$1700: D300, 70-200 f2.8 VR, or Canon 5D

Hi I'm just wondering if anyone has a recommendation for me. I shoot portraits

on location with natural light mostly on a now-ancient Nikon D50 usually with my

85mm f2.0, which I love (the lens, that is...the camera is ok, but feeling a

little cramped by it's limitations).

 

Here are the main features drawing me to each item:

 

D300: firmware technology for color and image processing in-camera, best

exposure/light metering of Nikon line (shared w/ D5). Could use the increase of

megapixels and burst.

 

70-200: would instantly help me make memorable images by blurring backgrounds at

long end, and shooting in low light, esp with the VR. The zoom and longer range

over the fixed 85 sound nice too.

 

Canon 5D: full-frame goodness, image sharpness and megapixels a big improvement

over the D50, etc.

 

Anyone? If you had the 1700, and a d50, what would you do with it?

I would buy a D300. You can use your 85mm on it. I`ve had a look at your

portfolio, I think the 70-200 will be so good in your hands, but after the D300.

 

Many of my photography are children`s and baby portraits: The 70-200 minimum

focus distance is more or less 1.5 meters, it is a big drawback to me. Think that

with your 85mm

you can surely shot at less that 1meter. Of course, with the 70-200mm you can

have a narrower field of view, but at the expense of a longer focus distance. I

wonder if it could work for you.

 

I have switched to the Micro 105VR which is also great for portraits, absolutely

sharp althought with other different issues. For some details (baby hands, very

close faces, eyes, etc.) the 70-200 is unusable to me. The 105/2DC is also

another great choice with a reasonable min. focus distance but pretty expensive

too.

 

The 5D looks to be replaced soon. If so, I`ll wait to see, althought it will be very

expensive. Also, if you aren`t a current Canon user, you`ll need to buy new lenses.

Well, a 5D means you'll need lenses, flash, batteries, etc., theNikon gear you have won't work with it. The D300 won't help your lens situation, you may still feel cramped there. The 70-200 is a great lens.

 

I guess it depends on what you feel cramps your style or your interests/growth the most? I think I'd suggest the 70-200 for it's verstility in many different kinds of applications. Of course, it could well depend on what other gear you have besides the D50 and the 85mm.

Where do you get a D300 and 70-200 VR or a Canon 5D and L telephoto lens for $1700?

 

The 70-200 is nice, but it's a big lens, make sure you're comfortable with it for the intended use. Like Jose says, the minimum focus distance can be a problem.

 

At one point I thought about the 5D, but it's a slow camera compared to the D300 and feels less solid. Also, the excellent display of the D300 is very useful for checking expressions when shooting portraits.

Oskar,

 

I think she meant either the D300, the 70-200 OR the Canon 5D.

I am not a big fan of the D50 (had one and didn't like it but my dislike had

nothing to do with IQ). I have a D300 and 5D but I feel compelled to tell you

to keep your D50 and improve your technique. Unless you are shooting at high

ISO, there would likely not be any difference in IQ [at lower ISOs] between the

D300 and D50 IF you have your camera set correctly and use it correctly, you

should be getting stunning portraits with your 85mm lens. If you are not, post

some samples so you can get some assistance.

 

Unless you are printing huge posters or cropping significantly, the increase in

megapixels will not have any effect in your prints (certainly not in an 8 x 10).

And I don't understand why you would need the high frame rate of the D300 for

shooting portraits?

 

You say you are '...a little cramped by it's limitations". What specifically is

the D50 not doing for you? If you just want a new camera, go for it. If you

really want to improve the quality of your portraits, improve your technique.

...a D200 and a 50-150mm SIgma HSM f2.8....unless you want to change systems or can afford both, to have a cheap FF camera, but what would that really do for you....just think about the things that really matter to you, you don't need the newest or best to make great images, you really just need creativity. A D200 would just give you what you need with your 85mm F2 and the 50-150mm gives you a great range for portraiture....jmho...all in you budget..this being said as an owner of a 5D, 40D and D200 and D60...

As enticing as full frame sounds if you are not using wide angle lenses the only reason would be high ISO preformance or improved dynamic range. I like my D200 over the D70 because of lens compatibility, view finder and control features. I rarely print over 8x12. With full frame you would lose the field of view of the 85mm you currently use. Sometimes I wish for better high ISO preformance but still can not justify a D300, its a hobby for me.

I had D200 in the past and now D300, but frankly the dropping 5D price is often tempting. I really like their fast primes, like 50/1.2L, 35/1.4L, 24/1.4L, and so on. And it is a good camera still. Will probably be for a while.

 

Nikon on the other hand is catching up fast. The D200 was somewhat noisy, but D300 is very good. And D3 is of course the king. I like Nikon colors and absolutely love ergonomics. I do not know what I would do, I still would probably wait till the next FF Nikon camera is out. I do not think it will be long.

 

- Sergey

Looking at the photos in your portefolio, I think that a full frame camera is really not

going to do much for you, nor would extra mega-pixels. As you shoot now, you

seem to not have perfect focus, and use more than a little sharpening. Your lens is

very sharp, but I know it requires very good technique to get perfect sharpness

where you want it when you shoot with it wide open.

 

I would say that getting a 5D and switching system will do nothing for you. Why not

rent a 3D for a week to see if FF will really make such a big difference?

 

If you feel cramped, what is the current limitation? The D300 is a great camera and

has a very nice viewfinder (for DX camera), superb autofocus and will take weeks to

learn to use properly. Try it out if you can. But perhaps what limits you is the lack of

a high quality zoom? How far are you from your subjects when you shoot?

 

In your situation, I would go with the D300 first, then save for another lens, but I

would not be sure that lens would be the current version of the 70-200 VR.

Elliot: d50 limitations are that portrait clients are wanting to make prints at

16x20 and larger and yes, it's limiting because I have to nail the exposure and

composition or they look bad.

 

And yes, the frame rate does limit me. If you've taken pictures of a group of

people with kids, it's a BIG benefit to leave your finger on the shutter as a

child can move a lot even between those burst frames. In post-processing, I then

make a composite group portrait usually having to paste heads or eyes, etc. It

goes like this: you get everyone ready, click 3 times...wait...people

move...click 3 times, etc. It gets old.

 

I'd say those are my big reasons other than wanting the improvement in image

colors and exposure that the d300 offers, as well as a full-color histogram for

making exposure adjustments in the field.

 

I'm attaching a recent image to see if you think that I need improvement in my

technique so much that the things I'm considering buying aren't necessary. I'm

open to critique, as I'm fully aware that I'm not some world-famous portraitist

right now, though I do have people knocking at my door asking me to do their

portraits.

Elliot: d50 limitations are that portrait clients are wanting to make prints at

16x20 and larger and yes, it's limiting because I have to nail the exposure and

composition or they look bad.

 

And yes, the frame rate does limit me. If you've taken pictures of a group of

people with kids, it's a BIG benefit to leave your finger on the shutter as a

child can move a lot even between those burst frames. In post-processing, I then

make a composite group portrait usually having to paste heads or eyes, etc. It

goes like this: you get everyone ready, click 3 times...wait...people

move...click 3 times, etc. It gets old.

 

I'd say those are my big reasons other than wanting the improvement in image

colors and exposure that the d300 offers, as well as a full-color histogram for

making exposure adjustments in the field.

 

I'm attaching a recent image I took with the 85mm to see if you think that I

need improvement in my technique so much that the things I'm considering buying

aren't necessary. I'm open to critique, as I'm fully aware that I'm not some

world-famous portraitist right now, though I do have people knocking at my door

asking me to do their portraits.<div></div>

Elliot

 

I guess you didn't take the time to look at Valerie's web site. She is doing very good work with her D50.

 

Valerie

 

Unless you really want to change systems I would say go for the D300 now and then maybe rent a 70-200 to see if you like it.

I think the faster response time of the D300 and the better view finder are all steps in the right direction.

I guess I partly just answered my question about technique when I said that I have to nail the exposure/composition to make the larger prints good, meaning that I could improve both of those and then not have those problems...

 

Focus does seem to be an area I could also improve in. I guess maybe it's an issue of whether the equipment might help me improve (VR would help with the low-light camera shake) the D300 would also help with low light and noise/exposure (not having to under-expose) or if I'm still a ways off from that and should focus (no pun intended:) solely on my technique or buy supplemental lighting.

 

Thanks everyone, keep the insights coming. It's very helpful.

Looks like NAS to me....

 

I doubt that a new camera will make even the slightest difference in your composition, focus, or results... (the focus is spot on in the picture)

A full frame10 mp may make getting a grainless 16X20 easier (I actually doubt that, but I'm willing to compromise... OTOH, that is called grain, it is supposed to be there!)

 

The chip in the D50 has a good reputation for low noise and clean color... Another amateur level chip, even an FX size, is not likely to be a quantum leap forward...

 

WIth the exception of high burst rate, I see no big improvement to be had unless you spend serious money...

 

denny

It sounds like you already know what you want.... a new D300, and that would make

a lot of sense for your business I think. Are you looking for justification? Seems to

me you have made your case fairly well. You want the higher resolution. The extra

frame rate can help. Better autofocus would help, especially with the kids moving

about.

 

Mind that you will still need to nail the exposure and composition and focus, but you

may find all of these a little more natural with a D300. I don't know the D50, but the

difference between the D70 and the D300 was huge. And yes, in many cases the

camera does make a difference, especially better autofocus and viewfinder in this

case.

 

Perhaps you need to start considering the cost of equipment in the pricing of your

photos. It is not only your time that you need to get paid for, you have equipment

costs as well. Maybe you have been too cheap?

BTW, I don't agree with Dennis. Not NAS (Nikon acquisition syndrome). There really

is a difference between cameras.

 

Your work is very good. Especially on the valerierobinson.com site. Very nice

compositions and light, you have no trouble there. Your portefolio here has some full

sized shots, which show that you could indeed have slightly better focus etc for

those 20x30 prints.

 

What we can't see is how many shots you took and time you spend getting your

images. Do you shoot RAW files? If you don't, that is one place you can improve

immediately. You that little more leeway to bring out shadows etc. You also can get

better sharpening.

 

I would stay away from lighting equipment, since I really like your natural light

photos. OK, at most a speedlight (or two) if you are on a location with too much

shadow.....

 

Keep shooting.

 

Cheers.

Thanks, Tachion. I guess I'm leaning toward the D300, but I don't know if it's the price (which is a lot for me) but was just thinking that maybe I should spend the money on the lens rather than the camera. I guess I have pretty much ruled out the Canon as I would have to switch out all my Nikon gear.

 

But the zoom would be nice with kids, the VR for the low-light flexibility, and I just like the blurred-out background/bokeh of the longer lens at f2.8. Maybe I should get the D300 and rent the lens for shoots. My biggest concern with the lens is that I haven't used one so big before, as the first poster said. (the 85mm is such a nice, light, small lens) Size might be a problem in someone's house on location? Also I'd still have the limitations of the camera to contend with, though part of what I'm trying to do with this thread is figure out how much to worry about them.

 

Thanks...still open to opinions. You guys are all so helpful.

The 5D doesn't hold a candle to the D300. Just go hold each body for 15 minutes in a store. You'll see.

Hi Valerie,

IMO, the reason it's hard to choose is that the D300 and the 70-200 are BOTH good choices.

D300 then the lens.

Lens then the D300.

Doesn't really matter...you'll probably wind up with both eventually.

Flip a coin...either way is good.

 

BTW, looked at your website. You do good work. You deserve a 70-200 AND a D300 and will, I'm sure, make good use of them.

Another reason to get the D300 is that you wouldl have two bodies -- if you're shooting professionally, backup equipment is a must. You don't want to cancel a paying shoot because the camera dies.

Valerie - what's you website?? Thanks.

Valerie,

 

I love and appreciate what you are doing with the D50, and I think the D300 is an entirely appropriate upgrade for you. But I would recommend that you re-think the lens issue.

 

A VR lens corrects for camera motion, but not subject motion. You need high ISO and fast lenses more. The 70-200mm lens is heavy, big, and it attracts attention. Due to its weight, you would probably be wishing for a monopod sooner than you imagine. But the distraction of a monopod would make it even harder to capture those fleeting expressions. The 70-200mm has a long minimum focusing distance, and you would still need other lenses. The 150mm through 200mm focal lengths are nearly useless for portraits. And considering the care that you now take with your photography, switching to autofocus may actually tend to worsen your results.

 

Valerie, another approach you might consider is picking up a used 75-150 mm f3.5 AIS lens. That way you could get a feel for a useful focal length range before you decide. Of course, there are other excellent prime lenses as well.

 

In short, go for the D300, but reconsider your lens choices.

How about going for an upgrade, but not quite all the way to a D300 + 70-200

"monster kit"? Refurb and closeout D200 bodies are a *great* deal right now, and

would be a big step up from your D50 without blowing your entire budget. You could

get the D200 and a 3rd-party tele-zoom like the Tokina 50-135mm or Sigma 50-

150mm combined for less than the D300 body alone.

 

I would definitely advise against moving away from your Nikon kit, unless you're

ready to spend a lot more than $1700. To really take advantage of the FF sensor in

the 5D, you're going to want L-series glass in several focal lengths, which means

serious money ($1000+ per lens).

 

However, if you have problems with under-exposure shooting with a D50 + fast

prime, moving to a D300 (or even a D3 or Canon FF body) isn't going to magically

solve them. The simple truth is, you need more light. Spend some quality time on

strobist.com, and put together a portable lighting kit with a couple of strobes and

basic modifiers (stands, umbrellas, gels) and you'll be able to coax clean images out

of even more situations.

For your purposes you should look at D200 with the nikkor 80-200 f2.8 which is the same great glass as the 70-200 without the VR. If you're shooting portraits, I assume you are using a tripod, and VR contributes nothing. In fact, on a tripod you're warned to turn VR off. The D200 and 80-200 lens combo will save you big bucks.