lenses. I'm going to go with the D300S. Right now I have a D70S with 18-70mm F3.5-6.5 lense and 18-200mm both by Nikon. Great for outdoors but terrible for inside and using in a church or indoor event. I will however use the D70S as backup for now.

I was told to go with Sigma 17mm-50mm f.28 lense and Sigma 70mm-200mm f.2.8 lense (no VR, but will mostly use outdoors anyway and I can mount on my monopod). If I was to go Sigma for the time being would it be better to get 24mm-70mm then 17mm-50mm on the D300s? (I would have a gap from 50mm - 70mm. My budget is $4500.00 but also need filters, extra battery etc. This way as the business grows I can use D300S with these lenses as backup and buy the better equipment. One of you mentioned renting and you are right. If I have something I don't want to risk on like wedding I can always rent the Nikkon 24-70mm. Again I appreciate all your feedback.

For 4500 you can get the D300S and the top of the line, last generation pro-Nikkor zooms. I'd lean towards only full-frame lenses so that you can use them on a D700/800 when you can afford it.

The Nikkors tend to retain value better than the Sigmas and non OEM lenses. Not that they aren't great Nikkors are probably better head to head.

If you're familiar with the D300s it won't be too steep a learning curve if you rent a D700 and shoot RAW.

I use the Tamron 28-75 2.8 on full frame (Canon 5D) and can attest to it's IQ. I've compared with the Canon 24-70L and honestly I don't see a difference in quality, sharpness, color rendition, nada. I don't think you will feel like you are using a lesser lens with either the Tamron or the Sigma. Just throwing it out there.

Unless you need 7-8fps, go for the D7000 over the D300s. The newer sensor brings the D7000 into near-FF performance in terms of noise and the D7000 gets a significant build upgrade over the D90. It's really a mini-D300 with a better sensor. The only real advantages of the D300s over the D7000 right now are more speed, a more capable AF system for tracking fast action and the ability to use the ultra-high capacity EN-EL4a batteries in the MB-D10 grip (note I expect the D300s replacement this summer and it will no doubt be a step up from the D7000 in all regards)

As to lenses, I'd suggest going for the 24-70G as your base lens. It's a 35-105 equivalent in terms of FF range so it's completely usable as a main lens on APS-C digital, is utterly superb optically and is essentially future proof. I'd pair it with your choice in a 70-200 or 80-200 and an APS-C utra-wide, probably the Sigma 10-20 f3.5 HSM (best combo of range, speed and price, the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 is better and faster but leaves you with a 16-24mm gap, the Nikkor 12-24 f4 isn't better and is more expensive and slower, but there's no range gap).

That particular setup will cover essentially every zoom need and you'll only be looking at replacing one lens if you move up to FF, and it'll be an ultra-wide which are the one category of APS-C lens which tends to hold its value.

Thanks everyone for the feedback. I went ahead and purchased the D700 afterall and Sigma 24-70 f2.8 lens,. I absolutely love it! Better for me in the long term.

Congrats, I have all three... D700 is wonderful, D300s is an excellent camera for shooting fast action and wildlife, and the D7000 is simply amazing, and dare I say, like a mini-D700.



David