What to buy next??

This fall I will be able to by almost any camera and lens set up that I want... But as this is a hobby for me at this point I am finding it hard to justify spending a crazy amount of money. My dream is to combine my two loves and to be a Missions Photographer for church missions trips. I would also like to be able to shot events at church so low light gear is a must. I have though about and most likely will be getting a Nikon 70-20 2.8 soon but want some opinions if I should go all out while can... I know that gear does not make the photographer but after seeing the low light ability of the new Nikon D500 and D5 I have really thought about going all out..


Is it crazy to have the best gear with only a year of digital photography under my belt???


Also this would add to my gear for the bucket list trip I am taking next year after graduation college..

Investment wise high end lenses are the better investment. A lens will hold most of its value until a new and better version comes out. Most of the well reviewed lenses will retain more than 50% of their value for years. On the other hand, no matter how good a body is, its value after two or three new models come out will be low enough to make you want to pull your hair out.

If you can afford to invest in lenses, by all means do so. As for bodies, buy what you need now. Don't buy for two or three years from now because by the time you need it, something better will be out by then and the camera you bought two or three years ago will probably be worth 1/4 what you paid for it.

I considered getting a D810 as it is a dream camera for me... But I have a Nikon D3300, D7000 and D610 and also a Sony A6000 so I have a lot.... But I lack high end glass..

I have always herd that glass is king but I have never played around with a $2k.. In fact except of my 70-300 every lens I have has be under $400 so... How much better is a trinity set of 2.8's going to make my D610? And should I get a f4 lens for my Sony A6000??

Thanks

Idk Nikon gear but you may consider a 35mm and/or a wide angle lens for what you are shooting.

I have the Dx 35mm 1.8 and the Fx 50mm 1.8, I also have the 24-85 3.5-4.5 and a 70-300

I looked at your gear list. I suggest you learn how to shoot what you want with your current gear before spending anymore money. Until you can explicitly say what part of your gear is stopping you today from making the photos you want...I don't believe spending more money will achieve a thing other than lighten your wallet.

There are times I shoot with a $140 point-n-shoot, sometimes a $500 compact, and sometimes I have five figures worth of gear with me. My best investment has been education. Maybe you're already a perfect photographer, maybe not. I'm not, but I'm always aiming higher.

What photos do you want to make? Make a list of a few of your dream photos, and then search for what others have done. Look at photo sharing site 500px and see what you find there. Look at what the photographers used. Are you as good? Are you better? Are there things you can learn? What do you need to do to bring your game up to the best?

You have a Nikon D610. That's a powerful camera by itself. With native ISO to 6400, unless you can say you're already at your limit at 6400, you're probably wasting your money buying a 70-200 f/2.8. I've shot night time sports with a Canon 60D at ISO 6400 (normally I use a Canon 5DM3 and run it at ISO 12800), and while not ideal, the photos are usable.

I've done photography with people who have high end gear (full frame Nikon and FX lenses) and don't have a clue as to how to use it. I've seen what they produce. No amount of equipment can make up for lack of craft behind the camera.

You say you've got only one year of digital photography under your belt. Your best item to buy next is training that will bring you where you want to go.

okay so I guess I need to add some clarity. First I love photographing nature and historical things. Next year I will be taking a dream trip that will now be over two weeks in the summer and will be able to go anywhere on the east coast of the United States that I want or even anywhere in the country if i chose. I love NatGeo like photos but the reality is that the hole things is having a good time. Photography is a therapy for me and it un-stresses me to be out and photographing nature and cool stuff. Most of my best photos I have never shown anyone outside my family. I have a few that I love and could not care less if someone else likes them.

This fall I will be able to spend more time photographing birds at the St. Augustine Alligator Farm and travailing around Florida. My dream is to hit all the Florida state parks by next year and photograph them all. I want gear that will work both for nature photography and for doing photos for church both outside and inside in low light. My idea is that I already do photos for our missions events every month but when we have guest speakers or baptism it would be great to be able to capture that event. We also have singers come all the time and our church does not have a photographer on staff except me...

My dream is to travel the world with the international missions board doing outreach but also using my photography to capture the life of those that we are impacting around the world.

Glass, glass, and more glass. And I'd get rid of the low end body(ies) as well and streamline your gear with the stuff you will actually use and work the best for you. And yeah, good glass on a even a low end camera produces images that will blow you away.

Okay. So my big question after yesterday is this... Will the 70-200 2.8 Nikon help in terms of faster focus and how clear if is.. I ask because yesterday I did some bird shots and almost all the photos that I liked where taken with my Sony A6000 and my 55-210 lens BUT and it is a big BUT... I also took quite a few with my Nikon d610 and 70-300 and found that I was fighting focus a lot.. I was to close to the subject to get a good focus and the focus was not keeping up. I was about five feet away from new hatching baby birds and found that the 70-300 auto focus was not fast enough and would not focus that close at max zoom.

Photo from ThomasDidymus's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (803003)