for better quality pics....upgrade camera? or upgrade lens?

[jo_pemble]

<p>Hello again...I have posted a couple of times for advice on getting better pictures of dogs in low light (shade). Right now I have a Nikon D-80. My question is <strong>what differences could I expect if I purchased a D-300 </strong>but used the same lens for now which is a Tamron 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD macro 1:2? I really cant get both a new camera AND a new lens but Im figuring maybe I would start with a new camera now and then upgrade to a new lens in the future.......or would a new lens give me better results as far as graininess goes.<br>

I could buy a good used D-300 for around $900. I have read the specs on both cameras and some are the same, but honestly I really dont know what alot of it means as far as picuture quality goes.<br>

Also, a question about my current lens....from the description does this lens NOT have the built in anti-shake feature? I think the Nikon brands are labled with VR...not sure if the Tamron uses the same thing. Thanks again.</p>

<p>jo</p>

[mtk]

<p>Hi Jo,<br>

IMHO it is always better to spend money on glass than bodies. A good fast lens will pay off more in the long run. A 17-50/ 2.8 OS Tamron will cost a little more than half of your 900.00. The D80 is a great camera....yes it is older technology...but for what you are shooting I am feeling it should be fine. Sigma makes a similar lens. Also keep in mind some noise in your photographs can be removed in post processing.<br>

Your lens is not the "vibration reduction" type.<br>

Have Fun!<br>

Mark</p>

[jo_pemble]

<p>Thank you! Thats a good start.....go with a better lens instead of upgrading the camera itself. I should have added that the pictures I take most are candids of the dogs in the ring and are often 30 to 40ft away. My other lens is is Nikkor AF-S DX 18 - 55MM F/3.5-5.6G VR....but it doesnt get me close enough. Any other lens suggestions? I do photoshop my pics to death but to no avail with these shady shots. Thanks again.<br>

jo</p>

[kerry_grim]

The Tamron is a slow lens to use in shade. How are you focusing? Manual, automatic? I doubt the lens

focuses fast enough in shade as f 4.5 and shade is not a good combination. You would be better served

by a 70-200 2.8 VR and bumping up the ISO for shutter speed.

 

I suspect if you took photos of a stationary object using a tripod, you would find the lens a good

performer but to expect to get crisp results in shade would be a bit difficult.

 

If you posted a photo with EXIF info, it might be possible to tell if the lack of sharpness is the focus

and/or shutter speed.

 

Must the photos be taken in shade?

[mike_earussi1]

<p>The real question is are you going to get a two stop or more improvement from upgrading to the D300? If not then an f2.8 VR lens is a better choice.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>Is the 70-300 your only lens? Then adding addtional lenses is a far higher priority than a new camera body. You would do well with something in the 17-55 range (Tokina still makes a nice 2.8 16-50 I believe in addition to those already mentioned) or a 24-70. Yes the 70-200 2.8 would be the ideal lens in that range but it's $2500, way out of the price range you're talking about. VR is nice and has some great advantages, but far from necessary. As long as you follow the old rule of focal length over the shutter speed -- it takes most people 1/200 to easily handhold a 200mm for example -- you don't have to worry about camera shake. The 70-300 is dreadfully slow and should eventually be replaced by a 2.8, but you can go with Tamron or Sigma options. Even a used 80-200 2.8 Nikon (before VR) would be better. Generally speaking, adding or switching lenses has more of an impact on the photos you can shoot than the camera body. And in this case a different body would not overcome the limitations of a super slow lens like the one you have.</p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>In general, I agree that a lens is more important than a camera body. In this case however, it isn't all that easy. The D80's high ISO performance stinks by any current measure. The D80 was one of the last camera's to use a CCD sensor. To the best of my knowledge, all current DSLR's, especially those that do well at higher ISO's, use a CMOS sensor. Even a used D90 would be a decent upgrade over a D80. So to answer your question, a D300 will give you at least one-stop better ISO performance. Of course a D300 will give you a host of other improvements as well (focus faster, more focus points, more controls on the body etc). But for low light you gain at least one-stop. </p>

<p>As far as recommending a lens, what focal length do you find yourself shooting @ now? Are you frequently shooting at 300mm? 200mm? 100mm? Shooting at long focal lengths, in low-light, is a very expensive proposition no matter how you slice it. A f/2.8 lens will allow 4x more light in than a f/5.6 lens... but a 300mm f/2.8 lens will be expensive. Sigma makes a 120-300mm f/2.8 for $3200 (B&H), the Sigma 300mm f/2.8 prime is $3,400 and a Nikon 300mm f/2.8 lens is $5200. However, you can get a Nikon 300mm f/4 for $1200. f/4 will let in 2x more light than f/5.6 but 2x less light than a f/2.8 lens. Another option might simply be to rent these lenses as needed. As others have pointed out, third party 70-200 f/2.8 lenses will be under $1000. </p>

<p>As far as vibration reduction goes, and especially when on a budget, get your self a tripod. Or at the very least, a monopod. Look at the sidelines of a football game and the pros are using very big, very expensive glass... on a monopod.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I have had a D80, and have a Nikon 70-300G (which is awfully similar to your Tamron lens) and a D300. Based on my own experiences, I can only wholeheartedly recommend to upgrade the lens.</p>

<p>The D300 is an awesome body, but in terms of image quality, it is not miles better than a D80. The D80 has for vague reasons a bad reputation (as in John's reply above) but it's a much better body than what a lot of people seem to imply. I found the D80 very acceptable up to ISO1000, the D300 up to ISO1600-2000 (so not <em>at least</em> one stop, but one stop maybe at max.). Some users find the matrix metering lousy; I never saw an issue in it. That's the only serious known flaw of the D80.<br /> One area where the D300 is massively better is the AF - but the 70-300 lens you have (or the one I have) are so incredibly slow to focus that the whole advantage ends up being zero. So, in my view (and experience), you won't gain that much in terms of image quality with the D300.</p>

<p>The Tamron you describe is a somewhat older version; a very affordable telezoom but optically not all that great. Lightweight construction, the macro mode is a nice added feature, though. (all this if it's the same lens I've used a couple of times...)</p>

<p>Assuming the $900 budget for the D300 could equally be spent on lenses, shopping new there are several lenses that would make good upgrades: Nikon AF-S 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR or the new Tamron 70-300 with VC; both around $500 - or the AF-D 80-200 f/2.8 (pushes the budget) or Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 (around $850 I believe, but not 100% sure). The last is still slow to AF, though, so it may not be the best choice for sports.</p>

<p><em>Edit</em>: photos in the shade are never going to be very great, and a f/2.8 lens won't make it vastly better. Good light means light which gives contrast. Shade typically is diffuse and shattered light. You either have to accept that this situation is very unfavourable, or use flash (which I can imagine is either not allowed or not wanted). I'm just adding this to warn that an upgrade in either lens or body might bring you very little here, since the conditions you describe just are not ideal for sharp photos with contrast and/or vivid colours.</p>

[jim_manganella]

<p>The problem is the aperture of the cheaper lens you have. Upgrade to at least a f/2.8 lens or simply crank up the ISO.</p>

[simon_hickie1]

<p>I recently did some shooting at a gig with a D5000 and 16-85mm VR lens. AF was fine in low light and I was typically shooting at 1/30th ISO 3200 and f5.6 in RAW only. Noise was acceptable at the expense of resolution. The main problem I found was the 5 shot buffer in continuous shooting mode before the camera stopped for a breather. Take a look at my portfolio to see the results. I also have a D300 which I will use next time simply for the 17 shot RAW buffer. If I had an f2.8 lens I could have gained a couple of stops. However, VR resulted in sharp exposures when subject movement was at a minimum, which would not otherwise have been the case at the long end of the lens.<br>

I also had a D80 and did not like it much, mainly due to its matrix metering defect. Noise was also an issue at higher ISO settings.<br>

Beware the tamron 17-50mm af if you get the one with the built-in motor. I found it very twitchy and slow. <br>

How about considering some fast prime lenses? The 85mm f1.8 or maybe an f2.8 macro lens might help.</p>

[stephen_hipperson]

<p>Isn't the cheapest solution to correct the shooting conditions? If the requirement is continuous consider punching light into the shade using a white sheet between lighting stands. It would be nuts to spend money on new kit to find it didn't 'fix' your problems - of course if you are justifying the spend on new kit against a 'real life' problem - e.g. if I buy a new lens, dear, I will take better pictures. </p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>If you want better IQ at high iso's, the D7000 is a better choice than the D300. Still, I would rather upgrade the lens to a Nikon or Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 or Nikon 80-200 f/2.8. I think you would improve IQ more by using an f/2.8 lens than by getting a new body with better IQ at high iso's.</p>

<p>In other words, I'd rather shoot at f/2.8 and iso 800 with your D80 than at f/5.6 and iso 3200 with a D300 or D7000.</p>

[john_deerfield]

<blockquote>

<p> f2.8 macro lens might help</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>A macro lens will be slower to focus, all else being equal.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>You have a tripod, Jo? It's hardly a magic wand, but in some conditions it helps greatly.</p>

[jo_pemble]

<p>Gee, thanks everyone. I think I'll be buying a new lens instead of a new camera......still not sure of which one but you've sure given me some options.<br>

For those that asked...I have no control over the surroundings or set up. These are candid shots taken while the show is going on. The ring is along side some large trees.....great for shade so the dogs will stay cool, but lousy for pictures.<br>

I do have a tripod but I move around quite a bit so that wouldnt work.. not to mention there are lots of spectators who get annoyed with the photographers getting in their way......but a monopod might work just fine. Thanks again. This is a great site for us newbies :) Jo</p>

[dan_south]

I'm going to go against the crowd and suggest that you upgrade the camera. The D300 has much lower noise at high

ISO. This will allow you to increase your shutter speed. Dogs move fast. A faster shutter speed will help freeze

motion.