Turo
07-21-2008, 08:16 AM
So I am planning one major upgrade in the next couple of months. I am debating which would be a better replacement, a new body (D50 -> D300) or a new lens (70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR -> 70-200 f/2.8VR).
About me: The thing I shoot the most is sports photography, mainly wakeboarding (as you can see from my flickr site). I currently use a D50 with a 70-300VR for this.
Body: The D50 has been absolutely great, but the D300 would offer a few nice features useful to me. First, the iso is crucial for me since my 70-300 lens isn't the fastest in the world (VR doesn't help too much in this sport). Also, the fps difference between the two bodies is pretty huge! Not to mention the D50 is starting to get a few dead pixels but for now it is only 4 or 5, so its not a huge deal (after all, this is just a hobby of mine, I am far from being a pro). (You can actually see some hotspots on the images I posted below if you look approximately one inch from the top and one inch from the left border of the first two images)
Lens: The 70-300 is a great lens, especially for those of you who need the extra reach. Image quality is great between 100 to 200mm (where I mainly use it) with the right lighting. The VR helps, but not in such a fast moving sport as wakeboarding. The 70-200 f/2.8 VR would pretty much be a PERFECT lens for what I do. It has the perfect amount of reach (I RARELY use a reach above 180 on my D50), and it is fast so I will not have as much trouble on non-sunny days. Not to mention the image quality seems to be STUNNING from what I have seen!
Pricewise both upgrades seem to be at about equal value. I will probably sell the replaced part on ebay and make some money back, so in all I will be probably spending around $1300 or so on this upgrade. Now unfortunately I am a broke grad student so I cannot afford to do both! Right now I am leaning towards the lens, because you can honestly never go wrong with a lens upgrade, and I can always upgrade the body later. Plus those 70-200 are becoming more and more difficult to find! And in the future if I find myself missing the extra reach, I can always get a teleconverter or something.
So my question to you guys is, which should I spend my money on? D300 or 70-200?
EDIT: I forgot to mention my main reason for upgrading is to improve performance in sub-optimal lighting conditions. When it is cloudy or partly cloudy this lens doesn't perform very well, so I find myself bumping the iso, but the D50 has quite a bit of noise in high iso. So, better iso performance or bigger aperture?
Here are a few sample of the kind of shots I usually do:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3017/2661811623_38c3815264.jpg?v=0
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3283/2343032026_4a2bda10dc.jpg?v=0
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3124/2342199859_4a7f8a4017.jpg?v=0
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3136/2343027570_cc9f9ab4e7.jpg?v=0
About me: The thing I shoot the most is sports photography, mainly wakeboarding (as you can see from my flickr site). I currently use a D50 with a 70-300VR for this.
Body: The D50 has been absolutely great, but the D300 would offer a few nice features useful to me. First, the iso is crucial for me since my 70-300 lens isn't the fastest in the world (VR doesn't help too much in this sport). Also, the fps difference between the two bodies is pretty huge! Not to mention the D50 is starting to get a few dead pixels but for now it is only 4 or 5, so its not a huge deal (after all, this is just a hobby of mine, I am far from being a pro). (You can actually see some hotspots on the images I posted below if you look approximately one inch from the top and one inch from the left border of the first two images)
Lens: The 70-300 is a great lens, especially for those of you who need the extra reach. Image quality is great between 100 to 200mm (where I mainly use it) with the right lighting. The VR helps, but not in such a fast moving sport as wakeboarding. The 70-200 f/2.8 VR would pretty much be a PERFECT lens for what I do. It has the perfect amount of reach (I RARELY use a reach above 180 on my D50), and it is fast so I will not have as much trouble on non-sunny days. Not to mention the image quality seems to be STUNNING from what I have seen!
Pricewise both upgrades seem to be at about equal value. I will probably sell the replaced part on ebay and make some money back, so in all I will be probably spending around $1300 or so on this upgrade. Now unfortunately I am a broke grad student so I cannot afford to do both! Right now I am leaning towards the lens, because you can honestly never go wrong with a lens upgrade, and I can always upgrade the body later. Plus those 70-200 are becoming more and more difficult to find! And in the future if I find myself missing the extra reach, I can always get a teleconverter or something.
So my question to you guys is, which should I spend my money on? D300 or 70-200?
EDIT: I forgot to mention my main reason for upgrading is to improve performance in sub-optimal lighting conditions. When it is cloudy or partly cloudy this lens doesn't perform very well, so I find myself bumping the iso, but the D50 has quite a bit of noise in high iso. So, better iso performance or bigger aperture?
Here are a few sample of the kind of shots I usually do:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3017/2661811623_38c3815264.jpg?v=0
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3283/2343032026_4a2bda10dc.jpg?v=0
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3124/2342199859_4a7f8a4017.jpg?v=0
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3136/2343027570_cc9f9ab4e7.jpg?v=0