Buying my first Nikon SLR - advice much needed!

[jyoungman]

<p>If you're planning to do weddings, the CLS flash commander features may swing your decision. I don't know about the D90, but certainly the D70s only supported 1 CLS channel and one group. By contrast the D700 supports 4 CLS channels and 2 groups (plus the built-in flash). Maybe your lighting setup for wedding shots will demand off-camera flash, in which case this could be a decisive factor.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Sea Ram--<br>

It's my own observation that typically it's only beginners that run out and buy expensive cameras, then put dubious lenses on them because they're out of cash. This greatly cripples the performance of the camera, of course. Like the others here who've been around awhile, I've come to appreciate first class lenses not only for their image quality, but also because they are such a good value, compared to cameras which are a relatively poor value. I carefully reread your original post, and what I think would be the best fit for you would still be the D90, a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8, a Nikon SB-800 or SB-600, a decent tripod & head (at least $300 U.S.), and Photoshop Elements 7.0. What you seem to be missing is that photos are taken by a SYSTEM. Your images will only be as good as the weakest link in your SYSTEM. A camera with blazing fast autofocus does you absolutely no good if you have non-AF lenses. You really can't shoot a wedding without at least one good flash, and two are better. For formal portraits, you will really want lightstands and umbrellas, if you want the "pro" look. To make your images pro quality, you will need capable photo software. And on and on. You don't seem to have any paying photo jobs lined up, and my impression is you mostly want to "dabble" with weddings at a later date. If you put big money into a camera now, you will have no money left for the important things, and won't be generating any income from the expensive camera to buy them either. You will be stuck. Start with a mid level camera, lenses that are capable of pro quality results, and a basic lighting system. Plus basic software. This is a true SYSTEM, and it will get you started. You can always dump money on a camera later. I'm betting that the more experienced you get, the more likely you are to spend that money on lenses and lighting system instead though, like most of us did. Remember, while you are learning digital, learning Photoshop, learning what you really need, the price on the D700 will continue to drop like a rock. Especially after the next "hot" camera body comes out, probably next Spring. Some people will be selling their D700 then and take a huge loss. They rarely sell their best lenses (or tripod & flash) those. Those things, you keep! Cameras are now disposable.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[sea_ram]

<p>Kent, I have Photoshop CS2, slightly dated I know but hopefully okay for now. I agree with some of rest of system. Was going for the SB-400 flash, not good?<br>

With all the above I am steering towards a D90 as this seems like the minimum standard of the range. I also think it'll be a good camera for a while, (possibly even a classic?!) will come in use Im sure in the future as convenience body, very sellable if not and at around £600 leaves me some change to get a good prime and tele.<br>

I imagine the D90 will stand me in good stead for a year or so and then I'll take stock and look at the market. If a D700 is then more affordable and FX makes sense then I'll have so much more knowledge and confidence at that point.<br>

Now, lets nail that glass! I was going for the 50mm f1.8 AF-S prime and a 18-200 AF-S as I think this covers the basics for now. I don't want more than 2 lenses for a while so if you can suggest a better combo then Im all ears. Quality is key as I want these to last but got to keep it at about £500 for both.</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>D90....walk before you run. You have to unlearn a whole lot of stuff moving from film to digital. The D90 is a good compromise between consumer and semi pro.</p>

[kevin cassar]

<p>I too yearn for a D700 but currently own a D200. One point that you seem to miss is that yes the D700 is not a big deal over the semi pro DX bodies, but probably (like me) buying the D700 will mean that you'd want the best lenses that will add a substantial amount to your spending. When I think about the D700, I don't just see it as an expense of around 2000 but as a new system of around 6000 (with 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 F2.8 lenses). The best advice is - if you're serious and don't afford to splash 6000 at one go, start with one of these lenses and get the cheapest body for now. By the time you save up for the D700 it will probably have gone down in price. </p>

[billsymmons]

<p>I do weddings, landscapes, portraits etc and my advice would be, start with a D90 and Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and Sigma or Tokina 50-150 f2.8 lenses. you can cover everything you need for the work you are interested in.<br /> I have lately gone from DX to FX Nikons by getting a D700 but it is only about one stop better in low light and in most conditions in not distinguishable from FX. So learn on the above kit or something similar and then you will know what you really want for what you want to do. The above type of equipment will then serve as excellent backup, which is something you cannot do without if you are doing work for pay.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>IMHO you should consider your equipment as a system. I believe the body to be very important at certain times. There are many very good used lenses available for the DX format. The D300 has better AF in low light than the D90. If you are going to do weddings this may become critical. You may want to spend some time in the wedding forum for research. I don't do weddings but it seems like a 17-5xmm f2.8 zoom paired with a 80-200mm f2.8 zoom are the most used. I have the SB-400 flash and use it with my D700. I don't think it would do for wedding photography. You may want to spend some time reading Bjorn's reviews at:<br>

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html<br>

I find them very useful.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>There is no 50/1.8 AF-S lens - the lens is AF-D. There is, however, the new 35/1.8 DX AF-S. Since you intend to go with a DX camera, and if you want the same FOV you were used to from film with a 50mm lens, then you might want to consider the 35/1.8 AF-S DX instead. Instead of the 18-200, you might want to have a look at the 16-85. Personally, I would take the 18-55 VR/55-200 VR combo over the 18-200 anytime - but then again, I'd more likely invest in better glass - like the Tamron 17-50 and and then either the 50-135/2.8 Tokina or Sigma 50-150/2.8. Another option would be to forgo zooms altogether and get the 35/1.8 (or the more expensive Sigma 30/1.4) and the 85/1.8.<br /> Regarding CS2 - should do fine unless you plan on shooting RAW; the ACR converter of the CS2 edition can't be updated to read NEF (RAW) files of the newer Nikon DSLRs.</p>

[mart_e]

<p>I was considering D90/D300/D700 some time back - and went for the D90 as it allowed me to get better lenses (12-24mm DX Nikkor, 105mm Micro Nikkor and 50mm 1.4 Nikkor). I've been really pleased with it, and am happy with the image quality.</p>

<p>The D700 felt like more camera than the D300, which in turn felt more than the D90 when I was trying them out - but for me, the D90 made most sense.</p>

<p>My only 'regret' - if you can call it that - in not going the extra mile and getting the D700, is in the limitations for architectural photography (the 24mm Perspective Control Lens really needs the FF body) - for the moment I make do with the 12-24 on the D90 - and try to limit the distortion in Post-production.</p>

<p>I would guess that for Wedding Photography, the D300 would be the choice - although it is still significantly more than the D90, for essentially the same sensor - the body is more durable, and heavier, more focus points (although managing focus points can be a bit of a handful for me with 11 on the D90) and focus speed.</p>

<p>Have you tried digital at all as yet ?</p>

<p>Good luck, Martin</p>

[hiro]

<p>Since there is much logical advice already here, I'll say follow your heart(you do mention that twice).<br>

If your gonna cheat, it might as well be with a D700. (:</p>

<p> </p>

[pictureted]

<p>I'd forget about the SB-400 for weddings. I love mine, but it's not capable of recharging fast enough or putting out enough light for professional use. You can find threads regarding SB-900s overheating, it's a great flash until you use it too much. Look at the flashes with separate power packs and get a good quality flash bracket. These work with any camera you might buy.</p>

[jerry_schuler]

<p>"Starting cheep and see if you like it?” What is there to find out? "Heck, I don't like cameras. I'll do weddings with a paint brush and easel."</p>

<p> Why waste your money on things your going to through away? My experience is that you can spend almost as much money on the low end stuff. Then spend it all over again on the high end equipment.</p>

[danny3]

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=3810979">Richard Driscoll</a>,<br>

Why do we not want to buy the18-200 lens?</p>

[brad_richardson1]

<p>Flashes - Ted Thayer - "Quantum or Lumadyne". Apologies for straying off the subject a little - I was looking at the Nikon SB-900 flash unit and noted that the Nikon CLS ("Creative Lighting System") wireless capability began at their D90 level body and I didn't want to purchase any Nikon camera body that didn't have wireless capability after watching the instructional DVD released by Nikon featuring Joe McNally. I am only an amatuer and this DVD blew me away...so many possibilities with wireless flash control in the Nikon proprietary system (CLS). So could you kindly explain why Quantum or other non-OM flash would be better? Appreciate the time and effort other have put into this - thank you.</p>

[dan_south]

<p><strong>Short answer: </strong>Since you've mentioned several times that money is a critical issue, buy a D90 now, and after you learn more about the digital workflow - believe me, it's going to take some time and effort - if you want the improvements that an FX body can offer buy a D700 (or whatever model Nikon is offering at the time). You can either sell your D90 or keep it as a spare body. You'll need a backup for weddings and professional assignments, anyway.</p>

<p>Regardless, don't waste your money on an SB-400.</p>

<p><strong>More detailed answer: </strong>I have never used a D90 or a D300(s), so I can't vouch for their quality directly. However, before I bought my D700, I used a D200 for about two years. When I compare my D200 photos to my D700 photos, first I want to cry. Then I want to knock myself silly for NOT buying the D700 SOONER. The D700's image quality is SO much better!</p>

<p>Again, I haven't used the latest DX cameras, so I can't make a direct comparison, but even if they're halfway between D200 IQ and D700 IQ, I *still* think that the D700 is the way to go if you really, really, really care about image quality. As you said, it's not that much more than a D300. IMHO, those couple-hundred pounds are going to pay for themselves over and over and over again. Big sensors RULE!</p>

[Two23]

<p>The SB-400 is a great choice if all you want is a little more power than the pop-up flash for your snapshots. If you want a flash to do more than that, the SB-400 isn't the one to get. The SB-600 has bounce capability, and the D90 can remote fire it since D90 does have commander mode. The SB-600 is the lowest cost flash Nikon currently offers that has enough power to be used with an umbrella too. LIght is important, since that's the stuff photos are made of. The difference between a snapshot and a pro portrait is the light. Your CS2 will be adequate.<br>

Dan--<br>

I really really care about image quality. I compared output from both D700 & D300 very closely, and just didn't see a big enough difference to justify the cost, especially factoring in an additional $3,000 (net) for new lenses. (Remember, I came to DSLR after using 4x5 large format cameras as my main camera system.) </p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[mike_stemberg]

<p>Sea Ram,<br>

I'm looking at the 19 September issue of the Amateur Photographer magazine right now and at an advertisement from Cameraworld for Nikon Reburbs with the note that this stock is Boxed Complete AS NEW. Some selected prices include:</p>

<ul>

<li> D700: £1499.99</li>

<li>D90 ~ Body only: £569.99</li>

<li> D90 & AF-S DX 18-105 mm VR: £699.99</li>

</ul>

<p>Check out the Refurbished items on their site :<a href="http://www.cameraworld.co.uk/"> CameraWorld</a> . <br>

 <br>

Happy Hunting and Good Luck!<br>

 <br>

 </p>

[eyad_mansour1]

<p>Sam;<br>

On choosing Glass, I too had to learn the hard way and through making a number of Expensive Mistakes. In retrospect, I wish someone would have advised me to go for the 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8. <br>

I Know these seem to be expensive, but think of all the 200s and 300s of dollars you will be spending on cheeper glass on the way to see the perfection of pro grade glass.<br>

You may want to have a prime for walking around, and another for serious portraits, there are the 50mm f/1.4 and the 85mm f/1.8.<br>

And yes, buy lenses that work with FX bodies, since DX lenses will not get you much if you try to sell them later. <br>

As for the body, go for a D90, as its got the same sensor as a D300, although the D300, is a much more solid and versatile camera. Try to minimize your investment on the body for now, so try to buy a ReFurb or Used body, as the rumors out there that Nikon is coming up with the D700?? or even the D800 soon.<br>

Overall, the advice here is to invest in Excellent Glass, bodies will always be changing.<br>

Good Luck<br>

Eyad</p>

[rjf]

<p>D300 minimum, D700 if you can afford it...most of all get good, fast glass!</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>Dan--<br />I really really care about image quality. I compared output from both D700 & D300 very closely, and just didn't see a big enough difference to justify the cost, especially factoring in an additional $3,000 (net) for new lenses. (Remember, I came to DSLR after using 4x5 large format cameras as my main camera system.)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Great, and I'm glad that the D300 works so well for you! By all accounts it's a great camera, and if I shot sports or wildlife I would consider using one. How would you compare its IQ to a D200 or a D80? When you say that you "compared output" with the D700, under what conditions? Long exposures? Low ISO? High ISO?</p>

<p>As I stated, I've never used a D300 or D90, so I can't rate their image quality directly. I don't know how much better the D300's IQ is as compared to the D200. Maybe the D300 is a big step forward, and that's great news for DX shooters. What I **CAN** say from years of first-hand experience is that the D700 makes the D200 look like a toy. Looking back on it, I wish that I had jumped up to a D3 a year earlier instead of spending a second year with the D200 as my primary digital camera.</p>

<p>FYI - I use 4x5's, also (color, not B&W), but I don't like to compare film cameras and digital cameras. Film and digital images have an altogether different look, IMO. Not better, not worse, just different, like oil paints versus watercolors.</p>

 

[pictureted]

<p>Regarding flashes - if you're shooting weddings you're most likely going to have a flash with a diffuser on a bracket above your camera. You're also going to be shooting almost continually. Table to table, shot after shot for hours. That's were a separate power pack and flash can work.</p>

<p>There was a thread around here regarding SB-900s heating up when put under those conditions. If you're doing creative set-ups, rather than pop-pop-pop goes the flash, then the Nikon's have wonderful features. Wedding and corporate events, however, typically require a whole lot of that old pop-pop-pop. Why studios use AC power supplies, power and recycling and fans for cooling.</p>

[amalendu_bhattacharjee1]

<p>I am not here to answer. I bought D40 a year back. I ve been getting quality photo without using control buttons. Now after following the discussions in the forum, I found that I am not using full potentials of the body as well as the kit I m possessing(AF-S 18-55mm1:3.5-5.6GII & 55-200f/4-5.6G IF-ED VR lens; Speedlight SB-600) to gather experiences to move forward to pro level.<br>

How I m to go about !</p>

[amalendu_bhattacharjee1]

<p>I am not here to answer. I bought D40 a year back. I ve been getting quality photo through autofocus set up without using control buttons. Now after following the discussions in the forum, I feel that I am not using full potentials of the body as well as the kit I m possessing(AF-S 18-55mm1:3.5-5.6GII & 55-200f/4-5.6G IF-ED VR lens; Speedlight SB-600) to gather experiences to move forward to pro level.<br>

How I m to go about !</p>

[albert_lee1]

<p>I also think the D5000 is a great starter camera. It beats the D40 in high iso performance. The D40 tops out at ISO 1600 and its Hi-1 (3200) setting introduces way too much noise into the picture.While the D5000 has amazing high ISO 6400 performance.<br>

I would get a D5000 body only and a nikkor 35mm f/1.8 lens to start out.</p>

[karen_wright]

<p>I would forget about the D40....it was my starter DSLR and I quickly realised that some of the lenses I wanted ....ie the 50mm 1.8 I would have to focus manually. That's not something I wanted to do. Only AFS lenses focus automatically on a D40 unfortunately.<br>

I now have the D90 and I love it...although I am about to upgrade to a D700!!</p>