Does the Camera make the difference or the lens?

wildviper

As some of you may have seen my thread about switching(upgrading) to Canon 7D from my Nikon D70s, I have been thinking hard (funds are hard to come by).

I almost feel that the D90 actually would serve me fine. However, I am not sure if I can "grow" with a D90 and need some help here. My take is that both of these cameras are so similar in image quality, that the lens is much much more important.

However, if the D300 is producing rich crisp photos over the D90, I would certainly look at the D300s or the 7D.

I don't do much "action" photography..I am looking at doing more and more portraits, real estate photography, product photography and some event photography.


So, suppose you setup an outdoor sunsetting beach portrait shoot with a couple of flashes (strobist style), tripod mounted camera, reflectors and a model.

In search of crisp focus, and beautiful tones, what would make the difference in photo quality?

Question 1. Will using a D300 yield better results than using a D90 assuming the same high quality glass used on both? Better tones, due to better metering, better focusing and so on?

Now assume that the model is asked to mildly jog and I keep up with her to take some nice running shots with water splashes and such.

Question 2. Will the D300 be a better one here due to Faster focusing? Or I would not even be stressing the D90's focus system for this mild jogging?

Question 3. Will the weather sealing on D300 better protect my camera over the D90 considering that we all upgrade in about 3-4 years anyways?

ziggy53

The Nikon D300 has faster auto-focus than the Nikon D90. It is also faster at continuous servo focus, i.e. AF-C. If the runner was close to the camera then the closing rate might be enough to justify using the D300. It is that changing rate, rather than absolute speed, that creates the need for faster servo AF. Even the Nikon D3 series camera might be required at some point as they have the fastest servo focus mechanism of the Nikon line.

Color and tone are similar enough between the 2 cameras to be inconsequential.

CNet reviews measure shutter lag, one measure of responsiveness, at:

Camera, Dim light lag, Typical lag
D90, .9, .4

D300, .9, .5

D300S, .7, .3

... so the D300 and D90 are similar, while the D300S is improved.

http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-camera-reviews/?filter=1000036_108496_1104641_5105434_501375_9255772_&tag=mncol;dir2

Body seals and weather resistance is important, but not absolute. Any camera should be protected from wet conditions, regardless of seals. Better seals will delay wet condition problems but cannot prevent problems as well as avoiding the problems through camera protection.

ziggy53

BTW, light and lens make much more difference than camera, and often light makes more difference than lens.

The camera becomes important for focus and exposure. If the camera cannot keep up with focus or cannot calculate correct exposure, everything else falls apart.

It is all a delicate balancing act, and the user/shooter factors into the equation by orchestrating all the elements and components.

divamum

Only you can judge which you need more, and whether it is handling or actual lens quality which is getting in the way of the pictures you want to take. Is it because you didn't focus accurately (as much your job as the camera's), or did the glass let you down in some way?

I shoot Canon so can't comment on the specifics of the Nikon line, but some thoughts in general.... For instance, when I first started musing on upgrading my Rebel XT last year, general advice was "get glass". However, I was starting to feel frustrated by the XT's slowish focusing and small, comparatively hard-to-read screen/menus; I knew I wanted to be able to get to controls and functions more quickly, as well as not miss a shot because the camera was "thinking" before it responded. I upgraded the body to an Xsi (because I prefer the shape and size to the xxD series), and it was exactly the right choice for me at that time - I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the change in body made a far bigger difference in the resulting images than upgrading the glass first would have done - no point in having great glass if you miss the shot because you can't get your hands on the controls fast enough!

Since then, however, I've embarked on a pretty continual "lens upgrade", stepping-stone style (selling one to buy another - funds have been horribly tight here, too), gradually building a collection of quality optics which do the job I need in the way I need. There are still a couple of gaps I need/want to fill at some point, but by and large I have the lenses I need for most of the shooting I do.

After a year of intense photographic-skills-building activity, I'm now ready to upgrade the body again (adding a 2nd one, in fact) - I need the expanded features and different handling offered by something like the 7d, and as I soon as can amass the funds in a few months will be jumping on that bandwagon; in the meantime, I'm still absolutely fine with my current body - it still does absolutely everything I need... if not always in the "total control" way that I have grown into in recent months. I'm now ready for a camera that assumes I'll want control over EVERYTHING (and at high speed) which I don't think I was a year ago. I can imagine a year or two from now, I'll feel limited by a crop factor and want to stepping stone up to full frame; I'm starting to accept that with digital photography one doesn't just "choose a camera" and stick with it for 20 years - it's pretty much a constant rolling upgrade one way or another.

IOW, I'm not sure that there IS a definitive answer. Decent optics affect the final image more than body handling and features, I think, but how that body handles and the features it offers to let you GET THE SHOT make a difference in... well.... getting the shot.

Have fun making your decisions!!

kdactionphoto

He Wildviper

Ziggy explained it very well. My wife and I use both the D-90 and the D-300. We find for our action photography (RC Car Racing, sports) the 300's focusing is superior to the 90. As for portraits the 90 works fine. I have tried the 90 on our racing photography and I just cant get the quality the 300 can do percentage wise. We operate a lot in bad weather conditions and thats another point we use the 300. We use some good glass on both, N 50 1.4, N 24-70 2.8, N 70-200 2.8.

Kevin and Dawn
K & D Action Photo

wildviper

Thanx for the replies. I gave that particular example because I wanted to see, if everything else being equal, will the D300 produce better results in sharpness and tones.

As Ziggy said, and my hunch, the tones and color are very similar between them.

I just don't want to get a D90 and think that my photos would have been much better with a D300 in terms of tones, color and focus.

At this junction, here are things that are NOT important to me:

• weather sealing is not important because I am not going into the Amazon forest...perhaps a humid place, but nothing extreme.
• I don't need my camera to be built like a tank...good enough, but nothing super tough. I baby the camera anyway.
• Ease of Menu, while cool, is not really important since a majority of my shoots are in controlled environment
• Faster startup time, again not very important
• Faster FPS...this I am not sure. However, going from my current D70s to a D90 at 4.5fps will be huge jump anyways. Though the D70s is rated for 3fps, I am not sure I ever got that.

Here is what IS important to me (and what I don't have on my D70s):

• More focus points (more cross type would be better). On my D70s, this one is surely a pain with only 5.
• Precise focusing...my D70s would hunt a lot.
• Great Low Noise performance. I would like to be able to print a large print at ISO 1600 and not notice the noise that much.
• A higher dynamic range. It seems I am blowing out a lot of highlights during my landscape shots, unles I do HDR. If I can get an extra 1 or 2 levels, that would be awesome.
  • Is the D300 14bit processing any help here?
• A great battery life. My D70s is a Star when it comes to this.
• Dust reduction or elimination system. I hate this on my D70s...it is constantly dusty even though I take so many precautions.
• At least one Custom button that I can program different settings into. By press of a button, the camera comes back to my "normal" settings. Almost like zeroing out the camera, but not a complete reset.
  • If I had chosen an ISO 1600 last night with a TTL commander mode and Closest Subject Focus and JPEG....with the press of a button, it all comes back to my "normal" setup : ISO 200, TTL mode, Manual focus point movement, Auto WB, RAW setting and so on. I can't tell you how many times I have lost the moments because my camera had previous settings. This is more for family spontaneous photos. And I don't want to do a full reset cause it changes other settings that I like...for example Saturation ++ and so on.
• Auto Bracketing...what I mean by this is that I setup a 3 bracket shots with +1, 0, -1 EV..press the shutter "once" and it takes all three in a row. I don't want to press the shutter "three" times. I am not sure if the D90 or D300 can do this. Can any? In my other thread, it was said that the D300 can do it...I am not sure because the wording is very similar to the wording in my D70s...and that for sure can't do one shutter click to take 3 shots in a row.
• Much, much better metering system. My D70s always underexposes and I am tired of that.
• Beautiful rendition of tones, color and sharpenss. I realize the lens plays an important part, but am sure the camera does as well.

I don't do sports photography or anything that is super fast like that. Saying all this, I want to be able to "grow" my photography portfolio. Just cause I don't do the sports now, if the opportunity presents in future, I don't want to be saying..."I wish I had a better camera". I maybe doing event photography too.

Does the D300 take me on the road of a semi-pro faster and allow me to grow versus the D90?

Mitchell

You're thinking too much.

Get the best glass you can afford. You won't be able to tell the difference in image quality between the D90 and the D300. They have the same sensor.

kdactionphoto

I guess you have to think what is important to you. You made a list. Seems to point more at the D-90. Like I said, we have both. The D-90 takes awesome photos. There is a reason the 300 cost more and those features were important to us (focusing, protection from weather, etc.). I have the grip on both and it is nice to lug the d-90 around as opposed to the 300 when shooting for fun. Business wise for us, we use the 300 90% time. Also remember the 300 uses CF as opposed to the 90's SD cards.. Good luck.

Its nice to be in your position and purchasing that new camera. Wish I was! Im looking for a new lens or strobes, cant decide.

Cygnus Studios

You are going to benefit with either choice. The differences between the two are not overly dramatic, but the mental choice can be. If you buy the D90, you may wish that you had waited for the D300. However, would you have the same wish if you bought the D300?

If given the choice, I would personally buy the biggest that I can afford. Those little details that most claim do not make any difference are only made by those who didn't buy the bigger option. Keep that in mind.

Qarik

D90 will fit your need if you never do sports. IQ is the same. You can still shoot sport with it but it just isn't quite as competent as the D300 AF. It sounds like you want the d300. If you can afford it then just get it.

NikonsandVstroms

No offense to Canon or Nikon APS-C but neither will give you a "special" look. I am not saying they can not create great images but as far as the sensor goes you are getting pretty standard results which is a good thing.

Some cameras have specific advantages:

Olympus bodies will give you great color.

Fuji will give you great color and Dynamic Range. (Both Fuji and Olympus are also great for out of camera JPEG images)

FF Cameras like the D3/D700 and 5D mkII both can do low light work that others simply can't.

Then there are things like sports photography where the AF of the D300/700/3 and high end Canon's is a great help.

In the past year I have shot seriously with everything from a cell phone to a D700 and each step up does give you something extra, but expanding as a photographer is not based on your camera body, for the most part. I jump from a D700 to an E-420 it doesn't make my images any more or less "professional" it just offers a different skill set from the Nikon. Only when you want to get highly specialized does the choice of body become a huge issue. Just like now I have 3 SLR's and use them for different purposes.

The D90 has a better sensor and AF very similar (a little slower I hear) than the D200 which 2 years ago would be your choice. A few weeks ago there was no 7D, and in a few more months there will be some other great camera.

Now to your question of what to get....

The D90 seems to fit you for the most part, I have a Fuji S5 pro which has a similar AF system and it was a huge jump from my D50. If you don't need the tracking of the 51 point AF or the weatherproof body save the money and get the D90.

For the color, tonality, and especially dynamic range if you could find a Fuji S5 Pro (D200 body) it would be an amazing camera. The downsides are it doesn't have sensor cleaning, and the resolution is 6+6MP, basically you will have more resolution than the D70 because of how the sensor is set up but not as much as the D90. If you can try a Fuji or play with some files from the internet do it. The camera isn't the fastest but the output is special enough that many have gone to the D300 and come back to the S5.

wildviper

NikonsandVstroms wrote:

For the color, tonality, and especially dynamic range if you could find a Fuji S5 Pro (D200 body) it would be an amazing camera. The downsides are it doesn't have sensor cleaning, and the resolution is 6+6MP, basically you will have more resolution than the D70 because of how the sensor is set up but not as much as the D90. If you can try a Fuji or play with some files from the internet do it. The camera isn't the fastest but the output is special enough that many have gone to the D300 and come back to the S5.

I did check out the S5 pro. As much as I like it, I just can't make myself be "ok" with 6Mp. And the technology I am sure has moved on from the D200 time.

I want to purchase something that is fairly advanced today and I can be happy with for over the next 2-3 years.

I do need higher MPs cause I tend to crop a lot. To bad they are not coming out with S6 pro.

saurora

ziggy53 wrote:

BTW, light and lens make much more difference than camera, and often light makes more difference than lens.

The camera becomes important for focus and exposure. If the camera cannot keep up with focus or cannot calculate correct exposure, everything else falls apart.

It is all a delicate balancing act, and the user/shooter factors into the equation by orchestrating all the elements and components.

Light and lens, I agree. Don't forget that the faster the lens the less 'hunting' your camera will have to do to lock on focus. I'm not familiar with Nikon lenses, but the faster prime Canon lenses make a huge difference in color, sharpness and clarity. Would be nice to have it all, wouldn't it? Generally, I say buy what you can most afford (and have your heart set on!) and you will never regret it. But buy it because it meets your shooting style, and not everyone else's.

alexf

Agree with Mitchell. Buy the best/fastest lens you can afford.

Given a similar situation, on camera upgrade from my D80, I went for the D300 instead of the D90. Stronger, sealed, better controls, better/faster AF. But the best improvement to my keeper rate was in getting faster lenses (I do wildlife, architecture and street photography).

wildviper

Now this is creepy. My D70s died last night. :cry

Somehow, I guess it knew that I was looking at other cameras!