Contemplating how much to spend

[k.andy_photos]

<p>Hello,<br>

I'm sure there have been a thousand posts on this question, but I just want to get down to the answer and not have to search for hours to find what I need.<br>

So my question is this. I'm looking into purchasing a new camera. Currently I've been in business for two and a half years and shoot with my D200. I really would like the D3, I'm not sure I'm sold on the D3x yet. However I'm also looking into the D2x. My budget is about $5,000 for a new camera, possibly $6,000. Would you recommend that I go with the more expensive camera body? Or would the D2x be sufficient? I'll also add that I am mainly doing portrait/wedding photography. I'm contemplating on if I purchase the D2x, I'll use the left over money to invest in some upgraded lighting equipment. What do you think would be the best decision?</p>

[albertdarmali]

<p>Just use D700. at least with that you'll be safe in those places where you can't use flash.<br /> And it's not that much more compared to buying a used D2X, especially if you are going to earn some money from it. I'm no wedding photographer, but if it was me, I'd get D700 + more money for lenses and flash.</p>

<p>The thing with getting a used D2X, it's a rather old camera, you don't know how long it would still last you, especially many D2X are used heavily by pros.</p>

[dpbours]

<p>With a budget of 5,000 - 6,000 USD you can forget about the D3x.</p>

<p>The D3 is surely a worthy camera, but to me it does not compare well to the D2x. In a sense, I would see the D2x as a modernized D2. The D3 is as such a different model.</p>

<p>My question is; Why not look at the D700 if you look at a D2x?!I would go for the D700 instead of the D2x.</p>

<p>Then we're down to the basic comparison of a D3 and a D700.<br>

Buy the D3 if you need the longer lifetime of the shutter. Though when will you reach the 150,000 shot lifetime of the D700?! You'll probably buy a new body before that time.<br>

The D3 has a slightly faster processor, slightly faster throughput and dual memory slots. But with wedding photography I do not know if it matters if you do 10 or 7 shots a second ... And dual memory slots are nice, but with current CF cards, size and failure of cards is not really an issue.<br>

And the D700 has sensor cleaning, which I guess the D3 does not have yet.</p>

<p>I'd spend the money on glass. Get a D700 with battery pack, buy the fastest and biggest CF cards you can find and spend the remaining 2,500 - 3,500 on the new 70 - 200 VR II and other nice glass if you don't already have it...<br>

Glass stays with you longer than a body...</p>

<p>If you'd need the 10 frames/sec and shoot 100,000 photos a year, get the D3.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Consider the D300s. Really. Dual memory slots for safety, and better AF system and output than the D2X you mention. And well within the budget you've mentioned, you can add to that a D700 and the vertical grip that both of those bodies share. Those two bodies will make the most of a good range of lenses and circumstances, and completely eclipse your trusty old D200.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>Based on other people's advice and experience, in addition to what I know about the above, skip the D2X. You shouldn't even give it a second thought. Perhaps if you saw one in excellent condition for low dollars you'd think about it. Otherwise, no.</p>

[Matthew Brennan]

<p>+ 1 Matt Laur's comments, the D300s shares the same AF module as the D3 / D700. The D2x doesn't rate amongst this company.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Lights are more important than a camera. Go cheaper on a camera and get D700. <br>

Used ones are appearing on E bay now for under $2,000.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Kali, could you tell us which lenses you have for wedding photography? And if you go to a D3/D3S or D700, are you getting additional lenses? If so, which ones?</p>

[vincent_p]

<p>As Albert mentioned, go D700 with excellent lenses and SB900.<br>

I use the D700 for weddings. The higher ISO is really useful. It's sensor cleaning really works - I had a speck which was removed.<br>

So far no complaints from any clients but there have been recommendations from past clients.</p>

[k.andy_photos]

<p>Shun, I am currently using a Sigma 28-70 f2.8, a Tamron 75-300 4-5.6 tele-macro and I do have a wide angle lens which the stats are currently missing from my head. I do plan on upgrading glass. I know I would like a portrait lens probably around a 50m or and 85m other than that, I am just really getting started on which lenses to purchase. I never thought I would be doing wedding photography but am finding it a bit of a passion now. Do any of you have any other suggestions as far as lenses go? I feel I'm just about sold on purchasing the D700.</p>

[hayward]

<p>I think the D700 or D3 is an important tool for a wedding photographer. You need the extra couple of stops of usable ISO vs. the D200. The D700 will run you $2,500.<br>

Next, I'd buy a 70-200mm AF-S. Your Tamron is too slow and the optics are too poor. That lens runs about $1,700, but you can find a used 80-200mm f/2.8 starting at $500, if you want to save money. <br>

Assuming you buy the new one and want to spend the $5,000, that leaves you $800. If you don't have a flash, I'd buy that next, which will eat up about $400. I'd spend the remainder on a 50mm f/1.8 for $125 new or maybe $450 on the 60mm macro instead (for rings and other small details.)<br>

You'll probably want some extra batteries, too.<br>

I'd hold on to the D200 and shoot with two cameras - the 28-70mm on one body and the 70-200mm on the other. That will cover 90% of that's going to happen at the wedding.</p>

[k.andy_photos]

<p>Thanks so much John, that was really helpful!</p>