Do I really need a new body?

[drummingpariah]

This is really a call out to help me avoid buying a new body.

Crossing the line between amature and semi-pro is proving to be a daunting, frightening, and difficult prospect for me. Normally, I don't like gear addicts, because I see so many people get caught up on what they're shooting with that they lose focus on the moment they're trying to capture. Also, I don't like spending money on gear when I could just suck it up and improve my skills to overcome shortcomings in gear. However, I'm starting to think that I do need a better kit than I currently have.

I spent my weekend shooting a pair of roller derby bouts this weekend, and while I had a great time and caught some great moments, I keep ending up with (what I consider to be) an unacceptable amount of noise. I'm shooting a (VERY cheap DSLR) Nikon d40x and a (not cheap, but old tech) d70, primarily using a Nikon 80mm f/1.8 lens at ISO1600. I'm fairly happy with the shutter speeds I'm getting (around 1/200, depending upon how the arena is lit) but I have to toss the majority of shots because of the amount of noise overwhelming the shot. I've done my best to denoise them in post-processing, but I don't consider that a good solution at all.

So since a picture's worth a thousand words (or better), here's an example of a typical shot from this weekend that I would call ruined by noise:

It was shot at 1/160 f1.8 80mm (prime lens) ISO1600 and was shot in RAW on the d40x. This is completely unedited other than scaling it down to fit. If I try dropping down to ISO800, my shutter speeds drop drastically (around 1/50 or so).

I tried the obvious solution of using a flash, but I always dislike the product of images using a camera-mounted flash, and remote flashes are difficult/complicated/expensive to set up. Also, many venues do not allow flash. In essence, I'm talking about a low-light environment where adding my own light is not an option. If there's some trick that I don't know to be able to capture more light more quickly without degrading my image quality too much, I'm ALL ears.

Otherwise, should I be looking toward moving to a full-frame body for this type of shooting? I've had my eye on the d300 and d700, but that's a very sizeable investment for a hobby that's only recently begun to cover its initial investment costs. Please, DPS'ers... help guide me!

[zona5101]

d7000 - improved sensor, better high iso performance , less $$ than the d300.

[gptwins]

Try Noise Nija. If that does not get you the desired results, then I suggest going full frame and get the D700. That sensor is a light hog. I am not familiar with the D7000, have not used, so do not know its low light capabilities. I can attest to the D700 abilities.

[mosgood]

The D7000 would be a decent contender, since you should be able to use the same lenses. FYI: it has a different battery type, which means you'll have to spend $$$ on a second or 3rd one, if you do a lot of shooting during a day. I haven't added another battery yet. I just swap out between my D200, which helps conserve battery usage. The D7000 takes SD cards, not the old Compact Flash. So that'll cost you a bit more up front too. It doesn't even come with one (at least mine didn't). Not that it matters, since camera companies who do throw in something ridiculously tiny...feeling that's generous of them. Also, make sure you go with a class 4 or higher for the SD. Anything below it, will be too slow (older technology). Gotta be a bit careful ordering them....it's easy to skip the classification in favor of the low cost.

[drummingpariah]

Lots of options here, some of which I've looked at. I've tested the d200 and d7000 in similar environments and neither have shown enough high-iso difference to justify the price. Both are small-format sensors (but very high resolution), so from my (admittedly inexperienced) view, they'll capture more detail more accurately especially with long lenses, but not as quickly as a full-frame sensor would (d300 and d700). Correct me if I'm wrong... but I'm still trying to talk myself out of starting a new savings account for a new camera body

I already have both SD and CF cards galore due to the d40x and d70, both being on the faster end of their respective spectrums, so I'm going to write that concern off (for my needs, at least). And I completely agree, the modern, faster cards are WELL worth the increased price. It's one of the best investments I've made in photography, along with this 80mm prime lens.

I've used several noise reduction software pieces, including Noise Ninja, but the best results I've seen have been through UFraw. Still, post-processing is just a band-aid to cover up my lack of quality in the original shot. I'm not content with that as a solution.

Because I really only use the 80mm to shoot with, and I've had my eye on a few new lenses anyway, so I wouldn't be opposed to buying FX lenses instead of DX lenses. It's theoretically an increased cost, but one I had already accepted either way.

[andyw]

That is the problem that a lot of amateurs have when trying to "move up" to pro or semi-pro.
Good pictures can be taken on virtually anything but when you are moving up to commercial quality prints (especially for indoor sports) then the choice becomes limited both in cameras and lenses.

Simply, you need the equipment to do the job properly and currently what you have won't.
Yes it is initially a potentially large investment but if you want to make money then the investment will be worth it.

As to recommendations - I have none. I use D3's and a d300 and have absolutely no idea what else is out there or what they are like as my current cameras do the job for me.

[drummingpariah]

I was lucky enough to hold a d300 and d700 last week, and was really surprised by the weight of the d700. It is a fairly massive camera, especially once you add a battery pack on it. The d300 (and d300s) seems to be pretty affordable, I'm seeing them for less than $1500 on Amazon now.

However, I'd be looking at an investment of ~$1000 quickly jumping up to $2500 as a replacement, moving to the next step. What I'm hearing out of everyone's collective feedback is that I'm actually gear-limited and there isn't really a way to get the results I want (good-looking poster-sized prints) without investing in some quality pro/semi-pro gear. I guess I just need to decide if it's worth it to me, and whether or not I'll really see a return on my investment.

Thanks, everybody.

[Nicole]

Originally Posted by drummingpariah

...but not as quickly as a full-frame sensor would (d300 and d700). Correct me if I'm wrong...

Just a heads up, but the D300 is not a full frame camera. For that you're looking at a D700 / D3.

[drummingpariah]

Originally Posted by Nicole

Just a heads up, but the D300 is not a full frame camera. For that you're looking at a D700 / D3.

Well THATS a good correction to have made. I'm glad you caught me early on that one. Thanks!

[sk66]

in a crop body, D7000..best high ISO capability in a crop format. In FX, the D3s is the high ISO winner at about one-two stops better than the D700/D3. The D700/D3 will get you about 1-2 stops over the D7000/D300.

IME
D300/D7000- ISO 800 good, 1600 usable
D3/D700- ISO1600 good, 3200 usable
D3s- ISO 3200 good, 6400 usable
Even better results can be had with noise reduction software. YMMV.