Moving from a D300.. help me choose?
Hey All,
Just looking to see if I can get any advice here. I've been doing some part-time wedding photography for the last 5 years and my D300 and D200 backup have treated me well, but are practically dinosaurs (D200 especially!). I've stopped taking any paid gigs for the foreseeable future (next year at least) in hopes of rebuilding my creativity and increasing my skills, just hoping to enjoy myself. I've really not moved on from the D300 due to there not being a clear 'equivalent' Nikon available in the pro-DX format range. I've waited so long that I am now going to completely lose my butt when I sell these old guys, but oh well!
My main question is, in moving from a D300, is the D7100 the most logical step? I'm not super interested in full frame, as I don't personally see the D600 having many advantages over the D7100 aside from the full frame sensor, and the D800 is out of the question due to price. Are there any other cameras I'm missing that will be a big improvement over my D300 regarding ISO performance and still being pretty rugged/pro oriented under $2k?
I am completely ok with DX format, I see no need to go to full frame aside from additional low-light performance. I also don't NEED 24megapixels, but it looks like that's pretty much what I'm gonna get, haha.
I realize there might be other forums that are better to ask, but I love Smugmug, and have seen a pretty awesome community here (though I don't personally post much).
Thanks for the thoughts!
Just looking to see if I can get any advice here. I've been doing some part-time wedding photography for the last 5 years and my D300 and D200 backup have treated me well, but are practically dinosaurs (D200 especially!). I've stopped taking any paid gigs for the foreseeable future (next year at least) in hopes of rebuilding my creativity and increasing my skills, just hoping to enjoy myself. I've really not moved on from the D300 due to there not being a clear 'equivalent' Nikon available in the pro-DX format range. I've waited so long that I am now going to completely lose my butt when I sell these old guys, but oh well!
My main question is, in moving from a D300, is the D7100 the most logical step? I'm not super interested in full frame, as I don't personally see the D600 having many advantages over the D7100 aside from the full frame sensor, and the D800 is out of the question due to price. Are there any other cameras I'm missing that will be a big improvement over my D300 regarding ISO performance and still being pretty rugged/pro oriented under $2k?
I am completely ok with DX format, I see no need to go to full frame aside from additional low-light performance. I also don't NEED 24megapixels, but it looks like that's pretty much what I'm gonna get, haha.
I realize there might be other forums that are better to ask, but I love Smugmug, and have seen a pretty awesome community here (though I don't personally post much).
Thanks for the thoughts!
0
Comments
http://clearwaterphotography.smugmug.com/
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
My D700 is aging, as in being used and normal wear. When it goes, there won't be anything that is equivalent. The d600 is missing a lot of features that I am so used to, and the D800 doesn't fit my hand and I do not want 36MP raw photos taking up all my hard drives.
The main issue is the collection of glass. If the OP has only DX glass, the D7100 would be the only option today.
http://clearwaterphotography.smugmug.com/
Yeah, that's the unfortunate problem, I've got a few pieces of DX glass, and I'm not up for the extra expense of replacing those as well at the moment. I agree with the D700 being a great camera, but it's getting kind of long in the tooth as well (but has held amazing value over that time). I think I'm going to go with the D7100 for now, but a D700 is definitely an angle I hadn't considered before and I may do some more research. Thanks!
I love my D300, but I don't use it professionally. Even when/if the D400 rears its head, I plan on holding on to my D300 until I build up my glass collection and then the D800 looks pretty much exactly suited for what I want. As a D800 owner once pointed out to me, it's still even a great camera if all you have is DX glass, since you get the same IQ, low light performance in DX mode as in FX, so basically it's both a great FX body and an improved DX body (at ~15.3MP) over the D300. Intriguing idea, but for me I still want to work on glass before body, since the D300 has yet to hold me back in any appreciable way.
My site 365 Project
How do you know? The OP didn't indicate a single specification for his needs. Yes, the D700 is a nice camera.
True, depending on need. If I was a wedding pro looking for a move up from a D300, I'd probably want a camera with a known history and a warranty.
I've known a lot of wedding shooters, and I've seen a fair amount of wedding photographed. I have yet to understand why a "rugged build" is required for portraits in the garden, and ceremonies in the church. Maybe the receptions get more rowdy than I remember, but I certainly couldn't imagine that. As a sports photographer, my cameras get tossed on the dirt, get caught in the rain, and have all manner of environmental things thrown at them. And my D7000 and D600 have held up just as well as My D3s, D800, D200, etc.
As for ISO performance, the D700 is is going to be about a stop better than the D7100. That could be significant I suppose, but most wedding folks I know use flash a large proportion of the time. I know some venues won't allow it. But either a D7100 or a D700 are going to be a fairly large step forward from the D300. In nearly all other measures of image quality the D7100 is going to beat the D700.
Yes, probably true.
You seem to be quite a fan of your D700 and I respect that. I don't know what, if any, other cameras you own or use. But there are an array of options out there that seem to be as good for many people as the D700. I have trouble simply recommending any one camera.
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
I also feel the D700 is a better camera in many ways than the D600 and D800.
The durability for a has to do with more 'oops factor', allegedly more reliable and lots of use. I do agree sports and outdoor photography can be whole lot worse
Yes, but do you feel a 3,4, or 5 year old D700 is better? That's the question at hand. If we were comparing new to new, I'd likely side the other way.
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
The ergonomics are better on the D700, Nikon seems to be going for a smaller camera more buttons or same size camera more buttons. That means a lot less real estate for my hand. The D700 is already on the small side. I am sometimes temped to switch to Canon just because they have more room for my hands. I do not have huge hands, but apparently I do not have baby sized hands that some of these camera manufactures are using to shape their cameras.
I didn't find the Canon's to be any better. I own a T2i, have shot the 7D and 5DMk2, and have held their pro bodies. I just don't see much difference. Nikons certainly have felt more solid over recent years. I did pick up a new 70D a couple weeks ago, and noticed that they've changed the plastic so it doesn't feel SOOO cheap. That was a nice surprise. And the 5DMk3 is certainly an improvement.
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
I admit that I didn't elaborate too much there, but I have a 17-50 f2.8, and 70-200, 50mm F1.4 and 35mm F.18, and of few others that I'm just trying to get rid of for now. So, realistically I would only need to replace the 17-50 and the 35mm, but that added cost does make me hesitant for now. I would think that I'd start considering a refurb D800 and running it in DX mode over a D700. I realize the D700 is great, but I fear that at this point the chance for failures increases with every year the camera ages. I don't really want to start out 3 or 4 years into the aging process.
However, all this talk of FX has me back to considering that route a little more seriously now. I did not realize that the D700 is still a stop better in low light than the D7100, I was kind of thinking they were pretty close at this point - found an article here: http://betterfamilyphotos.blogspot.com/2013/03/high-iso-comparison-d7100-vs-d7000-d600.html
That's true, shame on me. I am mainly concerned with low-light proficiency, durability, and future-proofness (I don't buy a new body every year). The Wifi module capability of the D7100 looks pretty awesome and could be a great way to quickly process and show a couple of photos with a tablet. I also mentioned that I am hanging up my wedding photography for at least the next year to try to just learn more and rekindle my love of photography, who knows what kind of situation I may get into with it!
You might be surprised to know that not every wedding has portraits in the garden or ceremonies in the church, haha (no offense!). We also don't have control over the weather, and I have been rained on quite a few times. I've also had soapy bubbles blow into and various food items dropped or splashed onto my cameras. We've had some close/unfortunate encounters with rocks and solid building materials as well. I'm not in Afghanistan by any stretch of the imagination, but there is something to be said for the durability of these bodies and being useful even for weddings. But, you're right, I've seen folks shooting weddings with much lower-tier bodies and they've done just fine.
I realize this is going to go against the grain, but I am going to suggest you take a HARD look at the D600. And for a few very specific reasons I'll get into later...
Yes, wireless can be quite cool. I am doing something similar in the studio with wireless access to my tether shoots via the web or an ipad/iphone.
Understood. In general, I'd suspect the needs of the wedding photographer are going to be somewhat less than that of a sports shooter or photojournalist. And I know some of both that are using the pro-sumer bodies without issue. I drag my D600 to every shoot I do. It is my first backup on every shoot where it's not my primary. And it's primary a LOT.
Exactly. The D7100 and D600 are as tough or tougher than the Canon 5Dmk2 or 7D and people seem to get along with those bodies just fine.
So, why the D600?
Colors. Out of the camera, they are just stunningly good. Better than my D3s. Almost as good as my D800 and above ISO 800, better. Better than the D4.
ISO performance. It's about half a stop off my D3s. Think about that for a moment. The new Nikon D4 at $5800 is essentially equal in ISO performance to this $1999 camera. And this camera is 24MP versus 16 in the D4.
Dynamic Range. The D800 is better. By a little. That's it. Nothing else in Nikon's lineup is in the same league.
Price. It's $2k. $500 more than a good *used* D700. $800 more than a D7100.
It has a lock on the mode dial!!! Man I wish my D800 had that.
Cons:
It doesn't focus as fast in low light as my D3s, the D4, or the D800.
It takes SD cards instead of the faster and more robust CF
It's isn't fully magnesium framed like the pro bodies.
I have owned every pro camera (other than a 700) that Nikon has made since the D2H. And still have most of them. I have a D7000, I have a D600, I even have a Nikon 1 v1. And I will say without hesitation that if I had a shoot that I was getting paid for, and I could only bring two cameras, the D600 would be in my bag EVERY time. I might take the D800, I might take the D3s. But the D600 would be there every time. And in fact it IS there on every pro shoot I do. Period. It is the best value in Nikon's lineup right now. Followed by the D7100.
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
Great, thanks for the advice. I really appreciate all I have been given by the folks here. I humorously think I'm more undecided now than I was when I made this post, but that's alright!
You are correct in that you don't know what I shoot or own. I'm not some D700 fanboy.
He already owns a D300. The D700 is the same button layout and will be an easy to assimilate upgrade.
He stated he doesn't want/need a lot of megapixels.
He stated that he does want improved ISO performance.
He stated that he does want a more rugged pro style body.
He wants to stay under $2000.
I do know the entire Nikon lineup. IMHO, money would be well spent to purchase a low mileage D700 which will meet the majority of his stated desires. A well maintained D700 with under 30,000 clicks still has a lot of trouble free life left on the camera and shutter. He might even have some money left over to upgrade some of his glass.
http://clearwaterphotography.smugmug.com/
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
They do a bit better on ISO , they have a smaller buffer so you wont get the action shots strings if you are looking for that. I shoot a lot of birds in flight
There are rumors that the D400 might finally be announced this fall but we have heard that before.
D7000 is a fine camera but after shooting a D300 it does not measure up for my shooting style.
I did buy a used D3 for $2000.00 which blows the D300 out if the water. Full Frame is great, the quality and ISO it is a game changer
As far as Dinosaurs i have used my D50 as a backup for weddings
http://kadvantage.smugmug.com/