Nikon D300 vs D700 which one?

[itznfb]

And hey, it's much cheaper than a D300 or a D700!!

yea but with a Gripped D700 he could shoot that shirt at 8fps.

 

[JerryPH]

Clothing product photography?
Stop the lens down to at least f/4 (if not more, but I assume you want to background out of focus)

Clothing backgrounds are 95% the same colour (ie: black or white backdrops)... look in most catalogs. You want maximum sharpness to show off the clothing details. So not F/4, but likely something between F/8 to F/16. Ideally you will be knowledgeable enough to find the sweet spot of your lens and shoot at that one aperture all day. Most lenses are between F/7.1 to F/13.

I am not a big fan of the constant on lighting... they are HOT, uncomfortable and dangerous. Halogens are weak, inconsistent WB and you get your money's worth... ie: cheap lights = less than ideal results. For a few bucks more one could get a speedlight that is portable, better quality light, safer and cooler for the models... plus the results will always be better.

 

[JerryPH]

And hey, it's much cheaper than a D300 or a D700!!

yea but with a Gripped D700 he could shoot that shirt at 8fps.

And with the Evelyn Wood speed reading course, he could also hit 8 pages per minute and save even more over using a D700... lol

 

[bhop]

Clothing product photography?
Stop the lens down to at least f/4 (if not more, but I assume you want to background out of focus)

Clothing backgrounds are 95% the same colour (ie: black or white backdrops)... look in most catalogs. You want maximum sharpness to show off the clothing details. So not F/4, but likely something between F/8 to F/16. Ideally you will be knowledgeable enough to find the sweet spot of your lens and shoot at that one aperture all day. Most lenses are between F/7.1 to F/13.

I am not a big fan of the constant on lighting... they are HOT, uncomfortable and dangerous. Halogens are weak, inconsistent WB and you get your money's worth... ie: cheap lights = less than ideal results. For a few bucks more one could get a speedlight that is portable, better quality light, safer and cooler for the models... plus the results will always be better.

True, which is why I said "at least".. I just mentioned a more shallow dof because of his hanging setup, assuming he'd still be showing the shirts that way. OOF background would be better there... but I agree with everything you said. I was just thinking of the cheap way out. Flash would be better for sure. I actually work in the fashion industry. Our in-house clothing photo guy initially bought a hot light setup, but uses strobes most of the time since I helped him set up the umbrellas..

 

[Sw1tchFX]

That looks like a really ugly shirt and that photo really doesn't make me want to wear it. If this is what you want for product shots, this is not good photography.

The photographer made the shirt really ugly.

What's all that crap in the background?

Professional product photography ain't cheap, especially apparel. Stylists are worth their weight in gold, and it's clean and nice when the clothes are clipped out, not to mention you can use them for other applications, and to do that quickly and consistently, you need to have a space to shoot in for the lights, and graphic designers do the post for you, unless you can do it really quick and do it well. But if you have say..100 shirts, and if you spend an average of 10 minutes per shirt, that's 1000 minutes, that's 16 hours of doing nothing but clipping paths, nonstop. That's a waste of not only your time, but the clients time because it will take forever to get done. split it between 2 people, and you'll have them all done in a day or two, between three, easily a day.

 

[KmH]

I don't know. I find it tough to consider the D700 a Prosumer body.

Alex you can certainly consider it what ever you wish.:thumbup:

However, Nikon markets the D700 as a prosumer camera body, not a Pro body, and that's why it gave it a Dxxx designation and didn't include a built-in vertical grip like it does with the Pro bodies, D3 and D3X.

 

[JerryPH]

Personally, the words PRO or PROSUMER mean absolutely nothing to me though we just saw a link on Nikon.ca's website that lumped the D700 in the SAME classification as the D3 and D3x, the professional line). All that matters is that the camera does what I want.

Optically, the D700 is 100% identical to the D3. So it lacks an integrated grip (that I can purchase separately), but there are very VERY few things that differentiate between a D3 and a D700... and NONE of those that will make any kind of difference in the final output.

Let's talk reality for a moment...

We have someone here that wants to take a photo of clothing in a controlled environment. Really, even a D300 is major overkill for something like this. In a studio, I can control the light 100%. The subject is not moving, so I have 100% control over them. Place the camera on a tripod and change the shirts as fast as you can from shot to shot consistency, and I do not even need to set up the lighting, camera or setup more than ONCE.

Heck, give me an etch-a-sketch and I can almost give you what your client needs!

That was a joke, but I was being pretty serious about one point. On a D100, D200, D300 or D3x, or even a D40, any and all of these cameras under these conditions can take good quality photos of a static object in a studio controlled environment. Any of these will get the job done to the client's satisfaction. What is the justification for even a D300, much less a D700? The lens and lighting, for this "assignment" is more important than the camera by itself.

 

[blythe]

Thanks for all the help from everyone

Right now I have a SB600 and I already have a good tripod. As far as the lighting goes I have trouble knowing where to place them. The image still looks pretty bad...... I will upload the image soon.

thanks again everyone

 

[bhop]

Thanks for all the help from everyone

Right now I have a SB600 and I already have a good tripod. As far as the lighting goes I have trouble knowing where to place them. The image still looks pretty bad...... I will upload the image soon.

thanks again everyone

I found this link that might help

Clothing photography - how to take pictures of clothing

 

[blythe]

thanks !!! It seems that I have everything except those 2 huge softboxes.

I really dont want to spend another 300$ is there any substitutions?

 

[manaheim]

And hey, it's much cheaper than a D300 or a D700!!

yea but with a Gripped D700 he could shoot that shirt at 8fps.

OMFG that just made the ENTIRE thread worth reading.

:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

HUMOR 4tW!!!

 

[JerryPH]

As far as the lighting goes I have trouble knowing where to place them.

Strobist

Read, study and PRACTICE Lighting 101 and Lighting 102.

And a little something obvious... there are 360 degrees in a circle, obviously some angles are just wrong (like placing the single flash behind the shirt). 30 minutes of practice shooting from different angles and you will know exactly which angle looks good or bad. Just compare it to something from a sears catalog, thats basically all you are trying to do anyways. This stuff is not that hard, all you need to do is take a little time to use the right tools (like a proper garment holder and a clear background) and practice.

 

[mrodgers]

thanks !!! It seems that I have everything except those 2 huge softboxes.

I really dont want to spend another 300$ is there any substitutions?

DIY. Just google DIY softbox, there's plenty of info out there.

OMFG that just made the ENTIRE thread worth reading.

Completely agree. Nearly spit coffee all over the keyboard.

 

[Moe]

thanks !!! It seems that I have everything except those 2 huge softboxes.

I really dont want to spend another 300$ is there any substitutions?

I'm not trying to be rude, but please tell me others find it humorous that blythe was going to drop almost ten times this on a D700?

 

[RONDAL]

i caught that one as well.

$3000 body.....no problem (not to mention the full frame lenses he would have to buy),

$300 softboxes (can be had for MUCH cheaper) and HOLD THE PHONE THAT'S TOO EXPENSIVE.



this thread is full of entertainment.