Backup wedding camera for D90?

PhotoTalk

PhotoTalk

I am not a real Koala
Messages
2,436
Edit My Images
Yes
As mentioned in a previous thread, I'm in the process of getting a D90 - and I think a Nikon 50mm 1.8 lens to practice with until I know the D90 like the back of my hand :) The question this time is what you would get as a backup camera , bearing in mind that I'll need it for a wedding in several months time (hence the need for a backup). I'd get a 2nd D90 if I could, but the budget forbids it. I'm looking at an earlier 2nd-hand model at a competitive price. Any advice appreciated as I'm new to Nikon and wary about making a compatibility error.

Thanks (y)
 
As you already know a back-up of the SAME camera is best, but if you're struggling with the pennies to justify that presently I'd suggest you just borrowed one for now and buy the D90 as a back-up from your profits

DD


PS - as an aside - I never read up on new gear until I need some - so I have no idea of the suitability of a D90 to Wedding photography anyway :shrug:
 
I'd have thought the D90 would be the backup really, to something a bit more rugged.
 
DiddyDave said:
As you already know a back-up of the SAME camera is best, but if you're struggling with the pennies to justify that presently I'd suggest you just borrowed one for now and buy the D90 as a back-up from your profits

DD


PS - as an aside - I never read up on new gear until I need some - so I have no idea of the suitability of a D90 to Wedding photography anyway :shrug:
Click to expand...

Thanks DD - yes, that's probably a better idea. If I can't borrow, I suppose I can always rent.

As for the camera, it will be multi-purpose - but if anyone wants to throw in suggestions for 'best wedding cameras' I'd be more than happy to listen. I've more or less made up my mind, but the decision is never made until the money has been spent...
 
[S1]+1[/S1] I would hire something to start with rather than shell out for two units.

I hope you don't mind me saying, but I would have my doubts about using a D90 as a primary Wedding body. Purely for the reason that you don't know what indoor conditions you are going to have and I would say that decent high ISO performance is a must. If you're serious about investing the the right kit and making a go of it, then I would look at a D700. It's more robust and fantastically capable. Plus, it'll stop you investing in cropped lens now only to find you may wish to go full frame later on.

Just my opinion. Good luck with whatever you go with. (y)
 
cyclone said:
I'd have thought the D90 would be the backup really, to something a bit more rugged.
Click to expand...

what would you recommend cyclone? thanks (y)
 
PhotoTalk said:
Thanks DD - yes, that's probably a better idea. If I can't borrow, I suppose I can always rent.

As for the camera, it will be multi-purpose - but if anyone wants to throw in suggestions for 'best wedding cameras' I'd be more than happy to listen. I've more or less made up my mind, but the decision is never made until the money has been spent...
Click to expand...


you're a braver man than me asking that around here :eek::eek: consider this my :beer:

Hugh
 
kalibre said:
[S1]+1[/S1] I would hire something to start with rather than shell out for two units.

I hope you don't mind me saying, but I would have my doubts about using a D90 as a primary Wedding body. Purely for the reason that you don't know what indoor conditions you are going to have and I would say that decent high ISO performance is a must. If you're serious about investing the the right kit and making a go of it, then I would look at a D700. It's more robust and fantastically capable. Plus, it'll stop you investing in cropped lens now only to find you may wish to go full frame later on.

Just my opinion. Good luck with whatever you go with. (y)
Click to expand...

Don't mind you saying at all - in fact, I value your thoughts and these are exactly the things I want to hear. The point about full frame is a good one, and I'll take a look at the D700. Many thanks(y)
 
Maybe have a look at something like a D80, or more ideally, a D200. Both are good cameras and are easy to find used for a few hundred quid. I use a D200 for all my magazine work and have to say it's just about perfect, miles better than my previous 30D that I used.

The D200 is probably about £350-450 used for a good one with little use. High ISO use is limited – I rarely go above ISO800 because of noise levels - but it's fast at focussing, has great handling and the menu options and buttons on the top are really intuitive. Plus it will use any of the NAF lenses.
 
PhotoTalk said:
what would you recommend cyclone? thanks (y)
Click to expand...

Like the others are saying, a D700 or up really. I'm sure many weddings have been shot with success on "lesser" bodies, but as already said the 700 has crazy ISO capability much better than anything below it.

Of course a pro wedding shooter should really be looking at 2 D3's, a 24-70 f/2.8 and a 70-200 f/2.8 and a couple of speedlights. A hefty investment.
 
The d200 and d90 have very similar noise handling abilities, i believe the d90 actually edges out? but the d200 really does have the build quality to back it up
 
specialman said:
Maybe have a look at something like a D80, or more ideally, a D200. Both are good cameras and are easy to find used for a few hundred quid. I use a D200 for all my magazine work and have to say it's just about perfect, miles better than my previous 30D that I used.

The D200 is probably about £350-450 used for a good one with little use. High ISO use is limited – I rarely go above ISO800 because of noise levels - but it's fast at focussing, has great handling and the menu options and buttons on the top are really intuitive. Plus it will use any of the NAF lenses.
Click to expand...

cyclone said:
Like the others are saying, a D700 or up really. I'm sure many weddings have been shot with success on "lesser" bodies, but as already said the 700 has crazy ISO capability much better than anything below it.

Of course a pro wedding shooter should really be looking at 2 D3's, a 24-70 f/2.8 and a 70-200 f/2.8 and a couple of speedlights. A hefty investment.
Click to expand...

Thanks both - your answers represent the two ends of my thinking spectrum. I know cyclone is right, but that investment just doesn't seem feasible atm. Hmmm ... I need to do some serious thinking :shake:
 
I've got a friend who recently shot a wedding with a D70s, pictures came out superb ! a D90 should do a wedding with a breeze, i bet you could get away with using a D60 as a back up.
 
Probably, and that's why I used the word "should".
Actually the shots from your D60 are probably better than your mates D70s. People with ability can shoot anything. The problem is when something does go wrong and you suddenly think "should have gone for the D3".
 
cyclone said:
Probably, and that's why I used the word "should".
Actually the shots from your D60 are probably better than your mates D70s. People with ability can shoot anything. The problem is when something does go wrong and you suddenly think "should have gone for the D3".
Click to expand...

Yeah but the guests will spot no top plate LCD and think the piccies will come out rubbish LOL :LOL: so best go for something that looks the part.
 
Graham00 said:
I've got a friend who recently shot a wedding with a D70s, pictures came out superb ! a D90 should do a wedding with a breeze, i bet you could get away with using a D60 as a back up.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's the sort of optimism I had. But depending on the conditions, that might be a foolhardy position. I'm starting to think I can't take the chance... :bang:

Thanks.
 
I have a D90 and tested under low light at ISO3200 and its extermely usable (its one of the reason's I got the D90 as its great under low conditions), have a look at the reviews of the D90 and its high ISO capability.
 
Frenzied Dwarf said:
The d200 and d90 have very similar noise handling abilities, i believe the d90 actually edges out? but the d200 really does have the build quality to back it up
Click to expand...

From reviews the D90 has similar noise handling to the D300, some say slightly better.
 
Optimism is great, but Cyclone summed it up with the word 'should'. My take on Weddings (and why I don't do them) is that the responsibility for every moment they want captured lays with me. If I miss the confetti shot or the bouquet shot then that's probably down to me and not my kit. If I can't produce breathetaking shots inside the church or for the first dance that can be blown up because my kit is the same as the brides sisters husbands mate standing next to me with his DSLR then what have I been paid for? It's my responsibility to KNOW I can get all the shots they want.

It's just me but I'd rather not leave anything to chance, especially if it's my livelyhood/reputation.
 
Don`t bother,why would you need one,it ain`t like yours is gonna break or anything,is it?

Just go and have a go.....................(y)
 
if it's a genuine back-up in case of failure you need just get the cheapest option (eg D40 if you dont need focus motor) or an old D50/70/100 if you need to use with older lenses.

obviously if you want a second body to have ready to go with a different lens or settings you may want something more expensive.
 
Full-frame, 24mp goodness is all well and good if you're really, really, really doing a serious job where the client is going to be pixel peeping with an electron microscope but as far as the everyday Joe (or Joesephoine) goes, look at the fact that most 'normal' people will be happy with the results from their 8mp compact so the results from a 10-12mp prosumer DSLR will be more than adequate.

As you say, the investment in something swish like a D700 would represent a step in the direction of being a serious professional, but don't just feel that doing a good job is fully dependant on having the best kit. Have a look at the numerous 'I've just bought a A900/1DS/D3x' threads and you'll see some decidiedly iffy results from their new gear. :)
 
sdb123 said:
For ISO noise alone, I wouldn't recommend either of these cameras for use at weddings. Just my opinion though. :)
Click to expand...
As a back-up they're fine. If you're using half-decent lenses with decent apertures then you won't have to delve into ISOs higher than 800, which are fine both cameras. Yes, they're not to the standard of a D300 or D700, but they are still very, very good back-up bodies for a general togger.

After all, he's looking for a cheap back-up body, not a replacement for the D90. If he bought the D300 I'm sure he'd see the benefits (and the D900 would be the back-up) but a D300 is nigh-on £8500, quite an investment when he's obviously working to a tighter budget
 
specialman said:
As a back-up they're fine. If you're using half-decent lenses with decent apertures then you won't have to delve into ISOs higher than 800, which are fine both cameras. Yes, they're not to the standard of a D300 or D700, but they are still very, very good back-up bodies for a general togger.

After all, he's looking for a cheap back-up body, not a replacement for the D90. If he bought the D300 I'm sure he'd see the benefits (and the D900 would be the back-up) but a D300 is nigh-on £8500, quite an investment when he's obviously working to a tighter budget
Click to expand...

That is cheap.........:LOL:
 
error...with...typing...overload...overload...overload!!!! :)

Yep, I meant £850 - is that how much these things are these days? :)
 
Thanks all, particularly specialman for his thoughts (even if his figures made me gulp at first :LOL:).

I'm looking at my budget and time-frame again to see if I can squeeze more with an eye to a longer-term investment. Will let my thoughts settle for a few weeks more I think.
 
Ive had perfectly usable results up to iso 1000 with mine flash, 1600 pushes it a bit but a quick tweak in photoshop usually sorts that out, i know its not as good as the newer cams but over 400? thats news to me
 
Personally i think a D90 would be very capable for a wedding, i've seen some great wedding shot's done with a D50, it's just a matter of who's behind the camera, yes a D700 will be good in low light but so will a D90 in most situations, and if your on a budget go for a decent second hand prime ie 50mm 1.8 or if you can afford it a 85mm 1.8, together with a Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 will make for a nice combination if used right :)
 
Frenzied Dwarf said:
Ive had perfectly usable results up to iso 1000 with mine flash, 1600 pushes it a bit but a quick tweak in photoshop usually sorts that out, i know its not as good as the newer cams but over 400? thats news to me
Click to expand...

Depends what you are happy with, I didn't like either my D80 or my D200 at anything over much 400...
 
I can't see any problem using the D90 as a wedding camera. The High-ISO noise levels are fantastic compared with my old D50 and is, in terms of image quality, a cheaper version of the D300.

It may not be as rugged as the D300 but as long as your not throwing the thing around it really should not be a problem... just how did wedding togs cope before the d700/d3 come along?
 
just to throw another idea into the pot. don't a lot of wedding togs use the Fuji s5 pro which i believe takes Nikon fit lens.
 
I recently did the photography at a friends Muslim wedding, I am a keen amateur photographer and this was the first "event" I have photographed. I hasten I was not the official photographer, the person they had planned let the family down at the last minute. I used my D700 with the 24-70 f2.8. The low light capability of this camera is awesome as is the capability of the lens at 2.8. I had the D70 as backup
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top