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

[photo_dark]

I think a lot of people here have hit it on the head... Looking at your website and portfolio, you have a really good selection of images... I think you would find that the D300 will take you to the next level... Not that the images will necessarily be 'better', but it will be a more efficient and higher quality tool to help you to take better images.

 

Considering your style, the 70-200 is probably a pretty good bet long term, although you may find the 24-70 f2.8 to be a little bit more useful for portraits, and people-photography in general (with the crop sensor factor taken into account)... I have both (canon versions albeit) and I find the 24-70 to be the better focal length for portrait work. It's really up for discussion though, and it will probably be worth your while to rent both once you have your new camera to better decide what is best suited to your style.

 

The 85 prime, in the meantime, should fill the 'portrait' role just fine... as your pictures attest.

[robert_clark]

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

 

I did, and I hated the squinty little viewfinder of the D300. If I were taking natural light portraits, I'd want to be able to really evaluate light and expression through the viewfinder. I don't even think the 5D viewfinder is great (not compared to good SLR's) but it's streets ahead of the Nikon.

 

Yes, I know the Nikon has more 'toys for boys' appeal with the latest gagetry to appeal to that mentality. But the Canon will give an image that will enlarge more (so good for cropping), a clearer sight of what you are taking, and enough specification to do anything you want in the field of portraiture. It will also let you work in dimmer light - sometimes important for dramatic effect.

[robert_clark]

The 5D, with fast lenses, will also give you greater depth of field control than any APS sensor camera.

[eric_arnold]

valerie, the image you posted looks a bit overexposed. otherwise, it's a teriffic

shot. :)

 

working on your technique is probably the best advice you could get, although it

may not be what you want to hear.

 

having gone from a d80 to a d300 myself, i can understand the temptation to

upgrade. however, i already had the fast glass i needed to get the most out of it,

so the choice was perhaps easier for me.

 

is your only lens the 85 (i'm guessing you have the 1.8, not a f/2)? what about

wide angle and medium-range? $1700 is a lot of cash and could really go along

way toward expanding your kit which would allow you to do more things with your

photography.although you want a D300, i'm not sure you need one

 

i guess what i'm saying is i would consider doing none of the above: no 70-200, no

d300 and certainly no 5d, unless you have an additional $1K for canon lenses.

 

$1700 would get you a used low-actuation d200 and 5fps for about $8-$900, which

is pretty good considering it was $1600 before the D300 came out.

 

that leaves about $8-$900 for glass. if outdoors natural light portraits are your

thing, i'd think about the following lenses:

 

*nikkor 50/1.4 or 50/1.8

 

*nikkor 35/2 or sigma 30/1.4

 

*tokina 11-16/2.8 (this would be possible, along with the D200 if you scooped the

35 and the 50/1.8, instead of the 1.4s)

 

here's the rationale: if you're mainly doing portraiture, you don't really need a

zoom. a 35-50-85 fast prime kit would be fairly optimal for your purposes, since

composition is more important than versatility. plus with a D50/D200 combo you

could leave a 'normal' prime on one and the tele on the other, or go with a wide/tele

combo, or a wide/normal combo, etc..

 

the 85 is a great lens, but it's pretty long on a DX sensor. adding the 30/35 and the

50 would help with group shots and other cases where the 85 has too much reach.

and the 11-16 would greatly expand your perspective--literally--while still retaining

low/natural light ability.

 

i can see where an increase in fps would help you, but unless you're shooting

sports or birds, 5fps should be plenty for active kids. the D200 is still a 'pro'

camera, and even if you got the D300, you'd still only have one prime, at a

somewhat limiting focal length, for it.

[jose_angel]

Eric, I think she refers to the 85/2, manual focus Ai or AiS.

[elliot1]

Valerie, beautiful shot, as are the shots on your website.

 

Again, I want to preface the following by stating I am not a big fan of the D50. And I know how easy it is to spend other people's money.

 

If you want to save your money and keep using your D50... You can make beautiful 16 x 20 shots with the D50. You will have to rework the files a little (upsize) or find a lab that can 'fix' the file for you (most do), but you likely will not see much, if any of a difference between a D300 file and the D50 file unless you are shooting at higher ISOs, and even then a good noise reduction program will even the playing field.

 

"it's limiting because I have to nail the exposure and composition or they look bad."

 

This is true of any camera. Shoot RAW and you won't have as much of an issue if you don't nail the exposure.

 

I agree with Dennis, your pictures will look great regardless of the camera you use.

 

I also agree with Charles that the D300 is an appropriate upgrade for you because of your obvious advanced skill level. If you can afford it, go for it. I can't image any lens improving your shots - they seem perfect to me and others.

 

Now, regarding 5D comments (negative ones are usually made be photographers that don't own and/or regularly use one):

 

I agree with Robert's comments. In fact, except for indoor flash photography, I typically grab my 5D in spite of the fact that it doesn't have anywhere near the bells and whistles of the D300. It has the one thing I really need, exceptional IQ and consistent dead-on exposure.

 

Valerie, I suggest, if you can, get a D300 body and a 5D with an 85mm lens - try them out for yourself under actual working conditions.

[lad_lueck]

In which way is the D300 *CLEARLY* better than the 5D? - Possibly more accurate, faster AF, certainly more AF points to chose from.

 

In which way is the 5D *CLEARLY* better than the D300? - Certainly thinner DOF, certainly better noise characteristics in dim light, certainly more dynamic range.

 

The only question you need to answer is: what limitations do you face with your current equipement, that will *certainly* be solved by buying one of the above cameras. The only clear difference that *I* can see is that you can get thinner DOF with the 5D. Do you NEED it?

[josephwalsh]

Valerie,

I'm detecting some:

 

"A D50 is good enough for a girl shooting pictures of kids. Why doncha get yourself a used 85 to 100mm f8 zoom lens and see if ya like it."

 

You are a professional shooting professional level work. The D300 and the 70-200 2.8 are two tools that are suitable for the type of work you do.

[temi-tade]

I would get a d80, one of the 80-200/2.8s and a 50 1.4

 

The d80 viewfinder is a big improvement over the d50.

[eric_glass]

Dear Miss Valerie,

I love doing portraits myself and, I can understand your wanting to upgrade to

another camera. I myself have been dragging my feet to upgrade to a newer

camera... (I still use my old Digi Rebel). I like the idea of expanding your lenses.

You will always be purchasing cameras for a long time, the lens is an investment,

and can bring new avenues to your particular style. What I am saying is; if you

want to spend that amount of cash, find the best piece of glass for your work.

Do you shoot in RAW? When I switched to that format, my Digi Rebel didn't

suck so much anymore. In fact, I will never shoot in JPEG again, I hate it. The

creative freedom of RAW surpasses my personal dislike of my old Digi Rebel. ( I

will be upgrading this summer to the 40D).

Zooms are a very touchy subject for some people. I just purchased my first one

this month (70-200mm f4 L). I bought it because, I ALWAYS use prime lenses.

And i needed some length for a shoot coming up; other than that, I would have

never purchased it. Unless you are shooting handheld in a poorly lit place, I

personally feel you do not need the 70-200mm 2.8 VR. (Although, it is a pretty

sweet lens.. and that's coming from a diehard Canon lover!)

I fell in love with my Sigma 30mm f 1.4. That is my workhorse as of right now

and; it sucked to compromise the extra F stops for length. I know I will rock that

lens (70-200mm f4) with my Digi Rebel and it will be even sweeter when I upgrade

next month.

I am looking at the B&H catalog right now and I see that you have the

awesome option of getting one of the Zeiss lenses (manual focus) for your

camera? If they work, get one of those! I also own a Hasselblad and absoultly

LOVE the Zeiss glass on that sucker. Just a thought...

Hope I helped a little bit! Happy shopping!!

-E-

[ned1]

I have the 70-200. I have the 85/2.0. After a while the 70-200 got too damned heavy and now I mostly use the 85/2.0.

 

Have you considered a 105 Defocus Control lens?

[mark_audacity_romberg]

Big imaging surface > smaller imaging surface. Always. No question.

[bruce_stenman1]

For portraits under the conditions you encounter and using the D300, which will also enable off camera flash so you do not have to rely 100% on ambient light all the time, a good lens to consider is the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 or the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 lens which at $350 is a great value and a very good lens.

 

Quite a few wedding photographers prefer the Tamron to the less reliable Canon 24-70mm f2.8 lens.

[correct_exposure]

First, your exposures seem somewhat off. You should learn how to use spot

metering b/c it's

the most accurate metering on a camera. Try these techniques before you buy

anything.

 

http://www.spotmetering.com/

 

Second, always remember, bring the right tools for the job. Can you make

portraits with a crop body? Yes, of course you can. However, you are being paid

now and clients are asking for 16x20 prints. If you need to crop etc. it can be

tricky, but done. So, I've read all the pros for the D300, D200 and even D80.

These are all crop bodies which will by physics alone give you deeper DOF. Your

images will all look the same as your current D50. So, you think a 70-200 zoom

could solve the problem. To a degree it could, but that's a heavy lens, is it not?

And it's no longer as useful for portraits b/c of the crop factor, in my view of course.

 

BOKEH, BOKEH, BOKEH with the Canon 5D can not be matched by ANY crop

body on earth. Being that it is also the smallest, lightest and cheapest full frame

Dslr on the planet, how can you not buy it for PAID work. Rent it with a 135L

prime b/c that's the same angle of view as your D50 and 85 f2 combo. Put them

on a tripod and shoot whatever you want, and you will see the difference easily.

That's the different level of IQ a full frame body brings to the 35mm format. Yes, I

know, the 135L costs almost 1K. So try the 100 f/2 or 85 f/1.8 for 400 bucks and

50 f/1.4 for 300 and a wide angle zoom. Also, remember the viewfinder is 50%

larger than a crop viewfinder. And what's the first thing you do when you pick up a

camera - put it to your eye. Drop in a high precision focusing screen for manual

focus ($35) in low light, and bingo focus snaps into place.

 

It's okay to have brand loyalty, but, when you're getting PAID - the right tools for

the job are paramount.

 

Check out Bob Atkins review of a full frame BOKEH result vs crop at the same

angle of view under Normal lenses (half way down the page).

 

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/eos_5D_vs_eos_40D.html

 

Eric A. had some great advice about additional prime lenses that could work with

your current setup. Robert C. and Elliot B also shared some great advice. Good

luck to you and know that you have very nice pics on your site. :)

[vrphoto]

Wow--I didn't realize you'd all give me so many different ways to look at this. And I had kind of ruled out the Canon, but those pictures on the bobatkins site showing the difference in DOF and bokeh (I hear the Canon 85mm is one of the best lenses ever made and I've seen amazing pics with it and it is $350-ish) are really amazing.

 

If anyone is following this, some questions have been asked of me:

 

I do use RAW and it's saved my skin with regards to exposure, especially. But I'm actually learning about using a white-balance card and a color histogram to make my exposures spot-on enough to use jpg, but I still can't picture shooting jpg on a portrait session. (That's another subject, so please just keep to the one at hand).

 

I also have the 50mm f1.8 and the kit 18-55 lenses. But I find that I mostly use the 85mm for sessions unless space gets tight and then go to the 50mm. I use the kit lens when I want to get more of a wide angle, but only for the wide end usually.

 

And thanks for all the info and encouragement. If there are more comments, please feel free to post them:)

[vrphoto]

Also, thanks for the other lens suggestions. I will definitely look into them. I am looking for the best bokeh out there.

 

And the comment about being able to use the wireless flash system Nikon includes on pretty much everything but the camera I own, is a plus.

[ShunCheung]

Valerie, if you need really shallow depth of field, you can always buy a 50mm/f1.4 or 85mm/f1.4 lens on a DX camera. Be careful with what you wish, though. With such shallow depth of field, your portrait may have one eye in focus but the other eye not; that may or may not be the effect you want. (Such shallow depth of field in a portrait bothers me to no end, but that is just me.) The background blur may look great in a theoretical comparison in Bob Atkins' web site; in an actual portrait with a subject, there are other serious effects on the main parts of your image.

 

Additionally, in this digital and PhotoShop era, it is trivial to increase background blur in post processing.

 

The Canon 5D is cheap now because it is an out of date camera whose upgrade is over due. With a 5D, you'll be stuck with 3 frames/sec and a fairly old AF system that is no longer used even in sub-$1000 Canon DSLRs such as the 40D. It is probably still great for landscape and architecture. If you have some kids running round, you'll notice the 5D's limitations quickly.

[link]

Valerie,

 

At the risk of confusing you more....

 

I bought the Canon 5d a few months ago. I needed it to shoot some still photographs on a

movie set. The portrait size photos from my 100mm f2.0 were perfect and extremely

sharp, even wide open. At wide open, if you zoom in, you can see the eyeball in focus,

but the lashes are just going soft. It can be a great look, just make sure to get the correct

eyeball in focus as you won't get both at f2.0

 

I would not have gotten involved in this discussion, but when you mentioned 16x20 prints

I thought that you might just consider the 5D for the image quality that the full frame

sensor will give you. You know, it won't be sooooo dramatic a difference, but it will be

there and visible at 16x20 inch prints. I also think that the 100mm focal length is a very

good portrait size for full frame cameras, though the style now a days is to use longer

lenses. For my taste the longer lenses make me feel like I'm looking at the person though

a telescope instead of a camera. But that's just my opinion.

 

I think the only way so solve your dilemma is to actually try out the camera/lenses in a

photo session that's similar to the way you would normally work. So go to the camera

store and see if they'll rent you the different set ups, and apply the rental toward the

purchase of one of them. Otherwise you're just listening to a bunch of busy bodies (like

me) being know-it-alls on the internet. Ultimately, I don't know if the image quality

differences between any of these set ups will effect your sales (they're gonna be closer

than you expect). Maybe the most important thing is to have the biggest lens to impress

the clients (I"m not really kidding). Personally I just use a big lens shade...

[tachion]

<p>First, I respect Bob and I think he writes nice articles. I donﾒt want to start a big

argument here, but I think there is a problem with Bobﾒs calculationsﾅﾅ

</p><p>

First, let's not get into this brand versus that brand, since it really is all about the

same. The issue brought up if <b>DOF</b> on a crop (read APS-C factor, with

about a 1.5x crop factor) versus full frame (as in a 35mm frame).

</p><p>

If your FF camera is 12MP, you would use a circle of confusion around 0.025mm, or

25microns (Bob uses 29.5) with a portrait lens, a 105mm/2.8 wide open, 2 meters

from your subject, your DOF is 0.048m, or 4.8cm.

</p><p>

If you use a DX camera with 12MP, you would use a circle of confusion around

0.016mm or 16microns (Bob uses 18.45microns), to account for the smaller sensor

size and smaller pixel size. For portraits, you would use a different lens, the 85/2

would do well. Again, your subject is 2 meters from you, but now at f/2.8 your DOF

is ..... ALSO 0.048m, or 4.8cm! However, you can open up another stop, at which

point your DOF is actually only 3.4cm.

</p><p>

WOA, what is going on here? Well, I have a lot of respect for Bob Atkins and he

wrote a nice article, but I think he uses an incorrect approximate calculation when

calculating his DOF. He then approximates again when he calculates his ﾓrelative

DOFﾔ, and I think he looses some in the translation. I replicated the algebra, starting

with the lens formulas, and after a bit of math I come up with:

</p><p>

DOF = (2 F^2 fn c D ( D - F))/((F^2 + c D fn - c F fn) (F^2 - c D fn + c F fn))

</p><p>

My calculations for DOF are in perfect agreement with the calculations for DOF by

Thom Hogan, and they also agree perfectly with the printed table that came with my

105 macro lens, and they agree with

(http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm if you adjust for

different choices of the Circle of Confusion. If I could find Bobﾒs email address, Iﾒd

like to discuss this with him how he got his calculations.

</p><p>

The other issue would be the out of focus part of the photo. I am not so convinced

about the two photos he shows. For one, the 40D photo wasnﾒt quite focussed

correctly. The other is that he used a different lens. In my experience the build

details of the lens play quite a role in the Bokeh you get, it is not only determined by

the size of the sensor. If it was, then it would all be up to geometry, and then the

difference couldnﾒt be that large.

</p><p>

I think that Thom Hogan says it quite nicely in his D300 guide, in the part ﾓdebunking

some mythsﾔ:

</p><p>

* Myth: <emph>ﾔIt is not full frameﾔ. The argument that a sensor has to be

24mmx36mm (the same size as film) just doesnﾒt play for meﾅ.
Bottom line: het

used to the change and re-align your lens arsenal with a few DX lenses.

[tachion]

Hmmmm, I got some funny characters in the previous post, I apologize.

 

I agree with "b g" and "Shun", (and I point out above mathematically) that FF versus

DX really won't make a huge difference. But really you should look at some of your

own photos with the different equipment. You may just love a 5D for totally different

reasons. Be careful what you try though. If you were to try a Nikon D3 and then really

like it, you will have to sell a lot of photos to pay off your credit card...

[Landrum Kelly]

"I shoot portraits on location with natural light. . . ."

 

I doubt that you could go wrong with either.

 

I have never used the D300, but I have the 5D and the 1Ds Mark II. The 5D is an incredible bargain right now, the only reasonably-priced FF camera out there right now, and the image quality is superb. I sometimes use it with Nikon glass, when quickness is not a requirement..

 

It is ideal for portrait and landscape work, although it is not fast enough for action shots. It is also good for low light, which "natural light" can sometimes be. Check out this crop from a larger file:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/5744613&size=lg

 

I would rent one, or order one used from KEH. If you don't like it, you can send it back with absolutely no hassle.

 

I have some gotten some pretty good butterfly shots using the 5D and the NIkon 600 f/4 manual focus, using an adapter. It is actually a pretty versatile camera. The AF works fine for my purposes.

 

You won't get it with the 70-200 IS for $1700, of course.

 

If you are willing to spring for it, there is always the Nikon D3, of course. . . .

 

--Lannie

[robert_clark]

Tachion,

 

I'm not sure I can quite make out what you are saying, but if you are saying that the depth of field difference between a 50/2 lens on an APC sensor camera and an 80/2 on an FF camera at f2, is somehow only mythically different, then I suggest you step beck for a moment from the mathematics.

 

The difference is between a 50/2 and an 80/2 lens at f2 - the sensor sizes are ONLY relevant in so far as they give approximately corresponding angles of view on the respective cameras.

 

As anyone can tell you, the depth of field difference at f2 between a 50 and an 80 is exactly the same as it always was on a 35mm film camera. Call it large or small - it depends on your needs or priorities - but it is obviously and clearly a difference which is noticeable and measureable.

[robert_clark]

Sometimes, I think brand loyalty leads to some of the deepest levels of stupidity I ever encounter.

[correct_exposure]

Tachion, that's impressive. However, the wider the lens, the greater the DOF.

Example..a 50mm prime has more DOF than a 85mm prime. Valerie states she

goes to a client's home sometimes. Well, if 85mm is the working angle of view for

that shoot, then I would shoot with a full frame body and the 85 vs a crop body and

a 50. The BOKEH will stand out with a true 85. That's a fact, no theory.

 

Shun, the 5D has the best AF system outside of the 1 series bodies in the Canon

lineup. It has 6 assist points in addition to 9 af points in ai-servo mode. No Canon

body has assist points outside of the1 series. What does this mean, once the

camera finds focus it's rock solid on keeping it. 3fps for portrait work is plenty with

accurate focus.

 

Valerie, you have a lot to ponder. Remember, as your techniques improve, so will

your images. But having the right tools for the job will make your life much easier.

[ShunCheung]

Hi Correct Exposure, or whatever your actual name is, the 40D has 9 cross-type AF points vs. the 5D's 1 cross type. There is no comparison.

 

And it is Valerie who points out that the burst rate for the D50 (2.5 frames/second) is insufficient for her. That should quickly rule out the 3 frames/sec 5D.

 

Personally, regardless of whether you already have Canon lenses or not, I would strongly recommend against getting a 5D now for most people. It is almost 3 years old and if anything, I am a bit surprised that Canon hasn't replaced it yet. As soon as Canon and/or Nikon announces a new prosumer FX-format DSLR (which can happen any time now), the 5D will look ancient and will lose a lot more value.