File :-(, x, )
Midlife update crisis Anonymous
Dudes, help me out in this situation.

I have a 400D, 18-55 II, 75-300 III, 50mm 1.8 II and a 580EX II. If I remember correctly, this was a $1,100-1,200 investment.

I've only made about $300 from my current kit so far, in 18 months. But this is doing random jobs and have not been actively pursuing opportunities, which I _am_ doing starting now, like now now.

My main issue is working at ISO 1600 on the 400D which is really fine at web sizes but it's not as stellar as I hope it could be for larger sizes. It's still really, really good but I want it better if it's possible.

With the money that I will be hopefully be making, I want to upgrade to a more capable body in low light.

I'd like to know if the Nikon D300 would provide a noticeably better performance at higher sensitivities than my current camera. It's the most affordable option to me right now that could potentially be better than my 400D.

I've asked before and people have said the 40D isn't a big jump at all and I'm guessing it's the same with the new 50D.

I think it's possible for me to sell my entire kit and only have to give out, maybe $500 or so I guess? And be able to buy the D300. Yeah, I know, I'd have no lenses but I have a Sanwa 28mm and Nikon 50mm manual lenses from my dad I could use in the mean time.
>> Anonymous
The downside to this option is that I just lost my flash and I find the high end Nikon lenses are more expensive than the Canon ones or have no equivalent yet (see 24-105 4.0 IS and 70-200 4.0 IS, which is verily possible for me to one day buy ;__; or some of the insanely fast fixed lenses).

The good thing about this option is that it's a fairly affordable upgrade if it _does_ give me better low light performance and it could one day lead me to a D700. I don't see myself buying a 1D or 1Ds, the full size bodies are way too much for me to handle.

My second choice would be to keep on using the 400D until it's dead and hopefully have enough money by that time for a 5D II, which I think would for sure be more suitable in low light, and at least I get to keep 2 lenses and my flash. But I don't think I am in position to spend $2,700 on a camera body. :|

So in conclusion, what the hell do I do?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
The D50 actually gives you about a stop more of ISO than the 400D before it gets noisy, which I think is about the same as the D300.

The 5DII, if you can stretch your budget that much, will give you an extra two stops.

(Note that this is all based on looking at the sample images online rather than direct experience)
>> Anonymous
A few things

1. It makes more business sense to stay canon so that you can upgrade a piece at a time as you get the money.

2. A great body will still give you shit images if you don't upgrade your lighting and glass.

3. If you aren't making money with the 400D, you won't be making money with D300. Your marketing and handling of potential clients has nothing to do with your equipment.

4. Manual lenses are shit if you are trying to make a living with photography.

5. You will probably be better off investing in a better glass and a pair of 430EXs, because a rebel with great lighting and glass is always better to have than a D300 with shit lighting.
>> Anonymous
>> 1. It makes more business sense to stay canon so that you can upgrade a piece at a time as you get the money.

I want to start investing in the right camp right now because aside from my expensive flash, the rest of my equipment is pretty much dumpable at any time.

>> A great body will still give you shit images if you don't upgrade your lighting and glass.

Yeah but camera A with great higher sensitivity with a 50mm 1.8 vs. camera B with mediocre higher sensitivity with a 50mm 1.8. I'll take camera A, man.

>> If you aren't making money with the 400D, you won't be making money with D300. Your marketing and handling of potential clients has nothing to do with your equipment.

Um, that's because I bought the cheapest camera I could afford 18 months ago, the 400D and have been using it extensively to learn. Now that I can actually tell people, yes I can do that! I am going to be making money off this.

I do live shows and events and if the client's untrained eye can tell me, hmm this is a bit blurrier or grainier than I was expecting, then I do need to do something about it.

>> Manual lenses are shit if you are trying to make a living with photography.

I know my Nikon 50mm 1.8 by heart, and if I can manually focus a EF-S 17-55 with that joke of a focus ring and viewfinder on the 400D, I'm sure I'll do fine with a larger viewfinder and a proper ring.

>> You will probably be better off investing in a better glass and a pair of 430EXs, because a rebel with great lighting and glass is always better to have than a D300 with shit lighting.

I can't carry lighting with me as I go. It's not under my control. I roll to the place and have everything in my hands.

I have been renting expensive lenses and I am not satisfied with a maximum of ISO 1600 at f/2.0 stopped down from f/1.4 because I either get too slow a shutter speed or I'm struggling with noise.

Inb4learn to work with it
>> Anonymous
>>267000The D50 actually gives you about a stop more of ISO than the 400D before it gets noisy, which I think is about the same as the D300.

So you're saying the 50D and D300 would only let me shoot at ISO 3200 but still only get a similar image quality as my 400D at ISO 1600?

That doesn't work out too well for me. I kind of want a clean/usable ISO 3200 and a noisy-but-still-kind-of-okay ISO 6400. :|
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>267024
Pretty much, yeah.

1600 on the 5DII looks like 400 on your 400D, though. The thought of it makes me all tingly in my naughty places. $2700 hurts, though, and you'd need a new walk-around lens since your 18-55 won't work on it.
>> Anonymous
>>267027

I can use my 50 1.8 II on it and would be more than happy to use it as my only lens. Coupled with my 580EX II, it would be perfect for everything I do.

But this means spending like $1,800, possibly more vs. $500-600 for the D300. But I lose my entire kit.
>> Anonymous
>>267027
>>you'd need a new walk-around lens since your 18-55 won't work on it.

Since /p/ insists on walking around with lenses instead of taking photos, I'm sure the 18-55 will be fine.

Besides, the OP has already made up his mind and is just looking for Anon to tell him that he is making the right decision.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>267139
>Since /p/ insists on walking around with lenses instead of taking photos, I'm sure the 18-55 will be fine.
Your insistence on failing to understand what "walking around lens" means is kinda getting on my nerves...
>> Anonymous
>>267139

The 18-55 doesn't mount on the 5D.

>> Besides, the OP has already made up his mind and is just looking for Anon to tell him that he is making the right decision.

No, I didn't make up my mind yet but I do want someone to tell me what to do.

It seems like I lose in both scenarios.
>> Anonymous
>>267145
Give me a chisel, a hammer and some astroglide, and I will make it fit.
>> Anonymous
>>267145
Sounds like you lose because you want to pigeon hole yourself into one kind of photography to make money.

lrn2whore yourself out and you will find that there are lots of paying gigs in photography that don't involve high iso and divas that force you to use available candlelight.