Nikon upgrade

B

Beardy

Messages
609
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

I am new to the forum and would describe myself as a keen amateur. I have had a D70 for about 5 years and bought a Nikon 18-200 and SB 600 a couple of years ago...I also still own the Nikon 18-70 and 70-300 that I had previously to that. I have become increasingly frustrated by the D70's poor low light performance and what I perceive as slow AF performance over the last year or two.

I have a young family and recently one of my main uses of my camera has been for portrait work of my children. As an initial upgrade I purchased a 50mm Nikon 1.4 G prime a few months to help with low light performance and just because it's a great lens. I also bought it because if I didn't like the lens or felt it didn't work for me these lenses obviously hold their value very well so would be a relatively "low cost" experiment. I love using the 50m lens but find that even using that the low light performance of my D70 is such that I need to use the flash when I would rather not. I often have to use the 50 mm at 1.4 or 1.8 to give me a half decent shutter speed and find that the depth of field at this aperture with moving "subjects" hard work.....

I think the right path for me to take is to upgrade the D70 with my thoughts being either the D90 or D7000....or possibly a D300. As I mentioned before whilst low light performance is important I also would like something with considerably better AF performance. The main uses I have for my camera now are photographing my children and also sports/action photography. I am assuming the D7000 and D90 are both considerably better than my D70.

I have a budget of £1,000 ish plus I could sell my D70, 18-70 and 70-300 which would raise some cash. I'd also like to buy a 70-200mm F2.8 (second hand) at some point so might be able to stretch to a D90 and 70-200 second hand now or get a D7000 and wait for the lens in the future. I know some people will think that lens overkill for an amateur but I think I'd really enjoy the benefits that it brings.

So I suppose that's a rather long winded way of asking is the D7000 a real step up from the D90 especially in term so AF performance and image quality at higher ISO's ?

Thanks
 
It's difficult to go wrong with the 70-200 2.8 as it really does not compromise in any way like a consumer zoom will. That plus the 50/1.4G and you will be well set up with lenses!

I'd get the best body I could afford - definitely the D300 if you can afford one, but a D7000 or D90 will still be a vast improvement over the old D70. I used to own the D70s and loved it, but it is a bit of a legacy cam now so am glad I upgraded to a D700.
 
go for a d300 should be able to get one for £700 then that leaves you some money, then sell the d70 and is it the 70-300mm vr if so with those 2 sold + you £300 you should be able to get a 70-200mm
even 2nd hand d90 are about £400 so you got options, but the af on the d300 is far superior to the d90.

theres a d90 and d300 on here for sale(must say the d300 is a real bargain.
if i didnt have 2 i would buy it.
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=283957
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the quick replies.

So a D300 ? Interesting that you both say that. I know it's from the Professional range but thought it was a relatively old model and due to be replaced in 2011 (I know the current model is the D300S) I wondered if it might be old tech? Is it that much better than the D7000 ?
 
well im sure the d700 had better high iso, but the d300 has far better build quality and has more af points as for speed probably as good as each other, if you want video the d300s or d7000 have it. and the d300 is alot bigger to than the d90/d7000.
but the d300 is still awsome and only now are cameras starting to better it, but i have had newer made dslrs that have not touched it.
im awaiting the new d400(or what they call it) if that done happen i will probably buy a pentax k5 as it has the d7000 high iso quality but is built like a tank and has far superior weather sealing.
 
Last edited:
As a D90 owner, what I would like - for my specific shooting requirements - is better AF performance, and better low-light performance (to some extent, they go hand-in-hand).
Though the D7000 is supposed to have good high ISO performance, it has a 16MP sensor. Personally, I would incline towards less MP for low-light physics. Video is of no interest to me whatsoever (D300s).

I agree that D300 is an absolutely great deal.
 
Beardy said:
Thanks for the quick replies.

So a D300 ? Interesting that you both say that. I know it's from the Professional range but thought it was a relatively old model and due to be replaced in 2011 (I know the current model is the D300S) I wondered if it might be old tech? Is it that much better than the D7000 ?
Click to expand...

I'd say that just because a cam is due to be replaced it should not put you off as it will still continue to be an amazing cam even if it does get replaced and the replacement is sure to cost a lot more.

The D700 is also now quite old technology compared with say the D3s and the D800 (or whatever replaces it), but the alternatives would be much more costly and the D700 does what I want.
 
I've got a D300 and am very pleased with it, though it is a bit hefty to carry sometimes. A good friend just traded his D80 for a D7000 and is ecstatic about the low light performance. The D7000, with a magnesium body, but slightly smaller dimensions than the D300, is very tempting at about 3/4 the price of a D300 (at least in the States).

I feel the D300 performs very well under low light conditions...up to ISO 800. ISO 1600 is workable, too, especially if you do any post processing. If you're interested in a used camera, I'm sure there are many excellent deals out there on a D300.

You won't ever get the best out of any camera body, however, until you put good glass on it. The 50 f/1.4 is certainly a start.

A used D700 might also be an option for you, but probably won't be in your price range unless you find a real steal.

Good luck!
 
hunter20ga said:
I've got a D300 and am very pleased with it, though it is a bit hefty to carry sometimes. A good friend just traded his D80 for a D7000 and is ecstatic about the low light performance. The D7000, with a magnesium body, but slightly smaller dimensions than the D300, is very tempting at about 3/4 the price of a D300 (at least in the States).

I feel the D300 performs very well under low light conditions...up to ISO 800. ISO 1600 is workable, too, especially if you do any post processing. If you're interested in a used camera, I'm sure there are many excellent deals out there on a D300.

You won't ever get the best out of any camera body, however, until you put good glass on it. The 50 f/1.4 is certainly a start.

A used D700 might also be an option for you, but probably won't be in your price range unless you find a real steal.

Good luck!
Click to expand...
the d7000 is not all mag alloy the front is all plastic where as the d300 is mag alloy meaning the monut will be alot stronger.
http://www.priyantha.nl/GoT/camera_vergelijking/7D_D7000_D300s_K-5._verkleind.jpg
 
Last edited:
Used to have a D90 and it was a very good camera. Went for the D300 as liked the size and more buttons, plus more af points. A very good camera and while it is ok at 1600, prefer to keep belw 800 iso. From what I have read the D7000 is far better at higher Iso so based on the info you gave, would go for that. Iq looks excellent and aside from the FX cameras, gives you the best low light performance.
 
Well. Think I need to go to a good camera shop and see what the D7000 and D300 feel like in the hand. The only thing that does concern me is the weight/bulk of the D300 when travelling with a young family....whichever camera I get I am going to keep the 18-200 for all round solution/practicality which is paramount when travelling with young kids and a wife that doesn't know the meaning of travelling light! I am a sucker for things that feel well made though.

It seems Nikon must be discounting the D300s very aggressively ahead of the new model as it's the same price or cheaper than the D7000. Just having a quick look I see there are quite a few used D300's around. Certainly the price difference between a used D300 vs a new D90 is a no brainer. If I do go the used D300 route think I would be happy to pay slightly more to get a warranty from a dealer.
 
Although I said that I would recommend you go for a D7000, personally I would go with a D300, as for me size, external buttons and af points are more important than ISO, as most paid work involves studio lights. If I was not doing paid work, I would probably go with the D7000 as ISO would then be quite important.
 
Thanks I appreciate your advice on the D7000 being better at high ISO....that's definitely interesting and good to know. Ultimately if I invest in a 70-200 as well ISO 800 might be fine but it's always nice to have the option.

I suspect it will come down to how they feel in the hand and probably how well each camera feels balanced with the 70-200 f 2.8 as that will be the biggest heaviest lens I am ever likely to have. I seem to remember reading somewhere that lens feels better balanced with the pro bodies as that's what it's designed for?
 
I shoot similar things to you and went for the D7000. The low light (High ISO) is awesome, and photographing children means I don't really need to worry about weather-proofing or having as many AF points as the D300 does.

Being able to use higher ISO is amazing as I can keep shutter speeds faster (important for children!) using only natural light indoors.

Horses for courses as they say, but the D7000 was definitely the camera for my needs.
 
Last edited:
I am sure whatever I get it'll be awesome compared to the D70! I took it out today with the children and dog in the park....it's just not up to the job compared to anything made in the last two or three years, especially on a cloudy day.
 
Hi Beardy. How about the new Nikon D3100 - I've read some very good reviews of it - Amateur Photographer was one. You could get a brand new one for £390 with 2 year warranty - see http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod1583.html . Apparently it's High ISO performance is on a par with the D90 - see http://www.dslrphoto.com/dslr/high-...tween-nikon-d3100-versus-nikon-d90,19789.html

Or an even cheaper alternative - have you considered the Nikon SB-400 flash. Tiny, but quite effective - around £120 new, £80 second hand. The D70 has a flash sync speed of 1/500 so should be fast enough for fast moving children, and will give you that extra light.

HTH
 
I think the 70-200 is a great lens, dont use it often enough. Some pics taken on D300 with this if they help...

f/4 - 1/100 - 1600ISO
5129188515_a8d9fa228a_z.jpg


f/2.8 - 1/160 - 800ISO
5129185695_a0802200e2_z.jpg


f/1.4 - 1/60 - 800ISO - taken with 50mm prime in a very dark chapel
5195435797_6726fc838b_z.jpg


f/2.8 - 1/100 - 800ISO
5212564052_b5d8d080fe_z.jpg


f/2.8 - 1/100 - 1600ISO
5212564644_3140dccf1b_z.jpg
 
I had a D70 originally and upgraded to a D300s an would thoroughly recommend it.

It was an awesome bit of kit, and in comparison to the D70 the speed and quality was stunning.

It was however much bigger and heavy to wield about than my trusty old D70, it's certainly worth having a good look at one in a camera shop properly before committing to buy :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top