Looking for a new camera

28 posts
15 June 2014
Iconic
Photographer
Iconic
got a d300 need something a that alot better in low light was thinking full frame? but they are a bit out of my price range at the moment so i was looking at the nikon d2x or d2xs? but someone told me they are old and crap so just want some opinions please guys should i wait and get a full frame d700 or d3 or are the d2 cameras good?

Posted 15 June 2014
gaffer
Photographer
gaffer
Once you have experienced full frame you would not want to go back. Seems you are a Nikon guy and probably already have lenses, but for low light the Canon 6d takes some beating.

Posted 15 June 2014
Webbo2
Photographer
Webbo2
If full frame is out of your price range then consider a D7100. I went from a D300 to a D7100 and it is considerably better in low light and dynamic range (although not quite as good as a D700). The other thing about full frame is your lenses, are any of them DX as opposed to FX? As they'd need changing too as well as the body. If any of your lenses are just DX then that's another advantage of the D7100.

Posted 15 June 2014
Edited by Webbo2 15 June 2014
marlhamphoto
Photographer
marlhamphoto
I've recently acquired a second-hand D3S with 28k actuations for £1,500 and its in immaculate condition. I was leaning towards a new D800 for the same price but saw the D3S advertised and the guy agreed to let it go for the same money.

The D2 was an excellent camera in its day but low light performance is far behind the current standard.
Posted 15 June 2014
Edited by marlhamphoto 15 June 2014
I would prb say a Nikon D7100 or a D7000, both great in low light, depending how many lens in DX format you have you could go FX, D610, the low light on a D610 is awesome at this price point..

Posted 16 June 2014
FrameworksMedia
Photographer
FrameworksMe..
If you already have a range of lenses in the f1.4-f2.8 region then I would consider upgrading the body. If not,or the lenses that you have are not FX compatible then I would consider upgrading the lenses.

Posted 16 June 2014
Iconic
Photographer
Iconic
i mostly use a 1.4f 50mmg prime so i definatly need a better body as the low light quality is shit to be blunt over 1000iso

Posted 16 June 2014
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
Iconic
i mostly use a 1.4f 50mmg prime so i definatly need a better body as the low light quality is shit to be blunt over 1000iso
It didn't tolerate under exposure well but otherwise I would say the D300 was pretty fair in low light, much better than D200, a bit worse (1 or maybe 2 stops) than D700/D800 when correctly exposed, but a lot worse if under exposed. I usually used it at 3200 in B&W. I think the default smearing (noise-reduction setting) was rather aggressive but if you switch that off.... Incidentally, the D2 wasn't/isn't full frame
Posted 16 June 2014
Edited by stolenfaces 16 June 2014
MLP
Photographer
MLP
stolenfaces

.....  It didn't tolerate under exposure well but otherwise I would say the D300 was pretty fair in low light, much better than D200, a bit worse (1 or maybe 2 stops) than D700/D800 when correctly exposed, but a lot worse if under exposed ......



Totally agree, still have a couple of D300 and think is was one of the most under rated bodies that Nikon ever made - a real workhorse for me and never had a real problem in low light




Posted 17 June 2014
Edited by MLP 17 June 2014
Pict
Photographer
Pict
If you decide on a d7000 i have a mint hardly used one you could have at a good price

Posted 17 June 2014
MG
Photographer
MG
I jumped from Nikon to Canon some years ago now. It was so easy to do as lenses don't really depreciate very much at all so I was able to sell all of my Nikon gear and replace with Canon for very little. The 6D can be had for under £1,000 now used or just over £1,000 new. Ful frame for that kind of money is worth looking at. Going backwards with technology doesn't work. The D2's are not up to much now. The 1D II Canons really aren't up to much either now.





Posted 17 June 2014
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
MG

The D2's are not up to much now. The 1D II Canons really aren't up to much either now.


Not true.  As long as you use them within their limits there will be little/no difference (base-ISO studio photography with well controlled flash for example).

As an example... of all the cameras I've seen samples for, in a controlled environment like the studio my 1Ds II still seems to produce the sharpest images, there's no way I'll ever consider getting rid of it.

Posted 17 June 2014
MG
Photographer
MG
RedChecker

Not true.  As long as you use them within their limits there will be little/no difference (base-ISO studio photography with well controlled flash for example).

As an example... of all the cameras I've seen samples for, in a controlled environment like the studio my 1Ds II still seems to produce the sharpest images, there's no way I'll ever consider getting rid of it.



Steven, Your forum approach is always so confrontational. My view is just an opinion, just the same as yours is. My experience has shown me that the newer sensors produce far superior images in the majority of situations. If you were to want to produce an A4 sized Image in a studio shooting at 100 ISO and nothing else then yes a five to ten year iold camera will give you similair results some of the time. This is of course in my opinion and is subjective. However step out of the studio and the newer cameras will far out perform. I would hazzard that the reason why you won't ever get rid of your camera is that according to your profile you don't shoot anymore. However I could have sworn you had a Canon 6D but I may be wrong with that. 





Posted 17 June 2014
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
MG

Steven, Your forum approach is always so confrontational. My view is just an opinion, just the same as yours is. My experience has shown me that the newer sensors produce far superior images in the majority of situations. If you were to want to produce an A4 sized Image in a studio shooting at 100 ISO and nothing else then yes a five to ten year iold camera will give you similair results some of the time. This is of course in my opinion and is subjective. However step out of the studio and the newer cameras will far out perform. I would hazzard that the reason why you won't ever get rid of your camera is that according to your profile you don't shoot anymore. However I could have sworn you had a Canon 6D but I may be wrong with that. 



I do indeed have a 6D and the 1Ds II still takes better images in a controlled studio environment despite being at least 2 generations older in terms of sensor & processing engine tech and also being 12 bit rather than 14-bit (although in a 'controlled' environment you don't really need both the dynamic range or sensitivity).

For general all-round use especiallt natural light work, yes, a new camera is better but if it's someone only looking at a particular field whereby there is the ability to use the camera well within its limits (eg. a studio) then there's little between old & new, especially as the likes of sensor sizes (number of pixels) and base noise have seemingly reached a plataeu.
Posted 17 June 2014
Edited by RedChecker 17 June 2014
Hugh
Photographer
Hugh
Question was "need something a that alot better in low light "

The modern stuff is vastly better in low light.

The 5D3 produces a grainless A2 BW print at 800 ISO.

My 5D1 still makes a very nice A2 print at 100 ISO, but the 5D3 at 100 ISO is bitingly sharp at the same size, and easily enlarges to A1 (23" x 33"). Of course, you also have to spend on lenses as well.

Posted 17 June 2014
To reply to this thread you must be a member. Click here to join