I am trying to find out which camera would be best for my needs and wants. I am looking for an unbiased answer. I am only looking at full frame cameras so it narrows the list significantly. I shoot in extremely low light and I can not use a flash. I shoot concerts (small/medium ensembles, chamber groups, orchestras, solo artists) and recitals. I need something that can shoot at least at ISO1600 without noise (extremely low noise) I usually shoot at 50mm and 100mm and shake reduction is not a must but is nice to have. I have not set a budget yet but I don’t want to spend more than four thousand dollars for a body and two fast prime lenses. Please help. Warren

Nikon D3 or D700 depending on need for speed, and budget

Could be a smart ass old guy and say Nikon F100 and AF-S Nikkor 70-300 VR. But same lens and D700 is a pretty nice rig too...

film is not an option due to the enormous amount of photos i need to take for each artist.

The low light results from the D700 are very good and I love mine.

But, the shutter is loud and may not be appropriate for .
Check out the Canon and Nikon FF options in a camera store, preferably with a DB meter, and see which is quietest.

what about Sony Alpha 900 (price of the body in the UK is around £1,700)?
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra900/

shutter noise can be masked by the music most times and is not really an issue. i can shoot in tempo so its less of a distraction.

Canon 5D mark II review

Nikon D700 review

And if you 'only' need to get to iso1600 you might want to look at the Nikon D90, D300s and the Canon 7D as well. They deliver creepy good iso 1600 images. Reviews of them all can be found at the same site as above.

For an example look at this picture. It was shot at iso 1600 straight into jpg, so there is a lot to gain when shot in raw. I can mail you the full image if you want.

And the new D300s has this thing called Quiet mode. No idea how that works out but it might be useful.

thank you for the links, as i said before, i will not consider anything less than full frame. i like the field of view and anything smaller will not satisfy my desire to have a digital equivalent of film.

I will not involve myself in the discussion about wich brand is better? At the end it's a matter of taste. I will however tell you that Im very happy with my D700. :-)

Paw, thank you for not putting down another brand. i think it is silly for someone to defend a brand to the death because more than likely they are not getting paid by said brand. i don't want video and i don't want 20+ mp which eliminates the 5d mark II and the Sony offerings which only leaves the D700 as the only choice. the lenses i want are fairly inexpensive also. i have to dedicate myself to saving massive amounts of money so i can buy this camera before next November when i (Lord willing) might return to Indianapolis for the percussive arts society international convention. i like the review i saw on pop photos website and one of the lines described what i was looking for exactly ("But low light is paradoxically where the D700 shines"). this camera fits all my needs and wants perfectly. thank you all for responding and confirming what i was thinking already.

Warren you wont go wrong with the D700 it looks to me it will fill all your needs!

D700 with battery grip and wil get more FPS.

But what about Sony A850? You have AS in the body and you could manage with ISO 800,and cost much less plus you get almost medium format quality (25 MP), but it is 3 fps the A900 has 5fps, if that is important for you.

Hi Warren. I have used both Mk II (owned) and D700 (loaned), and when it comes to low light there is really only one choice for me, and that is the D700. I love low light. Somehow the tonal working of the Nikon files seem to allow for more flexibility. I struggle more with the Canon files - that is only my personal experience, of course. The ONLY thing that I do not like about the D700 is the loud shutter (street work) - everything else is simlpy outstanding. Lenses included.

@sanjuro, i have thought about the A850 but i really do not want the MP's i would prefer the 12-ish the D700 has.

@andre thank you for the insite.

The big files do not convert to better images - all it does is eat space.

warren, i haven't used the 5D II or the alpha 900. So i can only tell you that my experience with the D700 is that of a dream come true. I just love it to bits.
Coupled with the 85 1.4 I've shot in extremely low light situations and got unbelievable results. It just gives you so much power. Bear in mind though, that the more to the right that you expose the better the results so It takes some time to master exposure.

You can't go wrong with the other two i assume. I've been in love with photos coming out of the 5D and now the 5DII since the 5D came out as well, the color of those photos has definitely something special.

Enjoy whichever you choose! :)

D700 and no other one for what you wane do! Forget the VR lens please you will be very disappointed about the quality of this lens. In such light situation VR does not make any difference! A perfect lens for concert shootings is the old 80-200 f 2,8 D-ED and more perfect the 85 mm f 1,4 D AF! All others even the good canon cameras are only compromises. D3 is almost the same as D700 for its sensor, processor and...its much bigger and for travel not a good solution!

Good luck to you!

Robert

The little files do not convert to better images either, is the photographer. The A900 has cRAW as well where the files are less MB.

No matter what camera is chosen you will not go wrong.

If low light shooting is the criteria, the Sony 900 is the wrong choice according to this review

D700 and a fast prime is my advice.

D700 is what i decided on with the 50mm 1.4D lens (or a manual focus 50mm lens) and an 85mm f1.8D. later on down the road i will add a 105mm and a 24/35mm f2 or faster.

Do you want that Mal Smart calls you a freak? Then go for it... ;)

If you search for extreme low-noise at high-iso qualities and a quit silent shutter, then it is not the best choice. Otherwise a fine camera (including the A850). And I also said before, that the high resolution is useless for me. Now I love it.

/Stephan

This is only partly true. If it is only about low light shooting in JPEG it is true. But if you develop high-iso RAW image of a Sony FF with LR3 Beta and run it afterwards through something like noiseware professional the image quality is competetive. But this is of course not a solution if you shoot high iso JPEGs on a daily basis. So I think for the named purpose the D700 was a very good choice.

/Stephan

Lord willing, i should be getting the D700, 35mm f2D, 50mm f1.4D, 85mm f1.8D, 80-200mm f2.8D, battery grip, and possibly a light meter or the 24mm f2.8D within the week.

Still say get the F100, those same lenses and a used Coolscan 4000, you'll have money left over and never regret it!!

i need digital. i am not a good enough photog to make film cost effective. and the people i shoot for (percussive arts society, when they let me) need instant digital images. maybe i could get a film camera just to play with (or backup) and use the D700 as the workhorse.

You might get out a bit cheaper, yes. I have all that, and my scanner sits there by my computer, and I never get time to use it.
Nothing can get me back to 35mm film. I still use film, but 4x5" and 120.

D700 was a good choice. The 85mm f/1.8D is a great lens as well.

I have the D700 - no particular reason, just because my legacy of digital gear / lenses is Nikon. It is superb at high ISO, though. The 5D MkII is also supposedly quite good but, from what I am told by Canon users, not quite as good.

I also have a Canon F1-N and selection of quick prime lenses to those I use with the D700. Not sure what to take; film for the pure retro look or D700 for the best detail I can get and then convert via Silver Efex Pro if I want some "grain". I'll probably take the D700, though as the band concerned usually puts on a good lights / laser show.

If you are looking for a workhorse film camera, there are so many to choose from. Nikon F3, F4, F5, F100, Canon F1, F1-n, F1-N, T90, then there's Minolta, Olympus (stick to OMx - where x is a single number, though). The good news is that they can all be had for buttons - relatively speaking. Just get ones with a guarantee from a reputable dealer.

Aside from the 80-200mm f2.8 (which I had years ago) I have the same lenses as you. Great selection and I love the 24mm f2.8 and 35mm f2.

Just ordered the D700! Lord willing, i should have it tomorrow!! just in time to shoot a basketball game saturday night!

Congratulations, I think you made the right descision.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E7D/E7DA.HTM - Canon EOS 7D is good solution about your problem :)

Except that he already bought the D700 AND that the 7D is not a full frame camera...

Maybe the "problem" Tsvetan mentions is anticipating that now Warren wants to downgrade to small sensor :)

both batteries are charged and i am going for a walk with my camera.

Warren,

let me(us) know how you get on...I'm thinking of the same purchase

Cheers Chris

will do! i still have not used it yet. i might be too nervous or have photographers block.

if you love film and do not want crop factors the d700 is the camera to get. this thing is amazing. maybe i can take a photo thats publishable now.

7D is no full frame!

:)
It's not related to camera as you already may know

yeah i know. but i might be more motived to get better having a camera that fits my needs instead of working around limitations a camera has.

I think that you should try some FF in a shop to see what is the one you like.
You have, for your (big) budget, the Canon 5D Mark II if you want Canon, and the Nikon D700 if you want Nikon.
For the lenses, you have the excellent 85mm f/1.4 and some nice L zooms in Canon.

@stephanelam, i already bought the D700. i also bought the 50mm1.4D, 85mm 1.8D, and the 80-200 2.8D ED-AF. i dont think i am going to buy the 24mm or the 35mm lenses i initially put on the list to buy. i just dont shoot enough wide angle stuff to justify it (even though bother are less than $400 each) if i find one in a pawn shop somewhere i might pick it up but other than that its not a priority. next thing on my list is the sekonic 758dr light meter.

Sorry, I didn't see that the topic was so old ...
Very good choice !!
For architecture, a wide-angle lens is very useful ...
But I don't know what kind of photography you prefer to shoot.

i mainly shoot recitals and music events where no flash is allowed and i really enjoy sports photography.

I don't think you need that when shooting digital. I have 2 light meters and I almost don't use them. The only time I do use them is when I use studio flashes.

thanks for the heads up. i have never used one and i want one because i want to get as much right before i take the photo as possible. i think it will also help me calculate extended exposure times for night photography (light/star trails).