worth going to FX?

perkedel

I started with D5100, what I do is portrait/people a lot, and I don't particularly really care about shooting sports/cars/birds/landscape.
What I shoot is prime lenses, and low light is not something really important to me since I mostly shoot at f/8 anyway, and rarely go more than ISO 200. I have several SB910/SB700 speedlights for portrait work. I don't print wall size, but often print 10x15 size.
Now the D610 price is coming down, is it worth to get the D610, or should I get the D7100?
Anyone else in the same situation? It would be nice to have another toy, but which is really better for this type of work?

sevencrossing

which primes do you use with your D5100
would you use the same ones with the D610?

spraynpray

You described your requirements eloquently and they can be very well met by the D7100. I have the D7100 and D750 and without a doubt, you will get very good results with the D7100. The D750 is better at low light, but the D7100 is still very good in low light anyway.

You're set. Spend the difference on quality lenses.

donaldejose

I agree with spraynpray: You don't need FX according to your listed shooting and printing practices.

SquamishPhoto

For portraiture and low light, DX is awful. Sorry, it just is.

Photobug

+1 on PitchBlacks comments regarding the D7100 and D610

Pistnbroke

if you are shooting wide angle 10mm on DX then its better to go FX preferably D8xx D610 will only get you half way there

donaldejose

Guys, he says he shoots at f8, ISO 100 to 200 and flash. And he doesn't print larger than 10x15. Nikon's 24mp DX sensor will do all that just fine. He is not shooting at f1.4, he is not shooting in low light, I doubt he is shooting portraits with a 10mm lens, I doubt his focus point is near the edge of the frame or outside the DX focus area. Yes, FX provides many advantages. However, those advantages don't apply to how he describes the shooting he does. We often give advice well beyond the requirements of the person asking the question. There is certainly nothing wrong with him buying a D610 or D750 or a D810. But realistically he does not need it and if he bought an FX body he would need to replace all his DX lenses.

sevencrossing

we do not in fact know, what lenses he has ( Nikon only make 4 dx primes only the AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR 85mm f/3.5G ED VR, might be good for portraiture) or why he wants to upgrade from a D5100

perkedel

I use the 28, 35, 50, 85 with the D5100. Quality is pretty good, people have been pretty happy with it. I mostly use the 85 for the portraits, and 28 if I need to capture the background too. I rarely use the 35/50, they've just been sitting at home. I really like the 85, that's what I've been using most of the time. When I use the 28, I'm generally not very close the person either. The really wide angle/fish lens is cool to have, but not really priority for me at this time.

As for why I want to upgrade, I've had it for about 3 years and got a lot of clicks out of this one. Maybe something better is available.

tcole1983

I would suggest the D7100 and this is not having used it. I say this because of the expanded flash control, better AF and additional pro feature set. If you are happy with the D5100 I think the D7100 would be a pretty good upgrade in terms of both picture quality and feature sets. I would stick with your lenses unless you want something else. The 85 is probably your best bet for portrait shots unless you want to try something longer like the 105, or a 200mm or longer lens. I also never use my 35...I can probably count on my fingers the number of occasions I have actually used it.

But the real question is probably why do you want a new body? Just because you have had yours for a while? Is there anything really holding you back?

I am no pro though...pitchblack and SquamishPhoto shoot some of the best portraits I see on the PAD ^:)^ So maybe don't listen to me...and no one has seen any portraits I have taken since I don't share them on here.

sevencrossing

@perkedel If you want a noticeable difference I would break the bank and get a D750 and the 105 f 2.8 or wait for the D7200.
If you can't afford the D750 or need to buy today get a D7100

manhattanboy

I have several SB910/SB700 speedlights for portrait work.

There is a discrepancy here. Someone having several 910's likely knows what they need next, and I am curious as to why they are not pairing those expensive flashes with an 800E/810?

spraynpray

I have several SB910/SB700 speedlights for portrait work.

There is a discrepancy here. Someone having several 910's likely knows what they need next, and I am curious as to why they are not pairing those expensive flashes with an 800E/810?

The D7100 makes full use of those flashes too you know? :-/

donaldejose

If I read your lens list correctly the only DX lens you have is the 35mm. All others are FX lenses (unless your 85mm is the DX f3.5 85mm lens). If that is the case and if you have the money to spend, I would recommend you spend the extra $600 and get the D610. But you have to realize your FX lenses are going to look different on an FX body. You lose the 1.5 times "crop factor" multiplier. Thus, your 28 mm will be wider than you have been used to it being and your 85mm will be shorter than you are used to it being. It may seem like you have a whole new set of lenses and you may be using your 35 (if it is FX) and 50mm more than you have in the past. You may want to add a longer 105mm lens or just add the 70-200 mm f4 zoom. But you don't NEED to spend that extra $600 if you are happy with your lenses on a DX sensor body.

heartyfisher

I still call myself as a DX shooter.. although I now have a D610. with what you have described (and summarised by @donaldejose). I would wait for the D7200 or upgrade to the D5300 which currently has the best DX sensor.

Going to FX all your lenses will behave differently. 28mm on DX (40mm FX) is very under appreciated! and a very nice familial FOV. 85mm is very close to the classic 135mm. You have found 2 of the most classic and "friendly", familial, intimate portrait FOV !! In FX you can get a very rare 135mm but there is no equivalent 40mm FX.. If those focal lengths and FOV are not special to you and you just use them out of convenience then forget what I said. ( LOL! ) Otherwise, they are very special FOV not available in prime lenses for FX users that you will lose.

retread

I too shoot with a D5100 although not portraits and have mostly FX glass. I plan to up date to the D7200/D9300 if I can wait that long. I hope by mid summer. Then sometime a D8xx for landscapes. I have only shot the D5100 but believe the D7100 should be good for you. For some of my shooting, sports and wildlife, a few more FPS and a bigger buffer is why I am waiting for a upgrade.

If you are not in a big hurry maybe waiting will be worth it. Many say the DX upgrade will never come but after Cannon has done it I believe Nikon will. It is just something more to consider.

donaldejose

Yes, I believe Nikon will produce a "Pro" bodied top of the line DX in 2015. But it will cost nearly $2,000. The D7100 is now about $1,000 and the D610 is about $1,600 (remember when the 12 mp D700 was considered such a bargain at $3,000 because it was FX and now we can get double the mp for half the price and remember when it cost $8,000 to get a 24 mp FX sensor in the D3x?) and the D750 is about $2,300. For $400 less than a "Pro" DX you get FX with slower focusing and fps. For $300 more than a "Pro" DX you get FX with pro focusing and 6.5 fps. Unless you really need the speed (10 fps, large buffer) and rugged build of a D4 it would seem the D7100 (or D7200) or the FX D610 or D750 would be a better value. If you need speed and rugged build a "Pro" bodied DX should be able to give you much better IQ than a D3 for about one third the price of a D4 and that is where its value would be. I think the "Pro" DX body with clean 6,400 ISO will be good for photojournalists who shoot for local newspapers (are there many of those anymore?) and high school/college sports. Those who shoot pro sports will be using a D4s. Those who shoot non-sports won't need the fps or the rugged build and can be adequately serviced by the "prosumer" bodied cameras.

perkedel

One of the reasons to get a new body is the commander ability. I had another flash to control the others. Sometimes it goes off fine, sometimes it won't trigger the other flashes. I fixed this issue with a wireless flash controller & remotes, it has worked great on my last photoshoot, and I gained an extra flash.
The people don't move fast or at all doing portrait session, and I tend to do calculate my shots, so I don't really do spray and pray hope to get a good one. Part of it because I kind of have to wait for the flash to charge up anyway, and shooting f/8 I get stuff sharp on focus. I used to do spray and pray when I was first starting out while shooting at f/1.8-2.8 as sometimes I didn't get things on focus. I didn't want to deal with large amount of files to review afterwards either. Therefore, buffer size/speed makes no difference to me.
It looks like back to drawing board and make some more comparison for me.

haroldp

The "prosumer" bodied cameras have fewer discreet controls and more 'modal' controls and it is harder and slower to see or change your settings.

When conditions are good and you have lots of time, very few equipment differences matter. When conditions are not good, and changing quickly, you know why you spent what you did on 'pro' equipment.

.... H

manhattanboy

The D7100 makes full use of those flashes too you know? :-/

I've used the 910 on both the D7000 and the D7100.
Its a great flash... but my point was that someone throwing down money for several 910's at $500 a piece likely has a clear idea of what they are doing and what they need. If we are making suggestions for portrait photography, then why not a refurb 800E? Yes its a little more expensive, but the OP has already invested thousand$ into flashes.

Pistnbroke

Donaldejose.....these threads are not just read by the original poster so to "over answer " or present a side issue is appropriate IMHO

Golf007sd

If you live in the states, why not rent the bodies that you are considering and see which works out the best for you. I would be leaning toward the D610, as well as, the D750.

Personally, I think if would be to your advantage in going with an FX body vs. DX; moreover, it would be nice to use your FX lenses within the correct focal length that they were built for.

manhattanboy

If you live in the states, why not rent the bodies that you are considering and see which works out the best for you. I would be leaning toward the D610, as well as, the D750.

Personally, I think if would be to your advantage in going with an FX body vs. DX; moreover, it would be nice to use your FX lenses within the correct focal length that they were built for.

+1

It's worth the money to try before you buy (but in practice it's rarely done).

henrik1963

What is wrong with D7100 image quality? I have never used one. But would like to know.

tcole1983

What is wrong with D7100 image quality? I have never used one. But would like to know.

Nothing ;-)

Really I don't understand the argument...what is really wrong with any of the dx bodies. I am obviously biased towards dx since that is all I have but is dx THAT bad compared to fx?

Two funny things. When I was going to shoot my first wedding a couple months back now I searched on here and came up with someone asking about wedding photography on the old forum and what people were using. By far mostly d90's or d300s...maybe a d700. Similar glass to what we are still using. Now everyone is go fx or you suck. But only a couple years ago results from a camera with half the performance of a d3300 was acceptable.

Next is the wedding I shot. I used my d5000 and d5200 and my friend his d800E. I honestly can't tell the difference in almost all cases. In low light the newer bodies and fx were better but outside or in ok lightning with a flash at computer screen sizes I can't see any difference. Just my $.02.