Debating between the D300s and D700

[cajun angel]

I'm planning to upgrade my D200 but dunno which camera to go with. I'm shooting a lot of high school and sr high school band. Any thoughts anyone?

to make things more clear - I'm not used to shooting at high ISO's at night and in high school stadiums. If anyone can or would like to help me with my settings on what I already have, I'm willing to listen and try it. If I do need to upgrade, then it's between the 2 cameras I've already mentioned.

[firenut]

Budget?

[KenJulio]

Of the lenses you have, the 18-55 and 18-200 will NOT be that useful as theyre designed for DX bodies.

What are you needing the d700 for? Better low light performance? Another option would be the D7000, it's still a DX body and you would still have the same framing/focal lengths as you would with either the d200/300s

[shnitz]

Didn't we already have a thread about this, when you talked about renting the D300 and 24-70 a few days ago?
Darned if I do......
I was trying not to be rude in the previous thread, but to say it a little more bluntly, you aren't using your camera correctly. The D200 is more than capable, and it seems that you really should step down in camera models until you really have the hang of the more basic functions of the camera. The myriad features of a D200 and D300 just seem to be getting in your way. Step down to a camera with less features. If you're taking pictures like this with a D300 and 24-70:
DSC_4508_edited-1 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
DSC_4255_edited-1 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Then no camera will help you, any more than you would win the Tour de France by being given Lance Armstrong's bike. I'm really not saying this to be rude, but too often, people ignore the fact that the camera is a tool. As I said in your previous thread, the most important part of the camera is the 6 inches behind the viewfinder, i.e. you. You will take much better pictures with a D3100 than you will with a D300; I can guarantee you.

Get a lower end camera; either D90 or a D3100, depending on how much you think you'll want/need the top LCD and multiple control dials. Get yourself a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, and shoot in aperture-priority mode, at f/2.8 or f/4. Use single focus point, preferably the center. Turn off Auto ISO, and choose an ISO like 800. Carefully frame your shots, your shutter speed should stay at 1/125 or better, until you're used to getting good shots.


If you just want to throw money at the problem until it goes away, thinking like most high school parents that a more expensive camera must automatically be better for them, I recommend getting yourself the D700 for $2,700. Don't forget to sell all of your midrange zoom lenses, because they don't work on your camera. You'll probably want to pick up a Nikon 24-70 as well, for another $1,700. The 80-200 and 300mm that you have are alright, but there are more expensive options, so they give better pictures. The 70-200 VR II is only $2,200 and the 300 f/2.8 VR is $6,000 or so. With that much investment, you're shots will HAVE to be better!

[cajun angel]

Originally Posted by KenJulio

Of the lenses you have, the 18-55 and 18-200 will NOT be that useful as theyre designed for DX bodies.

What are you needing the d700 for? Better low light performance? Another option would be the D7000, it's still a DX body and you would still have the same framing/focal lengths as you would with either the d200/300s

The only lenses I'm using are the 24-70, 80-200, and 300mm. The first 2 are both 2.8's and the 3rd is a f4. I'm shooting high school and sr high bands, can't use flash.

[cajun angel]

you know everyone is quick to point out what I don't need, but not one has given me a suggestion how to achieve a better photo with what I already have. I'm not used to shooting at high ISO's - at night - and I'll be blunt and tell ya I don 't like rudeness. I'm betting I'm old enough to be your mother or close to it.

Originally Posted by shnitz

Didn't we already have a thread about this, when you talked about renting the D300 and 24-70 a few days ago?
Darned if I do......
I was trying not to be rude in the previous thread, but to say it a little more bluntly, you aren't using your camera correctly. The D200 is more than capable, and it seems that you really should step down in camera models until you really have the hang of the more basic functions of the camera. The myriad features of a D200 and D300 just seem to be getting in your way. Step down to a camera with less features. If you're taking pictures like this with a D300 and 24-70:
DSC_4508_edited-1 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
DSC_4255_edited-1 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Then no camera will help you, any more than you would win the Tour de France by being given Lance Armstrong's bike. I'm really not saying this to be rude, but too often, people ignore the fact that the camera is a tool. As I said in your previous thread, the most important part of the camera is the 6 inches behind the viewfinder, i.e. you. You will take much better pictures with a D3100 than you will with a D300; I can guarantee you.

Get a lower end camera; either D90 or a D3100, depending on how much you think you'll want/need the top LCD and multiple control dials. Get yourself a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, and shoot in aperture-priority mode, at f/2.8 or f/4. Use single focus point, preferably the center. Turn off Auto ISO, and choose an ISO like 800. Carefully frame your shots, your shutter speed should stay at 1/125 or better, until you're used to getting good shots.


If you just want to throw money at the problem until it goes away, thinking like most high school parents that a more expensive camera must automatically be better for them, I recommend getting yourself the D700 for $2,700. Don't forget to sell all of your midrange zoom lenses, because they don't work on your camera. You'll probably want to pick up a Nikon 24-70 as well, for another $1,700. The 80-200 and 300mm that you have are alright, but there are more expensive options, so they give better pictures. The 70-200 VR II is only $2,200 and the 300 f/2.8 VR is $6,000 or so. With that much investment, you're shots will HAVE to be better!

[KenJulio]

Let's end it right here. Back on topic.

[auddii]

Hm, thought I commented in your other thread, but apparently not. I don't have an opinion on either camera since I don't know a ton about Nikon. The wedding photographer I work with shoots with a D200 and a D300. Both perform fairly well in low light (wedding receptions are ridiculously dark).

The biggest difference I see in the photos I take is the aperture. She has a lot of "fast" glass, ie f1.8, f1.4. There are times when we pass back the cameras back and forth and I'll take a photo, and it looks almost pitch black. She had changed the aperture from 1.4 to 2.8. Just a few stops makes a HUGE difference. And this difference is the same no matter which camera body you're using.

The test shot you posted was shot at 5.6, but your lens goes down to 2.8. I'd definitely keep your aperture wide open to let in as much light as possible (lowest numbers). Also, a new lens could be a lot cheaper than a new camera body. A 50mm 1.8 is almost dirt cheap used, and they are pretty common to find used on this site. Even a 50 1.4 is not as expensive as a new camera, and again, lets in even more light than 1.8. I don't know how close you can get to the band, so you may not like the focal length for what you want to do, it's just a suggestion.

Sorry I can't give you more info on the cameras. Good luck with the photos for the rest of the season! I hope we get to see some examples of what you get to shoot no matter what equipment you decide to buy (or if you decide to just keep everything you have).

Edit: I also apologize if I talked down to you about some things. I'm not sure of your photography knowledge. It is in no way meant to be disrespectful.

[cajun angel]

Originally Posted by auddii

Hm, thought I commented in your other thread, but apparently not. I don't have an opinion on either camera since I don't know a ton about Nikon. The wedding photographer I work with shoots with a D200 and a D300. Both perform fairly well in low light (wedding receptions are ridiculously dark).

The biggest difference I see in the photos I take is the aperture. She has a lot of "fast" glass, ie f1.8, f1.4. There are times when we pass back the cameras back and forth and I'll take a photo, and it looks almost pitch black. She had changed the aperture from 1.4 to 2.8. Just a few stops makes a HUGE difference. And this difference is the same no matter which camera body you're using.

The test shot you posted was shot at 5.6, but your lens goes down to 2.8. I'd definitely keep your aperture wide open to let in as much light as possible (lowest numbers). Also, a new lens could be a lot cheaper than a new camera body. A 50mm 1.8 is almost dirt cheap used, and they are pretty common to find used on this site. Even a 50 1.4 is not as expensive as a new camera, and again, lets in even more light than 1.8. I don't know how close you can get to the band, so you may not like the focal length for what you want to do, it's just a suggestion.

Sorry I can't give you more info on the cameras. Good luck with the photos for the rest of the season! I hope we get to see some examples of what you get to shoot no matter what equipment you decide to buy (or if you decide to just keep everything you have).

Edit: I also apologize if I talked down to you about some things. I'm not sure of your photography knowledge. It is in no way meant to be disrespectful.

thanks. When it comes to night photography, I'm lost! I'm more used to mx in the day time. I do have a 50mm 1.8 and will take it wth me next time. On some of my photos I did shoot wide open. Guess I just put the wrong photos on flickr. I'll start posting some photos starting next week - I'll have games 2 nights in a row. AND, the reason for my shooting band - I have 2 kids in marching band and 1 beginning. SO, I'm gonna be shooting band for the next 6 yrs. If the band sits spaced out like they did at the last game, I think the 50mm will work as I can get in close to photograph the various sections.

[shnitz]

I've given you suggestions in both threads. Carefully compose your shots, notice what you are and aren't getting in your pictures, and what you are and aren't focusing on. Shoot at ISO 800. Use wide apertures, in aperture priority mode. An f/2.8 lens is no good if you're shooting at f/5.6. Keep your shutter speed up, but if you are getting 1/125 second at f/5.6, then this should be a non-issue. Use a manual focus point, keep it in the middle unless you're trying to do something fancy. Use the simpler body. The D90 has the same autofocus system as the D200, the same image sensor as the D300, and the same physical body as the D50. The D300 has a "better" autofocus system, but it's exponentially more complex, which can easily lead to missed shots. It has a ton of features that you're going to pay for that you'll never use, and which will honestly get in your way. If I hand my non-photographer girlfriend a D40, D90, etc. then she will at least be able to stumble through it. If I give my film-photographer father a D200, he looks at me like I just told him to do brain surgery. At the end of the day, for all intents and purposes, the D90 and D300 produce identical images.

Get rid of:
D50
D200
18-55
18-200

Use the 50mm lens at f/2 or f/2.5. Pick up a better midrange zoom, to complement your 800-200, like a Tamron 17-50 (this is assuming that you're renting the 24-70. If you've already bought it, just go with it. It's an optically superior lens, but it will likely not be wide enough for many shots, which is why you see that most Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony, etc. crop-sensor cameras have midrange zooms that start between 15 and 18mm). So basically, pick up these lenses:

-Tamron 17-50 f/2.8
-Nikon 35mm f/1.8 (if the f/2.8 isn't enough light for you. This is only $200, and as I feel I say multiple times a week, this lens should be part of EVERY photographer's kit).
-Nikon 85mm f/1.8D, if 2.8 isn't enough for you.

[Hanky]

If you decide to upgrade at least wait for the D400* or the D800* as opposed to the D300s. Your using a tripod or at least a monopod?
*Pretty sure there will be a D400 but maybe the D800 will actually be a D700s.

[cajun angel]

Originally Posted by Hanky

If you decide to upgrade at least wait for the D400* or the D800* as opposed to the D300s. Your using a tripod or at least a monopod?
*Pretty sure there will be a D400 but maybe the D800 will actually be a D700s.

no mono or tripod used. I have a very steady hand, my shutter speed is usually at least 125. When the band is on the field, it's not so bad because of the stadium lighting. Up in the stands - at least at the stadium at the last game, the lighting was bad.

[Hanky]

I can tell you that for me, upping the iso was one of the best things ever.
I feel like a whole new person.

[Bob_S]

A D300 will do nicely in a well lit venue with a 70-200 2.8. A D700 will do a lot better on the same ISO but you get 200mm with the same lens instead of an effective 300mm with the D300 body.

With LR or a good noise program you can shoot the D300 at ISO3200 and still look ok for prints. Again the the 700 is going to do a lot better there. If you're wanting to look at full res images on a screen, go with the 700.

[scottbuckel]

Dianne - I always try to deal with upgrades of equipment by clearly defining my problems with my present equipment. From your posts it is not clear to me what you perceive is the problem/issue you are trying to solve.

Can you let us know what you see is the issue or problem you are trying to solve? Maybe there is a solution that would not require an expense.

Scott