Downgrading

Tmet5 · June 6, 2014

Hey guys I use to post on this forum a while back but could not remember what my info was. But anyway I am looking to downsize. I have alot of equipment and for it only being a hobby I think I should invest my money a little better.
My current set-up is:
Nikon D3s (not very many actuations)
Nikon 24-70 2.8
Nikon 70-200 2.8 VRII
Nikon 50
Nikon SB900
And a bunch of random other equipment.

I originally purchased this equipment because I was shooting weddings all the time and senior photos. But lately all I have been doing is star trails, landscapes, and some portraits. The gear I have is almost being wasted for what I am currently using it for. Also I am a broke college kid trying to pay some bills lol.

My main interest is to still have a good all around camera/glass set up. I would like to be able to take nice landscapes, do some portraits here and there, etc. I no longer need something as advanced as the D3s. I still would like to do travel photography.

I know this post may be kind of vague but im not entirely sure exactly what I am trying to downsize to. (Also I apologize if this is in the wrong spot)

Thank you in advance for your time!

jmphotocraft · June 6, 2014

If you're not shooting sports or events where AF is critical, I'd take a good look at the Sony a7 or a7r.

Tmet5 · June 6, 2014

jmphotocraft wrote: »

If you're not shooting sports or events where AF is critical, I'd take a good look at the Sony a7 or a7r.

I have heard good things about both of those. Thanks, I will add that to my list. I feel like I could spend months trying to determine what camera to downgrade to lol.

jmphotocraft · June 6, 2014

Actually I think it's pretty simple if you limit yourself to sensor size and mirrorless. Personally I wouldn't go smaller than APS-C, so that leaves me with 3 choices - Sony a7/r, Sony a6000, Fuji XE-2.

Qarik · June 6, 2014

what you have a pretty minimal but great quality set of lens and a great body. If you had to pair down by just getting rid of stuff..sell the 50mm and the 70-200mm. These are probably your least used. The D3s, 24-70mm and the SB900 will take care of 90% of all shooting that is not sports and wild life. The next step if you feel like the D3s is "too much camera" for your need is to sell it and pick up a used D600 or used D700. I would stay full frame.

You should never sell your 24-70mm..EVER! It is the lens and standard zoom length is just essential for general shooting.

jmphotocraft · June 6, 2014

Qarik wrote: »

You should never sell your 24-70mm..EVER! It is the lens and standard zoom length is just essential for general shooting.

The 24-70/2.8 is a paradox. It is at once indispensable and a burden. It's my least used lens because it's so big and heavy, but for an event or occasion where I can only bring one or two lenses, you bet it's in my bag. Especially if I don't know in advance what kind of room I'll have for maneuvering.

Yet somehow when all I had was a K1000, a 28, a 50, and a 135, I was happy.

Matthew Saville · June 8, 2014

Tmet5 wrote: »

Hey guys I use to post on this forum a while back but could not remember what my info was. But anyway I am looking to downsize. I have alot of equipment and for it only being a hobby I think I should invest my money a little better.
My current set-up is:
Nikon D3s (not very many actuations)
Nikon 24-70 2.8
Nikon 70-200 2.8 VRII
Nikon 50
Nikon SB900
And a bunch of random other equipment.

I originally purchased this equipment because I was shooting weddings all the time and senior photos. But lately all I have been doing is star trails, landscapes, and some portraits. The gear I have is almost being wasted for what I am currently using it for. Also I am a broke college kid trying to pay some bills lol.

My main interest is to still have a good all around camera/glass set up. I would like to be able to take nice landscapes, do some portraits here and there, etc. I no longer need something as advanced as the D3s. I still would like to do travel photography.

I know this post may be kind of vague but im not entirely sure exactly what I am trying to downsize to. (Also I apologize if this is in the wrong spot)

Thank you in advance for your time!

For a second there I thought you said "I think I should invest my money in a little beer"...

Stand by for my actual response while I read the rest of your post and the replies,

...

Matthew Saville · June 8, 2014

jmphotocraft wrote: »

The 24-70/2.8 is a paradox. It is at once indispensable and a burden. It's my least used lens because it's so big and heavy, but for an event or occasion where I can only bring one or two lenses, you bet it's in my bag. Especially if I don't know in advance what kind of room I'll have for maneuvering.

Yet somehow when all I had was a K1000, a 28, a 50, and a 135, I was happy.

I have to agree with this very strongly. I am a passionate hater of the 24-70 and 70-200 2.8, and I would never be caught dead using them for my personal work. I just have so little need. I'd rather have 2-3 of my favorite primes. However for event coverage and especially weddings, I can't NOT have them.

=Matt=

Matthew Saville · June 8, 2014

Tmet5 wrote: »

....
I originally purchased this equipment because I was shooting weddings all the time and senior photos. But lately all I have been doing is star trails, landscapes, and some portraits. The gear I have is almost being wasted for what I am currently using it for. Also I am a broke college kid trying to pay some bills lol.

My main interest is to still have a good all around camera/glass set up. I would like to be able to take nice landscapes, do some portraits here and there, etc. I no longer need something as advanced as the D3s. I still would like to do travel photography.

I know this post may be kind of vague but im not entirely sure exactly what I am trying to downsize to. (Also I apologize if this is in the wrong spot)

Thank you in advance for your time!

The single most important question here is, ...do you still plan to shoot weddings, as well? This answer alone will decide whether or not you sell almost your entire setup, really.

Heck, even if you shoot 1-3 weddings per year, it would be better to just rent a couple lenses when you need them.

So if you're going to shoot fewer than ~3 weddings per year from now on, sell off your D3s, 24-70, 70-200, and SB900. The next question, however, is ...how much of a "downgrade" are you looking to make? Because if you're still addicted to full-frame DSLRs and name-brand glass, the answer IMO is simple: Get a D800e, and a Nikon 14-24, lol. Or if you're addicted to full-frame but aren't necessarily attached to name-brand glass, IMO a much better choice is the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 and 24mm f/1.4, in conjunction with maybe the Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR. Toss in an 85 prime to compliment your existing 50mm prime, and you've got one of the best kits ever for landscape and astro-landscape photography, plus a great couple other primes for general portraiture. (Or you could look into trading your Nikon 50mm and longer primes for any of the new Sigma primes, which are all great and rather affordable)

BTW yes, the D800e does make quite a difference compared to the regular D800, for astro-landscapes, as you can read here:
http://www.davidkinghamphotography.com/blog/2013/3/nikon-night-photography-shootout

Unfortunately, I would also strongly consider holding back on the Sony A7r for astro-landscape photography so far, as I have heard bad things about moire and their RAW compression, which you can see documented here:
http://diglloyd.com/blog/2014/20140214_1-SonyA7-artifacts-star-trails.html

So this is why I say the D800e is still the best option out there for someone who shoots not just traditional landscape photography, but also astro-landscapes and night timelapses. (Not to mention the fact that the Sony mirrorless cameras all ENGORGE themselves on battery power. You'd need to use LiPo external batteries for pretty much ANY timelapse endeavor that required long shutter speeds. Oh, and the Sony "shuttering shutter" thing too... :-(

HOWEVER, personally as someone who does a lot of serious hiking and backpacking in order to reach the locations where I like to shoot, I find that the likes of a D800e and full-frame lenses like the 14-24 are still far too absurdly big and heavy for me to consider for every trip. Thus, I have begun using a crop-sensor body and crop-sensor lenses. Specifically, my latest gem is the Nikon D5300, which as an amazing sensor, a built-in intervalometer, and built-in GPS too! Simply put, this is currently the best travel / landscape / astro-landscape photography camera on the market, for it's size, weight, price, and feature set / image quality. I've done time lapses with it up to ISO 3200 with great results and even used 6400 in a pinch, and I've done 15-minute star trail exposures at ISO 800-1600 with great results.

If you think about it, the more adventurous side of landscape photography has always lent itself to crop sensor formats. More DOF at f/2.8 or f/2 etc. is a BETTER thing for us, not a bad thing like it is for DOF junkie hipsters. ;-) Smaller, lighter lenses, and yet even better UWA corner sharpness? Yes please!

Thus, I would also highly recommend checking out the likes of the Nikon D5300 and Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, or the Rokinon 10mm f/2.8 and Rokinon 16mm f/2.0, all of which are downright absurdly sharp compared to any name-brand and/or full-frame option, and at a fraction of the price.

In other words, even though I own a D800e, two D700's, and have also tasted the amazing high ISO night timelapse of the fantastic Df sensor, ...I still opt to take only my Nikon D5300 on certain trips. Plus, it comes in shiny red! :-P

In fact, after the recent release of the Rokinon 10mm f/2.8 and 12mm f/2, (the latter of which is ONLY available for mirrorless cameras and about 9 ounces / $399, I am in fact considering getting not a Sony A7 series, but the Sony A6000! At ~$600 for the body and $400 for the 12mm f/2, you have essentially one of the most compact and yet capable systems available for night landscape photography, period. Like I said, even though I own a D800e and two D700's, I'd still consider a kit like this for certain adventures.

=Matt=

NikonsandVstroms · June 9, 2014

Unless you use razor thin DOF going to a crop sensor could be a real option like Matthew is proposing.

I still have my D700 but mostly use my D7100 now and here's my setup:

Sigma 50-150 F2.8 HSM (non-OS) used ~500
Tokina 12-24 F4 used ~300
Sigma 18-50 F2.8 I got it for under 200 bucks but at the going rate I'd get something else like the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 which is ~300
Sigma 50 F2.8 Macro ~250 (I have a 105 as well but with the crop factor a lot of times I like using the 50 more)
And you already have a 50 prime

If you plan to use older lenses or need greater AF coverage the D7100 is the way to go but the D5300 is very capable. The only thing I'd do is test it out to see how you like the balance since going from a D3s to a smaller camera like that will be a huge jump.

Matthew Saville · June 9, 2014

NikonsandVstroms wrote: »

Unless you use razor thin DOF going to a crop sensor could be a real option like Matthew is proposing.

I still have my D700 but mostly use my D7100 now and here's my setup:

Sigma 50-150 F2.8 HSM (non-OS) used ~500
Tokina 12-24 F4 used ~300
Sigma 18-50 F2.8 I got it for under 200 bucks but at the going rate I'd get something else like the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 which is ~300
Sigma 50 F2.8 Macro ~250 (I have a 105 as well but with the crop factor a lot of times I like using the 50 more)
And you already have a 50 prime

If you plan to use older lenses or need greater AF coverage the D7100 is the way to go but the D5300 is very capable. The only thing I'd do is test it out to see how you like the balance since going from a D3s to a smaller camera like that will be a huge jump.

Man, that's a killer setup! I need to reclaim my Sigma 50-150 mk1 back from my friend and try it out on my Nikon D5300.

And yeah, there are plenty of situations where the heft and feel of a D3s / flagship are very welcome and beneficial, and there are plenty of situations where the weight and size savings of a camera like the D5300 will far outweigh its disadvantages in control and customizability.

NikonsandVstroms · June 14, 2014

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Man, that's a killer setup! I need to reclaim my Sigma 50-150 mk1 back from my friend and try it out on my Nikon D5300.

And yeah, there are plenty of situations where the heft and feel of a D3s / flagship are very welcome and beneficial, and there are plenty of situations where the weight and size savings of a camera like the D5300 will far outweigh its disadvantages in control and customizability.

Thanks! And the difference in weight VS my FX one is very noticeable (which will be great for the OP) even though they don't directly compare:

D700
Sigma 20-40 F2.8
Tamron 28-75 2.8
Nikon 70-210 F4
Sigma 105 F2.8 Macro
And just the 50 1.8, no 85 yet...

If I had a 70-200 F2.8 that alone would tip the scale a lot more.

Matthew Saville · June 16, 2014

NikonsandVstroms wrote: »

Thanks! And the difference in weight VS my FX one is very noticeable (which will be great for the OP) even though they don't directly compare:

D700
Sigma 20-40 F2.8
Tamron 28-75 2.8
Nikon 70-210 F4
Sigma 105 F2.8 Macro
And just the 50 1.8, no 85 yet...

If I had a 70-200 F2.8 that alone would tip the scale a lot more.

Yep, when I travel I leave my D700, 24-70, and 70-200 all at home. For what I like to shoot, I never need anything more than a D5300, a Tokina 11-16 mk2, a Sigma 50-150 2.8 mk1, and a 28 1.8 G. I mean really, how can you go wrong with that? :-)

=Matt=

Downgrading

Comments