Before I pull the trigger on a new 5D III.....

[fulwood]

Need your advice before I splash out mega bucks!

I've been using a D300s for street dancing, wildlife and action shots. It performs admirable in bright sunshine and with reasonable lens.

I'm posting some pics to show the sort of thing I want to use a potential new camera for, firstly Morris Dancing

D300s + 18-200mm VR II at 1/1000 f6.3 200iso, I'm pleased with this as it has stopped the action and is focussed as I want.

Next pic is a member of my wife's troupe - 'side' as they call it.

D300s + 18-135mm 1/1000 f5.6 200iso. Again focussed where I want and in bright sunshine.

This one was easy as Brett has a white beard and the afocus latches on to it and tracks as he moves.

There are many, many more where the focus is off, especially when the artiste has a blackened face and no white beard (eg my missus), poor lock and focus - I can't print a decent A3 close-up of her as it's not sharp enough.

The problem gets even worse in dull light - I use a shutter speed of at least 1/500 and an ap of f5.6 or 6.3 to get any depth of field and have the camera on auto iso - with black costumed performers the iso is 1000+ and noise and loss of image quality is very obvious. Disappointing when you've got an expensive camera outfit - does little for your cred when you show your prints.

THe other use is for wildlife - I'm posting a pic taken at Martin Mere where I popped my CF card into a guy's 1D III & 300mm f4 L combo

Think that was 1/1250 at f5.6 100iso, the lens was a bit too long, but that's the sort of pic I also want to start taking. Suspect that the D300s & 70/300mm VR would do as well here.

What I want to know is if I invest in a 5D III and a 70-200mm f4 L would I see a significant improvement in focus on blackened face dancers and in image quality in gloomy lighting. May be a 100-400mm for the birds.

Am I wasting my money as this is purely a retirement hobby. I use NX2 for raw conversion, would another converter/ de noiser improve image quality. Appreciate that noise removal doesn't improve focus ability.

Thoughts about other bodies, say D700 to consider as jumping ship is very expensive, I'm heavily invested into Nikon DX. Don't think the af of a D600 is good enough

Any advice would be welcome.

 

[James J]

Depending on your other lenses, a D700 + grip + EL4a battery (from the D3) would be a great combination. It would also be no more of a learning curve compared to what you currently own as the layout is pretty much identical.

Its a steep learning curve going to or from canon (as I know first hand) as everything is "backwards" lol. The ISO performance on the D700 is really nice though and easily enough for what you want. Could always keep the DX glass though and go with the D7000 replacement when it arrives in the next year though if you aren't desperate for FX?

 

[Cagey75]

Why not a D800?

 

[DuncanDisorderly]

Just looked up the specs of the D300s, and it's pretty good. It should be plenty good enough for this type of shot!
The weak bit of your setup is the lens. Superzooms are never going to be the best for either image quality or focus speed.
I think what's letting you down is either the focus speed of the lens, or the camera settings - Advanced AF can be a sod to get set up right and Morris Dancers are a challenging subject....

I recommend having a good experiment with the AF settings AND look at upgrading your lens to whatever Nikon's equivalent of the 70-200 f4.

 

[fulwood]

Why not a D800?

The thing about a D700/800 is that I can pick up a Canon 24/105 for about £500 and a 70/200mm f4 non IS for about £350, both will be a great improvement in focus speed and accuracy compared to my Nikon 18/200mm.

In its defence, and you can't see it in the for web mangled pics here, the 18/200mm is very sharp at 200mm used at these portrait distances, it has great colour as well - it doesn't perform anywhere nearly as well at infinity settings. Buying the new 70/200mm Nik will cost at least £1000 and I'm not happy with Niks 24-120 as it is more expensive than the Canon and not as good.

Factor in a UWA with a 17/40 half or less price than a 16/35mm VR, for tele a 100/400mm for £750, a 5D III body which has a fancier af than Niks and the economics begin to swing in Canon's direction.

Coming from a 5D original background I've always preferred Canon greens, so one system that does landscape and action points to a very expensive 5D III solution - bang goes the retirement pot!

Unless you know different ..... anything I've missed in the reasoning?

 

[fulwood]

Just looked up the specs of the D300s, and it's pretty good. It should be plenty good enough for this type of shot!
The weak bit of your setup is the lens. Superzooms are never going to be the best for either image quality or focus speed.
I think what's letting you down is either the focus speed of the lens, or the camera settings - Advanced AF can be a sod to get set up right and Morris Dancers are a challenging subject....

I recommend having a good experiment with the AF settings AND look at upgrading your lens to whatever Nikon's equivalent of the 70-200 f4.

Have tried lots of af permutations and what I'm doing above is as good as it gets with non-pro lenses - I suppose that you are buying not only better build but superior af speed and accuracy in pro glass.

I'm really struggling iso wise with crop bodies over 1000 with any camera brand- where FF comes into its own is high iso smoothness isn't it?

 

[DuncanDisorderly]

Have tried lots of af permutations and what I'm doing above is as good as it gets with non-pro lenses - I suppose that you are buying not only better build but superior af speed and accuracy in pro glass.

I'm really struggling iso wise with crop bodies over 1000 with any camera brand- where FF comes into its own is high iso smoothness isn't it?

I'm going to take issue with your second point....
If you go into FF with these expectation then you are going to be disappointed as there is only a stop (maybe a stop and a half) improvement over the cropped sensor bodies.

This was taken on a 60D (same sensor as the 7D) and is one of two camera sensors used in the dpreview comparison with your D300s - and they aren't a million miles away from each other.
Sure, it looks messy viewed at 100%. But when 'only' printing to A3 it looks perfect.
My rule of thumb for printing to A3 from the 60D is ISO 2500 with no noise reduction and 3200 with a tiny tweak of the dials. I've produced excellent A3 prints from ISO 6400.
Coincidentally, it's the IS version of the same Canon lens you are looking at, the 70-200 f4 IS L.
60D, ISO 2500, f4, 1/160s at 155mm on a 70-200 f4 IS L

Since that shot was taken, I've invested in both better glass and a 5DIII, and the difference is incredible.
Here's a recent one of a dancer in full flow coming sweeping past my camera. This is full frame, not a crop and is pin sharp in the right places despite depth of field being only about half an inch!
5DIII, ISO 100, f2, 1/800s on a 135mm f2

I still think your superzoom is the weak link.
The 5DIII AF is truly astonishing, but I believe it were paired with your current superzoom then it's AF performance would be crippled.

 

[Cagey75]

The thing about a D700/800 is that I can pick up a Canon 24/105 for about £500 and a 70/200mm f4 non IS for about £350, both will be a great improvement in focus speed and accuracy compared to my Nikon 18/200mm.

In its defence, and you can't see it in the for web mangled pics here, the 18/200mm is very sharp at 200mm used at these portrait distances, it has great colour as well - it doesn't perform anywhere nearly as well at infinity settings. Buying the new 70/200mm Nik will cost at least £1000 and I'm not happy with Niks 24-120 as it is more expensive than the Canon and not as good.

Factor in a UWA with a 17/40 half or less price than a 16/35mm VR, for tele a 100/400mm for £750, a 5D III body which has a fancier af than Niks and the economics begin to swing in Canon's direction.

Coming from a 5D original background I've always preferred Canon greens, so one system that does landscape and action points to a very expensive 5D III solution - bang goes the retirement pot!

Unless you know different ..... anything I've missed in the reasoning?

Sounds logical enough, just wondered why you seemed to be overlooking it.

 

[fulwood]

I'm going to take issue with your second point....
If you go into FF with these expectation then you are going to be disappointed as there is only a stop (maybe a stop and a half) improvement over the cropped sensor bodies.

This was taken on a 60D (same sensor as the 7D) and is one of two camera sensors used in the dpreview comparison with your D300s - and they aren't a million miles away from each other.
Sure, it looks messy viewed at 100%. But when 'only' printing to A3 it looks perfect.
My rule of thumb for printing to A3 from the 60D is ISO 2500 with no noise reduction and 3200 with a tiny tweak of the dials. I've produced excellent A3 prints from ISO 6400.
Coincidentally, it's the IS version of the same Canon lens you are looking at, the 70-200 f4 IS L.
60D, ISO 2500, f4, 1/160s at 155mm on a 70-200 f4 IS L

Since that shot was taken, I've invested in both better glass and a 5DIII, and the difference is incredible.
Here's a recent one of a dancer in full flow coming sweeping past my camera. This is full frame, not a crop and is pin sharp in the right places despite depth of field being only about half an inch!
5DIII, ISO 100, f2, 1/800s on a 135mm f2

I still think your superzoom is the weak link.
The 5DIII AF is truly astonishing, but I believe it were paired with your current superzoom then it's AF performance would be crippled.

Thanks, your obviously doing what I'm trying to do and I thank you for your sensible comments/observations, food for thought there.

I'll mull it over and get back to you tomorrow. I'll also post some of my almost in focus attempts for your comments.

 

[gman]

You could always try the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D AF-S IF-ED. It's an awesome lens and should hold its value if it turns out not to be to your liking. I would imagine that with regard to ISO performance then the difference between a D300s to a D700 would be very noticeable but between a D700 and the 5D MkIII not so much, so moving systems and espeically to a much more expensive camera would need a lot of thought.

You could always hire a full frame camera from both makes along with a top lens and see how you get along?

 

[specialman]

Fulwood - you've highlighted where Nikon has been dragging its heels, in a mid-price f/4 range of lenses aimed at those people who can't afford high-end glass. It is being addressed - the new 70-200mm f/4 adds to the 16-35mm and the 24-120mm but as you say, prices reflect these products' relatively recent addition to the nikon line-up.

Out of interest, you say you need high shutter speeds and higher f-stops.... I can understand the shutter speeds for freezing dancers, but don't quite get the need for deeper DoF.... are you using something like f/6.3 to make sure everything is in focus (as a bit of a safety net)?

Also, bare in mind that going to a versatile zoom (like a 24-105/120mm) on a full frame sensor is going to be a whole world of difference to an 18-135mm on a DX body...