Glass v Camera

[Formatted]

This was mooted by a friend of mine as we discussed cameras and the such like. To give this question more structure I'll outline the position I'm in to provide a more focused answer.

I currently have a D5000 which I want to upgrade, I'm looking at a D90 or one of Nikons new line of cameras this year or pick up a cheap D700 in the Summer. My lenses are Tamron 70-300 and 18-54 Nikkor AF-S (Which is great by the way). I've also ordered a 200 - 400 VR AF-S F4, which I'm really excited about.

This has sparked the question, I'm looking at either a new camera or a 70-200 Nikkor lense. I'm looking to do lots of sports photography, and wildlife. So its got to be some fast and snappy.

This therefore begs the question. Is it camera or is it glass?

 

[robertwsimpson]

Everyone here will tell you it's glass. That being said, I think that other things can limit you as well, like how fast your autofocus works, and how fast your burst rate is. I don't know how well your d5000 handles either of those or high ISO noise, so I can't really comment, but for the most part, you're always better off getting better lenses.

 

[Big Mike]

It depends what you are looking for.

If optimum image quality is your goal, then you're likely to be better off with top end glass than a top end camera.

But if something like AF performance is important to you, then a top end body like the D700 might be a better direction to go.

As mentioned, there is the issue of high ISO performance. Top end cameras are usually better at delivering good quality images at higher ISO.

 

[Natalie]

Here's how I usually explain it to people who talk about how my camera is so big and therefore "must" take amazing pictures...

70% the photographer's skill
20% the quality of the glass
10% the actual camera

 

[Pugs]

Here's how I usually explain it to people who talk about how my camera is so big and therefore "must" take amazing pictures...

70% the photographer's skill
20% the quality of the glass
10% the actual camera

Tee-hee! The most back-handed compliment a photographer can receive: "That's a GREAT photograph! You must have a REALLY nice camera!"

To the OP, ISO performance and full-frame sensor are the main factors that I would consider in going with a new camera body. If those aren't an issue for what you want to do, then go with better glass.

 

[Village Idiot]

It really depends. Stepping from a D5000 to a D90 wouldn't yield much if they're using the same sensor (not sure about this, but certain entry level and mid level cameras from other companies share sensors between camera lines). You'd get better features in the camera that might make taking photos easier, but the jump in IQ would be negligible over purchasing a 70-200 to replace a not so swift 70-300.

On the other hand, a jump from a D5000 to a D700 would give you move features, a sensor that would provide you with better IQ, and the ability to shoot at high ISO levels without worrying so much about noise.

 

[Formatted]

70% the photographer's skill
20% the quality of the glass
10% the actual camera

All of course true.

However there comes a point when I'm trying to photograph, rowing or cricket or hockey and I'm unable to get closer, or what has happened recently its out of focus.

 

[Derrel]

My experience on focusing speed is that with Nikkor AF-S lenses the actual, individual lens plays a HUGE part in the autofocusing's "snap and speed", to use the OP's words. In an AF-S lens or a Sigma HSM lens, the focusing motor is built into the lens itself,and there are some differences in AF speed between differing lenses; the little Nikon 55-200 VR lens for example, is a somewhat slow autofocusing lens. It does not have a wide maximum aperture, especially at the longer end, so there is greater depth of field than if the lens were a fast 200mm lens, so the AF system's IN-focvus/OUT-of-focus phase detection data is less clear-cut than if it was the 200mm f/2 VR Nikkor, which is one of the-fastest focusing lenses I own. Comparing the 300mm f/4 AF-S Nikkor against the 300/2.8 AF-S Mark II, the Mark II is huge,heavy,and f/2.8 and autofocuses exceptionally fast, even on older, simple technology like the D70. The 300 f/4 AF-S on the other hand, is known pretty widely as a somewhat "nervous" focuser, and actually somewhat SLOW to focus for an AF-S lens. Even on the D2x, which has a powerful AF module, the 300/4 will often focus slowly,and will occasionally get "confused" and will hunt or stutter for focus, whereas the 300/2.8 will simply NAIL the focus, rapidly and with amazing sureness, over thousands of frames.

I do not own the 200-400 VR, but it is an f/4 lens of large size, high weight, and high price, and I suspect that its AF performance will be at the very highest end of the f/4 category, due to the cost restrictions Nikon had when designing it. I'm pretty confident that the higher-level AF system with the 51 point AF will focus the lens a bit better,overall, than the D5000 body will. Focusing speed is a mix of the lens and the body's AF module, and your knowledge of how to set the AF system up for different types of subject matter or different situations.

Secondly, the camera's firing rate can and does affect AF performance; the AF module can only receive data when the mirror is in the down position. Only when the mirror is DOWN does AF data come in and go to the AF module. The more frames per second the camera is firing, the more data is collected, processed, and acted upon, and the more focusing commands are sent to the AF motor per second. Faster firing rates actually improve AF tracking over sequences of action.

 

[wescobts]

^ yeah what he said

 

[Joves]

Well you seem to have your range covered in glass so, I would say dump the 5000. The D700 would serve you well for indoor sports shot but, you could get by with the D90 or D300 but, who wants to just get by. Is that Tamron a film/fx lens? If it is DX then you will loose one of your ranges and, still need a lens to cover it.

 

[Formatted]

There is a D3 in a local shop for 1,200. Gonna go get that and then get some cheaper lens.

Good idea or should I just get 1 expensive lens?

 

[mrdemin]

meh

 

[KmH]

There is a D3 in a local shop for 1,200. Gonna go get that and then get some cheaper lens.

Good idea or should I just get 1 expensive lens?

What's up with the D3 that it's only $1200 USD? Or is that £?

That's not much more than a new D90 but it's a flagship Nikon body highly favored by pro sports shooters because it has killer ISO performance and burst mode fps.

If you can get a good used D3 for $1200 and want to shoot lots of sports and wildlife, get the D3 while you can at that price, and glass later.

 

[manaheim]

There are some surprisingly measured responses in this thread... more than usual. So I'm basically just throwing in to say I generally agree with the trend of "it somewhat depends".

One thing to keep in mind is if you run a body without an AF motor (which I believe includes the D5000) that you are going to generally be buying MORE expensive glass than you might otherwise have to be... buying a camera that supports lenses without AF motors in them will make your glass purchases more economical going forward (as well as generally getting you a better body).

I agree that the D90 is NOT a huge jump from the D5000 except for that point of the focusing motor and your longterm financial gains. A D300 might also be a viable consideration, as the D700 is QUITE a bit more expensive and might simply be more camera than you "need".

That said, "need" has a lot to do with budget. If you really have the money to buy a D700, or a D3 for that matter, then go for it. You'll never be dissapointed, unless you happen to have a weight limit.

 

[Overread]

Quick thing - but there is a D300s on amazon for just £1120.00 - body only. From my quick read of its profile there its an upgrade of the D300 and its cheaper than the body you have found - might be worth a look
(ps I'm not a nikon shooter so I don't know if there are any limitations of the D300s over the D300)

ps the D3 is retailing around the £3000 mark so I think he means the D300 (As listed in his wishlist)

if it is a D3 then I would make sure its fully tested and get an idea of its shutter count since its a pretty low cost (and thus I must assume i second hand). Last thing you want is a D3 with a silly high shutter count (check it against online refrences to its accepted limits since pro end bodies can go into very high counts before a breakage is likley) that will die on you and then require repair costs