| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
The better set-up?
Greg Kendall-Ball, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Abilene | TX | USA | Posted: 9:06 PM on 01.24.10 |
->> I am about to upgrade my kit somethin' fierce. There are two pathways before me, and I just can't seem to pull the trigger. I've been a Canon shooter for the past four years, but I'm not married to them.
I am a freelancer, doing a lot of stringer work for the local newspaper. Features, spot news, portraits, and increasingly, sports. So, which of these setups would you recommend?
Canon 1DMk3
Canon 7D
70-200 2.8 IS
16-35 2.8 L
or
Nikon D700
Nikon D300s
70-200 2.8
17-35 2.8 |
|
David Welker, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Springfield | MO | USA | Posted: 9:17 PM on 01.24.10 |
->> I guess I have to ask if you will be buying used or new.
BUT, I will have to say I would go the Nikon route. Reasoning behind this is that you will gain both a FF and crop camera and both offer some very appealing features. I am a canon fan, but I think in this instance you will benefit from the flexibility of the FF sensor mixed with a nice cropper. |
|
David Manning, Photographer
|
Athens | GA | | Posted: 9:17 PM on 01.24.10 |
->> I think it comes down to what you prefer.
Both setups are pretty equal in my mind. |
|
Israel Shirk, Photographer, Assistant
|
Boise | ID | US | Posted: 10:23 PM on 01.24.10 |
->> If you can test the Mk3's AF first I'd go with it since it'll last longer and you've got weatherproofing. The prosumer cameras don't last quite as well, even if it just ends up being your backup body in a few years. It's too much of a risk to just get a random mk3 though.
Or, if there's the potential of shooting something like architecture, etc, I'd go with the Nikon for the FF. (although I guess you could rent a 10-22 for the 7d, but the CA on the copy I used was horrid) |
|
Preston Mack, Photographer
|
Orlando | FL | USA | Posted: 10:26 PM on 01.24.10 |
| ->> I think a 24-70 may be more useful than a 17-35. |
|
Alan Look, Photographer
|
Bloomington/Normal | IL | United States | Posted: 10:34 PM on 01.24.10 |
->> Only advice I would lend is to buy 2 like bodies unless one is a true back up. I tried two handing with two different bodies and it was just short of a bad dream for me. 2 likes give you all the controls in the same place on each one. 2 unalikes often don't. It can cost you shots just from the thinking time.
So you might think about that if you have money to upgrade your kit in a fierce way. |
|
Eric Francis, Photographer
|
Omaha | NE | United States | Posted: 10:39 PM on 01.24.10 |
| ->> depends..... do you prefer apples or oranges? |
|
Travis Haughton, Photographer
|
Crystal Lake | IL | USA | Posted: 10:41 PM on 01.24.10 |
->> Greg,
Unless you need the video feature on the 300s, I'd look at going for a pair of the D700s with grips. It's nice to have two identical cameras. Otherwise you're always second guessing, wishing your lenses were on a different camera.
I still don't get the "advantage" of a crop factor camera. If you want to crop, use the crop tool in photoshop.
And forget the 17-35 and go for a 24-70. 24 on Full Frame really is wide enough unless you're stuck in a closet with your subject.
Good luck. |
|
Greg Kendall-Ball, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Abilene | TX | USA | Posted: 10:57 PM on 01.24.10 |
->> Thanks for all the feedback, folks.
Right now I'm using two cropped Canon XXD bodies, and am running up against their technical limits in terms of low-light and AF performance.
On those cropped bodies, though, I find I really love using my Tokina 11-16. For a lot of the stories I cover, the really wide angle is perfect. That is about a 17mm equiv. on a FF. I think I would use the 17-35 (or 16-35 L) a lot more than the 24-70 range. |
|
Patrick Fallon, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Columbia | MO | USA | Posted: 11:07 PM on 01.24.10 |
| ->> Full frame is amazing. A 24-70 would be a better choice than a 16-35 on a full frame body also. |
|
Chris Collins, Photographer
|
Fayetteville/ATL | GA | US | Posted: 1:20 AM on 01.25.10 |
| ->> Most people are likely to tell you to get what that have. But there is no real answer here, you can make great images with all of your gear choices. You will hear a million opinions on any board, but having versatility is a good thing. |
|
Randy Abrams, Photographer
|
Bath | NY | US | Posted: 7:09 AM on 01.25.10 |
| ->> My first question would be what do you already have for lens? If you already shoot Canon and have Canon lens then I'd probably stay with Canon. Being that you already have some experience with Canon, why not rent a D700 (or whatever Nikon body) and a lens and see what you think. Personally I shoot Nikon (D3s and D700) and love it, but I don't know that there is a definitive answer as to which is better for a given person. |
|
Debra L Rothenberg, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 5:32 PM on 01.31.10 |
->> Personally,I do like the crop factor on the non full frame camera. A D700 for the higher ISO and a D300s is a great setup, IMO. BUt forget the 17-35 and go for the 24-70.
D300s
D700
24-70
70-200
pretty much covers most of what you would need. If you find you are shooting sports a lot, a converter or 300mm down the line will suit you well. |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 12:33 PM on 02.01.10 |
->> I disagree with the statement just crop it in photoshop. If you're shooting sports and don't have a 300mm, the D300s crop factor will help - not a perfect solution, but better than trying to crop in PS.
The FF WILL help on the wide side. Tough call on the 24-70 or the 17-35mm. Both are good lenses.That comes down to your style, how you tend to see things and the type of assignments you shoot. You should be able to pick up a 17-35 for not too many dollars used. If you tend to visualize really wide, the 17mm isn't going to be enough. If that's the case, save your money, skip the 17mm and look for a 14-24 down the road.
In other words, determine which lenses will get used most often and prioritize replacement based on that. |
|
Greg Kendall-Ball, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Abilene | TX | USA | Posted: 1:32 PM on 02.01.10 |
| ->> Thanks, again, for all the input. I'm thinking that since I love using my Tokina 11-16 on my 40D/30D bodies, 17mm on a FX sensor like the D700 would be plenty wide. I don't think the 24-70 would be wide enough for how I tend to shoot, and I won't be able to get both a 17-35 and 24-70 at the same time. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|