Purchase advice - lighting or body upgrade?

[nikonodactyl]

As I've written here before I'm attempting to build my Christmas list to give to my significant other and have been doing tons of research on here and other places to try to figure out what new gear I would like. As I'm saving for a new car I won't have the funds for any more major purchases for some time so I'm trying to be extra careful about what I decide. I have been looking at lighting equipment and if I do go that route I am trying to decide between the alienbees "beginner bee" kit or a simple sb-600. Thoughts on what would benefit me more as a complete beginner with external lighting?

Another thing I am still considering because I just can't help myself is selling my D3000 and upgrading to the D90. I know it's more important to invest in glass but after doing so much reading into each camera I can't help feeling like I ended up with the most inferior one (it doesn't help that ken rockwell labels it as "nikon's worst dslr- ever" in his review :P wounded me a little) and longing for the better performance at higher iso's, ability to use non af-s lenses, wireless flashes, a better sensor, etc. From what I've seen selling my D3000 (with or without its kit lens included) could cover a good portion of the cost for the D90 body on its own. I can always purchase another (possibly better) zoom lens later if I do sell that as well and use my 35mm f1.8 prime until I choose one. Is this crazy thinking?

Sorry if I'm not making much sense. I've been home sick most of the day and reading back in the forum pretty much non-stop. When I first discovered photography was a passion of mine (when I was a kid, really) I should have seen the big $$$ signs and run in the other direction.

[Almond.Butterscotch]

1) I almost never use my speedlight. Be sure you want/need one before you look to get one.
2) Sure, the D3000 is missing some things here and there, but so what? It replaced the camera that replaced the camera that replaced the D40 (which, btw, is a camera Ken Rockwell LOVES.) Get the 35mm f/1.8 and run with it. It's served me well, exclusively, for over a year now.

[inkista]

Rockwell is an eccentric curmudgeon. Just 'cause he says something don't necessarily mean it's so (he also says the SB-400 is a better speedlite than an SB-900. He's really at the edge of the bell-shaped curve, sometimes).

If you feel you really need the D90's features more than you need better glass, that's your judgement call to make. But consider how long you've owned your D3000. What, a year? (It was only released Sept. 2009, after all). Are you going to want to upgrade a D90 when its successor arrives? Possibly in March? with D7000 high iso performance? You can feature chase forever. Flipping camera bodies rapidly is one sure fire way to never have enough money to upgrade the rest of your system.

Yes, the D90 has a better feature set. But do you really need those features? How is going to be able to use your pop-up as a master going to be useful if you have no speedlite? Do you really need better high iso than what you're getting now? How often are you using iso 1600? How is autofocus with AF lenses going to help you if you don't actually own any AF lenses?

When you get a lens, you will be able to use it on any future body you get. Lenses get upgraded once a decade, if at all. Resale value remains relatively high, compared to dSLR body depreciation. A D3000 body goes for just under $300, refurbed. That's only a third of the way to a new D90 body.

Are you really sure that a body is the better path to go? Bodies come and go all the time. It's like computers. Whenever you jump in and grab something, it will probably cease to be the new shiny toy everyone wants in a relatively short period of time (just like your D3000). That doesn't make it suddenly a worse tool to use than the day you bought it. Are you sure you actually need the better body, or are you just suffering from feature envy?

As for lighting gear, what do you want to do with it? How do you envision using it? The tradeoff between a speedlight and a monolight is portability/convenience vs. power. Power with a strobe is like max. aperture on a lens. You can never have enough. But speedlites are small and battery-powered. They can be used on the hotshoe and off. They're harder to use for studio set-ups, but much easier to use for run'n'gun and bounce. They have nifty features like i-TTL and remote commanding and high-speed sync that you cannot get with monolights. Monolights need plug-in power (either a power outlet or a battery pack), they're bigger and heavier, you can't hook one up to your camera's hotshoe, but you can light large areas and groups with them that a single speedlight couldn't even begin to cover, and they can overpower the sun a treat. You have more flexibility with them in terms of light. So, mobile, feature-rich and power-limited? Or bigger, and more powerful?

The SB-600 is a good workhorse flash and can probably do whatever you want. But an SB-900 or SB-700 is still going to be a better-featured flash, and better for on-camera bounce work because of the 360° swivel (vs. the SB-600's 270° swivel), and extra power. Also, SU-4 mode can come in handy.

[nikonodactyl]

Originally Posted by inkista

If you feel you really need the D90's features more than you need better glass, that's your judgement call to make. But consider how long you've owned your D3000. What, a year? (It was only released Sept. 2009, after all). Are you going to want to upgrade a D90 when its successor arrives? Possibly in March? with D7000 high iso performance? You can feature chase forever. Flipping camera bodies rapidly is one sure fire way to never have enough money to upgrade the rest of your system.

I know you are right about everything you said in your post and I thank you for your response. It's true. I do wish I had waited and saved more for the D90 but that is something I can't change now and the D3000 has served me well enough for my purposes 95% of the time. I have only had a year. Might as well move forward instead of backward That being said is there any lenses you recommend, say under $400, that I might be interested in? I have the 18-55 and the 35 f1.8 and I'm wondering if there are any others that may be beneficial to add to my kit currently.

As for the lighting I think the SB600 might serve my needs for now. I have some family and friends asking me to do portraits of them and their children (for free of course, I'm not trying to start a business) but I can see myself using the more portable flash in more situations. I'd like to practice with bouncing light and all that and to have something I can easily take out with me.

[sk66]

What is it about your current gear that keeps you from making the images you want? What kind of photography do you do/ want to do? An SB600 would have to be on camera/tethered w/ the D3000...

[lil red bird]

get the light or glass do not get a d90 hold off and get the d7000 when you can afford it glass and speed lights are so worth it.

[Horikin]

Hi All,

didn't want to start a new thread cause somehow I feel i am in almost the same position as nikonodactyl. I also own a Nikon D3000 and also the following equipment.

AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II
AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR
AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8D
SB-400 Speedlight Unit
SB-600 AF Speedlight

I'm in the dilemma of bying a Nikon D90 body or this lens (AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II) both go for more or less the same price.

D90 (body only)
The D3000 has no built in focus motor so I never use the 50mm prime and would love to use the D90 as a commander for my SB600 speedlight. I'm an amature photographer and I would like to do portrait photography with the possibility to expand to more speedlites.
Further more higher ISO some better options on the D90.

18-200mm
Further more I do not like to change lenses that often (18-55mm/55-200mm) when I shoot outdoors/indoors and people always advise to go for "glass" instead of a body.


Which one would any of you have bought regarding my current equipment?..any advise?
ps. Can't afford the D7000. (tight budget but i I could stretch mu budget and go for the D90 and the kit lens. (18-105mm))

Regards!

[zona5101]

Originally Posted by Horikin

Hi All,

18-200mm
Further more I do not like to change lenses that often (18-55mm/55-200mm) when I shoot outdoors/indoors and people always advise to go for "glass" instead of a body.

They mean good glass...i don't know that i'd toss the 18-200 in that group. The 18-200 is convenient! It covers a nice wide range of focal lengths. If not changing lens is high on your list of requirements, then it may be the best choice for you. Optically there are better... and they are more money... and won't cover the same range...like the 24-70f2.8 and the 70-200f2.8

[Almond.Butterscotch]

@Horikin: really make sure you understand what you'd be getting if you went for the 18-200; yes, it is much more convenient as it covers the full range from 18-200mm, but it's also very slow (f/3.5-5.6) and has distortion at both ends: barrel at the wide end and pincushion at the tele end.

If convenience is important enough to you to bypass speed and quality, then the 18-200 should be fine. If that's something you'd rather not have to deal with, then go with the D90.

Alternatively, may I suggest the 35mm f/1.8? It's a bit wide for portraits (and headshots are an absolute no-no since by the time you're close enough for them, you'll be dealing with ridiculous amounts of barrel distortion), but it'll give you the "standard" angle of view on your D3000 (or D90) that you get from your 50mm on a film SLR or the D3/s/x or D700, and its cheaper than either the D90 or the 18-200 (~$200) and pretty durn fast in comparison too (f/1.8)

[inkista]

Originally Posted by Almond.Butterscotch

... and has distortion at both ends: barrel at the wide end and pincushion at the tele end. ...

Actually, I read somewhere that the 18-200 has mustache/wave distortion at the wide end: which is barrel and pincushion at the same time. That makes it harder to fix in post processing.