DIGITAL SLR CAMAREA ADVISE help snookn out!

[leather]

Everything I have read in this thread says buy a good body and go from there. I wouldn't recommend that I would say buy a great lens and a cheap body. Instead of spend several thousand dollars on a body spend it on a lens or two for what you want to shoot. The bodies will depreciate fast but the lenses will be top of the line for a long time. I currently shoot with a d40 and a d300. I have shot some of my best pics with the D40. If you attach a good lens to it you can do great things. Sure the d300 is a better camera but 90% of the time I don't know the difference. If you have never been into photography before by the time you figure out what your doing your high end body will be outdated and you will want to update anyway. If going Nikon start with a 24-70 2.8 and a cheap body. If you take care of the lens it will still be worth most of its original value. Then if you upgrade to fx, which you will want to do if you stay in it you already have the first lens. At that point you will know which direction your photography is going. Just remember that the old models made excellent pictures when that was all you could get.

You need have skills to make it work for you.

 

[SteveR]

Leather, agree basically with what you've said. Although I can't really see why I'd need to upgrade this D700 in 10 years even...the bodys will last and last esp if its a pro build. And the sensor/shutter can be replaced after it's failed (which will take at least 150,000 pics they say).

 

[snookn21]

I am into taking pictures of our fish, just as much as finding these fish. Photography is becoming a big hobby for me. Cant wait to get the new camera and lens!

 

[SteveR]

I am into taking pictures of our fish, just as much as finding these fish. Photography is becoming a big hobby for me. Cant wait to get the new camera and lens!

D700 then mate, I'm still drooling over this baby!

 

[leather]

Leather, agree basically with what you've said. Although I can't really see why I'd need to upgrade this D700 in 10 years even...the bodys will last and last esp if its a pro build. And the sensor/shutter can be replaced after it's failed (which will take at least 150,000 pics they say).

The D2 took great pictures too, when thats all that there was. In ten years digital is going to be so ahead of where it is now its not even going to be funny. I expect in a decade to be shooting virtually noise free 6400 iso. You won't want to be missing out on that will you? The lenses though probably won't have changed much.

 

[SteveR]

The D2 took great pictures too, when thats all that there was. In ten years digital is going to be so ahead of where it is now its not even going to be funny. I expect in a decade to be shooting virtually noise free 6400 iso. You won't want to be missing out on that will you? The lenses though probably won't have changed much.

Mate the D700 is virtually noise free at ISO 6400 NOW! I rarely go above it and with fast lenses, it's awesome. I bet it'll be 15 years before I upgrade this, but now, I'm investing in more and more fast glass.

 

[leather]

Mate the D700 is virtually noise free at ISO 6400 NOW! I rarely go above it and with fast lenses, it's awesome. I bet it'll be 15 years before I upgrade this, but now, I'm investing in more and more fast glass.

I'm sorry to disagree but there is no way your shooting 6400 with low noise. I won't take my d300 above 800. The noise isn't apparent with NR on but that just makes the image soft. I would love to see a 6400 iso picture off of the d700 with plenty of dark subject matter. Unless its running NR and softening the subject then there will be noise. I know the full frames are leaps and bounds ahead of the dx for low light. But they're not quite to that point yet.

 

[jcardona1]

I'm sorry to disagree but there is no way your shooting 6400 with low noise. I won't take my d300 above 800. The noise isn't apparent with NR on but that just makes the image soft. I would love to see a 6400 iso picture off of the d700 with plenty of dark subject matter. Unless its running NR and softening the subject then there will be noise. I know the full frames are leaps and bounds ahead of the dx for low light. But they're not quite to that point yet.

here's a comparison, pictures at the bottom. D700 shows a considerable amount of noise at ISO 6400

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_D700/noise.shtml

 

[leather]

here's a comparison, pictures at the bottom. D700 shows a considerable amount of noise at ISO 6400

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_D700/noise.shtml

Thats what I figured thanks. This stuff is really getting better but I knew it couldn't be that good yet or I would have heard more about it.

 

[SteveR]

Obviously I wouldn't blow up a shot that's taken at 6400 too large but it is astounding for 6400 IMO.

Here is a photo at 6400 not cropped to oblivion:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomma/3178172080/lightbox/

Click to view it's largest size. That is nothing short of astounding!

The other point I'd make is check what your eyes can do, they are extremely powerful optical systems. They too have an "AUTOMATIC" ISO adjustment. Try it in a very dark room, I mean VERY VERY dark where you can barely see your hands in front of your face. You will see noise, grain because you retinas are having to become a x1000 more sensitive, and as time goes by, we often see a little better in the dark as the optical system adjusts. I think we'll always have an element of noise at 6400 for a good while to come, perhaps for a long time. The noise at 6400 on the D700 gives the images a classic, quite beautiful look as the grain is quite structured, unlike the D90 at 6400.