A question for the keen enthusiasts...
I'm still very much a n00b at this photography game but ever since my better half bought me a D90 I've been really enjoying taking the camera everywhere I go and taking plenty of pics.
2 years and something like 15,000 pictures later, I'm wondering if I should be adding to the kit list. Right now, I have a D90 and 2 lenses: Nikor 18-200mm and 35mm F1.8. My main types of photography are travel and street photography, with a fair bit of motorcycle riding pics.
The only issues I've found are problems with low light (both picture quality and focusing) and issues with hot pixels, particularly in low light and high temps.
The hot pixels, while annoying, are easily processed out. With regards working with low light - that could be helped by lenses or body... and hence the dilemma!
In terms of lenses - everyone seems to rave about the 24-70 and 70-200... but they're huge! Not really ideal when you've either got the camera strapped to your back or you're carrying it with a bunch of work gear. So are there alternatives? Should I just accept that they're a whole new world of photo quality and deal with the size/weight? Everyone does say spend on lenses, not the body...
On the body front - again, everyone raves about the D700... but that again is quite a bit bigger and I don't think the 18-200 is built to FX. Also, and I know this is heresy to say, but 'no flash auto' is a god send when it comes to grabbing that shot that will only be there for a second - the D90 is great for this, not sure how well I would achieve those spur of the moment shots with a D700. For example:
So I'm left with money burning a whole in my pocket... and the feeling that the most sensible addition I could make to my kit is a D7000. It would give me greater ability in low light, has a stronger body so better to deal with the abuse, and would make my D90 a spare body.
So my question is: Is my logic flawed? Would you be adding something different to the kit list? Or should I just save my money and just keep taking pictures!
2 years and something like 15,000 pictures later, I'm wondering if I should be adding to the kit list. Right now, I have a D90 and 2 lenses: Nikor 18-200mm and 35mm F1.8. My main types of photography are travel and street photography, with a fair bit of motorcycle riding pics.
The only issues I've found are problems with low light (both picture quality and focusing) and issues with hot pixels, particularly in low light and high temps.
The hot pixels, while annoying, are easily processed out. With regards working with low light - that could be helped by lenses or body... and hence the dilemma!
In terms of lenses - everyone seems to rave about the 24-70 and 70-200... but they're huge! Not really ideal when you've either got the camera strapped to your back or you're carrying it with a bunch of work gear. So are there alternatives? Should I just accept that they're a whole new world of photo quality and deal with the size/weight? Everyone does say spend on lenses, not the body...
On the body front - again, everyone raves about the D700... but that again is quite a bit bigger and I don't think the 18-200 is built to FX. Also, and I know this is heresy to say, but 'no flash auto' is a god send when it comes to grabbing that shot that will only be there for a second - the D90 is great for this, not sure how well I would achieve those spur of the moment shots with a D700. For example:
So I'm left with money burning a whole in my pocket... and the feeling that the most sensible addition I could make to my kit is a D7000. It would give me greater ability in low light, has a stronger body so better to deal with the abuse, and would make my D90 a spare body.
So my question is: Is my logic flawed? Would you be adding something different to the kit list? Or should I just save my money and just keep taking pictures!
0
Comments
In your position, it'd be the D7000 or Tokina 11-16. Or perhaps the better half could be convinced that you need both?
Low light?? Tell us more?? Some lenses no matter what they are attached to will not focus well in low light (subjective). That D90 will perform and render fine work right up to 3200 ISO WITH a good lens (and proper technique) meaning Pro lens.
Nikon made an 18-70mm lens and even used it as a kit lens there for a bit. I bought one this year used for $150 from KEH for my GF's D90. She is lovin' it: Light weight and renders darn good pics.
There are just oodles of fine lenses to choose from! And many can be had relatively cheap; <$1k~
No offense but that first photo you use as an example is a poorly exposed one. The D700 could handle that in myriad ways, but only if you're game-on. The thing about street or environmental photography is, you have to be game-on. I agree Auto-what-have-you is a godsend for many folks. If thats what you used: epic fail! Why? Prob because of the exposure metering. And did the camera pop up it's flash?
Thanks chap - I hadn't thought of the ultra wide option. Is the Tokina particularly expensive?
I think maybe a D7000 might coming with me from this trip to NYC
Epic fail sounds a bit strong... But can you tell what I should've done differently? As I recall, I think I was on aperture priority but I don't recall the rest of the settings.
And you're reference to being game on - this part of the challenge. Photography is one of several hobbies... And it's pretty difficult to be game on with aloof them!
The Tokina is roughly half the cost of a Nikkor 12-24 f2.8, lighter and does possess excellent IQ.
Are you thinking of the Nikon 12-24 f4. Or the, 14-24 2.8?
http://rckimaging.smugmug.com/
Yep, I brainfarted partway through that post. Although at about $800 these days.. the Tokina's gettin' close
It is! I think all I am trying to convey is you have to practice no matter the body/lens to find the results you desire. Better High ISO performance is a reasonable logic, as is a better lens. And practice will make you better no matter the gear.
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
I agree with Matthew, He allways gives solid advice, Again reading your post, I also, think a D7000 would be appropriate for what you want to do. The problem with moving up to a D 700 is timing, At present time they are essentially unavailable new. They are hard to find used, and you will need to pay premium dollar to get one. There seems to be a huge pent up demand. We are all expexting a D 700 up date soon, once there is an update annoucment, It could be months, before you get your hands on one. So I would suggest the D 7000, and the best glass you can afford, with an eye toward further camera upgrades.
http://rckimaging.smugmug.com/
as you improive and image quality finally becomes an issue..start with 24-70mm
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
Keep the D90 and the 35 and sell the 18-200...
And add a used tokina 11-16 or 12-24 to save a few $$ and grab a used sigma 50-150 f2.8
good luck
I am going a bit off topic but this needs to be asked to help all of us:
where do you host your images? Smugmug?? If so then upload full sized images and post as large do not save for the web...that wipes all of your setting from the EXIF file.....I use jfriedls exif reader to see how people shot their images.....no exif no way to tell you what you did wrong exposure wise.....
for lighter weight but still great lenses look at SIGMA.....been using them for over 30 yrs.... lot less expensive than Nikon lenses also.....
For your low light work are you using the 18-200 or the 35 1.8?
For carrying are we talking backpack or tank bag?
How important is AF speed (I ask because the 17-50 2.8 Tamron is amazing optically but slow in that regard).
And for the D700 it doesn't have an "auto" setting, just P so it would set the aperture/shutter but will only fire the flash if you pop it up yourself.