How do you decide when to upgrade (for non-professional)?

[sigurd_demizar]

<p>Hi,<br>

Sorry for yet another post about upgrade question. I read a lot about "D300 vs D700 vs D90" etc, but it doesn't get to the heart of my problem: should I bother to upgrade at all? Do you mind sharing your upgrade experience. It is going to be a very personal decision, but I want to circulate thought and experience and see how others decide.<br>

Take my case for example. I am a forever newbie but who recently interested in shooting indoor dance and show performance. The staging effect (smoke and lighting) is great, but very often the lighting is so dim. I am not always allowed to use flash (depending on what performance). My D50 maxed out at ISO 1600 but the images are so gainy. I wish to save the shot somehow, but by the end of the day, I look at it on my computer screen and hit the delete button.<br>

I shot in manual mode but with autofocus (bad eyeslight in the dark). The only gear I have is a tripod, a 50mm F1.8, a 70~200mm F2.8 and a flashgun. The D50 is my first DSLR and was bought in 2005, but I still like it quite well.<br>

I am not a pro, so I won't lose an arm or leg if I don't upgrade to the best equipment. I won't get the posh photo in my hobby group, and probably personally find it dis-satisfying, but that is. In fact, there are a lot of technique I can work on without any upgrade. I feel that upgrade is a quick way (yet costly) to give a small ego boost to keep me motivated in taking (hopefully better) photos.<br>

It is not like I am very well off. However, if I start saving money now, I should be ready for a new body by Christmas. I am eyeing on a D300s or D700. Basically all current DSLR has better performance in every corner than a D50, but I pick the two because of cost and ISO performance. What is your opinion? Or should the question be D300s vs D700 vs some photography book and courses?<br>

Thanks,<br>

Sigurd</p>

[ring_alevio]

<p>I'd say go with the D700. If I could afford it I would, but you will lose your 1.5 crop factor.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Some books and courses would be great, but I'd still upgrade. You need low light performance, otherwise, if you were happy with your D50, you could just stick with it.</p>

<p>If you use the long end of your 70-200 a LOT and need that, then I'd stick with the D300s. Same sensor size as what you have now, and you can probably shoot a well-exposed photo all the way at 3200 and have the same quality as your D50 at about 800, if you print at 8 x 10 and below.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>The D700 will likely be replaced soon. The prices will fall, a lot of lightly-used units will be available at aggressively low prices, and there will be much rejoicing.<br /><br />The D300 will get you a stop or two of better high-ISO performance, and the <em>type</em> of noise it creates is easier to clean up well in post production if you expose correctly.<br /><br />As for when or why to update: Why? Because there's something real about your hardware that is limiting what you can do (you seem to have discovered something real, that way). When? When you can responsibly afford it, not before.</p>

[Matthew Brennan]

<p>Without wanting to sound flippant, I upgrade when I can really use something with the new lens/ body I wish to upgrade to. I've upgraded my camera body 3 times from the original D70 I purchased, to gain metering with older Nikkors, to get better autofocus speed and to get better noise suppression at higher ISO etc.</p>

<p>I'm not a pro, I don't<strong><em> need</em></strong> better gear / pro lenses etc but I do love what I can do with them and they keep my interest up - I love using my Nikon gear. I don't have other pressing financial responsibilites so I can save money to purchase the upgrades I think will make a difference to me.</p>

<p>I've made a point of saving for good Nikon cameras and lenses despite not <strong><em>needing</em></strong> them per se. If you can afford an upgrade and you can make good use of the better attributes from the upgrade and it keeps your interest fresh and creative then why not upgrade?</p>

[elliot1]

<p>The D700 is the way to go if you really want to spend the money on it. You won't be disappointed.</p>

<p>As a money saving alternative, I would suggest you try Nikon's 50mm f1.4 AF-S lens (faster aperture means slightly lower ISO - you will have a 1 stop advantage over your current 50mm lens) and get some really good noise reduction software if you don't already have one. I recommend DXO software which is relatively inexpensive ($100 until the end of the month). They also offer a 30 day fully function free trial you can experiment with. My experience with DXO is that if you shoot RAW, an ISO 1600 image will look like it was shot at ISO 400 or lower with virtually no loss in detail. I have yet to find a better raw converter/noise reduction option. Good luck.</p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>Because you already have FX glass, the answer is obvious: go for D700, eventually a used copy, in order to save money. The practical difference between D300 and D700 in low light is much bigger than charts and technical sheets are revealing... In fact D700 is so good at high ISO in dark settings that you will find it as a huge upgrade. I own both cameras but D300 is kept merely as a backup in low light events and rarely gets inside applications where flash is prohibited.<br /> An advantage of D700 is that you can look around for some old AI or AIS glass that sometimes is very cheap... on D700 is a pleasure to try the MF lenses when they meter and record the Exif in a proper manner. (Later edit: you can use AI and AIS glass on D300 too... the advantage is only considering D50) My preffered lens in really low light events is Nikon 50mm f1.2 - usually gives unbelievable good shots stopped down at f2.<br /> A good idea is to keep your D50 as a backup and for situations when you need more reach.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>For the stated application, a body upgrade is a reasonable thing to want. If you can afford the D700 it would be a great choice, and since your lenses are FX already the incremental cost over the D300s is only moderate. If you want to save a bit of money, the D90 offers significant improvements over the D50 at a relatively low cost, but its autofocus is not as good as that of the D300s or the D700 and you'd probably be restricted to using the center AF sensor in low light action photography, which is a significant disadvantage when working with shallow depth of field. Your lenses seem to be close to optimal for this; however, if you find yourself in a situation where you can get closer to the action you may want something like a 35/1.8 or 17-55 for DX (if you decide to stay with DX), or e.g. 24-70 or 35/2 for FX. Though when it's really low light the zooms can be too slow on FX also.</p>

<p>I don't know if courses are helpful here - I think the best you can do is to practice a lot and play with different exposure settings and trying to make the best out of the autofocus system; exposure and focus can be difficult in stage light. Focusing manually with the D50 is extremely difficult even in bright light so it's not a surprise that indoor dance photography requires AF. It is so even with the bodies that have better viewfinders. You will however find that by getting either a D300(s) or D700 the autofocus system is dramatically better in low light than that of the D50.</p>

<p>Do you use AF assist light by the way? It only works in single shot AF mode but it can be very helpful when it's really low light.</p>

 

[carl_becker2]

<p>I upgrade when there is a need. IMHO the D700 will give you the best ISO and AF performance for your needs. Your glass will work on this body. I have used the D700 for almost 2 years and enjoy it greatly. I have no need for a newer body and am very happy with prints up to 12x18. You may be able to find a low use D700 after a new body is released.</p>

[rob_piontek]

<p>I would not bother with a D300 or a D90 if you mainly want an improvement in ISO. They aren't any better with ISO than your D50. If 85mm is long enough for you to be useful, consider an 85 1.8 or 1.4, with the 1.4 you can shoot at 400 instead of 1600 ISO, but you might need a tripod compared to your 70-200 VR.</p>

[alvinyap]

<p><strong>My D50 maxed out at ISO 1600 but the images are so gainy. I wish to save the shot somehow, but by the end of the day, I look at it on my computer screen and hit the delete button.</strong><br>

What is the end goal of your images? Print? Web? The front page of some magazine? Sure if it's grainy, but if it captures something never seen before, do you think it'll be rejected? I personally shoot at whatever iso required to get a proper exposure; for example yesterday I was shooting in the bowels of the HMS Victory, and I pulled out boosted HI-1 on my D200. Which is NOT pretty when pixel peeping.<br>

However, they are *properly exposed*, and at web resolutions, which is what they are for, I have zero complaints. Even so, when printed ISO3200 boosted is actually not too bad. For B&W images, ISO3200 is not grainy (noisy) enough. The issue I have mainly with high ISO is not the noise, but lack of dynamic range.<br>

<strong>What is your opinion? Or should the question be D300s vs D700 vs some photography book and courses?</strong><br>

I'd get the camera because books can be borrowed from the library, and courses.... well unless they bring you to special locations you can't get to otherwise? Nah. I learn fine on my own with books and the awesome resource that is photo.net. In addition, you seem to indicate the photos are fine, but you got rid of them because of noise. Hence - you want a step up. Do it. The AF of the D300 is awesome too. Show off the 3d tracking to your canonite friends owning 7Ds and 5D2s and watch them go sad.<br>

<strong>I would not bother with a D300 or a D90 if you mainly want an improvement in ISO. They aren't any better with ISO than your D50.</strong><br>

Er.... even between D200 -> D300, I can see a significant improvement in dynamic range. Noise wise, with *proper* exposure, the D200 does *very* well even at 1600.</p>

<p>Regards,<br>

Alvin</p>

[rob_piontek]

<p>That's because the D50 is better than the D200 when it comes to ISO. </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Rob writes "I would not bother with a D300 or a D90 if you mainly want an improvement in ISO." I strongly disagree. In my experience, I get between 1.5 and 2 stops better high ISO performance out of my D90 than from my D50. EASY! On my D50, I struggled above ISO 800 (which was WAY better than film used to be for me, btw, and much better than the D200 from what I've seen), but on the D90 I have no compunction about shooting at 3200.</p>

<p>These remarks often come up because a lot of high-ISO shots end up being under-exposed, which adds different kinds of and levels of noise to an image, and renders many tests rather useless. But in my tests, a properly-exposed image at ISO 3200 on a D90 prints the same as ISO 800 on my D50. And the noise that does creep in on the D90 is easier, imho, to clean up.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>D50 equal to the D300 in high ISO noise. Funny story.... having RAW images of both cameras, I can pretty much assure it's just really not true. What Peter says above. Dynamic range of the D50 is also quite a bit lower than the current bodies.<br>

Whether it should be D700 or D300/D90... well. Depends mainly on how much you love the crop factor. I would dearly miss it, and given the D300's ability to deliver very decent photos up to ~ISO2000, the extra stop of the D700 just doesn't bring all that much for me. I find the quite blank statements "d700 because it matches you glass best" overlooking a bit that the D300/D90 are not useless in low light (far from it), and that there is a difference between 70-200 on FX or on DX, when it comes to range. Buying FX to crop every picture afterwards is also kind of silly. FX is not better for everybody by definition.</p>

<p>Good, so why did I as amateur upgrade? D50 to D80 mainly because of the extra dedicated buttons on the body and the much better viewfinder. D80 to D300 because I had a need for a second body for a while, and could afford the D300 at the time (later, the D80 could go) and felt little joy in getting another D80...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>.. to give a small ego boost to keep me motivated ..</p>

</blockquote>

<p>and yes, that is a fully valid reason too. Sometimes, new toys just make happy. Nothing wrong with that.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>I decided not to look at it from an equipment issue, but when the quality of the images produced by a newer camera are "x" amount better. What that "x" is, is up to you, but for me, I am more motivated by resulting print size than anything else. That means more megapixels, less noise, etc. It's worth defining what that "x" level is so you know when to buy, instead of what to buy. There may be another component to the equation: "y" (or rather $).</p>

[rob_piontek]

<p>I don't know, of course most people would agree that the D300 is better than the D50 at ISO. I think one reason that this is what most people think is that they came from a D80 or a D200 to the D300, which is clearly an improvement. Or they came from something else and just didn't bother to compare closely. But I made side by side comparisons, with different raw converters, NX2 and LR. My conclusion was that at the pixel level noise is the same. But the D300 has higher resolution, so can handle more noise reduction, and this is what nikon does. I found that the D300 really kills the shadow detail if you use NX2 or look at the camera jpegs, which did not really look any better, but they were less noisy.</p>

<p>If you look through my old posts you can probably find links to the comparisons I made. I always hoped somebody else would post a similar comparison, but I haven't seen it. Would be great to see your side by side comparison, Wouter. Actually I was just looking at kr's comparison and his results are similar to mine (D40 vs D300). But I didn't need to make a test, I knew it before. In the real world I don't like to go above ISO 400 with the D300, and it was the same with the D50. I like sharp images at 100% on the screen when I'm editing them, no noise, and no smearing from NR.</p>

<p>I think, though I haven't use one, if you really want to see improvement in ISO you have to go to the D700. But, for the OPs use, this might not make sense anyway if they are using long lenses most of the time. It would be pointless, if you often use 200mm on DX at 2.8, to buy a D700 and use a 300mm f4 or worse 5.6. A 300mm 2.8 will cost you a pretty penny. If you could use a 50 1.4 or 85 1.8 or 1.4 on FX then that would be about as good as you can get. But that's not cheap either!</p>

[joe_taylor5]

<p>When you have reached the limits of your present equipment.<br>

Joe</p>

[camilla]

<p>I'd save up for a D700 for what you prefer to shoot.<br>

Books you can find in the library, and there is actually tons of good articles on photography on the web, for free.</p>

[dan_south]

If you don't need a weatherproof body (D300), buy the D90 and save a bunch of money.

[lee_richards2]

<p>Rob I think you might consider sending your D300 to Nikon for a look-see. I have two of them and they are superb at 1600 ISO. They are miles better than the D50. </p>

<p>Here is what Thom Hogan said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>So, for the main types of noise and high ISO values, the D90 is essentially a mimic of the D300. For critical work I'd want to be at no higher than ISO 800, though ISO 1600 is quite usable for most situations. It's only when we press on to ISO 3200 do we start getting the drabness and noise buildup that starts to make images tough to deal with. Go read what I wrote in my <a href="http://www.bythom.com/nikond300review.htm">D300 review</a> about noise handling; the D90 is nearly identical.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think he is a pretty good source.....Don't you?<br>

<br>

He also said that the D700 will give another stop of useable range and 9 stops of dynamic range. <br>

<br>

So. FWIW here is what I would say:<br>

<br>

If you want to take picutres of concerts and you shoot from pretty far back then get the D90. It is exactly the same as the D300 in both high ISO performance and dynamic range. You will save enough pay for some excellent photo opportunities and perhaps some fun training. The crop factor will help you from the nose-bleed seats. <br>

<br>

If you shoot up close and personal and the money is not an issue, get the D700. <br>

<br>

I think I would go with the D90 for what you describe. It is far less than half the price of the D700 and for what you do will perform as well as the D300s for much less. It is really a nice camera. Not many years ago we all would have killed for it. <br>

</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>here's the thing, for no-flash stage and concert work, there's no getting around high-ISO ability; what you really want is the D3s. but that's cost-prohibitive. however, it does make the d700 seem affordable in comparison. if at all possible, go for the d700. otherwise, you could do just as well with a d90 as a d300.</p>

[rob_piontek]

<p>Here's what Thom says about the D50:</p>

<p>"I've already mentioned this, but the D50 has simply incredible noise tendencies compared to the D70s. At ISO 1600 in JPEG, noise is lurking, but not particularly visible. At ISO 1600 in NEF, noise is visible, but not particularly objectionable (the chroma aspect of the noise is the primary culprit, but this is more subdued than what I see out of my D70s). JPEG shooters shouldn't be afraid to shoot at any ISO value. NEF shooters should be ready to pull out noise reduction software at ISO 1600."</p>

<p>That was written in 2005. The D300 review quoted above in 2008.</p>

 

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Rob, I will try to find somewhat similar shots D50 versus D300. However, you seem to be the only one disputing this finding, and there seem to be consensus among the rest. So do I really have to prove the point here?<br>

A second thing, for what you say as the perception of people "coming to the newer bodies", as you can see in my previous post, I also had the D80. Despite some popular beliefs, the D80 was not at all bad at high ISO. On the D80, ISO800 was completely usable, and ISO1600 with some good noise reduction. The D50 was OK at ISO800 and very mediocre at ISO1600 in my experience.<br>

Unlike the D50, the D80 and D300 have monochrome noise, usually quoted as 'grainy looking'. The D50 has colour noise, which is uglier to most people.<br>

I liked my D50 a lot, and it was certainly one of the best cameras of its time. But it's not a mythical beast and technology has progressed since.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Actually I believe Rob's comments are quite accurate. In-camera JPGS will show significant difference between a D50 and D300 (and D90) because in-camera image processing has significantly improved since the D50 came out. But, assuming your shoot RAW and use really good image processing software, the two cameras will yield very similar results at ISO 1600. </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Elliot,</p>

<p>I have a D50 and a D90 and have compared, and this is not the case. Yes, you can de-noise if you have an image that can lose detail, but the fact is the D90 is significantly cleaner than the D50 at any ISO over 800.</p>

<p>800 on the D50 is like 2000 or so on the D90.</p>

<p>That said, the D50 is very useable, properly exposed, at ISO 1600 if you're printing 8 x 10 at reasonable viewing distances. </p>