[Closed] If I had a spare £1500... (photography content)

Canon/Nikon/Olympus etc.
SRAM/Shimano/Campag etc.

Isn't it great to have such choice?

(Canon EOS user for the good stuff, Olympus for the point and shoot and an old skool Olympus OM10 for the arty film based goodness)

everyone knows canon is better 😉

I'd buy the D90 and some lens(es) or save up and get the D700. And that's from a D300 owner. I bought 6 months too early

Canon/Nikon/Olympus etc....Isn't it great to have such choice?

I bought 6 months too early

I like the idea behind the new [url= http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/microsite/d3000/en/ ]D3000[/url] too. Just not sure how well it'll be received and used by Mr. Joe Public.

Really do we [i]need[/i] any more frigging range?! It just seems like Canon and Nikon are in a power competition to see how many similar camera's they can make.

I work in a well known camera shop (didnt say it was a good one mind) and I cant get over how quickly they move stuff on. It seems just a few months before they are renewing a new camera, yet the top end stuff dosent get changed for a few years. Id barely got my 40D when they released the 50D.

What does the D3000 do that that the D60 dosent? Other than the larger screen and 11 point autofocus system, it dosent appear any different. Even though I am a Canon man they are no better, so Im not just complaining about Nikon.

Happy D300 / D200 user here - but I'm looking at upgrading purely down to the dual memory slots. I've had a couple of CF cards corrupt on me after weddings and it's a terrifying experience. The backup would give a massive amount of peace of mind..........

A photographer i regularly work with uses two D300's, and i always get to tweak the images afterwards. We both agreed that my Canon 5D is producing much sharper/better results. He will now be either getting 5D MK II or D700.

Sharpness has never been an issue for me - I shoot with no 'on-board' sharpening and sharpen at the last stage before printing - can't imagine why a D300 would produce soft images unless it's the fault of the user.

"Better" is very subjective.

The D700 is THE camera in the Nikon range.
I have owned D200, D2H, D1, in the reverse order.
I have very little, if any, in-camera wizardry dialled-in, shoot RAW, and post produce in CS3.
The difference in the chip is that quantum leap you're looking for.
Better is subjective you think - the new chip is stunning and all my assistants agreed as soon as we bought them, it knocked the D200's straight onto eBay.
Failing that the Canon 5D Mk 11 as mentioned earlier; both at about the £2k price point.
I shoot maybe 2000 images on a wedding and have never had need for this 2nd slot.

"everyone knows canon is better"

everyone knows that if you are not any good at taking photos, spend £50 or £1500 and the results will be rubbish !

A photographer i regularly work with uses two D300's, and i always get to tweak the images afterwards. We both agreed that my Canon 5D is producing much sharper/better results. He will now be either getting 5D MK II or D700.

I too have taken soft images with my D300. Always has been my fault. Perhaps your friend should enrole in one of the photography courses that Nikon runs?

You should be aware that on some Nikon bodies there can be an issue with Back-focusing. Front-focussing too can cause just as many issues.
This is not an issue when used with wide lenses, moreover it becomes apparent only on a telephoto lens.
I noticed it on my 85mm f1.4, even at f2, some images were not as sharp as they should have been.
Send the body off to Fixation in London and have them fix it

Ti29er, regarding the back focusing/Front-focussing issue, was it a issue over all the focusing range or just on close up subjects?

I have had problems with bright prime lens in the past with close up photography when shooting wide open.

BTW, Just had a Eos 5D Mk 11 for a loaner over the weekend and was very impressed, the lenses feel sleekly smooth & that's coming from a life long Nikon user 😉

If I had not already invested heavily into the Nikon system, then the 5D would be top of my list, if I could afford it, that is 😉

These might be handy...

Focus Test Chart:
http://focustestchart.com/chart.html

Performing a Back Focus test:

And yeah, the new D300s looks very nice indeed. But if I had £1,500 to spend on photography I'd probably buy a nice fast telephoto.

Any thoughts on the new 18-200 lens?
http://www.europe-nikon.com/product/en_GB/products/broad/1824/overview.html
RRP is reported to be £729.99

[url= http://www.bythom.com/nikond300s.htm ]Thom Hogan has some good points[/url]

£1500 spare wouldn't tempt me to switch to Nikon, because then I'd have to replace £muchoK of canon lenses.

A photographer i regularly work with uses two D300's, and i always get to tweak the images afterwards. We both agreed that my Canon 5D is producing much sharper/better results. He will now be either getting 5D MK II or D700.

The inherent Sharpness of the 5D is both a blessing and a curse. The reason the 5D appears sharper then other Canon's and Nikon's (Aside from the Nikon D50 which has the same feature/issue) is it has a very weak Anti Aliasing filter, the result is you get shaper out of camera Raw files but if you shoot anything with a high frequency detail pattern (Pin stripes Bird Feathers and the like) you can get terrible moire patterns in the textures.

Nikon are known to use Less aggressive in camera sharpening than Canon but a similarly treated well shot RAW file should yield equivalent sharpness from both.

It's hard to buy a bad DSLR these day's, the biggest choice is good 3rd party accessory support and ergonomics.

I think if I had a spare £1700 I would opt for the D700. But as I have no "spare" money these things can wait.

I know a couple of D300 users and they've had no problems with back/front-focusing. Something to look out for I guess.

terrible moire patterns in the textures

Very unlikely to be switching to Canon. Too many Nikon bits to replace (and Nikon's are just better 😉 ).

Very unlikely to be switching to Canon. Too many Nikon bits to replace (and Nikon's are just better ).

I think the big players have it nailed on image quality across the board now. However I prefer Nikon's ergonomics and they fact that they apply mainly Chroma Noise reduction with little Luminance reduction at HI ISO. This may make the files a bit noisier than Canon's straight out of Camera, however there is more detail to work with in Post, and the nose that is left is more film grain like.

Mind you it's tiny difference only really noticeable in LARGE prints.
The ergonomics thought that's different entirely.
😀

So does this mean there will be some D300 bargains to be had now ?.

Well, I'm still plugging along with my D200, thank you very much - I take bad shots - it doesn't! I am saving for a 70-200 f2.8VR and after that probably some radio triggers, then after that a non-pirated Photoshop(!) then and only then will I think about getting a newer body.
18-200 is great............ sort of, I leave it on virtually all the time when out n about with the kids, but, if I really want a nice shot I put on my lovely Nikkor 17-55 2.8 instead.

lovely Nikkor 17-55 2.8

So does this mean there will be some D300 bargains to be had now ?.

Haven't seen many bargains on these. Better off getting a D90 though to be honest. A lot cheaper anyway and supercedes the D300 in many ways.

Really? Aside from it's Bolted on Video function I'd love you to elaborate on this.

buy one. buy the best one you can afford and then buy another one a year later. buy every lens you want then get bored and take up fishing and decide to sell everything.
i like people who do this. been buying hardly used 5x4/hassleblad/canon gear from amateurs for years. without them a lot of camera equipment would be way overpriced.

what mrsmith says 🙂

that's what i do except i don't sell the kit on.

by the way, for those looking at mid range zooms have a look at the tokina 16-50 f2.8

you can buy the 11-16, 16-50 and 50-135 all constant f2.8 for less than the price of the 70-200 f2.8 nikon. only downside is lack of VR but the 70-200 really is a bit over the top on an APSC chip

*1 7 fps Based on CIPA Guidelines. When shooting in Continuous-servo AF (C) using Shutter-Priority Auto [S] or Manual [M] exposure modes with a shutter speed of 1/ 250s or faster, and other settings at default. Continuous shooting speed for 14-bit NEF (RAW) is approx. 2.5 fps.

Is that corect? 7fps in jpeg and only 2.5fps in NEF (RAW) ??? That's daft if it's not a typo as surely anyone spending that much on a camera will be using RAW?

just don't bother with 14 bit NEF, 12 is plenty and the files are smaller too

if you are shooting that fast then the likelihood of needing to shoot RAW to boost low light shots is pretty slim, 7fps is only really an option in good light surely?

a lot of the pros i work with only shoot RAW if they know a lot of post is going to be necesary.

just my opinion though

(D300 owner)

The d300 has two types of raw, 12 and 14 bit

6 FPS for 12 bit RAW
2.5 FPS for 14 bit RAW

Have Nikon got two different standard of NEF then 12 / 14bit? So it will still do 12 bit NEF at 7fps?

My 40D would do 6.5 fps in 14 / 16 bit (I think) RAW, same speed as jpeg. Only thing that suffered was the buffer capacity.

if you are shooting that fast then the likelihood of needing to shoot RAW to boost low light shots is pretty slim, 7fps is only really an option in good light surely?

I love RAW as you can end up with exposure blending from a single RAW file, to get a correctly exposed sky and rider without bothering with bracketing or HDR. jpeg just doesn't offer that range of exposure adjustment.

I would frequently shoot at 6.5 fps even down to 1/40sec speed. It allows you to try panning shots with more chance of getting a sharp subject.

for example, a couple of shots where I had time to whip out the camera set on Av mode and catch a burst of RAW files. No time for metering / bracketing etc. Used the single best RAW file to expose for both sky and foreground / subject and then blend the two converted jpegs together to get a balanced exposure. No way I could have done that with a jpeg.

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

You can also play about with the white balance / saturation etc far more easily in RAW than in jpeg. Couple of snow shots below with totally blown skies that were rescued in RAW. Don't think i could have done it in jpeg.

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

"If I had a spare £1500".
I'd wait and save a little and buy the D700.
For me, it's a no-brainer, having switched over to them myself.
However, were I in the market from scratch, a little more £ and the Canon becomes a possibility.

The fact is there's not much between the two.
The prime Nikon lenses are a little bit slower, both to focus and in f stops partly as the motor's in the body, where as Canon's are in the lenses. On the long sports lenses, there's nothing in it now.
The low light abilities of the D700 / D3 are better than Canon's and the Nikon SB flash units are a dream to use.
The ergonomics are considered better on the Nikons.

Save your dosh, buy the D700 when you can.

The prime Nikon lenses are a little bit slower, both to focus and in f stops partly as the motor's in the body, where as Canon's are in the lenses.

Apart from the Nikon AF-S prime lenses where the motor is in the lens. 🙄

I currently use an EOS 450D with mostly Olympus OM lenses via an adapter. I'd love a D700, but sadly there is no OM-Nikon adapter, so it'll have to be a 5DII when I can afford it...

Having borrowed one the other week, my 450D seems very inferior 🙁

The AF motor is not in any 6x wide angle lenses, be it 14, 16, 20, 24, 28 nor the 35.
Nor in the normal 2x 50mm lenses. It is in the 2008 50mm f1.4 - finally.
Nor in any of the 4x macro lenses.
Of the 14 specialist telephoto lenses, it appears in 9, most recently the fabulous 200mm f2 (finally!)
So, on balance, Nikon are behind Canon's in providing prime lenses with the motor in the lens; ergo they as slightly slower in focusing.
Unless you're spending £2300+++++ on specialist sports lenses the Canon lenses will be quicker.

Right this is going to upset some one above.

For all that faffing with RAW files etc, those pictures above look decidedly average. (not that I am saying I could do any better)

I guess its like any hobby/sport people get carried away with the equipment etc when its talent that makes the real difference.

FunkyDunc - Member

Right this is going to upset some one above.

For all that faffing with RAW files etc, those pictures above look decidedly average. (not that I am saying I could do any better)

They'd undoubtedly look worse if they were straight out of the camera's JPEG conversion

I guess its like any hobby/sport people get carried away with the equipment etc when its talent that makes the real difference.

Talent and luck do make a lot of difference to photography - however features such as improved low-light ability and the improved resolution certainly make good photos look better. I agree they won't make a bad photo good though.

not upset, they were example of the flexibility of a RAW file for blending the ground / sky rather than 'good' photos. And they look a lot better than the originals with white, totally blown out skies.

I never get time to set up or compose properly while riding, as the other lads don't hold on long enough at the top of the DHs (and it would break up the ride too much). The main purpose of those photos was for the lads I ride with and they seem happy with 'em. It's not the sort of thing I'd enter into a competition

Beware you don't fall into the Fujichrome school of photography where everything's on Prozac, over blown, over saturated, over sharpened.

lol, I don't like the heavy HDR type stuff, but it is easy to get carried away in photoshop.

The more recent ones I've done I tried backing off the saturation and contrast once all the other editing was done and it did look better for it.

Nikon are behind Canon's in providing prime lenses with the motor in the lens

Yep. Nikon have some legacy prime lenses that have not been re-designed with a SWM motor yet.

Most of the zooms and a fair number of the prime do have AF-S variants though.

And third-party lenses from Sigma and Tamron fill most of the gaps anyway.

e.g.

The AF motor is not in any 6x wide angle lenses, be it 14, 16, 20, 24, 28 nor the 35.

Sigma 4.5mm f2.8 EX DC HSM
Sigma 10mm f2.8 EX DC HSM Diagonal Fisheye
Sigma 30mm f1.4 EX DC HSM
Nikon 35mm f1.8 G AF-S DX Lens

Not to mention the excellent Sigma and Nikon zooms that cover this range with AF-S.

What use is a DX lens with FX format?
None.
Nikon do not make a wide angle lens that has the motor in the lens that you can use on a Nikon D700.
And who in God's name would buy anything other than a same-brand lens and body? Not any professional photographer I know, that's for sure.
None of the photographers I employ or have ever employed use non-branded lenses on my photographic shoots.

Yes they do.

It's a zoom rather than a prime - but it's universally regarded as an extraordinary lens.

Nikon do not make a wide angle lens that has the motor in the lens that you can use on a Nikon D700.

Since when did AF speed become an issue for Wide angle shots? The in body motors on the D300/700 and D3/x are ripping fast and snap into focus in a fraction of a second, especially given the short throw on the focus mechanism of most W/A Lenses.

None of the photographers I employ or have ever employed use non-branded lenses on my photographic shoots.

Really? Most pro's I know use whichever lens offers the best optical quality and performance for the job in hand regardless of who makes it what it costs.

You can keep your Canikons, I want one of these
[url] http://www.pentax.co.uk/en/product/17531/body/overview/Photo_Digital_SLR.html [/url]

And who in God's name would buy anything other than a same-brand lens and body? Not any professional photographer I know, that's for sure.

zeiss make some nice primes for canon/nikon. not purchased any myself but would if the lens that was better or a configuration that wasn't available from the body manufacturer.

It's interesting to see that people think a D700 is the way forward and the whole DX vs FX opinion.

I can't honestly see any reason for upgrading to full frame. Unless you're a pro or trying to shoot images to print at huge size then it's not really worth it is it? If all you're doing it posting to Flickr then do you need full frame? The lenses are also big £££££.

I'm going to get a D300s in September hopefully. I'd get the D90 but I prefer the less plastic and better weather sealing of the D300.

the viewfinders are horrible on the crop format cameras. like looking down a loo roll tube.

Well they're not as nice as the ones in my film camera but I'm not paying more money just for that. For your job I'd go full frame, but I doubt many people on here need it.

Yer all largely talking out yer arses. I tend to agree with this.

So let's take a case in point. You own a D200 and an 18-200mm lens and you've got US$2000 to spend on your hobby this year. There are four broad categories you can spend that money on, so let's examine them:

1. Upgrade the body. For US$2000 you can certainly afford a D300 (or a D300s Real Soon Now) and have a few dollars left. Sounds good. But what did you gain photographically? Well, you gained 2mp, which is not enough to make a real visual difference on most prints you'd do on a desktop inkjet. You gained perhaps a stop higher usable high ISO value--though I immediately wonder if you know how to optimize the shooting you're currently doing at high ISO. Anything else in image quality? There's a small dynamic range difference, but not enough for most people to worry about. So we're left evaluating the camera features. Yes, the D300 has better AF, plus adds Live View and AF Fine Tune. Will any of those really elevate your photographic quality? And are any of these improvements worth US$2000?
2. Upgrade the lens. US$2000 buys a lot of lens. That 18-200mm user would get a modest-but-real boost in image quality and a significant increase in reach by buying the 16-85mm and 70-300mm VR combo, for instance. This gets us into the question of the convenience shooter versus the quality shooter. My thesis is a convenience shooter isn't really much interested in image quality, thus I'm not sure why they're spending US$2000 at all! The quality shooter has a lot of options with this much money when considering lenses. A 35mm f1.8G and 105mm Micro-Nikkor fit this budget, too, and both are lenses that are better in optical quality than my presumed current lens at their focal lengths and do things that the kit lens couldn't. Almost any way I slice things, I can see meaningful potential image upgrades through lenses in this scenario. Even more so if we...
3. Upgrade the photographer. US$2000 can buy a lot of training. That's perhaps two or three local workshops, or one exotic location workshop, or virtually everything that Scott Kelby's Photoshop User group produces (books, CDs, training videos, plus a local seminar or two). The problem here is in evaluating in advance whether the training will be useful for you or not. There are thousands of photo workshops each year, but they seem to be of quite variable quality. Before spending lots of money on a workshop, you need to try to find out about the style and commitment to teaching from the instructor. There's a big difference in workshops where the instructor is actually teaching most of the time versus ones where they're shooting most of the time. Unfortunately, there's no good source for evaluating this ahead of time. So all you can do is query the instructor before signing up and see what kind of responses you get to your questions. Still, good instruction will take you further in image quality faster than camera upgrades or lens upgrades. Thus, it's worth spending time trying to figure out how to evaluate instructors. One good indicator is repeat students. So try to find others who've taken workshops from someone you're considering and see if they'd take another. And one question to ask a former student: did their shot discipline improve?
4. Upgrade your support. This one gets overlooked all the time because it's both a hassle to carry more equipment, using tripods slows you down, and good support equipment is expensive. Still, to get tack sharp images, you need to take out camera movement. VR isn't always the answer, and indeed, I find that most people's over reliance on VR tends to make them sloppy in terms of shooting discipline (see #3).

So, here's my formula: upgrade the photographer first. Once you're comfortable that you really know what you're doing and that you're optimizing what you can get out of your current equipment, then upgrade your lens and/or support system. When you find you're shooting with a body three generations behind the current state-of-the-art, then you can consider upgrading the camera. If you've really optimized the other things (lenses, photographer, support), you can consider updating when your camera is two generations old. But don't update every body generation: you're wasting money you could spend usefully elsewhere.

Thom Hogan - that man talks a lot of sense.

If only Ken Rockwell would take down his website, that would help.

Well I left the D300s and got the standard D300. Couldn't be happier! Bloody fantastic camera.

Had a play with a d300s the other day. Even as a canon user I was impressed. Wireless flash was a nice toy, but limited range even with clear line of sight

I'll be buying a 7D early next year... it looks the dogs bollocks (esp. if you're already committed to Canon EF-S lenses, like I am 🙂 )

The 7D looks good, shame it's not full frame though.

the nikon wireless flash system has pretty good range but you do need to add an on camera flash to really benefit from it

Nikon D70, 2xSB600:

[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrmichaelwright/113029004/ ]
[img] [/img]
[/url]

you can get pretty good range with the in built flash mind, depends on ambient light

you can get pretty good range with the in built flash mind, depends on ambient light

Only had one flash to use off camera so had to just use the onboard. Got to 10 yards or so at the outside and it was failing. mid afternoon, in trees.

Good stuff in that quote Vinnyeh. A decent tripod and tripod head is often overlooked. I could probably have bought a decent lens with what I spent on my tripod and head but its made far more difference to my photography than buying another lens.

Happy 5D user here. I like a big viewfinder and my wide angle lenses acting as proper wide angles. Not tempted by the 5DII as the extra MP is not a significant advantage for me. However if they ever bring out a full frame version of the 7D I might be tempted.

However if they ever bring out a full frame version of the 7D I might be tempted.

The whole point (and excitement) of the 7D is that it [i]isn't[/i] full-frame 🙄 It's the 'mini-1D' that Canon users have been waiting for and it'll be the ultimate top-end body for those of us who have £1500+ worth of EF-S glass (10-22mm, 17-55mm and 60mm EF-S). Plus, put my 70-200mm on it with a 1.4X converter and I've got a 450mm F5.6 8) REALLY looking forward to getting this body, my current one is the 400D (great little camera, but it's 3 years old now and it's time to upgrade 😀 )

7D looks lovely, wouldn't want the full frame as I like the crop for biking... stops having to carry even heavier lenses around.

When do people think the 60D will come out? My 30D is probably going to get replaced sometime before I go to whistler next autumn. I'd just get the 50d but I quite fancy a video option...

60D is [i]supposedly[/i] due in February or thereabouts... you could look at the 500D perhaps?