D300s user looking to upgrade

I know I am not the first to post this question, but do appreciate any perspectives you can share.

I've had a D100, D200 and now a D300s, but am getting an itch to "upgrade" to a more modern camera. My initial thoughts are to just go to a D500...I know the DX format, I enjoy shooting wildlife and sports, and it seems to meet my high ISO needs. However, I am also torn about the FX or DX question, specifically, more flexibility with DoF control and high ISO performance.

If the D850 were in my budget, I'd probably go that route as a single, do it all camera. However, I am looking to upgrade to some new lenses as well, so don't want to spend all of my budget for a body only.

My choices seem to be...

1. Upgrade to the D500 -- better high ISO performance, AF for sports, FPS, buffer, etc. A great update to my D300s. However, since kids are grown I am not shooting sports as much as I used to, unless I want to start doing it again on the side. If I pick up one used at $1500 or so, I can add a couple of lenses (e.g., Sigma 18-35mm f1.8, 85mm f/1.8G, 16-80mm) in my budget. However, I still am not getting any improvement for narrow DoF shooting.

2. Keep the D300s -- It probably meets most of my current shooting needs, however, it is still disappointing in low light. I recently had an opportunity to shoot at my nephew's wedding (not the paid pro, but at request from my brother as a secondary shooter focusing on our family), and at ISO 1200-1600 the shutter speed wasn't high enough to get good shots, especially of dancing, etc. I need to be able to shoot at 3200-6400 for indoor family events.

So, if I keep the D300s, I am considering:

2a) Pick up a D750 -- good dynamic range, high ISO performance, narrow DoF as FX, etc. However, I don't really want a low-pass filter and buying a used one may be risky given the shutter issues. It is also an older model camera that may be showing it's age.

2b) Pick up a D810 -- By all accounts a worthy camera. Pros -- newer model than D750, higher MP for cropping (though that could be con as well in workflow), has decent DX mode, good high ISO (though perhaps a touch behind D750), and no AA filter. Cons -- slower frame rate, more costly, may need higher priced, newer lenses for 36MP vs. 24MP, the continuous AF is not as good as the D750. Would need to get at least the 24-120 f/4 lens for this, though would prefer a higher quality lens or two, including a prime.

Both FX cameras do have a pop-up flash which I find useful for fill or triggering off-camera flashes, which I won't get with the D500. However, I may be restricted in budget for my lenses, e.g., while the 70-200 AF-S VR may work with DX cameras, it is not good for FX. Getting the new 70-200E will break the bank. Also, probably wouldn't be able to afford, say, a 24-70 f/2.8 or 85mm f/1.4g, which might be needed for the D810.

So, what are your thoughts, perspectives, other things I should consider, etc.?

Alnitak wrote:

I know I am not the first to post this question, but do appreciate any perspectives you can share.

I've had a D100, D200 and now a D300s, but am getting an itch to "upgrade" to a more modern camera. My initial thoughts are to just go to a D500...I know the DX format, I enjoy shooting wildlife and sports, and it seems to meet my high ISO needs. However, I am also torn about the FX or DX question, specifically, more flexibility with DoF control and high ISO performance.

... some stuff deleted ...

My choices seem to be...

1. Upgrade to the D500 -- better high ISO performance, AF for sports, FPS, buffer, etc. A great update to my D300s. However, since kids are grown I am not shooting sports as much as I used to, unless I want to start doing it again on the side. If I pick up one used at $1500 or so, I can add a couple of lenses (e.g., Sigma 18-35mm f1.8, 85mm f/1.8G, 16-80mm) in my budget. However, I still am not getting any improvement for narrow DoF shooting.

2. Keep the D300s -- It probably meets most of my current shooting needs, however, it is still disappointing in low light. I recently had an opportunity to shoot at my nephew's wedding (not the paid pro, but at request from my brother as a secondary shooter focusing on our family), and at ISO 1200-1600 the shutter speed wasn't high enough to get good shots, especially of dancing, etc. I need to be able to shoot at 3200-6400 for indoor family events.

So, if I keep the D300s, I am considering:

...

So, what are your thoughts, perspectives, other things I should consider, etc.?

Get a D500. None of that FX stuff. Not here anyways

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

It does not help that your gear list is blank.

We do not know what lenses you own 

You have not mentioned resolution. Any current Nikon DSLR has more resolution as well as better higher noise performance than a D300s.

An option depending on your needs might be a D7200, leaving more money for extra and better lenses.

n057 wrote:

Alnitak wrote:

I know I am not the first to post this question, but do appreciate any perspectives you can share.

I've had a D100, D200 and now a D300s, but am getting an itch to "upgrade" to a more modern camera. My initial thoughts are to just go to a D500...I know the DX format, I enjoy shooting wildlife and sports, and it seems to meet my high ISO needs. However, I am also torn about the FX or DX question, specifically, more flexibility with DoF control and high ISO performance.

... some stuff deleted ...

My choices seem to be...

1. Upgrade to the D500 -- better high ISO performance, AF for sports, FPS, buffer, etc. A great update to my D300s. However, since kids are grown I am not shooting sports as much as I used to, unless I want to start doing it again on the side. If I pick up one used at $1500 or so, I can add a couple of lenses (e.g., Sigma 18-35mm f1.8, 85mm f/1.8G, 16-80mm) in my budget. However, I still am not getting any improvement for narrow DoF shooting.

2. Keep the D300s -- It probably meets most of my current shooting needs, however, it is still disappointing in low light. I recently had an opportunity to shoot at my nephew's wedding (not the paid pro, but at request from my brother as a secondary shooter focusing on our family), and at ISO 1200-1600 the shutter speed wasn't high enough to get good shots, especially of dancing, etc. I need to be able to shoot at 3200-6400 for indoor family events.

So, if I keep the D300s, I am considering:

...

So, what are your thoughts, perspectives, other things I should consider, etc.?

Get a D500. None of that FX stuff. Not here anyways

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

+1 JC ... one of my favorite comments on this forum is "If you go to a hamburger shop (pro dx forum), it means you want a hamburger ... just get one!"

Don't ask about hot dogs, steaks, fried chicken and ham sandwiches ... we have burgers (D500's) here, and we love em'!

Arnie

Go pick up a D750 or a D7200 and see if you like the ergonomics of the lower tier bodies.  I personally can't stand them..

I shot a D300 for awhile and switched to a D7100 and even though I captured 1000's of great bird images with the D7100 I always hated the ergonomics and tiny size..

When the D7200 came out I was so pi$$ed that there was no upgrade to the D300,  I sold all of my Nikon gear and switched to Canon which was a total nightmare(long story)...

I came back to Nikon for the D500 and haven't regretted it at all. I own 2 now.  I also just picked up a cheap D810 that I really like as well..

So if you like pro style bodies, I personally would not consider the D750 (I purchased one new and sold it pretty quickly with 4k clicks on it).

Just my humble opinion.

Flashlight wrote:

n057 wrote:

Get a D500. None of that FX stuff. Not here anyways

@ the OP: Don't listen to n-"I don't need no stinkin' FX"-057. Although he deserves some credit for single-handedly wrenching the D500 from the abyss that's called Nikon marketing, he still has no clue!

See my reply in your other thread: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60391894

No clue about what? That the OP is complaining that his D300 does not cut mustard at a badly lit family event and he hopes to get better results with a D750 or D810? The D500 accumalated over 9 years of improvement since the D300 came out ...

Check the exif of the following images. This is extremely poor light.  Tell me how you can achieve that on a D300s. And also tell me how much better they would be on a D750 or D810 at those ISO levels, which are within the "normal" ISO range of the D500. RAW processed with Corel Aftershot Pro.

Want numbers? Here they are. Look at how little one would gain by going FX.

Weight that against getting a slew of new lenses, and different user interfaces in the case of the D750. I don't *want* no stinkin' FX, it is not even for the birds

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

n057 wrote:

Want numbers? Here they are. Look at how little one would gain by going FX.

Weight that against getting a slew of new lenses, and different user interfaces in the case of the D750. I don't *want* no stinkin' FX, it is not even for the birds

These numbers generally show less than half a stop and often less than a third of a stop difference.

This indicates the gap has narrowed over the last 5 years when the gap tended to be half to three quarters of a stop.

Depending on where you live (eg mid latitudes, coastal) typical subject DR is generally less than 9 stops. Providing your exposure is accurate half a stop DR difference is then rarely important.

With the listed cameras and their metering options getting accurate exposure rarely requires little more than basic photographic competence.

Why don't you give DxO Photolab a try? I did after reading the thread about "high iso - no problem" (https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60360889) and was very surprised about what this program can do with noisy images! I was considering upgrading my D300s also but will probably get the program instead. Saves me a lot of money! 

Good morning well hmm ok ill jump in with my .02cents here. I'm not a pro by any stretch of the imagination. I own a d750 and a d500. I started with an ancient Nikkormat FTN about 25 years ago, went to the F100, jumped to the d100. Then took an absence bought an d750 about 2 years ago, and last month the d500.

I shoot nothing specific so I'm all over the board as far as specific type of photography. I do gravitate towards wildlife and nature landscapes. Add a few family events so lighting is all over the spectrum as well. I shoot at night as well. Now my lens are a mixture of old and new. Straight up FX lens are the kit 24-120 kit lens, 16-35 and the 200-500 tele(works  awesome with the d500 by the way). The rest are older primes like a 50 1.4 and the old work horse 80-200. Sorry lengthy post here please bear with me.

I have found lately that I have been grabbing the d500 more and more lately, main reason is it fits what I do more and well the ergonomics I find are better laid out. Yea but difference between the amerature and pro level bodies. I think you will find that a huge plus. The difference of the mega pixel resolution I really don't see a difference. I'm not sure of your post processing so I'm winging it in my "advice" for you. I really enjoy the speed of the d500 compared to the d750 10 fps vs 7 fps not sure if you are into spraying and praying but coupled with the focus system you will get USABLE shots out of the d500. Price wise honestly they are comparable, I believe where you will see a difference in the lenses. Its no secret dx lens will be cheaper than an fx. That's is a consideration in you upgrade thinking.

Boiling it down, I would buy a d500 and concentrate on good glass for later purchases. I hope I gave some food for thought good luck. Black Friday sales are upon us keep that in mind as well.

I would not for a second assume that the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR I lens is not adequate for use with the D8xx cameras including the D850. The VR II version is a tiny bit sharper at the edges of the frame but in how many pictures that you have taken with your current lens is that really important? Same applies to the FL version and Thom at dslrbodies.com did an excellent review of the new lens.

I prefer using a FX camera with lenses that are 200mm and shorter and the D500 with lenses from 200mm and up. But that does not mean one should get the D850 and not consider the D610 and D750 cameras. In particular the D750 is an excellent camera and while the D850 adds a lot of capabilities and has much better autofocus performance, the D750 does quite well.

Something to consider is that the D850 provides the DX option with 19MP of "resolution" and so in some respects you get a FX and a DX camera wrapped into one body.

On a side note the autofocus performance of the D800 and D810 cameras leaves a great deal to be desired. I owned both and added the D750 to have a camera with good autofocus performance.

D500. It's simply awesome. I actually have "feelings" for my D500 it's that good. It's "more than the sum of it's parts."

Wahrsager wrote:

D500. It's simply awesome.

Awesome for what?

It is big, heavy and has la little ess resolution than a D7200, costs a lot more money and is probably worse rather than better for a lot of things like landscapes, portraits and macro.

For action and some AF applications I agree the D500 is awesome.

YLeonard Shepherd wrote:

Wahrsager wrote:

D500. It's simply awesome.

Awesome for what?

It is big, heavy and has la little ess resolution than a D7200, costs a lot more money and is probably worse rather than better for a lot of things like landscapes, portraits and macro.

For action and some AF applications I agree the D500 is awesome.

For me, it’s awesome as an always with me, on the ready image getter. The autofocus and high iOS performance are the main attractors. I have a D7000 body so I’m used to the slightly smaller form factor. The D500 in my opinion has a grip and control placement that’s better than any Nikon I’ve used. The weight isn’t an issue for me. It’s a hell of a lot lighter than my D5, D4S.

Some great feedback from everyone...thank you....much to think about.

i’ve seen the D4s mentioned as à possibility... any reaction to that vs. D500?

Alnitak wrote:

Some great feedback from everyone...thank you....much to think about.

i’ve seen the D4s mentioned as à possibility... any reaction to that vs. D500?

First, it is FX, with all that entails in terms of size, weight, and lens  choices.

Second ... what "magic" is there with FX? At least for us peones?

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers