Help me update my kit!

[phoenix]

Hi everyone. I'm looking at updating my kit very soon and wanted to know your opinions on which way i should go.

Currently i have:
D200
D70
17-55mm 2.8
50mm 1.4
70-200mm
105mm macro
and a bunch of cheaper lenses for the D70 that i throw in the car for trips and stuff.

I want to eventually have a full frame kit as well as a cheaper cropped frame one. I don't think right now i could go to the D700 as my 17-55 is the lens i use 50% of the time and it's a DX lens. Ultimately i want to get the D3, and D700 and the 12-24mm, 24-70mm, and my 70-200mm. And then have the D300 and my 17-55mm, and the 70-200mm. I shoot a lot with the 70-200mm with lots of sports stuff and for a lot of it it is low light stuff. Thats the big reason i want to update my kit. The D200 is good but going past iso800 is pushing it a bit for the print work. The other work i do is portrait work, and a lot of indoor building shots for brochures etc.

Basically should my next body be a D300 or a D700? And i guess if it's a D300 i am fine for lenses so the purchase is a fairly cheap one. If you think i should get the D700, what would i need to buy to maintain my current work? I'm guessing a replacement to the 17-55mm? I've been tossing this up for weeks and just not sure what to do short term. I want to buy the best lenses to start with so buying a cheap 17-55mm replacement won't work. I'm guessing the 24-70mm is the logical replacement?

Sorry if its all confusing! Thanks!

[aim54x]

If you go with the D700 (it is appealing for the FX nature and the associated high ISO performance) then the 24-70 would be a must to replace the 17-55, also keep in mind you will lose a bit of length from your 70-200. The D300 is a really nice alternative and will mean you are not out a lot for the upgrade.

I would seriously ask yourself if you do sports work, would the FX nature of the D700 be worth the extra cost associated with the need to look at another lens for the long end of your kit? Alternatively, get the D300 and live with DX for a little longer and be out the cost of the body only.

I vote the D300 if your worried about cost, and maybe look at getting the 24-70 over the next year or so and then jump into FX a little later on.

[Geoff]

Hi Mate,
My short and simple advice to you is;

1. You are now making a living from photography
2. Afford the very best you can now (considering the above comment).
3. Buy the D3 and 24-70 as a start (again if at all possible)
4. Consider a personal loan to get yourself going..but be careful and shop around for competitive rates etc.

The combination of the D3 (and yes, the D700 too!) and the 24-70 and your improving skills/techniques as a photog will help create amazing photos/opportunities.

Remember that this kit is now potentially the road to a solid income for you and if you have the very best it will help make you more $$. Of course, it requires skill, dedication and hard work of course.

I've been bitten by the D3 bug recently, but not hard enough to be able to afford one yet, with a wedding of my own looming and a honeymoon straight after that (the thought of taking a D700/D3 with us on our honeymoon is really messing with my mind hehe). I held the D3 a few weeks back and it felt so right, ergonomic and not as heavy as I anticipated either. That said the D700 (which I haven't picked up yet) is a very close contender to it's bigger brother, the D3.

I hope this post has been some use to you buddy.

Cheers,

Geoff.

[gstark]

I would disagree with anyone who suggests that you get a D300. It's a great camera, but what, in all honesty, would such a purchase gain you that you cannot reasonably handle with your D200? Especially if you use it as a backup body.

Looking at your kit, you already have a number of lenses that will handle the FX format, and thus, ongoing, I would suggest that the two most essential requirements for you are a D700 and a 24-70, followed then by a 14-24.

You can sell the 17-55, to recover some of your expenditure, and you will then have a very effective working kit, along with a very capable backup body, with fully compatible glass.

Cheers

[ATJ]

In my opinion, you need to consider the effect of the DX versus FX sensor. (Others may shoot me down, but I still think you need to consider it.)

The D3, D700 and D300 are all around 12MP, but the D300 sensor is smaller. This means that with the same lens on each of the cameras, the D300 will have a narrower field of view. With the 70-200mm lens at 200mm, you will get an angle of view with the D300 very close to what you would get with a 300mm lens on the D3 or D700. This means that with the D300 you can effectively get closer to your sports action than you could with the D3 or D700. And yes, I realise that you are not actually any closer, but just that full resolution images with the D300 and a lens at 200mm will be similar to full resolution images taken from the same place with a 300mm lens on the D3/D700.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that for your sports photos, moving to the D3 or D700 will increase the field of view of your lenses and give the same effect as moving further from the subject.

[gstark]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that for your sports photos, moving to the D3 or D700 will increase the field of view of your lenses and give the same effect as moving further from the subject.

Andrew,

He already has a D200 (and a D70), and thus he already enjoys the reduced FoV that the DX format provides. Given that his effective choices are D300 vs D700 vs D3, I think that the best option, considering his current kit, is to move to FX using the D700. I think he gains little by moving to a D300 that he doesn't already enjoy, and the real benefits that the D300 offers are even greater with a D700.

[ATJ]

Gary,

I guess I was going off this comment...

I shoot a lot with the 70-200mm with lots of sports stuff and for a lot of it it is low light stuff. Thats the big reason i want to update my kit. The D200 is good but going past iso800 is pushing it a bit for the print work. The other work i do is portrait work, and a lot of indoor building shots for brochures etc.

The D300 will help a lot for going past ISO 800. Yes, the D700 will help even more, but the increased field of view (with the same lenses) would be a negative for the "lots of sports stuff".

[gstark]

The D300 will help a lot for going past ISO 800. Yes, the D700 will help even more, but the increased field of view (with the same lenses) would be a negative for the "lots of sports stuff".

Perhaps, but I think that, given all that is really happening under the hood is that you're cropping, you may as well just crop from the D700 images.

Yes, I accept that it's not the same absolute resolution, but seeing that we can pull perfectly acceptable A3+ sized prints (and beyond) from a D70, I think that there would be little disadvantage in a cropped image sourced using those big, fat, juicy pixels from a D700.

[phoenix]

Thanks for the comments so far guys. I am indeed making a living from this now, so anything i buy I'm trying to get the best possible. I don't quite have the money for a D3 and the 24-70mm lens just yet, but hopefully that is not too far away now. I'm basically thinking i want to end up with the D3, and the D700 as a second body, with the 12-24, 24-70, 70-200, 105mm macro and the 50mm 1.4 lenses. I think this would be the ideal kit for me so far, with another longer lens down the track for the sports stuff. I'll be honest, the sport stuff pays far far less than all my other work so even though i do so much of it, it's not what's going to get me the most income.

So saying that i think the D700 right now might make the most sense, and the 24-70 lens as well. I guess i could sell the 17-55mm lens and recoup some money that way. I'm assuming the D200 can use the 24-70? Then i would be left with the 12-24 and the D3 later on. That would give me the above kit. I'm thinking that's about the most ideal kit for most situations? Am i missing anything here? Don't take lighting into account because i've already started my lighting kit and I'm a lot clearer on that than the camera and lenses.

So the outlay would be around $3900 for a D700, and around $2500 for the 24-70? And i guess i could get about $1200 for the 17-55? So around $5200 for an updated kit so far?

[chrisk]

if you are talking about the 12-24 nikkor that is a DX lens. pretty sure its just a typo and you mean the 14-24, but just to be sure you know... btw: the 24-70 is more like around the $2200 mark and the d700 is curently $3500. (from ECS).