D300 or 17-55/2.8??

[tisbone]

hi, I'm looking for a piece of advice - I'm going pro and have a limited budget

to spend on gear. I have a d200 and 18-70dx + tamron 28-75/2.8 for the wide to

mid range. I can afford either a d300 body or a 17-55/2.8 lens. What do you

guys suggest to get (I mainly look at shooting available light weddings and

general journalism and need lower noise+good sharpness) - will a brighter/

sharper wide lens or a less noisy body and active d-lighting do better? Anyone

got any experience with such setup? Maybe you can recommend another, similarily

priced zoom lens (18mm or wider)? Thanks!

[Rene11664880918]

If that was me going pro I would go for the 17-55. I don't think the 18-70 is up to the job.

I'm sure your D200 will do and later on you can jump on the D300 but to start I'm sure the

piece of glass is more important!

 

Rene'

[pete_s.]

As a pro you need two bodies. So unless you have another one there isn't much choice is there?

 

Peter

[dwight200]

I'd concentrate on the glass, which is applicable to any body in the long run. You can upgrade the body later and have the best of both worlds.

 

If you're going pro, I'd think about upgrading to the D3 eventually rather than the D300, so start saving your dollars (not just pennies). The D3 will provide you with a really significant upgrade to your body and as a pro you will be able to justify the expense once you have an income stream.

[dan_k6]

I can definitely tell you that if you're not careful with the D200, it gets noisy at 400. I never like my prints at 800 on my D200. I hear most people say that if you already own the D200 it's not really wise to sell it for a D300 (assuming your still a non-pro who). I played around with a D300 the other week and it has some neat features. But I still would not drop my D200 to buy one.

 

The 18-70 seems to be a pretty decent lens. The 17-55 just overlaps that range. I don't think image quality would be that different on a print. The 17-55 is built very strong and you could shoot it at 2.8 if you like. Being that you already own the 18-70, I don't know if $1200 for an overlapping lens is worth it.

 

Do you have any flash equipment? I would invest some money in a flash , a bracket, and maybe a turbo pack.

 

If you're interested in wedding work, good high ISO performance, and better DR...why not look into a Fuji S5 Pro. You would definitely see an improvement there.

[ron_hiner2]

I sold my D2x for a song... there are tons out there at unbelievable prices. I would never hire a wedding photog that only brings one camera to the gig. Get a D2x, and use the D200 as your backup.

 

With the cash you save, get a 50mm 1.4 -- 2.8 is not very fast in the world of 'available light weddings'. When your are sucessfull, then move up to the 85 1.4 and then a D300 or better.

[ilkka_nissila]

I don't think D2X can be purchased at a price which is competitive with the D300.

[joe_a2]

Then you haven't shopped the used market lately! D2X bodies are going for $1200 or so. D200 bodies are around $900.

[kevin_swan1]

<I>"I'm going pro and have a limited budget to spend on gear."</I>

 

<P>That's kind of an oxymoron, isn't it?

 

<P><I>"I mainly look at shooting available light weddings"</I>

 

<P>As Peter said, if you're going to charge people money to photograph their weddings, you absolutely <b>need</b> a second body. That said, you also need the 17-55 f/2.8. And the 70-200 f/2.8. And a pair of Speedlights (although strictly speaking, you don't need 2 SB-800's - you could get away with 1 SB-800 and 1 SB-600). You'll also need at least 1 spare battery for each camera body, and 12 - 16 GB of flash memory (preferably in 2GB cards, no bigger). A very fast prime (50 f/1.4 or 85 f/1.4) for low-light situations would also be highly recommended.

 

<P>If you can't/won't afford those items as a bare minimum, then you shouldn't really be charging people to photograph their weddings. No offense intended, just trying to provide some insight as to what's really involved if you're serious about going "pro."

[kevin_swan1]

<B>Dwight</b> wrote: <I>"If you're going pro, I'd think about upgrading to the D3 eventually rather than the D300"</I>

 

<P>I disagree. The D300 is virtually identical to the D3 in every respect, except for 2 factors: sensor-size and weather sealing. The sensor size issue is pretty much irrelevant, and the seals on the D300 are already pro-quality. Unless you plan on shooting weddings in the rain every weekend, the D3 is overkill. Just get a D300 with the battery grip, and you get all the same features (Active D-Lighting, 3D focus tracking, sensor cleaner, huge LCD, crazy-fast burst mode... everything). The D300 is extremely capable of shooting pro jobs in all but the most extreme environments.

 

<P><B>Daniel</b> wrote: <I>"The 18-70 seems to be a pretty decent lens. The 17-55 just overlaps that range. I don't think image quality would be that different on a print."</I>

 

<P>If I'm not mistaken, the 18-70 is an f/3.5-4.5 lens, isn't it? That's not nearly fast enough to shoot indoor events, particularly since the original poster specifically mentioned he wants to shoot "mainly available light weddings." The 18-70 is a decent general-purpose lens, but would be hopelessly inadequate to handle available light events indoors, and nobody selling themselves as a "pro" would ever consider using it at a paid event. It doesn't even have VR! The 17-55 costs way more, because it's worth it. It's a constant 2.8 aperture lens with pro-level build quality and performance.

 

<P><B>Ron</B> wrote: <I>"Get a D2x, and use the D200 as your backup."</I>

 

<P>The D300 is a superior camera to the D2x in all but one way: rugged build quality. The D2 series (like the D1 and D3) is designed to take a lot of abuse. In terms of performance, however, the D300 has superior image processing, ISO performance, autofocus algorithms, and many other things that make a big difference to an event photographer working in a fast-paced environment. I agree that the poster absolutely needs 2 cameras, but I would suggest a D300 as his main body, and either a used D200 as his backup, or even a D70/D80. No need to blow the bank on a technically-inferior camera.

[Two23]

The newspaper photographers in my town are still using a D1! Their glass is top notch of course. They also have plenty of flash when needed. I agree with both thoughts of a backup D200 body (used) and a 17-55mm f2.8 lens. To save a little money, isn't the Tamron 17-55mm f2.8 supposedly pretty good? Current lens line up clearly isn't up to the job.

 

 

Kent in SD

[elliot1]

Joe, where can I get a D2X for $1200?

[ShunCheung]

As a lot of people have pointed out, if you shoot weddings professionally, you'll need at least two camera bodies, preferably three (or more) so that you have backups. (But they don't have to be a D300 or D3.) You should have multiple flashes, backup lenses, etc.

 

The D300 is considerably better than the D200 under low-light conditions, because of the D300's superior high-ISO performance and much better AF. The D200's AF has a much stronger tendency to hunt indoors.

[joe_a2]

Elliot: You can get a D2x for $1200 (or a D200 for $900) on Cra***list or eB**.

 

And I agree with Kevin and others. A pro needs two bodies, better glass than a D70 Kit Lens, and a good flash or two. I'd use two D200 bodies so my backup is more than weight in my bag. I'd shoot the 17-35/17-55 on one body, and an 80-200/70-200VR on the other.

[aaron l]

Eliot, I just checked the two usual sale sites and the D2X really are selling for cheap than a new D200. Wow.

 

Dude, you had better have 2 bodies, 2 flashes and 2 comparable lenses. When the bride is walking down the aisle and your camera takes a dump, you want to be able to pick up your spare that is hot and on and keep shooting without missing a beat.

[jose_angel]

I usually prefer to invest on lenses, but my advice is to buy a D300. It will be a major upgrading than investing on a 17-55.

 

I used to use a D200+17-55, now I`m using D3+D300. IMHO the D300 is worth by itself without the 17-55. I wonder if it makes sense to shot weddings without flash... it is unthinkable to me. Perhaps a few, informal shots. I`m not an artist or creative, thought. I think many users overestimate the quality of images produced by good high ISO performance.

 

IMHO the D300 is good enough for wedding pro work. Now, we are immersed on a foolish high ISO obsession, like the Mpixel obsession in the past. Roughly, the D3 is an improved D300 on a pro-more refined body with a few added features. As a D300 user, I first like on the D3 the FF lens posibilities, then things like that CF double slot, back controls position (ergonomics); high ISO performance is great, but not a must for me. All this is $3000+ over the D300. Those who need that high ISO benefit couldn`t live without a D3, but for -most- tasks the D300 is equally capable.

[paul stewart]

Instead of buying a Nikon 17-50 F2.8, get the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 which is comparable in quality (at least) and is a 1/4 of the price. Then look for a 2nd body like a D50 (if possible) for the low noise.

[hughes]

Daniel

 

Don't go and blow all your money before you make a dime. But the least thing you should do is buy yourself a used D70 or similar as backup for a few hundred that is crucial. Then why not start working, make some money gain some experience and decide for youself how you equipment is limiting you.

I'm sure none of these guys can tell the difference between images taken with a 18-70 or 17-55 yet the cost difference is huge why not wait and see from experience what you need then you can make the right investment.

Frankly saying there is a minimum amount of equipment needed to turn pro is absurd the most important peice of equipment you already have it's on top of your shoulders.

 

good luck

 

Steve

[tisbone]

<p>thanks for the big response! I didn't want to write too much, so I narrowed the question to what bothers me. I do have a backup body (d50 that will be replaced by d80, aside to my d70-IR), and do have/will get enough strobes, a 70-200vr and a fast prime.. </P>

<p>And I plan (dream of..?) eventually upgrading to D3 (or whatever flagship by that time) as my profit flows... </P>

<p>Of course, I don't plan to not use flash at all, but there's usually not enough flash setup possibility at churches to get a decent shot, and on-camera, unbounced flash is just not what one hires a 'real' photographer for. </P>

<p>I tried out both (17-55 and d300) today and it seems that the lens is a more urgent upgrade.. I'll have to take a closer look at the tamron, I don't remember knowing about this lens.. maybe I can afford that and d300 :) </P>

<p>It was good to know your opinions anyway. thanks again!

[tisbone]

Steve - I actually agree with Kevin Swan.</p>

<p>starting a business like this, trying to be serious, without any experience or knowing the equipment is what makes me sad.. I'm perfectly aware of my and my gear's possibilities and limitations and I'm actually trying to beat a few of those "hey,-how-about-I-start-taking-pictures-and-charge-people-for-it"-photographers out of the market.. I'm amazed how many of them are out there and how crappy pictures they produce as people's only memory of an important day. And the thing is, that I see a difference between pictures taken with 18-70 and 17-55, and I have to work more on denoising/sharpening to get it to my liking..</P>

<p>p.s. I don't want to blow MY money :) There's a business initiative support program I can get some money from and I'll have to spend it on gear needed to start my own business :)</P>

<p>and I can't let you say that about D70 ;) I just really love this camera.. it just gets better these days

[hughes]

Daniel

 

That should read the first thing you should do or at the least that's what you should get I agree a D70 is a great camera.. My advice is don't be seduced by the big pro glass I think a fantastic shot with an 18-70 will trump a mediocre one with the 17-55mm any time but what the better glass does it gives you a better chance of making great shots,you seem very sensible and I think you have the right attitude.

 

Steve

[niccoury]

I'm a pro PJ, and I'd go with the lens over the camera.

 

I'm also on a very strict budget until I start getting my paychecks and actually saving them

from the newspaper.

 

Older Dslr's with pro lenses work better than a pro body with amatuer-ish lenses.

[tisbone]

I decided to add a little to the whole deal and go for Tamron 17-50/2.8 + D300. I think this will sum up in the best performance upgrade - I'll have a faster, less noisy body and a faster lens, the sharpness difference between nikkor and tamron isn't worth the price difference, and I don't expect to kill the lens physically real fast.. I tend to try to care for them ;)

[paul stewart]

Glad to see you have gone for the Tamron / D300 combination.

 

Steve - there is a very real difference that is immediately obvious when you take pictures with the Tamron compared to the 18-70. And I have found that I need to do far less pp now I use the Tamron.

[robert_dodson]

I would definitely add a 50mm 1.4 ($250).