Camera Body - time to upgrade ?

[DeanoH]

Some time ago I upgraded my Nikon D70 with a D300. The D300 was a superb camera, well built, ergonomically 'perfect' and without those 'gimmicky' mode buttons found on similar DSLR's. It used the same lenses, batterys etc as Kayes D80 & D90 so all in all a good result. Well, not really.

One problem was that the 18-200 VR lens I bought with it was the 'perfect lens' for SWMBO's D90 and her imminent OS holiday. It's stayed firmly welded to her D90 ever since. :(

Of greater concern was the D300's rendition of red and orange.

We have 'King Parrots' as regular visitors and I enjoy photographing them.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/01/711.jpg (http://s540.photobucket.com/user/DeanoH/media/c62c8f71-dffd-478a-ad48-f787af562d11_zps3a9020d6.jpg.html)


Whilst the colour may look fine in this shot it is actually quite poor and the detail (hard to pick in this slow shutter speed example) just isn't there. Pictures taken with my old D70 had much truer colour rendition and detail in the orange/red colour range specifically. No amount of 'fiddling' with the D300 could fix this. It reminded me a bit of watching American movies made with the old NTSC (Never Twice the Same Colour) standard. Apart from this orange/red issue the D300 was an excellent camera. Ultimately I sold the D300.

Every cloud has a silver lining and the AF Nikkor 35mm 1:2D lens (which I also bought with the D300 and SWMBO didn't pinch :)) is a beauty and is my favourite combo with the ageing D70. I've grown quite attached to this camera (and lens combo) even with its reversed up/down, left/right button operation (compared to the D80/90) and its quirky LCD screen controls. With it's 'sacrificial' D80 kit lens it is a perfect camera for those 'Indiana Jones' ventures where the more expensive gear is prudently left behind. :D

But I feel the time has come to move along and although I am quite happy with the D70, an upgrade with a foray into full frame would be a logical step. New is out of the question for cost reasons, I'm thinking of a second hand D700 although the newer D600 seem to cost about the same, though I'm a bit 'gun shy' of upgrading after my experience with the D300.

Deano :)

[amatol]

Your image looks OK on my phone, though lighting had a lot to do with not getting enough detail in reds. Generally, you can do loads of colour adjustments in Photoshop you know?

Although I am not much aware of issues with the colour rendition of your D300. Did you check actual sites that do camera reviews like DPREVIEW?? for any reports or reviews of the camera and or issues, or is it your own conclusion? Fred Miranda (fredmiranda.com) is another good site with user reviews.

I would not necessarily blame the camera first without being sure I've dotted the i's and crossed the t's. However, going to the next cam, such as a D600 should be a great step. I have a good friend, who is a pro wedding shooter (and shoots birds for pleasure - with a camera and 200-400/4VR) absolutely loves his D600. If you PM me, I can give you his details. I will ring him and ask if he is cool with that.


Cheers :)

[dullbird]

your picture up their looks fine???

can you post another picture with what your trying to show us

Derek (dmdigital) had a D300s I think and I recall at the time he bought it he was really happy with the way it performed......

are you sure its not the glass creating this issue? my Tamron takes very flat images comapred to my Nikon glass.....and while im sure you have Nikon glass is it a kit lens for the 300 or a higher end lens

The other question I have is have you played with the above image? perhaps its your monitor thats not displaying colour properly

[Sirocco]

are you shooting JPEG or RAW? How is the camera setup/calibrated? what software are you using?

Which 35mm 1.2 are you using? Is it the manual Nikkor one? Your 18-200mm won't work well with an FX body as its a DX lens (You would have to run it in DX mode).

what other lenses do you have? you mention D80 kit lens. I would experiment with the D90 1st before buying another body.

I would be looking at other glass with the D90. The improvement from the D70(s) to the D90 was fairly substantial. Enough to noticeably transform my photographs.

G

[DeanoH]

Thanks all for the reply's.

What prompted this thread was 'amatols' mention in the camera lens thread of..................which creates problems with pixel size and dynamic range etc. etc... which reminded me of the problems I had with the D300 and its poor resolution of orange/red. This struck a chord with a mention I think Derek (dmdigital) made at the time in relation to the difference in CCD's between the two cameras. From memory (it was about 3 years ago) it was something to do with 'pixel density' and there being less (or less sensitive) red pixels than green and blue ones. I didn't really understand the specifics of the explanation as I assumed that there would be equal amounts of each colour. If I have totally misquoted/accredited dmdigital here I'll apologise now.

I'll have a hunt through the archives and see what I can find ( I never throw anything away but my filing system leaves a lot to be desired :( ) in the way of comparative photo's.

What I was doing was to compare 'apples with apples' as much as possible specifically in relation to the orange/red colourings of King Parrots with the only variable (as much as possible) being the cameras. Same lens, aperture, ISO, shutter speed, lighting, background and camera settings. Also same computer, monitor and software. If I could only make the subject(s) stay still whilst I changed camera/lens and re affixed to tripod.......................:)

What I found was that the D300's orange/red colour rendition was not as accurate as the D70. In fairness, many wouldn't notice but to me it was glaringly obvious. The photo I posted, when experimenting with the D300 / Nikkor 18-200 VR combination, is of an adult male King Parrot. They are red not red orange as this photo shows. A similar picture taken using the D70 would show the correct red colouration with fine feather detail unattainable using the D300.

Here's an example taken with the D70.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/01/696.jpg (http://s540.photobucket.com/user/DeanoH/media/D70malekingy_zpsc62c2350.jpg.html)

Whilst this is not an 'apples with apples' comparison with my previous picture, the colour is correct and the fine detail is there. There is no PP apart from cropping.

I was using the highest quality JPEGS the cameras were capable of, I don't recall doing much with RAW as I couldn't (and still can't) wrap my head around Nikon NX. I find it even more difficult and even more non intuitive than Photoshop. :(

But this thread isn't about me and my lack of skill with these programs and really not about my disappointment with the D300. In fact I'd describe the D70 as a good tool and the D300 as a fine instrument BUT it couldn't do orange/red to save it's life.

Anyway, I've moved on from there and am now considering going full frame. Do I go D700 or D600 or stick with the D70 ?

As for lenses, I have the AF Nikkor 35mm 1:2 D as a 'semi' wide angle on full format and the AF VR Nikkor 80-400 1:4.5-5.6D for my avian photography. I would love to have Nikons 24-70 as a general purpose lens should I go full frame, but in reality will be happy with a good Nikkor 50mm instead.

Thanks again for the help

Deano :)

[dullbird]

Deano The picture you have posted here is very much redder

however you say that the fine details is there on this one more than the 300

I hate to say this Deano and plese dont take offence this is only meant in the most constructive manner.

I'm really not sure what your talking about in terms of fine detail in this, as I'm finding it very hard to pick the detail in this picture...this picture is terrible in comparison to the D300's picture.

it looks desperately over sharpened to me and it looks like the reds have been over saturated..or perhaps the contrast is blown out either way it looks like the highlights are blown out cauing there to be very little detail in the red. it almost looks like its solarised

I get a feeling your are possibly not seeing what I'm seeing on my screen.

you need to star shooting RAW on your D300 if your not already, get lightroom5 ($170) you wont look back!!!!

seriously it would take a matter of milli seconds to boost the red on your D300 picture to the colour and saturation of your choosing....

While people say you should get everything right in camera...having to boost a bit here or tweak a bit there, doesn't meant your a failure in photography IMHO...
people like to look at pictures very different to the next person. and what pleases my eye may not please someone else's..we all have different taste so there for get a program that will aid you with yours:)

[Chucaro]

IMO the D300s is an awesome camera and I am very happy with the results that I have with my camera.
Regarding red tones I always used nef format in the D200 and D300s and use nikon software to do the inical processing and save the image in tiff if I was going to use PS.
This close-up shot with a 70-300VR and a diopter will give you an idea of red tones with the d300s

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/11/916.jpg

Cheers

[amatol]

Just a note that if you start shooting in RAW then you would probably have to tweak some image parameters during post processing rather than let the camera do it for you, which is what happens when you shoot jpegs.

Getting it right in camera really means getting the best amount of data recorded and it has to do with using your histogram and understand how it interprets what you have recorded. I think I mentioned about reducing/minimizing/eliminating noise when using the histogram pushed to the right! Then you would definitely have to adjust the image once imported into the computer. What and how you do while you're post processing is entirely up to you.

[DeanoH]

Thanks for the responses.

Thanks particularly DB for your honest critique, if I didn't want opinion/views I wouldn't ask the question(s) in the first place. Especially when I am writing negatively about the 'holy grail' of Nikon DX cameras, the D300.

Whilst I agree that the D70 photo is of poor quality it is without PP and does show (to my eye) finer feather detail, particularly in the breast area and the colour, whilst looking over saturated, is exactly that of a young mature male King Parrot. They are over saturated, pre PP :) which helps make them such a striking bird .
The head and RHS 'halo' does give the impression of over sharpening but my saved image designation does not reflect this, and I'm quite definite about saving this info.

In my defence, ;) I used this picture as an example of colour and feather detail only. It was taken in a string of test photos pushing the VR Nikkor 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 D to the limit. VR on, 400mm, 1/80 sec, ISO 400, f 5.7. (I know it's a 5.6 lens but this is what exiftool says :)).

The D300 example was also one of a test series using the DX VR Nikkor 18-200mm f3.5-5.6G IF ED lens also pushed hard. VR on, 200mm, 1/60 sec, ISO 200, f 5.6. To my eye it is very soft with poor feather detail. Again not a good photo but the colour rendition is poor.

Thanks Arthur for four input, I was hoping you would comment here with your expertise and knowledge/familiarity with the D300(s). As I would expect from you , a beautiful photo. Enough to inspire me to grit my teeth and have another go at NX.
I did actually buy Lightroom a couple of years ago but didn't go through with the install as it wanted PS installed as a prerequisite, and whilst this is a brilliant program (for those that can wrap their heads around it), I reckon it would be truly great if only someone would come up with an intuitive GUI for it. :D

Thanks amatol for your input, I've got a fair way to go with understanding histograms and working with RAW data.

But, back to the original question, no comments on D600 vs D700 ?

Deano :)

[Chucaro]

.................................................. ..........
But, back to the original question, no comments on D600 vs D700 ?

Deano :)

What type of photography are you going to do with the new body ?
If it is going to be for wildlife/birds I guess that the D700 with faster maximum shutter speed of 1/8000sec vs 1/4000sec is a very attractive point even if it have less focal points.

For general purpose and landscaping I would go for the D600, with the EXPEED 3 processing engine and the new 24.3-megapixel, full-frame (35.9 x 24mm) CMOS sensor, 100-6400.

Now, personally because I like wild life photography, I keep the D300s and get the best long reach lens that I can afford before upgrade the body.
If I was going to upgrade the body then the D800 is the camera that I would like to have in my bag.

I said it before regarding purchasing of equipment.

1) good lens,the best you can buy
2) excellent tripod for sharp images
3) With the money left over get the body :D

[amatol]

Find user reviews of those cameras here on Fred Miranda.

FM Reviews - (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showcat.php/cat/16)

[amatol]

If it is going to be for wildlife/birds I guess that the D700 with faster maximum shutter speed of 1/8000sec vs 1/4000sec is a very attractive point even if it have less focal points.

For birds/wildlife I struggle to remember when I really needed above 1/3200th of a second to be honest. Fast shutter speed should not be your decisive factor.

My friend who shoots mostly raptors with his 200-400/4 VR has a D600 and loves it.

[lt8x7]

I bought a Df just before Christmas and it is fantastic.

[dullbird]

Deano

you dont need PS to run lightroom.....from LR3 on wwards as I have used LR3, 4 and 5

honestly lightroom is a very easy program to use and light rooms tutorial videos on adobe are very very easy to follow....

I haven't met many people that dont like lightroom....and the ones that dont like it are usually people that are either just used to the work flow in another program or are just bigger users of the more intuative programs such as PS as lightroom does have its limitations...

Have a go at the free 30 day trial if you are still finding that you don't get on with NX....I got NX with Nikon and I really didn't like using it at all...

what you got to lose if you don't like it you just uninstall it....

also regarding the D3 body I really dont think its fair to judge the body with a lens on it thats not suited to that body...

See if you can fine someone near you that has some quality Nikon glass that will let you take a couple of shots and then make a decision....

you might need to put the collars in to some quality glass.....

you dont want to go out and buy a D700 put the same lens on and find you have the same annoyances with your pictures...its just a waste of money. :)

[amatol]

also regarding the D3 body I really dont think its fair to judge the body with a lens on it thats not suited to that body...


Deano
My friend in Sydney uses both D3 and now D4 bodies. Here is his gallery:

avkomp photographics (http://photography.avkomp.com)

He mostly shoots birds, same as me, and he has a 600/4VR and other top Nikon lenses. If I were to start out now, I'd be probably going a D3, it's a kick-ass camera body mate. Just kick-ass.

My friend near Bacchus Marsh uses the D600. If you like, I may be able to put you in touch with him. You could talk to him. Up to you. I forgot to ask about it the other day, but I will just ring him anytime of the day.

GOOD quality images need GOOD quality glass, not cheap kit crap. Sorry to be blunt. :(



Cheers mate.

[blitz]

I have a D300s, I have also played with the D7100, which in my opinion isn't as good and targeted at a different user group.

I am (slowly) in the process of replacing my lenses as it is so good it has bought up the little imperfections they have, so going to professional lenses.

Had I my time over I would have bought the D700 as I had the money for the FX, but then the 80-200 on the DX is 300mm which in my opinion is a bonus.

I have photos blown up to A2 and even close up are damned near perfect.

[dullbird]

Deano
My friend in Sydney uses both D3 and now D4 bodies. Here is his gallery:

avkomp photographics (http://photography.avkomp.com)

He mostly shoots birds, same as me, and he has a 600/4VR and other top Nikon lenses. If I were to start out now, I'd be probably going a D3, it's a kick-ass camera body mate. Just kick-ass.

My friend near Bacchus Marsh uses the D600. If you like, I may be able to put you in touch with him. You could talk to him. Up to you. I forgot to ask about it the other day, but I will just ring him anytime of the day.

GOOD quality images need GOOD quality glass, not cheap kit crap. Sorry to be blunt. :(



Cheers mate.

I should of written D300 not D3

but hopefully you knew what I was trying to say to Deano...

Deano I will just say again in case I never explained what I was trying to say earlier..

I don't think its fair to judge the D300 quality with a DX lense on the front of it.:).

If you lived in Sydney I would of let you use my 70-200 see what your thoughts on the body were after having some quality glass on the front.

[Chucaro]

Regarding Nikon lens IMO the 70-300 Vr lens is a bargain for the quality images that produce including details in a cropped image.
Here are two examples of what the D300s with a 70-300VR can do.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/01/547.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/01/548.jpg

[lt8x7]

I agree with Dullbird.

Use Lightroom 5, it will do everything you need and more. I have seen plenty of professional photographers who use LR exclusively.