£4-£5K to spend

Harvey_nikon

Harvey_nikon

Messages
3,749
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

A friend has £5k 'sitting around' (alright for some) and wants a camera. He is thinking of D300 or D700 after chatting to me about them all week.

Interested in wildlife & events (weddings, bike meets, car meets, birthday parties) mainly but would also like to do portraits, street & landscape but isn't fussed about sport.

Can anyone spec him a kit?

I was thinking D700, grip, spare batteries, mem cards, SB900, tripod, decent backpack as he does a lot of hiking/cycling and a couple of fast lenses and a 50mm 1.4?? (editted, must be lack of sleep :) )

my knowledge isn't great tbh but I know he needs it within a month as his god daughter is getting married in a church and wants to get de-rusted for then.

Would ideally like to stick to £4k but if that extra piece of kit pushes him over and is worth it then it'll be ok :)
 
50mm 1.4 VR

Nikon dont have such lens as far as I`m concerned....

D700 - 1800
24-70 - 1194
Nikon 50mm f1.4 G AF-S - 300
Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 G AF-S VR - 1512
Nikon SB-900 Speedlight Flashgun - 320
Backpack + Memory and batteries ~300

Thats what I would suggest .... the prices are from warehouse ... so if you will get most of this from kerso it will be 5k
 
have to disagree with you Demon, sorry but £300 for batteries and memory cards? maybe for an established event shooter, but for your first camera?

He needs some kit he can learn how to use, and grow with - not so high end as it will hold him back ad he'll never get the best out of it.

May I suggest, he buys a D90, possibly a 17-55 (second hand) for a high end street/portrait lens, a 50 1.8 for something fast and a 70-300 for the length ( although not really long enough for wildlife) and a decent flash and saves 2 1/2 grand. He'll thank you and his wife will love you.

Hugh
 
If he's interested in wildlife then he'd be better served by the Canon lens range, and I don't see anything in his aims that would obviously be served better by Nikon. In addition, for wildlife you need all the reach you can get, so he'd benefit from a crop sensor rather than full frame.

So I'd suggest starting with a Canon 50D and 100-400L, and then fleshing out the kit from there. I'm happy to offer suggestions if there's any chance they'd be accepted.
 
Personally, for wildlife and with 4-5K budget, I'd go for a D300 and a second hand 300mm f/2.8 AFS, possibly even a new one (VR). 200mm is just not quite long enough for me.

Including a D700 just burns up to much budget when the glass is far more important.

Have a look at this chap:
Ronnie Gaubert

Ronnie has some awesome images, most taken with D100's, D200's and a D300, his glass is predominantly on the prime side. A much better bet and higher quality output to that of a more high spec body and middle of the road glass.

A second hand AFS or 300 VR will blow many alternatives out of the picture and both will easily accept (without notable degradation) a 1.4 teleconverter granting 420mm.
For wildlife this would be my root set up and I'd maybe expand it with a grip for the D300 at a later time.
 
id prob suggest:
d300
24-70
50mm 1.8
sb600
and a 80-400VR.
and a 50-150 to fill the gap.
couple of hundred for bag and mem cards etc will put you round the 4000 mark and a good range covered

might be worth considering a sigma 10-20 as well. put you over budget though
 
Well I've had a chat with him this morning and went over the suggestions and comments here:

He definitely wants a Nikon as he has always had Nikon film SLRs in the past, its what he learnt on and he is just a fan boy :)

He considered the D300 however he read the D700 is better at higher ISO's and as he may be doing a lot of shooting in dark environments he felt this was best. Although he has said if he is wrong of the difference isn't that big the D300 may still be on the cards.

He does want a tripod, grip and a flash.

Then he just wants 2 lenses to start with.

He is spending the day reading up on everything mentioned here :)
 
Tomas Whitehouse said:
Personally, for wildlife and with 4-5K budget, I'd go for a D300 and a second hand 300mm f/2.8 AFS, possibly even a new one (VR). 200mm is just not quite long enough for me.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's just me, but I don't get the feeling that the OP's friend wants to be the next Andy Rouse, at least not just yet.

I'd advise a D300, Sigma 10-20mm, Nikkor 24-70mm (it is sublime on the D300) and a 70-300mm VR. That will give him ample range, and should he develop anough of a liking for one type of photography over and above others then he can then look to upgrade at either the wide or the long end.

For a flash, an SB-600 should enough to start with, especially as the D300's built in flash will act as a commander if needed.

Tripods, you can't go far wrong with Manfrottos, either a 190pro or a 55pro while bags are too personal a choice to really recommend one, but I've always found LowePro to be great, and I'm really pleased with my new ThinkTank..
 
NorthernNikon said:
Maybe it's just me, but I don't get the feeling that the OP's friend wants to be the next Andy Rouse, at least not just yet.
Click to expand...

:lol:
Andy Rouse would have much more gear than what I've advised Barney :lol: How does owning a 300mm make you Rouse anyway? :cuckoo:

Besides, If your thinking of spending 4-5K on gear, investing in a good 300mm is far from over board. It's common sense IMO.

Plus it will retain it's value if you decide to sell it on. :naughty:
A 70-300 will decrease by at least a third of the RRP before you even walk out the shop door.

Having a single flash gun is probably the thing I'd strike of the list initially, get the lens and the body sorted out, then get out and use the gear and see if your missing a flash or not.

I can see the uses of a 24-70 in wildlife, but as you can see from looking at Ronnie Gauberts galleries, you' won't find to much in that kind of focal length.
IMO, I'd spend the cash on getting a higher quality telephoto.
 
Tomas Whitehouse said:
Andy Rouse would have much more gear than what I've advised Barney :lol: How does owning a 300mm make you Rouse anyway?
Click to expand...

The point is that andy Rouse is a specialist. Given the list of likes, the OP's friends hasn't expressed any desire to be a wildlife specialist. Advising him to go out and but a 300mm f:2.8, 2nd hand or not, would be taking him down the specialist route.

Tomas Whitehouse said:
Besides, If your thinking of spending 4-5K on gear, investing in a good 300mm is far from over board. It's common sense IMO.

Plus it will retain it's value if you decide to sell it on.
A 70-300 will decrease by at least a third of the RRP before you even walk out the shop door.

Having a single flash gun is probably the thing I'd strike of the list initially, get the lens and the body sorted out, then get out and use the gear and see if your missing a flash or not.

I can see the uses of a 24-70 in wildlife, but as you can see from looking at Ronnie Gauberts galleries, you' won't find to much in that kind of focal length.
IMO, I'd spend the cash on getting a higher quality telephoto.
Click to expand...

Have you read the thread? The OP has stated that his friend wants to shoot far more than just wildlife.
 
This sort of thing takes a lot of thought. You could throw money at it but subjects as diverse as landscape, portraits, bike racing and wildlife will swallow an enormous budget from super wide to super tele and most things inbetween, plus maybe a couple of different bodies.

You've got to compromse and the best compromise usually revolves around crop format for all sorts of reasons, not just cost. You need a very compelling reason to go full frame, not convincingly expressed in the OP, or the extra size and weight of full frame (and the cost) will wear thin quite soon.

What are the priority subjects, now and in the future? Then decide on format, and the lenses should fall in to place. That's how I would/did look at it :)
 
NorthernNikon said:
Have you read the thread? The OP has stated that his friend wants to shoot far more than just wildlife.
Click to expand...

I had read, or at least I thought I'd read it thoroughly but it seems I've overlooked that bit, I could have sworn wildlife was the only category earlier :thinking:, Anyhoo, thanks for so kindly pointing it and my apologies for the mistake :)

Looking at it now though, I'd focus on the area that is going to give the most enjoyment, you can waste an awful lot of cash by trying to buy something that will 'make do' when in the end you could end up wishing you'd gone for quality over quantity.

Revised list:

D700-D300
24-70
70-200
300mm f/4 (if you can get it)
 
HoppyUK said:
This sort of thing takes a lot of thought. You could throw money at it but subjects as diverse as landscape, portraits, bike racing and wildlife will swallow an enormous budget from super wide to super tele and most things inbetween, plus maybe a couple of different bodies.

You've got to compromse and the best compromise usually revolves around crop format for all sorts of reasons, not just cost. You need a very compelling reason to go full frame, not convincingly expressed in the OP, or the extra size and weight of full frame (and the cost) will wear thin quite soon.

What are the priority subjects, now and in the future? Then decide on format, and the lenses should fall in to place. That's how I would/did look at it :)
Click to expand...

Well said, much better than I'm doing today :D
 
HoppyUK said:
This sort of thing takes a lot of thought. You could throw money at it but subjects as diverse as landscape, portraits, bike racing and wildlife will swallow an enormous budget from super wide to super tele and most things inbetween, plus maybe a couple of different bodies.

You've got to compromse and the best compromise usually revolves around crop format for all sorts of reasons, not just cost. You need a very compelling reason to go full frame, not convincingly expressed in the OP, or the extra size and weight of full frame (and the cost) will wear thin quite soon.

What are the priority subjects, now and in the future? Then decide on format, and the lenses should fall in to place. That's how I would/did look at it :)
Click to expand...

Has he done photography before? Does he understand ISO, apperture, shutter speed, etc? You hint at him coming back to photography.

In my opinion a D300/D700 might be too much for a novice to grasp... Theres a lot to learn! D300 ISO performance is very good!

However if his primary shooting is wildlife, Id recommend:

D300
xxx lens for wildlife - not my speciality sorry - 300mm minimum?
10-20 sigma
16-85 or 18-105
70-200
35 f1.8 (minimum)
TC

Its a lot of kit to buy all at once, especially if he does not get into it properly....

If you want to go full frame, I would suggest limiting the types of shooting to the top 3.
 
Okay, no messing about this time. He wants Nikon, and has a bit of SLR background. He will be blown away by the quality of digital anyway, and just getting a new digi is enough for anyone to handle at once, so keep the kit to the minimum needed for the job in hand, ie wedding.

D300
Nikon 17-55 2.8
SB900
plus
Nikon 35 1.8
or
Nikon 70-300 VR
(I'd take the zoom)

That's plenty to be getting on with. All high-quality low-risk kit that will do a wedding, and a heck of a lot of other things, perfectly. You can bolt on a longer lens for wildlife quite easily.

If he wants to go full frame, maybe just because it's a nice idea (which it is :) ) then:

D700
Nikon 24-70 2.8
SB900
Nikon 70-300 VR

No need for the fast prime here, as the D700 is fab in low light and you get shallower depth of field with full frame anyway, if that's the look you want.

Actually, that full frame outfit looks fab and not too compromsed by extra weight and cost. The big pain only comes if you want the long reach for wildlife.

Edit: added full frame option.
 
HoppyUK said:
Okay, no messing about this time. He wants Nikon, and has a bit of SLR background. He will be blown away by the quality of digital anyway, and just getting a new digi is enough for anyone to handle at once, so keep the kit to the minimum needed for the job in hand, ie wedding.

D300
Nikon 17-55 2.8
Nikon 35 1.8
70-200 or similar
SB900

That's plenty to be getting on with. All high-quality low-risk kit that will do a wedding, and a heck of a lot of other things, perfectly.
Click to expand...

And a TC for wildlife ;)
 
Tomas Whitehouse said:
Revised list:

D700-D300
24-70
70-200
300mm f/4 (if you can get it)
Click to expand...

I think I would agree with this list. Id maybe add a 10-24mm/12-24mm super wideangle if the body is going to be a D300, or a 14-24mm if the budget stretches that far. Id also add 1.4x TC, which could take the 300mm f4 up to a 420mm f5.6. Add some memory cards, a tripod etc and you have a very flexible setup that would hold its value well.
 
how good is the 17-55? I just ask as I found the kit lens of 18-55 very limiting and find the 16-85 much better as a walkaround option.
 
One thing that has not been said is if he wants to do events and weddings etc, a second body would be advantageous.
 
Canon (:)) 5D MkII, 24-70 F2.8L, 70..200mm F4L IS, 50mm F1.4, new PC, Photoshop, couple of rally car driving days with the change :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top