Torn between two cameras! Help appreciated for this total newbie!

NSXTypeR

I agree with TTJ. I would have recommended the same had I thought it through a little more. My suggestion to get the D600 was based on your comparison with the D7100 and the fact that you would get it used and my feeling that you would be compelled to upgrade in a few years. However, all you need to do is resist the urge to upgrade your camera for as long as you can.

I agree with this statement here too. We love spending money here on the forums, especially if it's not our money. Usually when you bring up gear questions with no budget, people go nuts and go for their ideal gear loadout, which usually ends up being $3-4,000, at the minimum.

You can very well learn the fundamentals of everything in photography with a D3200. I started off with a D40 and stayed with it for 5 years before it gave up on me. I'm still learning, but the D3200 is already a better specced camera than the D40. I think you'd be better off to chill out, learn the ins and outs of this camera, buy maybe a 35mm 1.8 beyond the kit lens and just learn to shoot with what you have.

TaoTeJared

You won't wear out your camera (I still have a D50 that has been going since 2005) for sure. What I was referring to is the re-sale value (30-40%) after 4 years, the image quality will be increased exponentially (which gives more ability) in 4 years as well (with 1 generation release - 2-years for DX, 4 years for FX), and the "desire" for better will pull you to want more at that time as well. Now take that 4 year window and figure that the learning curve (if you spend a great deal of time) it will take a couple of years learning the "basics" and 2 more years becoming more proficient. So by the time you achieve a good proficiency, it will be time to upgrade the body. It is not a decision point to learn on DX or FX as they are both the same. With that, during the time you are learning, and in the beginning where you will be acquiring quite a bit of gear (like lighting that you will be able to use for 10-20 years) going with DX I believe is wiser. Then when you are better and you can take advantage of better gear, you can make the move to FX when the newest models are out.

D7100 is an option as well, and does open up using older AF lenses with screw drives. It is more expensive and that is your personal finances to decide on. You can do all the same basic learning on a D5300 as well was why I suggested that. jshickele has a good point on moving from a D7100 to a FX D610 body would be seamless as they are the same but the sensor. I will also add, moving between any of Nikon's bodies are really simple, and they all work in the basic same manor. Shooting a D800, I can pick up a D3200 and feel at home with it in about 5 minutes.

On lighting, I would suggest getting a flash right off the bat. If you really want to do portraits, you need that basic set-up. Most pros including I pretty much have a common saying of that we all should have bought the lighting gear first, then lenses, then buy whatever body we could afford with what was left in the beginning. If you do some searching you could drop $150 off that lighting setup (there are many kits that combine a ton) but that is the basic "good brands" that I tend to stick with.

One thing I forgot to add from your first post, "take great pictures in M" is really a misnomer. Good photos don't come from shooting M, they come from understanding the "Exposure Triangle" and how it affects the image. When many say "you must shoot in M" what they are trying to push you toward is learning how each element corresponds to the image. It is a good way, but by no means the only way to a good image. Few photographers ever shoot in M mode except for some with flash set-ups. Unless I'm doing more complex lighting set-ups, I am very rarely in "M" mode. Most photographers usually shoot in S or A mode.

TaoTeJared

"would it make sense to still buy the FX lenses since they would carry over to an FX after I wear out my DX? "

Everyone struggles with this. Personally I would say no for the basics, but to always keep it in mind. Unfortunately, you just have to accept that you will be buying DX lenses for wide-short telefoto and plan on selling them when you move to FX. FX zooms just don't match up at all to cover DX in the 28-85+ range and you really do want that. Get caught once trying to shoot a large group of people in a small room and not having a lens wider than 35mm (fx equiv) where you can't get everyone in the photo, and you will understand that. The 18-105vr is a great compromise in cost and zoom range that will cover a wide verity of situations. The 35mm 1.8DX lens gives you the 50equiv (which in my mind is a necessity to have) and adds low light shooting. It is just a great lens overall and mine just lives on my old D300. Above 75mm (50mm lens in FX) buying FX zooms & short telephotos and longer, I would go with FX as they have less of a compromise and will flow over to FX very well.

Pierre

I have shooted a lot with both the D700 and the D800 + the F2.8 trinity.
The weight is definitely a big issue if you do lots of walking, even for a big guy like me (I have to remember never to pick a fight with MSMoto who feels great wit a D4).
My friend has a D7000 and I purchased a D5200 + Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8.
Honestly after having played with them all, I was blown away with the performances of the D5200. For sure it has less
pixels, bokey and ISO than the D800 but the colors/crispness is fantastic, raw size is the perfect tradoff and is much more portable. At normal viewing size, it is very hard to tell then apart against the D800 pictures.
Putting an FF lense like the 24-70 on a DX is somebow a bad idea. You pay the cost and weight penalty without the full-frame benefits. The more glass you have the more losses and diffraction you get. Lenses degrades over time, rubber get loose, they get scratched, bruised, stollen, dusts and humidity gets in.
I would recommend a good DX body & superior DX lenses and with the money you save, get yourself a Photoshop + Lightroom subscription and a few pro-level shooting/composition/photoshop courses. If you have money left, spend it on travels.
It will take you at least 3 years to reach the skill level your ambition demands, and at that time much better cameras will be ready when you are.

Golf007sd

@skyeyes70: TTJ has provided you with very valuable and wise advice. Hence, I too support his recommendation to you on many fronts.

One thing for you to consider in order to hedge in not spending additional capital in the future towards lenses is: whatever focal length you consider, go with ones that are designed more for FX..should you get a DX body. Only exemption 35 1.8 DX, it should be in everyones bag for what it costs. Moreover, Nikon has done an amazing job in their 1.8 prime lens line-up for consumers. They produce great images and are quite affordable.

Happy shopping.....

tcole1983

If you are looking at a body as an investment or that you will ever get your money back out of it, then I would say photography might not be for you. They are going to be your somewhat dispensable part of the package. If you plan on moving to FX later...buy FX glass, but it doesn't mean you can't use it on DX. The problem is with the zooms for FX you don't really get the usable coverage...and well they cost a ton. Like the 24-70 isn't wide enough, you would almost need the 14-24 also.

I like several others wouldn't hit the D600 with a 10 foot stick. Nikon did bad on that body and it shows with their quick release of the D610. I think the D7100 is a more solid body and besides the D600 having an FX sensor I think the D7100 wins hands down. I have had my D5000 for years now and it still takes awesome pictures. Too much focus on the gear and not the picture taking.

You did point out a couple of things the D3200 couldn't do, but I think it will be a while before you get to that point. I still shoot anything and everything with my D5000 without commander mode and not being able to use older AF lenses. The LCD on the top is nice, but not necessary. Obviously the D7100 or D600 would give you more room to grow, but I think by the time you learn the ropes there will be something better out anyway...might as well not spend a ton on your first body IMO.

[Deleted User]

The same problem occurred to me 5 years ago, when I wanted to upgrade my D200. Should I go for the D300 (DX) or the D700 (FX), a 700 euro price difference and cheaper lenses. At the end I went for the D300 with DX glass, what was also expensive. A year later I sold my DX lenses (except the 18-200mm and the 35mm f/1.8g DX) and went for the 24-70mm f/2.8, The 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II a year later, the 50mm f/1.8g and the 85mm f/1.8G, because I knew that the next FX camera was mine.

Well after photographing with the D300 for 5 years the new one became the D600 (1549 euro then and the same price as the D610 now), with the trouble included. I brought it 2 times to the Nikon service center and it is good now. Now I should buy the D610 for sure.

Instead of the 1.5 crop factor on the 12mp D300, I now crop the 24mp D600 in Lightroom when needed. There is an enormous IQ increase between the D300 with DX lenses versus the D600 with quality FX lenses.

The D600 with the 50mm f/1.8g is always in my bag as walk around lens.

WestEndBoy

The D600 with the 50mm f/1.8g is always in my bag as walk around lens.

My too. I love the nifty 50s.

skyeyes70

Okay, you guys have been great with sharing such valuable information and helping me figure out how to best spend my husband's money

I have decided to go with the D7100 with the idea of putting in lots of time and money over the next five years to build my learn and advance in my knowledge and skills.

I do plan on getting a kit with the 18-105mm and start with the 35mm f/1.8 as well as adding a flash.
Here are two kits I'm looking at:
http://www.cameta.com/Nikon-D7100-Digital-SLR-Camera-18-105mm-VR-DX-AF-S-Zoom-Lens-Black-74588.cfm
This comes with an SD card, extra battery, backpack, and a bunch of other junk I probably don't need. I also picked this one b/c of the backpack, but I'm thinking that one may not be my best choice.
or

http://www.kenmorecamera.com/p-24896-nikon-d7100-w18-105mm.aspx
It looks like this one come with a pretty nice tripod.

Any thoughts?

TaoTeJared

I would go for the one with the tripod.

Oh and don't forget to also look at Adobe Lightroom to edit your photos in. Fantastic product and will help edit your photos with ease.

BTW - Sandisk and Lexar cards are the best to get. 32gb is a good size. Save $ by going with a "slower" speed cards.

henrik1963

It sounds like this story will get a happy end :-) You will have a far better learning tool than most of us ever had. Word of warning - you will make a lot of "bad" pictures in the beginning - don't worry - that is because you are stepping out of your comfort zone.

The most important thing to remember is don't delete the bad pictures right away. Take a good look at them - ask: What was I trying to do - what did I get - What can I try to do better next time. That work is best done post processing your pictures.

skyeyes70

Thanks guys! I actually did get LR 5 for Christmas! Talking about information overload trying to learn LR and how to use a DSLR not in auto at the same time!!! I did manage to take a few and practiced learning editing. Two of these are my practice: http://www.flickr.com/photos/115637741@N02/ The other two are from my point and shoot.

I hope to place my order tonight and I'm sure I'll be back picking your brains and drawing from your vast knowledge base on gear needs and technical skills.

WestEndBoy

My best advice with Lightroom is think very carefully about how you want to set it up before you spend too much time on it. I took a couple of months and am glad I did.

skyeyes70

My best advice with Lightroom is think very carefully about how you want to set it up before you spend too much time on it. I took a couple of months and am glad I did.

What have you found to be the best way to set it up?

WestEndBoy

That deserves a better answer than I have time for now. I will respond in a couple of days.

manhattanboy

My best advice with Lightroom is think very carefully about how you want to set it up before you spend too much time on it. I took a couple of months and am glad I did.

What have you found to be the best way to set it up?

For a beginner I recommend DXO.
Its just easier for 99% of what you want to do, with better results than LR...as a bonus it doesn't kill your hard disk by duplicating all the RAW files.

Regarding the cameras. I have a 7100 and can highly recommend it, but for the type of shooting you will do (portraits and outdoors low light) I recommend an FX camera. Also remember the 7100 is not forgiving if you use cheap lenses because the pixel density is so high...so what you save by going DX with the camera will come back and bite you in lens costs to get equivalent resolution. The 7100 is an ideal camera to shoot action in great light as it has an amazing autofocus system covering almost the entire frame. For shooting still subjects in bad light however...you can do better with the 600/610.

FreezeAction

I've been following this thread with much interest. My mind is made up. For me it is a D610 as the best all around body for the work I do. I don't upgrade often. It's been nearly a decade since I bought what I was told was the first Canon 1D MII camera to hit FL. I pre-ordered it within minutes of the day it was announced. I've waited long enough for Canon to produce what I want and need. The 70-200 zoom range has put more beans on my table than all the other ranges put together. I'll rent the f2.8 and f4.0 versions of Nikon's offering. Tamron is tempting but a gut feeling tells me to stick with known quality. Color rendition is important as is sharpness and there are no tests for than I've seen on the lineup. The D610 to me is a happy medium or compromise between a D4/D4s for IQ and frames per second. Golf007sd gave me some info on panorama supports from RRS and my intention is to test not IQ but composition with single and multi-teered rows of images at 85mm, 100mm, 135mm, 200mm, 300mm, & 400mm. That should at least render the best primes for making large, very large pans without any interpolation.

A word about FPS. 6 FPS will shoot rodeo just fine with practice and most rodeo photogs I've met shoot at 1/250 of a second. I prefer 1/400 but long ago with no decent lighting and the max ISO was only 3200 I had to shoot at 1/250 to not go more than two stops under exposed in RAW. Going from a very nasty ISO3200 to a clean ISO3200 I'll take it. I've been tempted to wait and see what happens with the D300s but have grown weary and impatient for an announcement on that note. I've got a very dark arena to use as an action shooting testing ground in the real world. No matter what DxOMark says, the proof is in the print. If you hear about some crazy photog getting mauled by a shark while shooting pretty girls on fast horses riding in the surf in prom dresses it might just be me. Sharks be damned.

KnockKnock

Sounds like this thread is pretty much settled, but in addition to TaoTeJared's comprehensive remarks, one experience should be added. It's easier to get proper focus with your DX options. And many secretly struggle when they drop (too much) money on an FX system upgrading themselves from small/er-sensor cameras - frustrated with hundreds of out-of-focus pictures and too embarrassed to seek out help. The small focus point area coverage of the D600/610 doesn't help.

It is VERY easy for a compact to nail focus. You don't get the beautifully shallow Depth of Field, but that's a double-edged sword for inexperienced photographers. If you're shooting a 50mm f/1.8 image in Fx with a puppy and a boy, it takes considerable skill or luck to get both the eyes of the puppy and the eyes of the boy in focus when they're more than a few inches apart in terms of DoF (front to back).

An experienced photographer who knows the basics of exposure, focus, depth of field etc. can take pro-quality shots with the lowliest of DSLR's. The more expensive gear gets confusing very quickly (even to experienced enthusiasts), is less forgiving, and can be harder to learn on.

I trust you'll learn quickly though. Your enthusiasm is abundantly evident. As for lenses, I'd get the DX for the bulk of what you'll do. The 18-140 if you can afford it. 18-105 if not. The 35mm 1.8 DX. It's the portrait and zoom lenses which make a good case for FX glass. The 50mm 1.4 or 1.8 G lenses make very good portrait lenses, as well as the 60 or 105mm macro lenses. And for killer reach, the 70-300mm VR beats all of the DX tele-zoom lenses.

You effectively pulled us all in on your journey! We all like spending money vicariously.

spraynpray

+1 on KnockKnock's post.

You started off this thread asking between D7000 and D600 and the D7000 is the best VFM camera that Nikon do at the moment in good light. The main reason for going to the D7100 at almost twice the price is better low light (hi ISO) performance. None of that affects your use, so save the money. The best DX lens that Nikon make is the 17-55 f2.8, but if you want longer, the 18-140 is the newest 'kit' lens so should be better than the excellent 18-105.

FX? Big, heavy, expensive, inconvenient for - in your case - the tiniest of gains.

HTH.

Pistnbroke

What no one has said is that FX cameras are noisy..the D800 has terrible mirror/shutter noise ..no good for being descrete at say a wedding ..even in Q its 4 x noiser than a D7100.
The problems with DX is that if you want to go to say 10mm for wide shots you dont get as much IQ as with an FX ie D800 with a Samyang 14mm.. The 10mm on a 24 MP DX is quite soft. I love DX for weddings with the 18-140..cheap quiet and still cropable

manhattanboy

What no one has said is that FX cameras are noisy..the D800 has terrible mirror/shutter noise ..no good for being descrete at say a wedding ..even in Q its 4 x noiser than a D7100.

That's funny you say that because I think the 7100 sounds like a machine gun in continuous high mode. If the D800 is louder, I think I'll need earplugs. %-(
The newer canon's like the 5DM3 and 6D are whisper quiet in quiet continuous mode and if I were shooting weddings I would try one of them out. The 610 versus the 600 is supposed to have an improved quiet continuous mode. I have not tried one out to see how much of an improvement it is, but maybe someone can comment.

I do not like the 7100 indoors and if the majority of photos are indoors, would recommend a 610 or 800 or other FF camera. While I have many razor sharp indoor photos with both the 7000 and 7100, most of the time the added expense and bulk of a bounce flash or having to switch to a wide open prime make it inconvenient.

Regarding DX portraits, one time I made the unfortunate mistake of shooting a lot of portraits with a 50 1.8 on the 7000. The bokeh was pleasing and the pictures were beautiful (I even printed one just for myself). However, the subject was not too pleased with how they "looked". I find that if your subjects worry about how fat they look or worry that they have a big nose or big ears, then you may need to go longer than 50mm to purposely "correct" things they are self-conscious about.
See this link for a good series on how focal lengths affect the image look.
http://johncarnessali.com/camera-lens-tests/4433

PB_PM

What no one has said is that FX cameras are noisy..the D800 has terrible mirror/shutter noise ..no good for being descrete at say a wedding ..even in Q its 4 x noiser than a D7100.

That is just a matter of physics, the mirror is larger.

As to the comments in the next post about the 5D MKIII and 6D shutter being quiet, they are less clacky, but still noisy. Canon shutters have a more, whoosh, whoosh, whoosh noise, that I find it rather annoying.

dissent

Re: learning Lightroom -
Adobe has a ton of helpful videos on this on their web site, including set-up and use for image editing. Your time there will be well spent, I imagine.

Also, just search around on youtube for Lightroom related vids. Fair amount or wordy crap, but plenty of good stuff too. Mansurov's web site has a plethora of good Lightroom info also. Here starts the list from their search page - http://photographylife.com/search?q=lightroom

Also, consider your backup strategy for all of your image files and Lightroom catalog data. As jshickele and others have stated, thinking carefully about these issues up front will pay dividends in the long run.

manhattanboy

What no one has said is that FX cameras are noisy..the D800 has terrible mirror/shutter noise ..no good for being descrete at say a wedding ..even in Q its 4 x noiser than a D7100.

That is just a matter of physics, the mirror is larger.

As to the comments in the next post about the 5D MKIII and 6D shutter being quiet, they are less clacky, but still noisy. Canon shutters have a more, whoosh, whoosh, whoosh noise, that I find it rather annoying.

Here is a video of the 600 versus the 7100 shutter noise if anyone is interested:


They sound pretty similar. There are also videos of the new improved 610 quiet mode that I found pretty impressive.

Regarding the whoosh of the 5dm3 and 6d I find it more tolerable by the people around me when shooting, at least in continuous mode. If it were up to me then I would never shoot in silent mode because of the drop in fps, but unfortunately sometimes the loud sounds bother those nearby. I found the annoying clicks of the older Canon's silent modes used to drive me bananas; they were quieter but somehow still drew a lot of attention. However, in the newer generation cameras the quiet mode has been significantly changed:


The best camera for shutter sounds I've used has been the 1v1 with its electronic shutter )

PB_PM

I don't find such videos helpful, since people are holding the cameras right up to the mic.

When you use motor drive it really doesn't matter what mirrored camera you use, they will be noisy. Being into wildlife photography I've seen everything from point and shoots, entry level DSLR/mirrorless cameras, to the D3s and 1D X in use, and when they are motor driving you hear them no matter what (unless the mirrorless is using an electronic shutter as you mentioned).

As for weddings, yes you can hear the camera shooting, I just expect it and don't let it bother me.