Need to upgrade my bodies
I've been shooting with two D300 for yeeeears, probably since 2008. I need to upgrade my bodies. I mostly shoot beach portraits. What's the smartest upgrade considering I don't have a ton o money to spend? My sample work http://www.milepostportraits.com/Portraiture/Sample
0
Comments
As long as you don't need the deeper buffer of the D7200, the D7100 is extremely competent and about the best Nikon APS-C/DX body there is (with the D7200 slightly more refined). The dual-card capability is also a comfort for redundancy or doubling storage.
I also recommend adding speedlights to your gear, if you're not already using them. Adding your own light is a great way to extend shooting hours and the AF-Assist of the better flashes add to autofocus speed and accuracy, amounting to more keepers.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
The Nikkor 85mm f1.8G AF-S is a reasonably priced short telephoto lens, and, especially on a DX body, it can produce better background separation "and" allow shooting in less light (compared to your longer zoom). The IF (Internal Focus) means that the lens does not breath in the dust and salt which is often present in a beach environment (much like your 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF in that regard.) Just seems like a good match for your application. No stabilization, so either a tripod or a monopod is indicated when you need a slower shutter speed.
Yes, I suspect that the Nikon D7100 would be a great choice for your work, although I don't think that the weather seals are quite up to the seals in your D300. (Just an FYI, but I think the D7100 would still be OK to use for a beach application. I do recommend a decent camera bag for the body and lens(es) when not in use, to help with dust and salt.)
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
http://clearwaterphotography.smugmug.com/
Any thoughts on going full frame?
http://clearwaterphotography.smugmug.com/
I have no thoughts on full frame, I'm not really sure on the difference. What are your thoughts?
Full frame cameras like the D610 may be more affordable than they were before, but the counter-argument is that thanks to the D7100’s excellent sensor, the need to go full frame has diminished." HMM. So since my current lenses are DX, they won't work on a D610?
Your Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR is a very capable FX lens and would work fine on a Nikon FX/FF body. The Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX would be more problematic and you would probably want to get an FX standard zoom instead.
Per your post above, "... wow, I am not used to such a lag with the buffer!", you might try shooting with just one card in the camera and setting the camera to lossy 12 bit NEF/RAW capture. Also, purchase a SanDisk Extreme PRO 32GB UHS-I/U3 SDHC card as this is one of the Nikon recommended cards for the D7100:
https://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/18248/~/approved-memory-cards---d7100
... and because users report very good success with that card in the Nikon D7100:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/RTRGNYMFL6XUE/ref=cm_cr_pr_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B007NDL56A
The Nikon D7100 does have a very small image buffer and only a single SD card controller, so with two cards set as redundant storage it cuts the effective transfer speed in half. Using a single card uses the full card controller speed and the lossy 12 bit NEF/RAW capture setting produces smaller file sizes. (Most folks don't notice any difference between the lossy 12 bit NEF/RAW files and lossless 14 bit NEF/RAW files in practical use.)
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
My thoughts? You will be blown away by the difference between these DX bodies and any full frame camera (FX).
You already own one of the finest zoom lenses which is compatible with FX bodies. I've looked at your site and style. I would shoot 90% of your photos with the 70-200, f2.8 lens. I would get something wider for larger groups.
You have many choices. If you are willing to buy used, there are many low mileage D700 bodies available. I love that camera even though it's been out for years. Really Nikon's first affordable FX body. I still enjoy shooting mine today. Willing to spend a bit more, there are loads of lightly used D800 or D800e bodies available since many gear heads have upgraded to the D810. My D800e is the finest camera I have ever used.
You are currently shooting a D300. I own one also (embarassing how many bodies I own). The build quality on the D300 is much better than all of the pro-sumer DX bodies you are looking at. You're a professional. If you want your bodies to withstand professional abuse and the exposure you give your equipment on the beach, you will likely prefer the better build quality.
Pick up a used D700. You will instantly feel comfortable. Almost identical button and function layout to your D300. You would pick it up and start shooting in less than a minute without missing a beat. You could also continue to use all of your existing CF cards.
http://clearwaterphotography.smugmug.com/
What kind of memory cards are you using? Having a fast SD card really matters in the D7100 due to its smaller buffer/large file sizes and it can be a night and day experience compared to a slower one in both shooting and image review.
The spec that matters in this case is the write speed but that can take a little digging. In a lot of cards the read speed significantly higher than the write speed and they only advertise/display the read speed on the card. For example SanDisk and Lexar both sell "95 MB/s" cards, but for the write speeds Sandisk's is 90 MB/s while Lexar only does 45 MB/s.
But if you give the brand and all the info on the front (write speed, or if older and it uses #x) it shouldn't be too hard to google it.
As someone who owns and regularly shoots with both the D700 and D7100 I would advise against this. The D700 is a very solid camera but the images from the D7100 are much nicer in terms dynamic range (1.5 stops) and resolution (2x the D700's) the D700 usually is my secondary body and only becomes the primary when I need a razor thin depth of field or ISO 3,200 and above color shots. The D7100 at 3,200 is fine but there starts to be a noticeable improvement at that point and more so at 6,400.
If I was going Full Frame and AF wasn't a big issue the D610 (or any of the other 24/36MP FX Nikons) would be a good camera, it's sensor essentially gives you another leap like the D7100 over the D700's dynamic range but you also get better low light performance.
And I don't know if it's that increased dynamic range or something else about the D7100's sensor but its' images have an "X factor" that reminds me of my old Fuji S5 Pro and while I loved its low light performance the D700 just never had it.
Just a quick heads up, the D7100 can't use UHS II speeds, but the good news is that the fastest UHS I sandisk cards are less than half the cost of those ones in your link. Also I found in another forum post that in UHS I mode that card only has 50 MB/s speed compared to the cheaper cards 90 MB/s. I'll double check this right now but wanted to post this ASAP in case you're about to order those cards.
http://www.cameramemoryspeed.com/reviews/sd-cards/sandisk-extreme-pro-280-mbs-uhs-ii-32gb-sdhc-memory-card/
This link has all the cards listed and their speeds, the Sandisk I was talking about is ~70 MB/s (slight variations from cards) and there's a Lexar which narrowly edges it out by < 1 MB/s so you likely wont notice that though it is a UHS II card and comes with its own USB reader that can handle it, the main advantage is that it will be faster uploading images. Though if you don't have an SSD you'll be limited by the hard drive which will take away most of that speed increase, and the Lexar is twice as expensive. But for using the camera since the speeds are roughly identical you should see equal performance between the Sandisk and Lexar.
http://www.cameramemoryspeed.com/nikon-d7100/fastest-sd-card-tests/
And since you linked to B&H here's the Sandisk (~53 dollars for 64 GB):
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/824149-REG/SanDisk_SDSDXPA_064G_A75_Extreme_Pro_64GB_SDHC_SDXC.html
And the Lexar (~100 dollars for 64 GB):
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1090748-REG/lexar_lsd64gcrbna2000r_pro_2000x_uhs_2.html
Another card which is almost as fast at 67 MB/s and a good bit cheaper than the Sandisk is Samsung's SD Pro card, they're not sold through B&H so here it is on Amazon (~30 dollars for 64 GB):
http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-64GB-SDXC-Memory-Card/dp/B00IVPU6BY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1439525474&sr=8-1&keywords=sd+pro+samsung
Sorry about not getting this all out to you at once I was planning to look at the card you are currently using and then give some suggestions at different price points.
And I can't personally comment on the reliability of the Samsung or Lexar cards as I've only used Sandisk and Transcend (I've never had an issue with either) though both look to get a vast majority of positive reviews.
User "NikonsandVstroms" is correct; the Nikon D7100 body does not support UHS II. Worse, a UHS II card will revert to UHS I speeds or slower in that body.
I highly recommend trying a single SanDisk Extreme PRO 32GB UHS-I/U3 SDHC to confirm to yourself that it can produce a suitable result, then test other cards against that card.
For me, I'm sticking with the SanDisk Extreme PRO 32GB UHS-I/U3 SDHC cards as I truly believe that they provide the best combination of security (least reported failures in the D7100), excellent transfer speed and cost. That combination of useful qualities, and in that order, represents tremendous value.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Ziggy, where did you find reports of failure rates in the D7100? I actually needed a new SD card myself and that Samsung Pro 90 MB/s was cheap enough to be an impulse purchase and the few bad reviews seemed to be the standard rare DOA or soon after, and people buying them for incompatible cameras.
I use a simple algorithm of my own design to make that determination. Weighting factors are:
1) Manufacturing sales rank for NAND flash producers (SanDisk is ranked #3 by DRAMeXchange, after Samsung and Toshiba. DRAMeXchange shows SanDisk sales @ $1.590 Billion USD.)
Lexar is now owned by Micron, so I use a guestimate to calculate the Lexar percentage from the total sales. Regardless, Micron has smaller sales than Sandisk.
I only research SanDisk, Lexar/Micron, Toshiba and Samsung. The other brands only purchase parts from other manufacturers, assemble and market cards.
The sales figures indicate a comparative number for each manufacturer.
2) Google rank for the terms:
... Where [card name] is replaced by the name of the memory card(s) in the comparison.
This Google search will return some useful data and increasing non-useful data as the search progresses, so I manually count, looking for applicable posts, stopping when I count a larger percentage of inapplicable posts. (Somewhat arbitrary)
The two above figures are divided, yielding a simple estimated metric of posted card failures per unit sales. While I admit that the data is subject to some interpretation (subjective analysis of the Google search and guessing the percentage of Micron's sales, for instance), I do avail myself of all public data I can find to make those interpretations.
The Google searches also return relatively small amounts of pertinent data, meaning that many people probably accept card failures, problems or errors, without complaining on the Internet about it, or they complain in a fashion which makes it difficult to search for. (For instance complaining about this or that memory card without giving specific card details will not result in a "count" in my searching criteria.)
When I make a specific "card recommendation", I take into account the above ranking as well as card warranty information.
For instance, Transcend often uses Samsung chips in its SD cards, but Samsung only offers warranty periods of 5 and 10 years for their cards, while Transcend has a Lifetime warranty on their cards (but prior to 2006 it was 5 years), all of which leads me to say "wha ...".
http://www.samsung.com/uk/support/warranty/Support_warranty.html
http://www.transcend-info.com/warranty
I also cannot recommend a product which can vary over time in internal components, knowing that both compatibility and speed may be compromised.
However, ...
I have purchased Transcend cards for personal use in both CF and SD form factors and I was generally pleased with both performance and durability, but I will not use them for client/paying work.
I will also say that I have had occasional card failures with even SanDisk and Lexar brand cards, but I have never had a total failure (so far) with either of those brands. Failures were of the occasional type and limited to individual files.
My experience with Kingston cards was a catastrophic failure, leading to a total loss of all files on the card, fortunately nothing important or for a client. Never again.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
a simple algorithm !
my algorithm is to buy sandisk 32GB refurbished memory cards on ebay for $5
they have never failed
As user "NikonsandVstroms" pointed out previously, the Sandisk card I recommended, and the one I purchased for myself, is twice the write speed of the Lexar you purchased.
This seems to be confirmed in this thread at Amazon
"Sporty says:
The 95MB/s is the read speed only, the write speed is lower on these 633x cards. The write speed is what will affect the camera. Other cards such as the SanDisk Extreme Pro 95MB/s card can reach over 90MB/s write speed. In some cameras it does not matter, but the D7100 and D750 can take advantage of the extra write speed [of the SanDisk Extreme PRO 32GB UHS-I/U3 SDHC cards]."
I only have a single SanDisk Extreme PRO 32GB UHS-I/U3 SDHC card for the moment, so I can't test for transfer speeds with multiple cards, either writing in parallel or consecutively. I am very happy using that card along with setting up the D7100 camera for lossy 12 bit NEF files. Buffer clearing is very acceptable, but, since I rarely shoot more than a burst of 3 images, buffer clearing is momentary.
As I understand it, the 12 bit lossy format is only really a problem if you need to "push process" a low ISO image to recover an underexposure. Even then I tested recovering to 3-stops and it works fine. If you try a 6-stop recovery, you will experience banding and posterization of the shadow and low tones, unless you use another RAW image processor, like RawTherapee, which has a "Line Noise Filter" which works rather well with most cameras which have similar banding issues.
http://betterfamilyphotos.blogspot.com/2013/04/nikon-d5200-and-d7100-band-aid.html
Look under the "BANDING THERAPY" section of the article.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums