Jump to content

Buying my first Nikon SLR - advice much needed!


sea_ram

Recommended Posts

<p>Hi everyone, newbie here desperately needing some sensible advice!<br />I've trawled through loads of information to try and make sense of the current range and work out which model to go for. My situation is this.. I was semi-pro 10+ years ago, sold off all my kit so have no old lenses etc. and now looking to get back into it in the digital age! Will very likely be doing some wedding work again and also landscapes for pleasure and perhaps hopefully some commercial/close up stills for business if all goes well.<br />I have looked in detail at the current Nikon range and am pretty clued up in terms of the models and their strengths and weaknesses but I'm still very indecisive. Why?<br />Well, money is a factor but for the absoutely right purchase I would be prepared to spend more. Immediate needs are a body and 2 lenses (I'm looking at the 18-200 and a 50mm prime). If money was no object I'd choose the D700 as by all accounts it looks a stunning bit of kit and FX is a big pull. But it is worth another £500 over the D300. Is it even worth thinking about the D300 when the D700 is only a couple of hundred more. Or is it worth over £1000 more than a D90 - is the D90 perfectly adequate for my needs? (Movie mode does not interest me)<br />Or, should I hold back on a major purchase until Ive reaquainted myself with the basics, fully understand how to get the best out of DSLRs and be in a stronger position to make the right decision?<br />With that theory in mind Im wondering whether to drop right down and snap up a cheap D40 or D3000, get a f1.8 prime lens and have some fun. This shouldn't cost much more than £400, even less if I buy it used and in the future if I did fork out for a D700 (or unreleased model), I still have a useful back up for hols and the lens would be put to great use too.<br />The only concern with this option is if I will quickly be frustrated with any shortcomings of the budget models eg size, build quality, frame rate, sensor quality, af points etc and will I be wasting money on a DX model when my heart is really set on FX.<br />I'm ready to press the button and just need a push in the right direction so your feedback will be much appreciated! Have basically narrowed it down to:<br />D40/D3000 Budget/Practice choice<br />D90 mid range compromise<br />D700 stretching too far?<br />Thanks!</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Well, I bought a D40 kit for £258 just over two years ago (with rebate) as a first digital camera to see how I liked the idea before buying something more expensive. It has exceeded my expectations and I'm still using it.</p>

<p>If I wanted to photograph sports then I suspect that the AF system wouldn't be good enough. If I wanted to photograph things in very poor light then an FX camera would be much better. If I was in a desperate hurry I might want more on-camera controls and a little less use of menus. If I wanted to make very large prints then more pixels might be helpful.</p>

<p>None of these things apply so I'm happy. I appreciate the low weight and bulk, and the 1/500 flash sync. too</p>

<p>Don't buy a D700 and an 18-200, but I expect you already knew that!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>if you're really on the fence as to whether to go up or down in features/price, consider the D5000, which shares a sensor w/D90 & D300, but lacks in-body focus motor for use with older AF lenses. the 18-200 and a 50/4 AF-S would both focus on it.<br>

as an ex-semi-pro, you may grow frustrated with some of the limtations of any of the consumer bodies, however. especially if you plan to work weddings and such, the D300 and D700 are well worth considering. in fact, i have one of each. they really are designed and built for working photogs, IMO.<br>

it's hard to tell from where i sit, but my guess is you will be more rather than less enthusiastic about shooting when you get back into it, so try not to end up spending money twice by underestimating...</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>For someone like you (semi-pro experience), I don't think anything below a D90 would serve you well (if you want to do everything with it; the D40 and other small bodies are nice for other reasons), overall. Variable aperture zooms with a long zoom range like the 18-200 VR are generally versatile travel/candid lenses (in good lighting). They are quite suitable for what you do when you're just casually familiarizing yourself with the newer generation of technology, but their limitations could be unacceptable if you want to get into doing more serious work, like wedding.</p>

<p>Please notice that the 18-200 VR is a DX lens, its smaller image circle designed to work with the "half-frame" APS-C sensors of the DX cameras by definition, won't properly cover the FX sensor on, let's say a D700. When used on a FX camera, the lens would work fine with the sensor in the crop-mode, or you'll risk ending up with vignetting and bad corners in your images.</p>

<p>Since the D40 is really cheap now, you could start off by getting one. You'll get a better idea on where you wanna go after using it for awhile. I would stay away from the D3000, for that it has a older CCD sensor (D80/D200?); and since it's relatively new, it's still rather overpriced on the market. The D5000 is a better bet as a cost effective step-up option from the D40, because it has the D90's sensor and performs better in low light. The D90 would be a safe bet in the long run. Although in certain ways, it's not "as good" as the higher end models, it's a very capable camera. There's no reason why you can't get pro-grade results from D90, aside from the fact that it's not built as tough as a D300/D700.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I don't think you can go wrong with any of them (take a look at the Wednesday Pic thread and you'll see beautiful images taken with all types of Nixon cameras/lenses), however, "will I be wasting money on a DX model when my heart is really set on FX?" answers the question. If you can afford it, then get it. William is right...I started back in April with a D40, and while it's a wonderful camera and a great size for me (light and small), I recently bought a D90 because some of the limitations of the D40 were starting to frustrate me. I still love the D40, but the D90 is helping overcome those frustrations (photography is only a hobby for me). I thought I'd sell the D40 to a friend who wants one, but decided to keep it because I still think it's a great camera and the smaller size/weight is nice. If you decide to go the "practice choice" route and decide to upgrade later, you'll most likely keep the "practice choice" for times when you want something light and small, so it really won't be money wasted. If FX is what your heart truly desires, I'd go ahead and spring for the D700.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Guys, thank you all sincerely for the replies so far. If only the D700 was nearer £1k then it would be a no brainer! Does anyone know someone who wants to trade up to a D3 and let their D700 go to a very good cause for a good price!?<br>

Reading above there seems to be a mix of people saying the practice route makes sense as does going for the D700 as thats where my heart is but.. the 'middle ground' of the impressive D90 is a good move too. This spread of opinion is exactly where my head is, so I'm still in 3 minds!<br>

If anyone knows of a killer deal on any of the models mentioned then please let me know as this probably will be the deciding factor right now, as if I get a really low price on something it gives me the confidence to trade up if needed and not lose out (and also buy a decent pair of lenses). There doesn't seem to be anything special kicking about on camerapricecheck. Loathed to go via ebay etc. as faulty/lacking paperwork/grey imports a major concern. Has to be new unless from a very trusted source.<br>

Thanks again! </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Pony up the money for a semi-pro camera if you are going to be shooting professionally, weddings especially are very demanding on cameras: high iso performance, high flash sync, control of off camera flash and good af are all important which means a D300 or D700. Allow some budget for a flash too obviously.</p>

<p>You can get some money back from this since they work very well with the AI and AIS lenses which are excellent and can be had cheaply. These will be great for landscapes and anything else that doesn't move!</p>

<p>If you want to go full frame in the future do it now and don't build a system with DX lenses.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If you can pick up an inexpensive kit, new or 2nd hand to test the waters, that may be your best move. Since you are familiar with the nikon system you may find soon what features you really want or need.</p>

<p>I've owned a D40, 50, 80 and now a D300. There is something about using the aperture ring on the lens that makes me feel at home. I rather dislike the G design, and the best selection of nikkors are actually in the used market. However, not all lenses designed for film work as well with digital.</p>

<p>My best advise is to spend some time and search your curiosities on this site and others. There is a lot of information here. But remember that everyone has their own flavor and opinion. If there is a retail store in your area, arm yourself with a few memory cards and take the test results home with you.</p>

<p>Enjoy yourself too.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I you are planning to work in weddings and commercial/close up stills for business, go for a pro camera such as the D700, basically because of the sensor and the possibilities you have for working in dim light conditions when doing some wedding pictures inside a church. Full frame sensor is better.

<p>

Consider also the micro 105mm for the close up stills in case that you are thinking in small things to shoot, customers may ask anything.

<p>

One important thing is to make a bussiness plan that focuses in the return of the investment in such a way that spending some money for high level toys is not a concern since that you are not the one who would pay for that, customers will help a lot, that should be the goal if you really mean to do some business.

<p>

Therefore if the trade is excellent picutres for a good payment, in a short time you would be building an excellent equipment.

<p>

Good luck !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I think "starting cheap(er) and see if you still really like it" might be a very good move. Sounds utterly sensible. Now I never managed to be sensible when it comes to buying camera gear, so while I like the advice, I know for sure I would ignore it immediately.</p>

<p>One thing that does puzzle me is "the pull of FX". Sure the D700 is an amazing body, but when working with the right lenses on the right format (say a 35 on DX, a 50 on FX), one does not notice the difference in sensor size. The viewfinder of the D700 is bigger, and it will perform better at high ISO. But as a camera, it is much the same as a D300... So be careful with that "pull", since it may steer you away from buying DX lenses, and some of the DX lenses are just very very good for what they are intended to do.</p>

<p>But, the D3000/D40 body is really quite small, and if you are used to large® SLRs, they may feel cramped. In the current Nikon line-up, I think the D90 is the nicest camera. The D300 is a better body, but price/performance, i think the D90 is the sharper offer. Next choice, to me, would be the D700, but that demands a much heftier investment (not only the body, the D700 deserves good lenses).</p>

<p>So all in all, my advice would be a D90, 16-85VR (it is better than the 18-200VR) and a 35 f/1.8. Yes, all DX, but very good performance and not too steep an investment. If the price of the 16-85VR does scare a bit, get the 18-105VR or a second hand 18-70. To me, it's the most sensible entry for an experienced person.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If you are doing this as a hobby: I agree with many here, a D90 would be min. requirements, but would do a great job with some good glass. With a tight budget, not sure the D700 will work as the budget is shot to get some nice glass (good big zoom and a prime).<br>

If you are looking to get back into the 'biz', the D700 will give you many more options down the road for many different situations. More of the investment.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Absolutely SKIP the D700. That would be the biggest mistake you could make, putting all your money into a camera body. You have no money for lenses, and that's the important thing. Lenses deterimine what you can photo, when you can photo it, and to a large extent the quality of the photo. A D700 without good lenses gives you nothing but frustration. The D90 has same sensor as the D300, but has a slower autofocus. If you like to photo sports or flying birds, the D300 has an advantage. Otherwise, I'd put the money on better lenses. For weddings, you already know you're going to need fast ones with quality. Consider the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8, or maybe a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. Next, either a Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 (used, older) or Sigma/Tamron 70-200mm f2.8. For taking photos inside of churches, it's the LENSES that are going to matter. Starting from scratch? You'll need a flash. Or two. Don't want to try doing a wedding with a pop-up flash! Your choices are a used SB-800 or a new SB-900. You could try getting buy with an older flash such as SB-28 in manual or auto mode, once you see how much new flashes are! How about a decent carbon fiber tripod and ballhead for landscapes? That will cost you some money, but for sharp landscape photos a good tripod/head is essential. Now we come to the "new" essential--software. Good choices are Photoshop Elements 7.0, Nikon Capture NX2, PS CS4 is the pro standard. These cost money but are necessary in the digital age. Finally and last, we come to the camera. Spend whatever it is you have left on that. It's at the bottom of the list. A D90 will do everything you want, without wasting money that would be better spent on the more important things I just went over. You will become frustrated MUCH more quickly with poor/inadequate lenses than you will with a less expensive camera. Trust me on that one. A fast f2.8 zoom is exactly what you need for a wedding. BTW, I shoot a D300 and am familiar with the D700. There just isn't that much difference, and cameras lose value SO fast. Lenses first. Lenses, lenses, lenses. Just as cameras have really changed the past 20 years, so have lenses. </p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'm not a semi-pro, but after using my D300 I wouldn't recommend anything less. I'm just an amateur who came from a D80 and I can feel all the advantages of using a camera like a D300. You have your most useful controls right at your finger tips and don't have to look in the endless display menu. Another thing is I'm so careful with my cameras for just a few months, after that I don't really care much about them so a strong body like a D300 is really welcome.<br>

About a D700, have the same body construction as the D300. To be honest I want one too but I'm sure you can do almost as well shooting with a D300. The FX angle of view I don't really understand it that well. The way I see it is that what you can do with a 24-70 mounted on a D700 you can also do it with a D300 and a 17-55.<br>

OK! I might be a bit ignorant but that is the way I see it. I am not talking about high ISO performance.</p>

<p>So for what you intend to use it, I think a D300 and a 17-55 AFS would do great! Cheers!</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I've been climbing the learning curve of digital SLRs for several years now. I choose the "jump in at the bottom" strategy with a D40. I made some wonderful images with it, and after 18 months had a much better idea of what I wanted. For example I didn't know when I was starting out that what I wanted was buttons for controls instead of menus. When I started I didn't know that I wanted more focus points because it gave more flexibility with spot metering. I didn't know that I wanted to rent extravagant zoom lenses, or older prime lenses, which is a bit more difficult on the D40. And I didn't know the value of auto-bracketing and mirror delay for a tripod when I was just getting started. Nevertheless, unless working fast is essential (and for me, really, it isn't) a D40 is a fine body with a lot of flexibility. However, if these kinds of details are important, then its time to move up the food chain.</p>

<p>I wanted to make better photos, so I lusted after a better camera. Last year I got a D300, and my photos didn't see a lot of improvement early on, because I didn't really appreciate that technical skills and artistic skills come from two different places, and that while the buttons and so on were handy, they we're not the road to better images. By using both the D40 and the D300, I learned that every camera has limitations, and the solution is to get the body that allows you to do what you need, not necessarily what is possible. When starting out, the line between those two points is hard to find, but experience makes it clearer. Camera marketing doesn't make things easier, either, often times over-emphasizing minor differences and sometimes making them appear more important than they really are (I'm talking to you, sensor size!).</p>

<p>At this point, I'm slowly beginning to appreciate that perhaps I want to move away from zoom lenses, as primes seem crisper, cheaper, and ultimately force changes in my shooting style that generate better images. Again, this flies in the face of marketing, which tends to value those fast pro zooms at many thousands of dollars per lens. But overall I learned from mixing the D40 with a rental of a 80-200 2.8 VR that its a great lens that gets me the image quality I desire above and beyond any other factor. When shooting a show, where I could not move around, a zoom was vital. But that was a rarity, in most cases, I can zoom with my feet or a little judicious cropping in post. The taught me that each decision a blend between what you need in a given situation, and that quality starts with the lens. I can work around a body's limitations easier than overcoming a lack of lens sharpness or its likelihood to flare.</p>

<p>Buying upmarket is always safe, because it removes limitations. I certainly sometimes wish I had a D700 because it is indeed more capable camera. That's why it always looks like a better option overall. And I guess if money were no object then go for it. However, I learned a lot also by looking at the history of digital cameras of the last few years. The D300 didn't exist when I bought the D40, and had I gotten a D200 to start, I would have taken a bath in depreciation because the D300 drove D200 prices down to earth. This happens again and again going back ten years. Lesson learned, buying more than you need today, or for the next year or two, can be a waste of money because features keep moving down the food chain as SLRs evolve. Tomorrow's midmarket camera is yesterday's top of the line flagship.</p>

<p>Overall, the best learning experiences I acquired was from renting. I learned far more about how to match my expectations to what was possible by actually using gear that I could otherwise not afford. I'm still learning, but this much I do know, what's possible with a D40 or D90 or D300 and 35mm prime is stunning compared to anything I was ever able to accomplish in the days of film cameras.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Can understand how you feel - and only you can really sort this out. <br /> Now, given what you intend to shoot, I don't see how you can be happy with the 18-200 for long; certainly a nice travel lens - but weddings, landscape, close-up?<br /> I recently upgraded my lenses to constant f/2.8 glass, specifically Tokina 11-16/2.8 and Nikon 17-55/2.8 - the cost new for both would be around $1800. Add a D300/D300s - or maybe just a D90 (wouldn't step below that, especially considering the wedding part) - that's another $1000-$1800. Then perhaps a Sigma 50-150/2.8 or a Nikon 80-200/2.8 - another $1K or so. And for the close-ups a 60/2.8 or 105/2.8.<br /> I did have a look at the FX alternative - which would have been 24-70/2.8 and either 17-35/2.8 or 14-24/2.8 plus a D700 - that's $6K+ vs less than $4K for D300/11-16/17-55 - too rich for me.<br /> Many people suggest to purchase FX glass even if one has a DX camera - mostly to be ready for the inevitable upgrade of the camera body to FX; for example, get the 24-70 instead of the 17-55 DX. The break at 24mm between my 12-24 and 24-85 was one of the reasons I upgraded - it just didn't work for me and I constantly had to change lenses.</p>

<p>BTW, I think Kent's suggestions are right on the money.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have a D90 and it's a great camera, and just as capable as a D300 in most areas except for using non-AF lenses, the robustness of body construction, frame rate and the more advanced AF system.</p>

<p>If you plan to shoot weddings, it's the AF system that's going to make the D300 the right choice for you - working inside and in lower light, it's more sensitive and quicker and will definitely do a better job on things like tracking dancing guests at the reception.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have two DX cameras--a D300 and D50. Both produce better images, in lower light that my film Nikons ever did (IMO). It I was shoot pro--every day I might consider FF--but then I probably would want the D3 for durability. I regularly have photos published that were shot with DX bodies --even full color book dust jackets. Most photographers won't do work where they truly "need" full frame--its more a matter of "want." But if you can afford it, go for it.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Im stunned at the quality and quantity of advice offered above, thanks everybody, would like to thank and comment on each post but impractical to do so.<br>

Suffice to say that Im starting to form a stronger gut feeling about the best set up for me right now and when Ive digested all this properly shall report back! Im feeling a bit more confused over glass though.. seems to be a big mix of opinions here!<br>

Thanks again everyone!</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>A footnote to the glass issue: lenses hold their value much MUCH better than bodies, so its a forgiving choice.</p>

<p>Mistakes or changes are easily rectified by selling the lens you have and buying the lens you want. With a lot of patience, I've built a kit almost entirely from used lenses, each of which can be sold in the next several years for the same or slightly more than what I paid. I get use of the lenses, supplement it with rentals, and learn a lot in the process.</p>

<p>With lenses more than any other element of photography gear, you get what you pay for.</p>

<p>Moreover, the lens choice is informed by the output intentions. Shooting for a video monitor is a lot more forgiving than shooting for print, especially larger prints.</p>

<p>Also, post production is a factor. If you're like me, a near-infinte amount of time can be spent optimizing for print after its shot, a luxury that pros generally do not have. They have to get it 100% right in the camera.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have a D90 and love it. I don't know why you feel you'll need FX in the future, if you do, then get the D700 and be done with it. If professional is important and weddings a possibility, think about the dual card aspect of the D300s.</p>

<p>All that said. I would agree that lenses are important, but the rest of the stuff is most important. Get a "great" tripod that meets your needs with a top-notch quick release system. Get light stands and reflectors. I'd forget Nikon flash stuff, I'd get a Quantum or Lumadyne (there are others to look at) for location work and a power pack and strobes for studio work. Get seamless backdrops - I've never had a frabic backdrop become obsolete or fail. If you plan on working with businesses, you'll probably need to and want to shoot portraits, so plan for that. For commercial close-ups and stills, I'd look at used prime macros, great resolution for the money, and in the studio you have time to deal with manual everything.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>My suggestion....<strong>rent </strong> the different bodies and lenses you are interested in, work with them for a weekend and see what you like and what your results are. Pick a body based on what you like. You might like the D90 for its size and weight or you might like a D300 for the construction and manual controls. Don't count the D90 out because it isn't a "pro" camera as many pros are using the D90 especially when they travel.<br /> <br /> I <strong>rent </strong> lenses all the time. $40 (£25) to rent a lens for a day (2 days if I rent on Saturday) is much cheaper than what it costs to buy the lens, especially if it is a lens that I need for a certain situation but sit in the camera bag the rest of the time. I only own lenses that I use often, anything else I rent.<br /> <br /> Another thing to consider. Lenses are a much better investment; they hold their value. Camera bodies seem to get outdated fairly quickly with digital and they don't hold their value. If I was on a tight budget I would spring for a couple of good lenses first, as it would be likely that I may be trading my camera body in down the road anyways.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...