D300s or D7000 for low light weddings and outdoor portraits?

[richardsnow]

<p>Jamie --</p>

<p>I'm a little late in posting a response, (and I wasn't confused about which body she was using...I was referring to the Nikon D60, not the 60D), but here's why I asked: I actually wanted to know why <em><strong>you</strong></em> liked the D700 better and why you thought you needed an upgrade to get started as a professional.</p>

<p>Your response spoke loud and clear to me.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Although the lens I have on the D60 is just a mediocre kit lens, where the prime lens on the 700 superb!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Have you tried the 50mm f/1.4 on the D60? The results will be different, but you might be surprised.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But to answer your question, the ISO has much lower capabilities than the D700. I shoot a lot of indoor portraits because it rains a lot where I live. And I only use a reflector so lights is just natural windows and mounted flash.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Learn lighting. Unless you're Jeff Ascough you'll need to learn it anyway. Learning lighting is the single easiest way to make your portraits look more professional. Control the light and you control the image.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I like that there are more fps on the D700. It also has incredibly more focal points than the D60.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are you shooting sports? I've helped many people that are having trouble with portraiture and I tell every single one of them to SLOW DOWN and think about what you're shooting before clicking the shutter. High FPS is for sports and bracketing...and you should only need to bracket if the lighting is really difficult and you need an insurance policy to make sure the result is perfect. BTW, 3 FPS is more than enough for bracketing. As for Focal Points: focus and re-compose is much more accurate than the outer focal points of the D300/D700. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>All around the quality of the pictures is just exponentially better. More DOF, better bokeh, and sharper images. I can see a difference with the naked eye. Can't you?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again...try the 50mm f/1.4 on the D60. You're confusing qualities of a lens with qualities of a camera. Can I see the difference between a shot with a D60 and a D700 with the naked eye? That depends...</p>

<ul>

<li>Was the shot taken with the same lens and cropped so that the framing is the same, at base ISO, and post processed and printed to 8x10 or smaller? If they were, then anyone would have a hard time telling the difference.</li>

<li>Was the shot taken with different lenses at high ISO? Yes I can see the difference</li>

<li>Am I viewing at 100% on a computer monitor? Yes I can see the difference.</li>

</ul>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Artistic composition is another story and I'm not saying the by getting a better camera I will be giving better portraits--just better images (technically speaking.)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Technically speaking, your images aren't about what camera made them...you make better images by controlling light, pre-visualizing the shot, and making your camera create your vision through control of aperture, shutter speed, and ISO. The brain behind the camera and the glass in front of the sensor is much more important to the creation of a quality image than the camera itself.</p>

<p>Based on your response, and the posts between your response and this, I would recommend keeping your D60; buying a 50mm f/1.4, an SB-700, a light stand with cold shoe, and an umbrella; read <em>Understanding Exposure </em>by Bryan Peterson; check out Strobist.com for tips using your flash; practice off-camera lighting; and start taking portraits for friends and family. </p>

<p>If you want to stick to your thought that buying a new camera will vastly improve your photography then look into a D7000... it's a newer camera with higher resolution and better low light capability. But don't be surprised when your DOF and Bokeh aren't what you're getting from the D700. Different sized sensor = different qualities of background blur and bokeh. I'm not going to get into that since it will start a debate that very few people actually care about.</p>

<p>Hope this helps<br>

<br />RS</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>You've gotten a lot of opinions, so I'll add one more. the only real advantages of the D300s over the D7000 are build quality and shooting speed (for sports and action).</p>

<p>imho, the D7000 being three YEARS newer is the obvious choice, to me. But in addition to that 50, I think you need a "normal" event zoom in the 17/18-50/55 range and probably eventually a longer fast zoom.</p>

[jamie_smith3]

<p>Wow! Thank you all for your responses. I have much to think about. I think I shall do some more research on lenses and bodies. I really don't want to keep my D60 so I most definitely am going to buy a new body. I am actually leaning away from the 50mm and more towards a low light zoom. I didn't realize that I'll probably need a zoom for weddings, unless the b/g don't mind me being up in peoples faces. haha...awkward! I am also leaning more towards just waiting for an fx body since that's what I originally wanted. Then the choice would be to either save some money for lenses and buy the d700 or buy the new replacement. Any thoughts? Also, how vital is VR on a zoom lens? Which one would best serve wedding photography, 24-70 or 70-200? (on a full framed body.)</p>

<p>I appreciate all of your input and opinions. And thank you for the best wishes and luck!</p>

[johne37179]

<p>VR really has nothing to do with a zoom lens, but only the focal length you are shooting at. Depending on your skill at holding the camera still, VR can give you one or even two steps slower shutter speeds. </p>

[paul_g9]

<p>Jamie, I can second David's comments about battery life. I've only managed to drain the battery in my grip and roll over to the in camera battery once, and it took about 1,800 shots to do it plus a fair amount of chimping. For the D7000 you buy the grip for balance and vertical shooting, not because you need more battery.</p>

 

[johne37179]

<p>I second Paul's comments about the grip. It is nice to have the confidence of that second battery and I suppose if I shot continuously for a couple of days I might roll over to the other battery. It is the heft that grip gives the camera and the second release for vertical shots that makes it worthwhile. I like the balance with longer lenses and the increased inertia which makes slower shutter speeds possible.</p>

[paul_g9]

<p>Jamie, looking at your last comment I'd suggest you do some searching on this board and elsewhere about wedding photography. I've never done it (and don't ever plan to), but I've read enough comments from people who do it professionally to know that you should probably expect to need two cameras, two zooms (one longer, one wider), and at least one good flash preferably with an external battery pack. So maybe you should consider getting a D7000 now along with one of the lenses you'll need plus a flash with the thought that you'll need a second body (D800?) to do this professionally. Hopefully some of the wedding pros can weigh in with first-hand experience.</p>

[ben_anderson11]

<p>Speaking just from a financial standpoint - I'd consider waiting a month or so to see if a D700 replacement is on its way. The rumor sites seem to suggest that there's a strong chance that it might be. At that point you should be able to get either a used D700 cheap, or, if you decide to spring for it, whatever the replacement is. That will probably be a lower investment over time than buying a D7000 now (the clear winner over the D300s unless you prefer the pro controls on the 300s) then buying a D800 etc later. The other option is to instead invest in glass now, which will retain its value over time unlike the body and stick with the D60 just a little longer until you can afford an FX body.</p>

<p>As for lenses, the typical pro zoom combo for a wedding would be a 70-200 2.8 VRII with a 14-24 or 16-35mm wide for those "creative" and environmental shots as well as getting in the whole room when you don't have a lot of space to back up. If you're close up, keep the bride's head and shoulders close to the center on the wide angle lenses though or it will look really stretched out and funky (on the other hand, the trail of the dress etc actually look good when exaggerated). If you're further away and doing one of the "couple on a cliff" or "bride going down the spiral stairs, shot from above" shots this is less of a worry. Each of those lenses is going to run you just under 2g's, apart from the 16-35mm F4 which comes in at about $1200. Another option is to shoot primes - on a budget, spring for the 85mm 1.4D (which you can get used for ~$850 off online forums [grr, not letting me post names] now that the 85mm 1.4G is out) for portraits and some reach, and either a 35mm F2 or 24mm F2.8 (both of which are more consumer oriented and should be in the $300-500 range) for closer/wider action like dancing at the reception. In general 50mm and under is going to be less flattering for portraits unless you want to exaggerate facial features.</p>

<p>The last piece of advice I'll offer is to rent! Depending on how many shoots you're doing, glass is really cheap to rent. Here in Seattle you can rent a 70-200mm for like $45 per weekend at Glazer's. That's a lot of weekends before you hit the $2200 mark which is what one of those goes for new. In most reasonable sized cities there should be similar options at the local pro photo store. In smaller cities and towns you can rent online from places like borrowlenses. This will give you a chance to get used to the various options before dropping some serious cash on them. Body rentals are a bit more expensive since the refresh cycle is more brutal on bodies, but if you really want to get a feel for the difference, you could rent all three (D7000, D300s and D700) for a weekend to do a comparison.</p>

[jamie_smith3]

<p>Ben, excellent response! Very informative. I will look into rental places in my area. Hey you're not too far from me (portland). :) </p>

[ben_anderson11]

<p>Oh cool - Portland actually has a good store for rentals - Pro Photo: <a href="http://www.prophotosupply.com/p-rental.htm">http://www.prophotosupply.com/p-rental.htm</a> Looks like it's even cheaper than Glazer's - a 70-200mm is only $30, and they have the same weekend policy - rent on Friday and the weekend long price is the same as the daily. Worth checking out!</p>

[jamie_smith3]

<p>Sweet. thanks, i'll take a look right now :)</p>

[johne37179]

<p>Ben: It is nice to know Glazers is still around. I dealt with them in the '60s and '70s when I was a working photographer in Seattle (had my studio in the Pioneer Square area when it was just transitioning to trendy). Glazers was always the place to go for great service and rentals for the commercial photo crowd.</p>

<p> </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>If you want the D700, why not try to go for a second hand copy? I think buying a DX body and glass that is optimal on DX would just lead to more money spent to achieve less in the long term.</p>

<p>D700's will be available in numbers second hand when new FX bodies are released. In fact there are some even now. You will still need a backup and that would be preferable to be as similar as possible to the main camera. Yes, all of this costs money. So does starting up any kind of business.</p>

[jamie_smith3]

<p>Ilkka, tha'ts precisely what I was thinking, too. Except I was really hoping to get a new body, not a used one. But I doubt that will ever happen now :( Unless they just continue to make new D700s for awhile before they release the new one. Wouldn't that be lovely for me!!! :)</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>Since the prime wedding season of this year starts to be over, would it be possible for you to save a little longer for a D700? It doesn't cost that much more when you actually start making money with it. I've shot with a D700 and D300, to me the D700 (or better) is the best choice for the weddings, since higher pixel counts are not usually needed but the low light and dynamic range capabilities come in handy. It's hard to pick one between D300 and D7000 for this application without using them for a few shoots, the image quality difference won't matter in practice, it's too small, the D300 has an edge in AF, which might matter.</p>

[hermeneanu_valter]

<p><a href="http://3foto.ro">http://3foto.ro</a> all photos are made with D7000, tamron 17-50 f2.8 non VC and nikon 55-300mm (portraits).</p><div></div>