Perfect Equipment Dream (or Nightmare)

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

Perfect Equipment Dream (or Nightmare)

(22 posts) (7 voices)

Started 3 years ago by ted2001
Latest reply from adamz
Related Topics:

Tags:

SLR. Lenses

ted2001

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 726
offline

Oz Lbs Grams Cost

D3x 43.0 2.7 1,220 7,299.00
D3x 43.0 2.7 1,220 7,299.00
Nikon 14-24/2.8 35.2 2.2 1,000 1,799.95
Nikon 24-70/2.8 31.7 2.0 900 1,799.95
Nikon 70-200/2.8 54.3 3.4 1,540 2,399.95
Nikon 300/2.8 101.2 6.3 2,870 5,249.95
Nikon 105/2.8 27.8 1.7 790 899.95
Nikon 50/1.4 9.9 0.6 280 469.00

Totals 346.1 21.6 9,820 27,216.75

Just in case anyone wondered what would happen if you could have all the stuff you wanted. The above list seems to be the dream kit for want-a-be-pro's. I included two bodies, the 3 most-used professional zooms, a medium long telephoto, a macro and a fast standard lens. I would imagine you'd also include a flash unit (or two), a tele-extender (for 70-200 and 300), a few filters, memory card, etc.

Total weight - about 25 pounds - cost about $30,000.

(I'd rather have my D90, 10-24, 16-85, 70-300, 105/2.8 and 35/1.8 - about 7.5 pounds and $4,000)

Posted 3 years ago #
monty11

Member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 798
offline

I just weighed my camera bag with what I carry around and it weighs exactly 7 kg.
So what does it contain:
D40x, 16-85, 35, 55-200
FM2, 35, 105
Flash, cord
bean bag
Lensbaby
Kenko tube set due to a lack of a macro lens
Filters (2xnd8, pola, uv, etc), extra batteries, cleaning fluid.
And of course the bag itself weighs its small share.

Posted 3 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

You would need to add a nicely optioned Macbook Pro, extra hard drive space, good filters- graduated filters, etc, a pro DX body (D300s with grip maybe?), software for post processing, maybe a wide angle prime, and add some pelican cases. I would be surprised if it comes out at under $50,000 USD. You might as well throw in a car- a Nissan XTerra maybe to carry all this crap, that is if you ever want to go on a roadtrip to photograph stuff.

Yes, our hobbies are quite expensive. :D

Posted 3 years ago #
monty11

Member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 798
offline

NSX, I doubt that you carry around your Macbook Pro, extra HDD and PP software on your photo trips, at least shorter ones. Actually I take along my Dell to longer trips when I need to empty the camera memory card, but I don't take along the box that PS Elements came in :P

Yes I understand that you didn't concentrate when you read the two previous posts ... I just had to post this :D

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

I would add 400/2.8 and 600/4 with a nice Jobu or Wimberlay head :D - and barely $20k more :)

Posted 3 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

monty11, stop nitpicking! :D

You'd need that gear anyway with all that camera gear.

Posted 3 years ago #
monty11

Member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 798
offline

Nah, I can't really help it and someone has to do it :D

Posted 3 years ago #
Willis

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,123
offline

Instead of 2 D3X's, I'd rather have one D3x (For Studio work & landscapes), One D700 (for low light, and portability), and one D300S (for reach). I'd use the $4000 savings to actually equip the studio.

Posted 3 years ago #
Willis

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,123
offline

Edit: What are the merits of a D300s vs. D3x in DX Crop mode?

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

D300 is faster in the crop mode than the d3x, not to mention the price - for d3x You can get d300s + 300/2.8 + couple more cheap lenses :D

Posted 3 years ago #
Willis

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,123
offline

Of course its cheaper... I was just wondering if there was any reason to bother with the D300 if you already had a D3X. I forgot the D3X is slower than the D3.

Posted 3 years ago #
ted2001

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 726
offline

The way I understand it, the smaller sensor in DX bodies uses the center section of full frame lenses. As a result even wide open, there should be no resolution fall off or vignetting in the corners, since you aren't really using the corners. Further, if you need to fill the frame with an object at long distance, the FX camera will need a lens 50% longer. So, if you want to shoot - say birds - you need a 400mm for DX and 600mm for FX.

So, what is more likely to get the best results in low light:

1. D300 w/400/2.8 at 2.8
2. D700 w/600/4.0 at 4.0

or for sports:

1. D300 w/200/2.0 at 2.0
2. D700 w/300/2.8 at 2.8

In both cases I think the D300 likely to achieve better results, but I'd certainly welcome more input.

Posted 3 years ago #
Willis

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,123
offline

Well I was talking about using the D3X in crop mode. So it would only be using the center of its sensor anyway. Nikon added crop mode so that you could still use all of your DX images.

When you shoot the D3\D700 in crop mode, you wind up with a 5MP image. I assume that would mean that the D3X in crop mode would yeild a 10MP image.... so about the same as the D300 in terms of resolution.

So what I'm curious about is how it would compare to the D300/90 in terms of image quality, dynamic range, etc.

Posted 3 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

Why can't we ask someone with a D3x to test it out?

Posted 3 years ago #
ted2001

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 726
offline

Because it might be hard for them to admit it after spending over $7,000. On DX the D3x is a 10.5 MP camera, or approximately 14.22% fewer than a D90. I thought big megapixels was the reason for the D3x after all...

Posted 3 years ago #
Willis

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,123
offline

Do you guys even bother to read the full thread? We are contemplating what you would buy addumeing you already owned a d3x. The OP listed a second d3x as a backup. I figured I'd rather have a d700 + a d300s ( for extra reach). But I'm not sure if it would out perform a d3x in crop mode.

What's funny is I can't find an article on the subject. Not sure if it's been done yet.

Posted 3 years ago #
monty11

Member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 798
offline

Did I totally misunderstand the OP when I thought that he was talking not so much about the price but the weight of the dream equipment?

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

on or off the topic, I really would love to know how d3x behaves in DX mode

Posted 3 years ago #
Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

"So, what is more likely to get the best results in low light:

1. D300 w/400/2.8 at 2.8
2. D700 w/600/4.0 at 4.0

or for sports:

1. D300 w/200/2.0 at 2.0
2. D700 w/300/2.8 at 2.8

In both cases I think the D300 likely to achieve better results, but I'd certainly welcome more input"

Sounds good to me ted :)

Posted 3 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

LOL Actually I still don't get the aim of the OP of this thread.. but I do like the direction its going !! :-)

I think I may be in the market for a D700X.. As for me Its everything a D300S would be (I dont need the High FPS) and I can use my FF lenses as well.. Adamz many of the DX lenses are capable of producing close to FF dimension. at the very least you will be able to have a larger than DX area Square frame. so it will be at least 12-14 MP of useable area with a DX lens.

Posted 3 years ago #
Willis

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,123
offline

Gentoo - Do people shoot at 600mm without a tripod? It seems like handholding a lens that big would be a chore. The 70-200 is already pretty bulky. If the pictures I've seen of the 600 are any indication, I don't think I'd hand hold it ever. That said, if I'm on a tripod, I'm going to be shooting at base ISO, so I don't think the D700 would offer any advantage there.

For sports, first I'd use the battery grip on either camera to boost the FPS to 8. I don't think I'd use a prime at all for sports. The action generally is moving around, and as a photographer, you are generally stationary. A zoom makes a lot more sense in that kind of scenario.

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

willis - 600mm is handholdable - at least for short amount of time, as for sports it's not exactly that way - for indoors there's the nikon 200/f2.0 - great lens and a perfect combo to d3/d700 with it's high iso performance

Posted 3 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.

The new Nikon Rumors Forum is now live at http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussions. This forum is now in "read only" mode until I figure a proper way to import all data over to the new platform. Please register over at the new forum.

Perfect Equipment Dream (or Nightmare)

Reply