upgrade on d300

[heytherek_kas]

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I am at a bit of a crossroads deciding what camera to get as a second camera. I have had a d300 since it was released and love it - I mainly shoot portraits, landscapes, event work, bit of architecture. I starting shooting for my business late last year and have had a few paid jobs now.</p>

<p>I own a sigma 18-35 1.8 art lens, tokina 11-16mm 2.8, nikon 85 1.8 and nikon 50 1.8. I have been getting a bit of work and would like to get into weddings eventually.<br /> I have been looking at the d750 and maybe adding a sigma 35mm 1.4 art lens but can't help but think a d800 might be the way to go given I do a bit of landscape work. So should I upgrade to FX finally to the d750 and d800. I also plan on getting s Sigma 70-200 2.8. I also own a SB 910 and SB600 flash and some umbrellas etc</p>

<p>I could keep going with my d300 but it does have its limitations for some of the work i do, especially as i like to print big on my landscapes. I have looked into the d7100 as a thought of staying with crop sensor but not sure it is going to give me a lot more benefit although it is a lot cheaper.</p>

<p>Any advice appreciated.</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>I use both a d7100 and a d810 and I love them both. There is no doubt that I choose the d810 for landscape because of the ability to make large prints and the ability to have more room to crop. </p>

<p>For weddings I think I would lean towards the larger RAW files of the d810 because of the ability to make large prints as well. </p>

<p>I use my d7100 as a backup for the most part but do love its lighter weight. This does one the ability to have it around their neck all day without getting tired. At my age this is important.</p>

<p>Having both cameras and some good glass I feel like I have my ultimate KIT. I personally have not worked with the d750.</p>

<p>-Cheers</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Without knowing a budget, I do not know what real advice one can give. In general: lenses first, then bodies. Your main lenses are DX, so moving completely to FX seems to me a bad move. Shooting a mix of FX and DX sounds a lot wiser, while saving up for more FX lenses - only a 35mm prime for events and weddings sounds a bit under-equipped to me (I'd think more about a 24/28-70 f/2.8 with 70-200 f/2.8 as the 'base kit' for that). But I'd reverse the order, and start getting lenses first.</p>

<p>The idea that a D8x0 would be better for landscapes... I don't know. The real-world difference between 24 and 36 MP isn't as huge as it sounds, look at the actual number of pixels you get horizontally and vertically, rather than the "megapixel" count. However, the one big thing I would put in favour of the D8x0 is the way that it handles nearly as your D300, while the D750 has a slightly different control lay-out. In all other senses, the D750 is at least as good a choice for nearly all of us. But at a wedding, being able to switch blindly between your 2 cameras counts.<br /> Last, the D7100 - might be your best choice, given the lenses you have. It will give quite some benefits - better dynamic range, more resolution, and a stop better high ISO performance. Same controls as a D750, so a bit the same issue there. If it was my business to run, though, the D7100 would be the top choice, next some FX lenses (70-200 first), and next add a FX body.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I own a sigma 18-35 1.8 art lens, tokina 11-16mm 2.8, nikon 85 1.8 and nikon 50 1.8.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>in this case, it makes no sense to move to full frame unless you also have the budget to upgrade the 18-35 and 11-16 to full frame lenses, which may be an expensive proposition. unless you need the high-ISO performance from FX, a d7100 would be a more sensible choice at this time. i know nikon really really wants you to move to FX, but you really have to think these things through. also, using either a d800 or d810 for weddings could result in a buffer issue, and for the cost of a d810 you could get 2x d7100, which would probably be more of a best-case scenario, since you'd have two cameras with the same controls and batteries.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I mainly shoot portraits, landscapes, event work, bit of architecture. <br>

....<br>

I have been getting a bit of work and would like to get into weddings eventually.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Every item in your photographic interest points to FX. Therefore, unless you absolutely cannot afford a set of good lenses for FX, I would move to FX and gradually add lenses and a second FX body. I hate to say this, getting a D7100 or any other DX body will merely prolong your difficulty and will not prevent you from moving to FX eventually.</p>

<p>That is why I always feel that Sigma's 18-35mm/f1.8 DX type lens is not a desirable product. It is a high-end DX (APS-C) lens introduced in an era when FX dominates the high end. There are still a lot of mid to low end DX bodies, but a high-end DX lens is a mismatch for them. People get f1.8 for low-light work, where FX has a clear advantage.</p>

[lornesunley]

<p>If you have a D800/810, just remember that you have a 17 MP DX camera built in. That is equivalent to the old D7000 DX camera.<br /> <br />That gives you use of your old DX lenses and still lets you get the FX benefit of the 50mm and 85mm lenses. Just one FX 20mm lens will give you the almost field of view you have with the 11-16 on your D300 for landscape work and you you can still use the 11-16 in DX mode and get the same thing you do on your D300 but with the same number of pixels as a D7000.</p>

[heytherek_kas]

<p>Thanks for all the responses, yes I have to carefully think about this - I have about $3k budget here and really need another body - I still plan to use my d300 as a second camera as i love its quality - with the tokina and sigma etc, the new camera more for work with my 85 and 70-200 2.8 when i get one for the FX, so options i guess is d7100 and stay with crop sensor or go to a FX and have FX and a crop sensor and slowly build up more lenses.... has anyone gone from a d300 to the d7100 or d750. I would need to have a wider angle lens to cover landscapes on the new camera as well, hence why i was thinking of getting a 35mm lens for the new camera</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>For landscape and architecture, you need good wide angle, where FX has the clear advantage. The problem with any Nikon DX lens and in fact any APS-C format DSLR is that they are all designed to be backward compatible with 35mm film SLRs, which has a larger mirror and therefore the lens registration distance was designed decades ago to clear that larger mirror. As a result, the design of any DX wide-angle lens is difficult because it needs to clear an unnaturally large mirror. However, APS-C mirrorless cameras (and the now effectively defunct 4/3 DSLR) are designed for the smaller formats from the start and have no such backward compatibility baggage.</p>

<p>For events and weddings, you want high-ISO capability, and once again FX has the clear advantage due to the larger sensor area. I am not sure about your particular geographical area, but please keep in mind that in general, wedding photography is highly competitive and hard to break into; it is also difficult to make money. If you invest a lot of money into equipment, it is not necessarily easy to recuperate such investment.</p>

<p>Is your $3K budget Australian, Canadian or US dollars (or New Zealand ...)? In the US, that can get you a D750 easily with some left over for a 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S lens for FX: http://www.photo.net/reviews/nikon-18-35mm-g-review/<br>

That, with you existing lenses, should cover your landscape and architecture needs quite well; you don't need f1.8 or f2.8 for those. 18-35mm is a very useful zoom range for FX; however, in my opinion, not so much for DX.</p>

<p>For events and weddings, most likely you want to add some sort of 24-70mm/f2.8 zoom in addition to the 70-200mm/f2.8 you are planning to get. If you are getting paid, having a second camera body is a must, and your old D300 can serve in that capacity for the time being. My opinion is that having dual memory cards in the body so that you can save every image onto two cards is also a must. Today, anything from the D7000-D7100, D600 and up (except for the Df) have that feature. Eventually you'll probably want a second FX body, but that will be further down the road with some income from your photography.</p>

<p>I currently still own a D300, D7100, and D750. So I think I know all of those bodies very well, among others.</p>

[Two23]

<p>For portraits, landscapes, architecture your best value would be a D800E and a Nikon 24mm PC-E lens to start. The D800E allows you to make big prints, but the biggest upgrade for me was the 24mm PC-E. For landscapes and exterior architecture, this is THE lens to put on a Nikon. Period. The difference the movements make are noticeably bigger than the difference a camera can make for these subjects.</p>

<p>For weddings, the D7100 is perfectly fine. It has very sure autofocus and dual card slots. For beginning weddings it might be the overall best choice for value. An 18-50mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8 lens of some kinds is all you really need, plus an adequate flash system (three monolights, umbrellas, lightstands, triggers.) Weddings are all about fast action shooting with some portrait work thrown in. The important thing is to have DUPLICATE GEAR in case something breaks or gets lost. This greatly adds to the cost of doing a wedding, but you MUST have back up gear. Unlike doing architecture etc., you can't go back and reshoot a wedding.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[CvhKaar]

<p>The brand new D7200 ? :-)</p>

[heytherek_kas]

<p>Hi, yes the D7200 could be something to look at :)</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>D610, D750, or D810, or a used D600, D700 or D800.</p>

<p>You can shoot your third party DX lenses in crop mode until they can be replaced.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I would exclude the D700 since it is only 12MP (not great for landscape) and has only one memory card slot (not up to today's standard for paid work, especially events that have no 2nd chance to reshoot, such as weddings).</p>

<p>Otherwise, any one of the remaining 5 Dan mentioned will work. The OP doesn't seem to demand the best AF, so it is a matter of budget. I would allocate more money to get the right lenses, rather than getting an excellent camera body but without the appropriate lenses for it for any extended period.</p>

<p>Those other 5 bodies all use the EN-EL15 battery and use SD memory cards (the D800 and D810 being dual CF/SD). Those are the current battery and memory card trends. Your old CF cards from the D300 are likely to be practically useless on any D800/D810 anyway as those 36MP cameras demand a lot more space and speed. Chance is that you'll need some new memory cards either way.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>I wonder if, and when, the CF card is going to disappear entirely or be updated?</p>

<p>I found this from 2009!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Expect CF to be gradually replaced by a new, incompatible CF-Fast card format in the next few years. Therefore, I wouldn't necessarily stock up on CF cards. </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00SdMA</p>

<p>There was something about the SD UHS II cards fitting in the D7200 and being 'compliant' but not capable of using the speed??</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>CF-Fast is a standard Canon, etc. are supporting, but it has taken a lot longer than I thought to be used widely. Meanwhile, Nikon is using XQD, which also doesn't seem to be used very widely. So we are having VHS vs. Beta, HD-DVD vs. BluRay all over again. It is not life and death, but I, for one, don't want to spend a lot of money and end up on the losing end.</p>

<p>SD UHS-II is backward compatible with regular SD (including UHS-1). So in general, you can pay a lot of money for a UHS-II SD card and use it on most SD devices; you just can't take advantage of the extra speed. I am a bit disappointed that the D7200 is not UHS-II compatible, but that probably would have added some cost to the D7200 without significant benefit for a consumer DSLR.</p>

[heytherek_kas]

<p>Thank you for all the advice, yes I definitely want to spend some money getting some good glass - I definitely think I am leaning towards the d7200 and a Tamron 70-200 2.8di and then something like a 24-70 2.8 or a 35 prime..... I think further down the track can look at full frame or maybe mirror less but am happy to keep the camera body to a crop - I have been using a d300 for some time now :) </p>