Upgrade: Lenses before Digicam

<p>I have been reading many posts here, and people always seem to favor upgrading lenses before body (unless the slr is from 3+ years sort of speak)<br>

I am using a D60 with Nikkors:<br>

12-24,<br>

35 afs,<br>

50D,<br>

55 3.5 micro ai,<br>

and 70-300vr.<br>

I do portrait of my son, lots of sport photog and birding (will like more reach than 300mm handheldable and subject background separation if possible )<br>

I have been saving for the D7000, hoping that the possibilities to crop will do wonder.<br>

(ex: 70-300vr+D7000 = maybe 10 mp digicam + 80-400 af)<br>

In this situation, will D90+80-400af more tempting than D7000?<br>

Or even, will D60+70-200vr a choice (this is a better financial investment)<br>

We will be going to West Africa (Senegal) next year, and I will visit a bird and wild life sanctuaries (small safari).<br>

Which route, do you think is more favorable?<br>

Shun, I know from reading posts here that you used D300 +300 2.8 afs, and also D7000 + 300 2.8 afs. Do the increase in mp a big plus for cropping pictures?</p>

<p>Thanks in advance, and merry Christmas or Happy holidays to you and yours</p>

<p>Moussa -</p>

<p>While I also favor upgrading lenses before camera bodies, I believe you will benefit greatly from upgrading your D60. (by all means, keep your D60 as a backup though)</p>

<p>I do not do much birding, but I do shoot sports and can say that 300mm is more than enough if you plan on shooting handheld with a crop sensor camera. The only reason to go longer would be for baseball if your son is an outfielder. I shoot plenty of sports with my 70-200mm VR I and 300mm f/4. I will strongly suggest a tripod for the 300mm as there is no VR.</p>

<p>Since you are also trying to separate your subject from the background, I would suggest reading more about depth of field and practicing how to get what you are looking for. You can get great subject separation with either the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR or the 300mm f/4. What is the determining factor is how far from the subject you are and how far the background is from the subject. Since you have the 70-300mm VR already I'll use it as an example. Your maximum aperture at 300mm should be f/5.6...quite adequate for subject separation if you are within 150 feet of your subject...(8 feet in front of and 9 feet behind your focal plane). The 300mm f/4 brings you down to 5.8 feet in front and 6.5 feet behind...only 4 feet shallower DOF.</p>

<p>Having said all this, I would definitely look first into a new body, and, ONLY if your budget warrants it, a new lens. I have no real world experience with the D7000, only some test shots taken at my local shop. It looks like it performs well...at least as well as the D300s, if not as well as the D700 for stills. I do doubt that at anything smaller than an 11x17 you would notice any difference between the D7000, D300, or the D90. I believe you will appreciate the AF system in the D7000 if you are shooting sports. It is much better than the D90, but not on par with the D300. The major difference you will notice between the D700 and D7000 is the DOF, which is greater for the D700. I did not play with the video feature, so I will not comment on that.</p>

<p>Which camera to upgrade to is entirely up to you...I would suggest looking for a used or refurbished D300/s or the D7000 due to my experience with a D90 (the AF system in particular). If you are set on upgrading a lens, I would first look at a 300mm f/4 and then look into the 80-400mm. I would strongly suggest a tripod or monopod for both of these lenses and definitely a new tripod foot for the 300mm f/4.</p>

<p>I hope this helps and doesn't make things more confusing.</p>

<p>RS</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Shun, I know from reading posts here that you used D300 +300 2.8 afs, and also D7000 + 300 2.8 afs. Do the increase in mp a big plus for cropping pictures?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As Thom Hogan would tell you, if you use a high-pixel DSLR in order to do more cropping, you should start with a longer lens to begin with.</p>

<p>The difference between 12MP and 16MP is almost negligible. The D7000 is slightly more demaning on the quality of the optics due to its desnse pixels.</p>

<p>I would stay away from the 80-400mm VR lens if you shoot sports. When it was first introduced 10 years ago, I tried it in a camera store and immediately realized that its AF was slow. Now a decade later, AF-S is a lot more popular. I wonder why Nikon has not added AF-S and newer VR onto this lens a couple of years back. Its upgrade is way overdue.</p>

<p>unless you are on a dedicated safari excursion, 70-200 VR will be cumbersome. you can essentially forget about street shooting and casual candids with that lens. plus, it may draw undue attention. inside a bird sanctuary, it's a different story, however.</p>

<p>70-300 VR, OTOH, is a better all-around travel lens, plus you already own it. you are kind of in a bind if you want more length or better subject isolation, as you've reached the cutoff point of consumer lenses. to get to 400mm will require more investment, whether you go for a 300/2.8+TC, 300/4+TC or 80-400. whether that investment and lugging a heavy, specialized lens around is worth it to you is enirely subjective.</p>

<p>looking at your kit, i'd consider adding a zoom in-between 12-24 and 70-300 for less overall lens switching, such as the 18-105 VR, a 24-85, or one of the third-party 2.8 zooms. IMO shooting with mainly primes when traveling is an inconvenient way to do it.</p>

<p>as for upgrading, unless there are specific features you want from a newer camera other than more MP, i would probably stick to the d60 and buy glass first. 10mp may not give you much latitude for crops, but it should be good enough for large 16x20 prints.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think the question is, will you need longer than 300? I would probably not go SHORTER. I think the 70-300 is a fine lens and I am guessing you'll have plenty of light in Africa, and the f5.6 at the long end will not be a real issue. It has pretty fast AF. I trust Shun on his comments on the 80-400, I have not used it myself, but it does not seem a wise investment. Which leaves you with the 300 f/4, unless you have a few $1000's to spend more. I had the older AF-D version of the 300 f/4 and it was OK but not superb. You'd gain one stop over what you already have and lose flexibility.</p>

<p>Which I think leaves you with upgrading the camera body. Both D90 and D7000 will be a big step up from the D60, particular in terms of ISO, so I'd say it makes sense (I think you can shoot both comfortably at ISO 800 if needed, not sure that can be said for the D60). They also have much better fps.<br>

<br />Personally, I'd say D7000 if you can afford it.</p>

<p>Here is my conclusion after reading yours comments:<br>

Richard : you are right on target to suggest that a new camera with improved af will help big time on sport photog.<br>

Shun: Nice quote, you confirmed what I was thinking of from the beginning that for birding I have to look for maybe a 300 f4 afs + tc, and as you suggested I will steer away form the 80-400.<br>

Eric: your suggestion of a light travel kit and standard zoom lens between 24 and 70 make sense for traveling.<br>

Benjamin: you are probably right that 300mm should be enough for the trip.</p>

<p>Summary: Definitely upgrade the camera body; I’m leaning toward the D7000, but first I will get the standard zoom. The 16-85 is the perfect zoom range but 5.6 is very limiting. Any suggestion for the standard zoom is welcomed. Thanks</p>

<p>Moussa,</p>

<p>I've had a D60, and I have a D7000 (with a few other 'budget' Nikon bodies between). Although generally buying glass is important, I think you already have a nice collection of glass, and the D60 (although it's a great camera) is your weakest link for what you're trying to do. The 70-300 is a decent (but perhaps not super spectacular) lens for birds in flight.</p>

<p>The D7000 will help immensely. The D90: probably will only help a little bit. I've tried to shoot birds in flight with a D60 before... it's immensely challenging. You have only 3 autofocus points, and significant shutter lag. You only get 3 FPS (the D90 is only marginally better here). It's hard to crank up ISO without introducing some ugly noise.</p>

<p>With the D7000, you'll have tons of autofocus points, 3D-tracking, 6FPS, and you can easily crank up ISO to get the speed you need. This will make more of a difference for wildlife than upgrading over your 70-300.</p>

<p>EDIT: My caveat to this is, the D7000 is an expensive camera. When you go to Africa with this sort of gear, never leave it out of arms reach. From the moment you get to the airport in your home country, until you arrive back at that airport, don't let your camera gear out of sight.</p>