Advice needed - FX or DX

S

Siberdib

Messages
310
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
Currently I have been finding it hard to find a job since leaving University, mainly because of the financial climate and due to health issues. Recently I have been volunteering myself to schools, football teams etc to take photos. Now, I have been offered some paid work and plan to take it up, I wouldn't mind venturing into a career along the lines of photography and see where it takes me. Thanks to the support of my family I have the chance to upgrade my kit and to stand me in good stead in pursuing some sort of career.

I currently have the Nikon D90 with 50mm 1.8, 16-85mm and 80-200mm 2.8 but I'm interested in investing in a D300s or D700 possibily adding the 24-70 2.8 in the mix and keeping the D90 as a second body. I will be aiming to take portrait, indoor and outdoor events and sport photography. I also love taking landscapes in my spare time.

Would it be possible to have some advice on the current route to take, either DX or FX, which lens would be best suited? I not intending to sell any of my current kit and currently have a budget of around 3500k if buying the D700.

I'm very much interested in the D700 and 24-70 combination but I must ensure it will be the best long term decision for myself.
 
You are right to hang on to your current kit.
D700 + 24 - 70 for your portrait, indoor and landscapes (not sure what outdoor events you mean so cannot comment on that)
D90 + 80 - 200 for sports, but you may want some more reach so think about a 70 - 300 Nikkkor (FX lens so it will be good on the D700 too).
 
Thanks for the reply. With regards to indoor events I mean theatre productions, parties and award evenings. Potentially the photographs I will take with be avaiable to purchase afterwards.

Hadn't considered the 70-300 but what extra would this provide me? Just the extra focal length but losing image quality?
 
I'd go with the D700, full frame and AF is just as good as the D300s. The D700 will work with the DX lenses too, but at a lower resolution. But for low light stuff, it's very clean at the higher ISOs. Here are a few examples in my gallery.

Nikon D700 - Nikon 24-70mm 2.8 - ISO 6400 - ambient light, no flash.



Nikon D700 - Nikon 24-70mm 2.8 - ambient light, no flash.



Nikon D700 - Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 VR - ambient light, no flash.



With that combo, you can't go wrong. You've got the 80-200mm 2.8 already too so range is mostly covered for that kind of stuff. :)

Ray.
 
Thanks Ray - super pictures! My only concern was whether the 80-200 would cover sport (mainly football) on FX. At present I can't imagine it would involve night sport so ISO might not be a problem. If the D90 is adequate I would be happy to go with that.
 
Siberdib said:
Thanks Ray - super pictures! My only concern was whether the 80-200 would cover sport (mainly football) on FX. At present I can't imagine it would involve night sport so ISO might not be a problem. If the D90 is adequate I would be happy to go with that.
Click to expand...

Thanks Richard, much appreciated :) Being that you will be keeping your current gear, I agree that using the D90 for the 1.5 crop advantage is definitely an option. I haven't tried a D90 on fast moving subjects though so I can't really comment on its performance in shooting sports.
 
I would really go for the D700 for the portrait side and keep the D90 for backup too.
 
orrr get 2 D300 bodies for the same as one D700, and ditch the D90 and spend the cash from that on glass.

you don't NEED full frame to 'do portraits', neither will you use the high iso for them most of the time either.

You will use the high iso for reportage indoor events, theatre performances and awards evenings, sports etc, but I haven't had any situation where I've needed anything over the D300's capabilities *really*, and I have shot professionally in some absolute holes. The shots that 'sell' so to speak are almost never ones shot at 6400, no matter how good they are or noise free they are - they just don't tend to be the best shots of any event. DiddyDave wrote about this recently.

There is lots of money in schools, if you've got inroads there to work - speak to Daryl and go on the schoolphotopro site.

Bear in mind that the second you turn from 'volunteering' to 'professional', your number of 'clients' will disappear overnight.

If you are looking to make money from this, your purchasing decisions need to be business case led, rather than emotionally led.

To make money... You NEED reliable, secure digital storage. You NEED insurance. etc. You need business cards, training and constant personal development, smart clothing, sometimes branded clothing, marketing, mobile phone, website, national insurance and tax - there are a hell of a lot of costs of being in business that you need to account for.

Good luck!
 
Last edited:
Siberdib said:
Thanks for the reply. With regards to indoor events I mean theatre productions, parties and award evenings. Potentially the photographs I will take with be avaiable to purchase afterwards.

Hadn't considered the 70-300 but what extra would this provide me? Just the extra focal length but losing image quality?
Click to expand...

The 70 - 300 is a sharp lens.
Stick it on your D90 and it becomes the 35mm equivalent of a 105 - 450. That extra reach could be handy in your sports photography. Nothing like filling the frame with your subject.
However, I'd go for the D700 plus the 24-70 as the main camera.
 
Thanks for the advice all. Dave not quite sure what I would gain from buying two D300's but thanks for the advice regarding the transition form volunteering to paid work. Too be honest it's not strictly offering my services for free at the moment but more doing a favour for a former employee who are now willing to offer me some paid work and have spread the word.

I'm very much happy on getting the D700 and 24-70. My only reservation is paying out for another lens, the 70-300 - wouldn't a teleconverter on the 80-200 do a good enough job in comparison? Also, with my interest in landscape esp. seascapes, would the 24-70 feel this void or would there be another lens to consider?
 
Siberdib said:
Thanks for the advice all. Dave not quite sure what I would gain from buying two D300's but thanks for the advice regarding the transition form volunteering to paid work. Too be honest it's not strictly offering my services for free at the moment but more doing a favour for a former employee who are now willing to offer me some paid work and have spread the word.

I'm very much happy on getting the D700 and 24-70. My only reservation is paying out for another lens, the 70-300 - wouldn't a teleconverter on the 80-200 do a good enough job in comparison? Also, with my interest in landscape esp. seascapes, would the 24-70 feel this void or would there be another lens to consider?
Click to expand...

THE wide angle lens full frame is the 14-24. It is a grand, but it's also very very very good.
 
Siberdib said:
Thanks for the advice all. Dave not quite sure what I would gain from buying two D300's but thanks for the advice regarding the transition form volunteering to paid work. Too be honest it's not strictly offering my services for free at the moment but more doing a favour for a former employee who are now willing to offer me some paid work and have spread the word.

I'm very much happy on getting the D700 and 24-70. My only reservation is paying out for another lens, the 70-300 - wouldn't a teleconverter on the 80-200 do a good enough job in comparison? Also, with my interest in landscape esp. seascapes, would the 24-70 feel this void or would there be another lens to consider?
Click to expand...

Considering that you have used the 16-85mm on your D90, if that was wide enough for your purposes then the 24-70mm on the D700 will fit that use too. D90 = 16mm x 1.5 = 24mm. Full frame D700 using the 24-70mm will be true 24mm on the wide end :)
 
kartracer said:
Ray, just wondering, with the D700 you used for that first shot - manual focus?
Click to expand...

Nope, the first shot was centre point AF. Conditions was VERY dim in a moody restaurant. ISO 6400, wide open at f/2.8, hand held, no flash. But I will have to check the file EXIF to remember what the shutter speed was :)
 
Just to throw something into the mix, I have a friend who is a making a professional living as a popular, fully-booked wedding photographer using a Nikon D90 and Sigma 18-50 2.8.

Now, I'm a total amateur and can't claim to have much photography career insight, but might it be worth using the kit you've got until you find it can no longer do what you need to do? Just food for thought. As said earlier, business investments need a sound business case.
 
neilia said:
Just to throw something into the mix, I have a friend who is a making a professional living as a popular, fully-booked wedding photographer using a Nikon D90 and Sigma 18-50 2.8.

Now, I'm a total amateur and can't claim to have much photography career insight, but might it be worth using the kit you've got until you find it can no longer do what you need to do? Just food for thought. As said earlier, business investments need a sound business case.
Click to expand...

indeed. I make a living largely with my tamron 17-50 2.8.

I suggested 2 D300's as they offer true redundancy, are cheap, good at high ISOs, professional bodies, they are cropped so you don't lose the 200mm length for sport etc, and it means that you can go true 'dual bodied' at events without the delays of changing lenses or whatever, and yet retaining full awesome AF across both of your bodies, which will also have the same controls as each other.
 
Hi Richard,

Since you already have two full frame lenses I consider that adding a D700 is a good idea and this way you can have a broader versatility for different shooting situations. But since you are on a limited budget I will not advice to add a 24-70/2.8 because is an expensive lens. Rather I'd suggest you Tamron 28-75/2.8 which is a steal for the money, offering a unbelivable IQ for it's very affordable value. With the remaining funds I will add at least two primes, first a used 85mm/1.4 AF-D (at this time you can get it for a very good price) - this is the cream machine for portraits but also is a great lens for low light events. The second option would be a macro lens that can be of great help in many different situations. I do not know if you'll have enough for Sigma 150mm f2.8 - that's a killer... If not there are other convenient options, starting with 55/3.5 AIS from Nikon.
 
itsdavedotnet said:
indeed. I make a living largely with my tamron 17-50 2.8.

I suggested 2 D300's as they offer true redundancy, are cheap, good at high ISOs, professional bodies, they are cropped so you don't lose the 200mm length for sport etc, and it means that you can go true 'dual bodied' at events without the delays of changing lenses or whatever, and yet retaining full awesome AF across both of your bodies, which will also have the same controls as each other.
Click to expand...

Very good points being made here. If you are going to be working in that kind of environment day in day out, being able to carry out what you are doing quickly and efficiently with minimum hassle will be a bonus.
 
Nowt wrong with DX. I use two D2x bodies with a range of AF-D and DX-dedicated lenses and for the magazines I shoot for they are ideal; tough, rugged and reliable. There is an instant assumption on TP that to be a pro you need FF - not true. The technology that's incorporated into many FF cameras is the best so it's an obvious choice, but like Dave said, modern DX bodies like the D300 are so good they represent a cheaper alternative without and major loss of quality that Joe Public will notice. I just wish Nikon had continued with a DX-format gripped body (a'la D2x/xs) that would complement the D3 series, as the 1D compliments the FF 1Ds on the Canon front.....

If you are happy working with the DX format then why not stay with it? You have some decent lens and probably, if you were to move to say a pair of D300s, then probably the only other addition would be a fast 17-50/55mm.
 
If it were me i'd sell the D90 and the 80-200mm which should net you around £800-1000 making a budget of £4300-4500 to spend.

I'd buy a D300 for £779 2500 clicks and 6 months warranty
http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/us.../used-nikon-digital-slr-cameras/nikon-d300-2/

A 70-200VR for £1000-£1400 depending on whether you buy a new one and a Kenko 1.4x EX TC for 1/2 the price of the nikon and just as good which will give you a 280mm f/4.

the AF is much faster than the 80-200mm especially useful for sports.

The rest i'd put in the bank to cover those weeks when you don't make any money or if you really have to spend it buy a Nikon 300mm f/2.8 AFs which becomes a 420mm f/4 when combined with the kenko, length you'll need if photographing cricket or trying to get a shot from the other side of the rugby/football pitch.

You don't need to worry much about tax in your first year as it's unlikely you'll be making much money and you'll have a tax allowance + the cost of the equipment to account for.

If you're unemployed and under 30 look into schemes such as the princes trust who give grants to young people to start businesses, if you're unemployed there may also be government start up grants, business link would have details of those if available.
 
Thanks for the overwhelming advice. At the end of the day I'm looking to get the best equipment for my buck. I'm very happy with the 50mm and 80-200mm I currently have, I'm really looking to complement these with a new body and a new walkabout lens that will suit landscape, architecture, portraiture and fit the general all-round eye perspective captures.

As with many of you I'm sure, I want to make sure that I get the best I can afford from the beginning. I hate living with the outlook that there is something better, another upgrade etc. I want to get something that will be able to last me a long time and not result in me wanting the next best thing. It helps in being satisfied with what you have got and ensuring that the results you get or can achieve is the maximum available. Although the Tamron 28-75 is a great lens, will it only wet my appetite to anticipate what the Nikon 24-70 is like?

I also have another problem regarding my health issue. I have a problem with my eyes, which as a result reduces the amount of time I can be in front of a computer screen. Therefore, I need to get a camera and a lens that will give me continuously great results straight out of the camera that only require a few tweaks here and there. I can't work on having to rescue many an image because of ISO problems or under/over-exposure. Although the D300s is a great camera, is it worth paying the extra for a D700 that can cope with all lighting conditions at all time?

Thanks for all your advice - it is truly valuable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top