Upgrade to D7000 from D3100 for Wedding/pre-wedding/all occasion and Wildlife photgraphy

manjunathcbhat

Hello All,

This is my very first post over here.
I would like to have all your experts advise on my dilemma

I currently Have D3100 with 18-55 and 70-300
I Used this with 18-55 for Indoor and small occasion photography and with 70-300 for Wildlife, Bird photography etc.

I had never been disappointed with the results and performance.
However now, I am moving a bit ahead and will be diving into Wedding and Pre-Wedding, Occasion, House warming, and all occasion photography.

I am planning to go for D7000 with 18-105 and 50mm along with a TTL Flash.
Will this is sufficient which I believe will be more than enough but what would be the suggestion.

I would use D7000 with 18-105 and 50mm along with a TTL Flash for occasion and D3100 with 70-300 for Candid in same occasion

and both for Bird and Wildlife during freetime.

Now as wedding and occasion needs bright color, low light, dim light, high light and colors and clarity and blurring is D7000 necessaary or D3100 is enough and I would buy extra 18-105 and 50 mm and a TTL Flash


Many THanks in advance

sevencrossing

If the budget allows go for the D7100
I don't have one my self, but by all accounts, it much much better than the D7000 especially at high ISO values

you also may need something wider than 18mm such as the Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 EX DC HSM Nikon Fit Lens

heartyfisher

since you are happy with the D3100 i would say go with the D3300 rather than the D7000..( unless the D7100 is within your budget.) it provides better High ISO and DR which is needed for wedding events.. Your lenses should be fine. i dont think the 18-105 will give you much more than the 18-55. A 50mm would be good.

The main advantage of the D7000 over the D3300 is the ability to use the older AFD lenses which you can get and use second hand at good prices. eg. the 35-70 F2.8 would be a great wedding event portrait lense.

Pistnbroke

I have used The D7000 for may many weddings and now use the D7100. The difference is very great but your must use a good nikon lens ..we had to scrap our 18-200 sigmas due to 3rd party control issues and the shaprness was not there . Now use the very cheap 18-140.. We find you can crop quite heavily if required and always use large basic with sharpness to +9 ..dont even think of D3300 as you dont have the U1 U2 which are essential and I dont think you get the flash x4 iso feature ..send me direct e mail and I can send a link to my site ( 45000 images of weddings) some D7100 some D7000

spraynpray

Go for the D7100. better controls, better low light, better for weddings.

Photobug

+1 for all those recommending the D7100. The higher IQ is so important for weddings.

Look for refurbished ones if you can't afford a new one.

donaldejose

Listen to Pistinbroke and spraynpray and Photobug.

haroldp

Having done many (too many) weddings and other events, I would recommend that you consider better / faster lenses as soon as financially feasible.

They will give you good results at least 1-2 f stops faster than (kit type lenses) which you can use to lower ISO, increase distance, or reduce flash recycling time with TTL flashes. Do not underestimate the importance of the last , if you miss every other groomsman / bridesmaid pair entrance, while waiting to recycle, your clients will get grumpy. That is why in the bad old days we carried small car batteries (12 lb/ 12 volt wet cell packs) on our shoulder (I think I lost 1mm in height at every event ).

My basic wedding kit today is either (usually both) a D3x or D800e with 24-120 / 4 VR, (it replaced the 24-70 / 2.8 for this duty ) and 70-200 / 2.8.

When I shot weddings with DX cameras, I used the 17-55 / 2.8. (and 70-200 /2.8)

Unfortunately Nikon does not make a good fast DX pro zoom except the 17-55.

Unless you are very experienced, shoot raw, re-shoots also make clients grumpy.

I am very experienced, and would consider shooting jpeg on a paid shoot, as hubris, deserving of the greek tragedy that is then likely to follow. TTL flashes in strange venues with oddly colored walls and ceilings will give you unpredictable white balance (needing correction) with bounce flash, and direct flash will look like you did the shoot with a large cellphone.

.... H

donaldejose

And haroldp. As soon as we see more high ISO testing of the new D810 we may find it can be shot at one or two stops higher ISO than the D7100. Be we don't know yet.

WestEndBoy

Regardless of your camera choice, if you are going to shoot weddings, you need two cameras, preferably with two cards - one backing up what goes on the other card.

You don't want to risk your career over an equipment failure and more importantly (and this is more important if you are a true professional) ruin the best day of someone's life.

haroldp

Regardless of your camera choice, if you are going to shoot weddings, you need two cameras, preferably with two cards - one backing up what goes on the other card.

You don't want to risk your career over an equipment failure and more importantly (and this is more important if you are a true professional) ruin the best day of someone's life.

WestEndBoy is right on, on any professional shoot, the client is counting on you to get usable photo's. This is more important than nuances of IQ. A missed shot has no IQ at all.

also, add two flashes, and two of anything else that might (will) fail (which is any you bring that you cannot work without).

When you do enough of this you will be amazed at what can break.

In the film days we regularly wore out shutters, lens iris's would break, and film advance gears and sprockets in camera's and backs. There was a repair man in queens NY (Tony Amato) specializing in this trade who would swap re-furb units of common lenses (MF lenses contained shutters) and camera's so we would not have to wait for our own to be repaired .
....H

@donaldjose

yes... one reason to go FX is at any given tech level it will be about one stop better in ISO performnce than DX because less magnification is needed.

If the D810 is a stop better than D800, than you will see 2 above 7100, but I am sceptical, A full stop in a generation is ambitious.

If it is, I will use it for higher shutter speeds in wildlife shooting.

One way to get a full stop of ISO advantage is to down res in post processing.

I get clean ISO 6400 in the D800e by downressing 36mp to 12mp in post. Very little sharpness is lost, and there is better resolution than a 12mp D700, I think because more data is there to begin with.

Always remember, event shooting is about our clients' memories, not about how clever we are.

Regards ... H

manhattanboy

I would second the notion for FX. I've shot outdoor weddings with the 7000 but the loud shutter and small sensor will be painful indoors. Look at the 610, which now has quiet continuous shooting. A 50 1.8 is a cheap prime to add to the mix and would be a nice point of view for FX but is too long for indoor DX. Even on DX though it produces some lovely images from the shallow DOF shot wide open.
All of that said, I loved the 7000 and love the 7100. But I use the 7100 exclusively for telephoto and leave everything <200mm to FX.

sevencrossing

The guys are right forget the D7100 here at NRF we love spending other people money
get
a D810
a Df
the f 2.8 holy trinity
the 24mm f 1.4
the 85mm f 1.4
4 SB 910
and a set of pocket wizards

haroldp

Shall we play 'lets pretend' and decide that since it would be really good if the more expensive gear had no advantages, lets declare that it must be so, and everyone can feel good.

We each decide how to spend our own money based on our capability and priorities.

This forum thread is about discussing the technical properties of various options and setups.

Th fact that it may be inconvenient to some that more expensive gear may be better for some (but not all) applications, does not make it not so.

If conditions are good (good light, white walls, nothing moves to fast, wedding party willing to freeze motion while flash cycling, etc) then almost anything is good enough.

The Nikon's I see most often at weddings when I am a guest are D300's, and I shot very successfully with D300's.

The D3 with its extra latitude put paid to that, and the D3x to the D3.

I still use the D3x both as a secondary (70-200/2.8) lens mount, and as a backup to the D800e.

The thousands of times I shlepped backup cameras, lenses, flashes, batteries, backs etc and did not need them, I felt silly.

The 3 times I did need them, I was thankful for all of those other times.

A professionals first priority is to reliably produce results, that means that two lesser bodies, lenses, flashes etc that can back each other up are preferred to a single instance of better gear.

After that, more latitude to ensure good results under varying conditions increases reliability, full frame, high ISO support, faster lenses, more powerful lights etc.

This also includes a backup network of friends and associates so that if one is unable to cover the assignment for whatever reason (sickness and accidents happen), that the client is not left holding the bag.

I would also never do a real shoot at a venue I had never been to, If it is new to me, I contact them and scout the location discreetly, well ahead of time, preferably at a live event so that I can see the entire setup and dynamics (who moves where etc.).

This is the internet age, the first time a 'pro' with only one broken camera produces excuses, instead of photo's will be their last. It is also grossly unethical to advertise and accept professional assignments without the wherewithal (Equipment, Skills etc) to fulfill them.

It is fine to start modestly, 2 3200s are better than 1 7100, 2 7100s are better than one D800 etc.

That does not mean that the advantages of moving up are not there.

One can be a professional, or a 'guy with a camera', life is full of choices.

I am sorry if it is inconvenient, or offends you, but that is the price of admission, and sneaking under the turnstile hoping for luck, rarely ends well.

I apologize for my passion on this issue, but I am tired of having to get the gear out of my car and fill in at a wedding where I was a guest because it became obvious that the 'pro' would (and did) produce nothing, (she pre-apologized that she was not really a photographer, but her friend the real photographer got sick), or having to pretend to admire friends' wedding albums from which I would never have passed a single proof to a client. To be fair, in those cases the lack was not equipment, but skills.

Regards to all .... Harold

tcole1983

Well I am co-shooting a wedding come end of September. Just ordered a D5200. Plan is to have my D5200 with 17-55 F2.8 and then my D5000 with 105 F2.8. Will carry my 35 F1.8 and will probably leave my 300 F4 at home (although I love the bokeh so it might come along). Using my friends SB600 and my SB400. He is shooting a D800E and either a rented D700 or film.

I have always been partial to lenses and that is where I spent my money. I think it has paid off. I would never feel comfortable shooting a wedding with variable aperture lenses...however pistnbroke swears by it. The only lens I don't own that I would probably rather have is the 70-200 F2.8 for wedding shooting. Would shoot the 17-55 and 70-200 if I had it. I think my 105 is probably sharper, but because of the dynamics in a wedding I would prefer zooms.

But I am no pro and it will be a first for me. If I can add something to the pictures my friend takes I will be happy.

As for portraits I still wouldn't shoot anything you are suggesting really. Maybe...maybe...the 50, but I like longer personally. Would get the 85 F1.8. Wouldn't worry about using a variable aperture lens at all for portraits. At 105 F5.6 you will be pushing it to get any bokeh...I always would shoot my 18-200 at 200 wide open to get any and even then it wasn't stellar. So my recommendation is lenses lenses lenses...although I am not partial to the D3XXX series. I would at least step up to the D5XXX line. I know I am sacrificing some menu hunting without the knobs and buttons, but it provides pretty close performance to the D7XXX cameras at half the price. I ordered the D5200 over the D7000 because of the better sensor. Same autofocus as the D7000. D7100 would be ideal and if I was going to actually do photography planning to make money I would get the D7100 or up. However this might be the first and last wedding I do.

haroldp

I did a lot of weddings with DX (D2x and D300) bodies with the 17-55 / 2.8, it is a good choice. It will look better than A cheaper lens on a more expensive DX body.

... H

Msmoto

Here is a set of informal wedding shots, all with 24mm on full frame (18mm on DX) and you can see how this focal length can do all except possibly formal group shots of the wedding party. Wide can be very nice if cautiously used. I cannot imagine using more than 50mm or maybe 85mm on DX at a wedding, but…

https://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/sets/72157631859730867/

The upgrade to a D7000 or if money permits a D7100 would be useful. Maybe even a D3300?

manhattanboy

Shall we play 'lets pretend'

having to pretend to admire friends' wedding albums from which I would never have passed a single proof to a client.

LOL.

Out of curiosity, would you really recommend two of the exact same body with 2 different primes akin to street shooting style? It does provide a robust back-up but I think you would still be better off mixing the bodies (even if its 2 DXs) as they would have different strengths that could be taken advantage of if desired.
Too bad I already gave away my D7000 to a family member, I would have given the OP a great deal and it would no doubt have been put to better use. Also the main advantage from a wedding perspective of the 7000+ or FX is the SD back-up in the second slot. The extreme pro's are pretty reliable, but like you said the few times you do have a problem it will well be worth it.

sevencrossing

, would you really recommend two of the exact same body with 2 different primes ....

I would certainly recommend two identical bodies
unless you are use to using two different ones
I would put a mid range zoom on one and what ever lens, you expect to use next, on the other
avoiding changing lenses, is the main advantage of two bodies
assuming you buy new and look after your kit all NIKON DSLRs are very reliable

The most unreliable thing is likely to be your flash
at least two are essential
buy good quality batteries and replace them, the moment they seem to lose charge

manhattanboy

I would certainly recommend two identical bodies
unless you are use to using two different ones
I would put a mid range zoom on one and what ever lens, you expect to use next, on the other
avoiding changing lenses, is the main advantage of two bodies

Most of the folks at NR are pretty savvy (indeed kudos to the folks here!)... I am taking for granted that they could easily learn to shoot with two different bodies. The one caveat is that it is hard to rent a body and then use it for an event. You really have to either own it or have a bunch of experience with it beforehand.

haroldp

I currently use 2 different bodies, a D800e and a D3x, but mostly because I have them. Nikon pro bodies do not differ much in control structures, the most important differences between a D800e and a D3x are ISO changes and focus methods. I rarely change either of these on something like an event shoot. I usually have a 24-120 / f4 VR on the D800, and a 70-200 / 2.8 VR1 on the D3x. I will also have a 24mm/1.4 and a 35mm / 1.4 in the bag if I need it for available light work

That being said, if I were buying today for wedding work (which I rarely do anymore), I would buy 2 D800 or D810 identical bodies so I am never fumbling at controls.

With the exception of D4/4s for PJ work and pro sports, I do not think the D800 series have any significant weakness for this type of work compared to any other Nikon body, except for being heavier than the consumer bodies. If I wanted to shoot DX, I would mount the 17-55 / 2.8 on the D800e and set crop mode.

I have the function button on both cameras programmed for fast crop mode changes.

These are my personal preferences, others' opinions will certainly vary.

Regards .... H

sevencrossing

... I am taking for granted that they could easily learn to shoot with two different bodies. .

I used to shoot with a Rollei and a Leica, they were so different (and compared to say a D800 very simple) I had no problems using both on the same job ( I was also a lot younger then

Today I like to shoot with one camera ( a D800) that I am 100% familiar with

Pistnbroke

never have I read so much rubbish about what to use at a wedding ..you cannot use a 50mm on FX or DX far too narrow a field of view .I am sure many contribtors never shot a wedding or live in some fantasy land . If you are going DX a 7100 and 18-140 will do 98% of the job and if you go FX there is only one nikon lens that would be any use and its the 28-300mm ..I add to this a D800 and 17mm or wider lens for those wedding landscapes.
12MP is too small to allow for cropping and even 16 is getting a bit marginal . Any fixed focus length lens is a waste of time at a wedding.

spraynpray

I have a D7000 and a D7100 and find even that small difference in control layout slows me down. If I had the money, I would have two bodies the same.

I never use primes at my weddings. 17-55 on the D7100 and 70-200 on the D7000.

haroldp

never have I read so much rubbish about what to use at a wedding ..you cannot use a 50mm on FX or DX far too narrow a field of view .I am sure many contribtors never shot a wedding or live in some fantasy land . If you are going DX a 7100 and 18-140 will do 98% of the job and if you go FX there is only one nikon lens that would be any use and its the 28-300mm ..I add to this a D800 and 17mm or wider lens for those wedding landscapes.
12MP is too small to allow for cropping and even 16 is getting a bit marginal . Any fixed focus length lens is a waste of time at a wedding.

That is funny, the Nikon rigs I see the most commonly are 17-55 / 2.8 on DX, and 24-70 or 24-120 on FX.

For close ups, I see more 70-200 than any other lens where 2 bodies are being carried (either by one or two people).

I occasionally see Sigma and Tamron equivalents of the above.

Canon shooters use almost identical lens configurations, substitute 24-105 for 24-120.

All of this is predicated on people who actually do this for a living and cannot afford catastrophes.

Specialty lenses (which I consider 24/1.4 to be) have had no discernible pattern that I have noticed.

What would you do with a 28-300, it needs f11 at the long end to be acceptably sharp, at which point available light is out of the question except at noon, and you are likely too far away for bounce flash. 28 is not short enough for groups in tight spaces, 24 is much better.

For DX, 18-140 is useful, but there are real benefits to faster lenses, particularly when using bounce flash at any distance.

Do you actually do this ? , More than once ?, get paid ?

.... H

haroldp

I have a D7000 and a D7100 and find even that small difference in control layout slows me down. If I had the money, I would have two bodies the same.

I never use primes at my weddings. 17-55 on the D7100 and 70-200 on the D7000.

That sounds sensible to me, if I used DX, that is the config I would want today (with 2 D7100's.

The only primes I bring are 24 and 35mm f1.4's for available light (on FX).

...... H