Conventional wisdom out of date?

NorthernFocus

One of the conventional wisdoms regarding camera gear was to spend your money on lenses and pretty much any camera would do. That made sense back in the film days when we put the same film in whatever camera body. Ignoring artistic aspects and assuming proper exposure and focus, image quality was a function of lens quality and film selection. But nowadays different cameras have different resolutions, CMOS vs CCD, firmware/software differences, etc, etc. It frustrates me to no end when my $300 Canon S2 renders colors better than my $1500 (at the time) D200.

So here is my dilemma... I'm in a position that I finally have both the funds and executive approval (you married guys know what I mean) to get a Nikkor 300 2.8 prime lens plus TC or (the way I'm leaning) a Nikkor 200-400 VR. But for the same cost, I can buy a D300 body, a Sigma 120-300, AND a Bigma.

I do a lot of low light shooting at big birds and mammals where I need high ISO plus the DOF of at least f5.6, usually f8. With a DX format sensor and those apertures, most reasonable quality lenses are pretty sharp. So I'm thinking the lower noise of the CMOS sensor may be more of a benefit than a high end lens. One thing I was thinking of doing was spending a couple hundred dollars on research by renting a 200-400 for a few days to try it out.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

pathfinder

The D300 has been an outstanding body. The Sigma 120-300 f2.8 is a fine lens, but would be much more useful with IS. Plan to use it on a tripod much of the time if you want the best out if it. Lots of folks seem to like the Bigma, but it is not the equivalent of a first rate Nikon ( or Canon ) lens. Flame suit on:D The Bigma is not a large aperture lens, and will not offer the low light ability of the 300 f2.8 or the 120-300f2.8. That said, for most of us, 300mm is usually too short for serious bird shooting. For myself, for birds, 400 is frequently too short. If f8 is ok in low light, it must be a lot brighter in Alaska than down here in the lower 48.:D


If you get better color out of a P&S than a D200, I suspect your image processing for the D200 is the culprit. P&Ss are set up by the manufacturers to produce bright colors and high contrast images at the cost of fine image detail and shadow detail. DSLRs are assumed to be going to more knowledgeable users, and tend to deliver images that seem softer, and lower contrast without post processing or adjusting the image processing parameter in the camera's image processing.

jonh68

I love the d300, 120-300 sigma combo. I haven't noticed a need for vr with this lens in regards to shooting wildlife. For birds and action, the VR is not much help in freezing motion. I have been able to handhold and find the weight of the lens actually helps stabilize.

With low noise performance cameras, conventional thinking is changing, but I still think for those on a budget, better lenses will improve quality better than cameras.

NorthernFocus

pathfinder wrote:

If you get better color out of a P&S than a D200, I suspect your image processing for the D200 is the culprit. P&Ss are set up by the manufacturers to produce bright colors and high contrast images at the cost of fine image detail and shadow detail. DSLRs are assumed to be going to more knowledgeable users, and tend to deliver images that seem softer, and lower contrast without post processing or adjusting the image processing parameter in the camera's image processing.

I've got my D200 set to "vivid" color and maxed out on sharpening. Where the little Canon really outdoes the D200 is interpreting WB. I rarely shoot with my D200 on auto WB any more because the results are too unpredictable. I do a lot of shooting in poor light and over water. That combination seems to blow the D200's "mind". WB is fairly easy to correct during PP but it's still frustrating.

John, I noticed you list a 300mm 2.8 with your equipment. How does the 120-300 compare regarding image quality. I'm of the same mind as you regarding the VR for bird photography. If shooting BIFs or other action, the shutter speed has to be so high that VR is a moot point. But it's nice to have for everything else

nightspidy

Lol

articblooms wrote:

... I'm in a position that I finally have both the funds and executive approval (you married guys know what I mean)

I have seen this statement, or a similar version of it, mentioned several times on this forum. Whenever I see it, I always chuckle to myself....I "control" the finances in the relationship with my husband, however, I always discuss purchases, especially camera equipment with him as it's "our" money. I just find it funny, that's all.

I wish I could offer more constructive help, but I am not familiar with Nikon. Enjoy your new toys when you get them and post some pics!

NikonsandVstroms

Well full frame is coming so my suggestion would be to go to the 200 to 400 so you have the added focal length, and skip the D300. The D200 really is a great camera and he should just work on getting the settings right on that camera. Then when you make the next jump you'll have both more expertise in setting up a digital camera and taking shots to make them come out the way you envision (which is more important than the body itself) plus the investment in a great lens, which will last for many bodies and still have great reach even on a full 35mm frame

NorthernFocus

nightspidy wrote:

... it's "our" money...

Our marriage works that way too. It is indeed OUR money. I make it, she decides how we spend it Teamwork...

Blurmore

The conventional wisdom is healthy (except maybe in the stock market). When the D300 came out with its surreal automatic white balance, and smooth high ISO images...I lusted after it. I bought...a 40D because a little thing called 4000 dollars in glass (not babied, used professionally) reinforced my faith that the next Canon body out of the barn will be as good if not better than the offering from Nikon.

jonh68

John, I noticed you list a 300mm 2.8 with your equipment. How does the 120-300 compare regarding image quality. I'm of the same mind as you regarding the VR for bird photography. If shooting BIFs or other action, the shutter speed has to be so high that VR is a moot point. But it's nice to have for everything else

I haven't really compared the two. I know my editor remarks about how sharp the siggy is fro the pics I submit.

NorthernFocus

Debate resolved. I get it now I finally made my decision and bought a Nikon 200-400mm VR. I can't believe the difference compared to all of the Siggies and consumer version Nikkors I've bought in the past . If those other things are camera lenses, then this is an "optical system" to which you attach an image recording device. I'm still in shock (at both the price tag and the difference in quality).

Thanks for the previous comments which did help me make up my mind.

ziggy53

articblooms wrote:

Debate resolved. I get it now I finally made my decision and bought a Nikon 200-400mm VR. I can't believe the difference compared to all of the Siggies and consumer version Nikkors I've bought in the past . If those other things are camera lenses, then this is an "optical system" to which you attach an image recording device. I'm still in shock (at both the price tag and the difference in quality).

Thanks for the previous comments which did help me make up my mind.

Dan,

Congratulations and enjoy.

InsuredDisaster

articblooms wrote:

Debate resolved. I get it now I finally made my decision and bought a Nikon 200-400mm VR. I can't believe the difference compared to all of the Siggies and consumer version Nikkors I've bought in the past . If those other things are camera lenses, then this is an "optical system" to which you attach an image recording device. I'm still in shock (at both the price tag and the difference in quality).

Thanks for the previous comments which did help me make up my mind.

I'm dumping sigma whenever possible now once I discovered Nikon's lenses, after having only used Sigma for years. I'm sure they are great for many people and save some money, but with their low QC (2 out of the three sigma's I have prolblems) and apparent lower sharpness, its just not worth the savings to buy a sub quality Simga any more.

Glad you are enjoying the lense.

NorthernFocus

InsuredDisaster wrote:

... its just not worth the savings to buy a sub quality Simga any more...

Sigma lenses served me well for many years. For web images and smaller prints they are fine. As my desire to make larger prints has increased and my skills have improved, for the first time the equipment was becoming a limiting factor. I've still got buyer's remorse to some degree. Hopefully I'll be after some eagle images this weekend which should clear that up