DSLRUsers.com

I hate these questions being asked because they are so difficult to answer.

But, here goes:

It is a significant birthday for Alicia shortly. She is establishing her photographic business which includes still life style prints/cards/etc and, over time, portraiture.

We have (excluding the real cameras ) D200 + SB 800 + 85 1.4 + 50 1.8 + 35-70 2.8 + 17-35 2.8 (with focussing problems) + 20 2.8 + 55 3.5 macro with extension tubes (but non AI).

I was going to buy her the D700 for birthday and end of year religious/pagan celebrations, however, unexpected family related expenses have meant this has to be deferred until sometime in the new calendar year.

This leaves, in my mind, the following options which I believe she would appreciate:

1. Oly Pen E-P3 with associated lenses - reviews seem positive and it will be more portable for her to use than the D200. Would the Pen outperform the D200 in low light? Faster focussing? Would this provide her with good capabilities for still life?

2. Given the pending purchase of the D700 in 2012, buy a 50 1.4 G (have recently had a play with this and it is nice) + 60 2.8 macro (she would enjoy and find relevant to her work a macro lens) + SB900 (another 800?) - however, she is less inclined to do off-camera flash on the go and we have lights set up for still life. I think the SB900 would be more for me than her so I am disinclined to get it. I won't buy a DX lens as we will go FF eventually.

Any thoughts would be like heaps tops.

I vote for #2. I would see much more value in having more Nikon gear than heading down another track (no matter how good that other track might be).

I agree. There is great value in being able to swap lenses and accessories among family members. Also, low-light performance is probably not of the utmost importance for shooting staged subjects (stills, portraits).

EDIT I bet she would also enjoy a Phottix studio light kit or something of that caliber. I know I do.

Cheers
Steffen.

I too would go down the Nikon path.

As good as the Oly may be, their future may be clouded by the current corporate financial issues in Japan, and given the nature of the work, I'm not sure that the compactness of the Oly should (or is or will be) a major factor in what she'll be doing.

If low light performance is going to be an issue, why not throw a D7000 into the mix? I suspect she'll find it a better body than the D200, and it's surprisingly compact. I think it would be a better first body than the D200, and moving forward, also a better backup body.

Thanks folks.

I am disinclined to go for the D7000 as it is DX and we are looking to move to FF. Therefore, the body would become largely obsolete once we acquire the 10% version.

Reschsmooth wrote:I am disinclined to go for the D7000 as it is DX and we are looking to move to FF. Therefore, the body would become largely obsolete once we acquire the 10% version.

Patrick I think you got it backwards. If you bought an FX body and later bought a lot of DX lenses the FX body would become obsolete (or of limited use at least). A D7000 will always be fully functional and useful, no matter whether you go FX or not, and will work with all FX lenses you may end up buying. Also, remember that FX isn't "better" than DX, just different (and bigger + pricier).

Cheers
Steffen.

Steffen wrote:

Reschsmooth wrote:I am disinclined to go for the D7000 as it is DX and we are looking to move to FF. Therefore, the body would become largely obsolete once we acquire the 10% version.

Patrick I think you got it backwards. If you bought an FX body and later bought a lot of DX lenses the FX body would become obsolete (or of limited use at least). A D7000 will always be fully functional and useful, no matter whether you go FX or not, and will work with all FX lenses you may end up buying. Also, remember that FX isn't "better" than DX, just different (and bigger + pricier).

Cheers
Steffen.

Steffen, I didn't explain myself elucidiciously (new word). The D7000 would become obselete to the extent that we are going to acquire a D700 within 6 months or so anyway. Therefore, the third DSLR body would become obsolete.

And, in the context of what we would be using the camera for, predominantly, FX is better than DX.

Steffen wrote:Patrick I think you got it backwards. If you bought an FX body and later bought a lot of DX lenses the FX body would become obsolete (or of limited use at least). A D7000 will always be fully functional and useful, no matter whether you go FX or not, and will work with all FX lenses you may end up buying. Also, remember that FX isn't "better" than DX, just different (and bigger + pricier).

+1

I don't understand the desire/advantage of FX over DX unless you need very high ISO performance and/or ultra-wide angle. OK, I'm not Mr or Mrs Reschsmooth so my photographic needs will be different, but for me, DX wins easily over FX.

Edit: didn't see the response from Patrick before I posted. I guess the Oly would also become obsolete to some extent after the purchase of the D700. Note that I have a D300 and D7000 and use both a lot. For example, I was in Malaysia for 10 days and took over 2,000 shots with the D300 and over 700 with the D7000. Granted the D300 was in the housing the whole time, but having a second body is very handy.

The perceived reach of the DX format is too much of an annoyance. So, it isn't about the wide angle, but it is a similar context as to why we prefer FX. In many instances, the 85 is 'too close' in its DX equivalent FOV.

Just to add another spanner to the mix.
How about a Nikon1 with a lens adapter?
Use the native lenses when you want portability & drop on a 600f4 when you want serious reach
I do think this would be the better option right now given the uncertainty over Oly's future.

Of the two options you post I would go with the 50f1.4 but add tubes rather than the 60. A lot cheaper, the glass is better and just a little less convenient.

Like others I don't see that a DX body would become obsolete when you go to FX. I have a DX body, and apart from an ultrawide, all my glass is FX. I have been waiting for the D400 for some time, but given the delays, I am now seriously considering a D7000, then get the D800 when (if!) it comes out and keep both FX and DX as they fill different needs. As for putting on an 85 and complaining it is too long with my @#%@#$ DX body, I just drop on a 50. The numbers don't matter. The framing does.

Thanks folks.

When I refer to obsolescence, I am referring to the fact that we have a DX camera that largely works fine, but will be adding an FX camera to the mix. I see a situation where, with the addition of the FX camera, it will meet almost all our photographic needs and, therefore, can not see the need for an additional DX body. Sure, the D7000 will have better capabilities than the D200 in most regards, but in what ways will it better the D700, apart from size, perhaps?

Mr Darcy wrote:@#%@#$ DX body

What?

From my experience, the 85 is a better lens than the 50, particularly for portraits. Focussing is slower, granted.

Reschsmooth wrote:When I refer to obsolescence, I am referring to the fact that we have a DX camera that largely works fine, but will be adding an FX camera to the mix. I see a situation where, with the addition of the FX camera, it will meet almost all our photographic needs and, therefore, can not see the need for an additional DX body. Sure, the D7000 will have better capabilities than the D200 in most regards, but in what ways will it better the D700, apart from size, perhaps?

The camera I would see as obsolete in this mix is the D200. I have one. While it is an excellent camera, the world has moved on. I have used a D300 extensively, and it is a better beast than the D200 in pretty much every respect. From what I hear, the D7000 trumps the D300 in image quality and low light performance, and is on par in most other categories. You say this is a business you are supporting. Look at the depreciation figures. It may be a smart move to upgrade now before the resale value of the D200 drops to zero.

Another possible option (I am thinking of for the D700/ D800 and portraiture) might be a 135mm f2.

I'm a Canon FF and u4/3rds user, please take a grain of salt.

I'd get the D7000 and retire the D200 when you get the D700 in 2012. Best of both worlds. Nothing wrong with the D200 but things have moved along, especially in low light performance in the 6 years since it's release...

The EP3 is a nice camera, but its not going to show a candle to the low light performance of any current Nikon DSLR.

Michael

If it's a professional venture, then get a large camera. People will want to see big expensive equipment to be able to appreciate your work and pay the fees.

Mr Darcy wrote:The camera I would see as obsolete in this mix is the D200. I have one. While it is an excellent camera, the world has moved on. I have used a D300 extensively, and it is a better beast than the D200 in pretty much every respect. From what I hear, the D7000 trumps the D300 in image quality and low light performance, and is on par in most other categories. You say this is a business you are supporting. Look at the depreciation figures. It may be a smart move to upgrade now before the resale value of the D200 drops to zero.

The thing is, the D7000 isn't in the mix now. I don't know what the D7000 would offer that the d700 and d200 wouldn't. Hence my view that it would be obsolete.

In addition, we would let Alex use the D200.

Reschsmooth wrote: I don't know what the D7000 would offer that the d700 and d200 wouldn't.

I would doubt that you'd want to use the D200 professionally once you've used the D700.

surenj wrote:

Reschsmooth wrote: I don't know what the D7000 would offer that the d700 and d200 wouldn't.

I would doubt that you'd want to use the D200 professionally once you've used the D700.

Undoubtedly, but it would make a useful backup.

Having given this much thought and taking on board the sage (or is the thyme) advice from this thread, I will get the 50 1.4, a good 'daylight' lamp and a wacom tablet. Does anyone have any recommendations for Wacom tablets to be used for photo editing?

Thanks again for all your advice.

Easy. Sell Nikon, buy Canon.

ozimax wrote:Easy. Sell Nikon, buy Canon.

This isn't the Humour section.

Reschsmooth wrote:

ozimax wrote:Easy. Sell Nikon, buy Canon.

This isn't the Humour section.

Someone has to counter all the Nikon-Nuts on this forum.

For truth, justice, and the...Japanese way.

Reschsmooth wrote:Does anyone have any recommendations for Wacom tablets to be used for photo editing?

I've got the old Bamboo (non-touch version) which gets a little bit of use. Unless you are going to be doing lots of fine edits and painting, I reckon the bamboo is enough. Otherwise Intuos it is...

The tiny members of the family will have a ball with the Bamboo...

surenj wrote:The tiny members of the family will have a ball with the Bamboo...

The tiny members of the family can make do with proper dark room editing!

Reschsmooth wrote:Having given this much thought and taking on board the sage (or is the thyme) advice from this thread, I will get the 50 1.4, a good 'daylight' lamp and a wacom tablet. Does anyone have any recommendations for Wacom tablets to be used for photo editing?

Thanks again for all your advice.

The best would be an Intuos, but if you arn't keen on diving in, then the Bamboo Pen and Touch is a great option (and cheap as well). I am thinking about getting one myself.

We will get the intus 4 medium I think.

Get one that matches the aspect ratio of your main editing screen

Mr Darcy wrote:Get one that matches the aspect ratio of your main editing screen

Good point. I think all the Intuos tablets are in the 4:3 ratio.

Reschsmooth wrote:

Mr Darcy wrote:Get one that matches the aspect ratio of your main editing screen

Good point. I think all the Intuos tablets are in the 4:3 ratio.

I am pretty sure they have some in 16:9 as well. I haven't looked for some years though. I remember buying one (Intuos 3) that was the wrong aspect ratio & gave up on it in the end. There was either some "useless" tablet or unreachable screen. both were a major PITA. Useless tablet was slightly better though.

Reschsmooth wrote:We will get the intus 4 medium I think.

I have the Intuos 4 small and it's great. You just need some extra desk space to be comfortable with it.