Dropped the ball looking for a new body

snorbo

So after trying out the D750 i totally fell in love with it. Unfortunately the wife did not fall in love with the price. We decided to wait on the purchase when more funds were available. Now im looking at purchasing my backup camera first. This body will be a DX crop sensor unit. I currently still have my Sony a77 but low light performance is at best not great. As i find that low light situations seem to be where i use the camera most i need to find a better low light body. I will be using a Nikon DX body with FX lenses. This way im not buying lenses twice. So far i have considered a d5300. I did have the D7100 but found that its low light ability was not that much better then my A77. For the short term this camera would be used mostly for Christmas time, kids concerts and walk around photography. The first lens purchase will be the 24-70 mm f2.8. Thoughts?

sevencrossing

If the low light performance of a D7100 is not adequate at f 2.8 you have 3 options
1 use flash
2 use an f 1.4 prime
3 Buy a D7100 on your credit card, then immediately take it back and trade it for a D750, paying the difference in cash, then put black tape over model number

tcole1983

Yeah the d5300 is going to have little to no gain over the d7100 so you are kind of stuck unless you fork out the money for a d6XX...or just buy what you really want.

heartyfisher

Lol @sevencrossing

To reply to op. The d5300 is indeed the best lowlight dx camera that nikon has. However the d7100 is no slouch if you are finding it is not performing well enough then its probably either your technique or your expectations are unrealistic. In which case the d750 will probably disappoint you too in the long run.

What is your budget currently. Sounds like you can get the d750 and a 50mm f1.8. You could start there?

manhattanboy

If the low light performance of a D7100 is not adequate at f 2.8 you have 3 options
1 use flash
2 use an f 1.4 prime
3 Buy a D7100 and your credit card, then immediately take it back and trade it for a D750, paying the difference in cash, then put black tape over model number

I vote option three LOL.

In all honesty, is there a reason why you are not picking up one of the relatively cheap Sony FF mirrorless models? Switching systems is a huge commitment. If you are dead set on Nikon (and obviously the folks here understand why you see the light LOL), then look at the BF deals on the 610, which should be around $1300. Its a few hundred more than the 7100 (which has a Sony sensor...hence why you are not seeing much improvement in crop Nikon versus crop Sony), but the 610 gets you great low light performance, which you state is one of your primary goals. You also can probably pick up a refurb 50 or 85 1.8 very cheap as a starter lens. Not as convenient as the 2.8 zoom, but would get you near the same total cost or cheaper with the FF body+ lens versus crop body + zoom. If you are indoors a bunch, a cheap refurb flash would also be worth it.

spraynpray

If you think the D7100 is no good in low light, you are in for a long wait before you will see a DX with significantly better performance. It is so much better in low light than the D7000 that I bought one for that reason alone. I am leaning towards thinking along the same lines as @heartyfisher in that it may be a technique problem.

Can you expand some on your usage? If you are shooting the milky way on a moonless night, there is no magic bullet camera out there that sees in the dark, they all need photons. I have the D7100 and the D750 by the way.

Photobug

If you think the D7100 is no good in low light, you are in for a long wait before you will see a DX with significantly better performance. It is so much better in low light than the D7000 that I bought one for that reason alone. I am leaning towards thinking along the same lines as @heartyfisher in that it may be a technique problem.

Can you expand some on your usage? If you are shooting the milky way on a moonless night, there is no magic bullet camera out there that sees in the dark, they all need photons. I have the D7100 and the D750 by the way.

+1 spraynpray with that comment. I wonder what he is shooting that the D7100 is not good in low light. Sure doesn't agree with my experience. As someone said, what are his expectations for low light? Perhaps they need to be calibrated.

KnockKnock

Perception is unpredictable as is perspective. Coming from a D60, I tried a D7000 a couple years ago and found it impressive, but not mind boggling. Recently bought a D7100 and to me, it's nearly miraculous when it comes to low light abilities. So that's going from 5 yrs ago, to 2 yrs ago to last year's tech.

I guess if you're addicted and a pixel peeper, every year brings marginal improvements that may seem unimpressive. So maybe only a shift to a larger sensor will satisfy. Jumping from one current DX to the next won't show much improvement. But my attitude is one of being hugely impressed with what we can do these days with DX.

I looked at the D750, but couldn't swing the dough either, at least without significant feelings of guilt to my savings. Considering I can shoot the stuff I want to easily into ISO3200 and 6400 with a little help in RAW + Dfine, I couldn't be happier with the D7100... until next year's D7200 ;-)

snorbo

My biggest of problems are school concerts, poorly lit school gyms for court sports. So i really need the ISO's cranked up in order to get the shutter speed.

spraynpray

D750. Manual mode on the aperture and shutter speed you desire and give it free reign on auto ISO. Excellent results.

heartyfisher

My biggest of problems are school concerts, poorly lit school gyms for court sports. So i really need the ISO's cranked up in order to get the shutter speed.

definitely a tough subject. I dont think there is any solution besides a D4s and 200 F2.0 at High ISO. any thing else is going to be tough. the other solution is to use flash and do the "paparazzi". ( :-) )

If the celings are white you may be able to bounce flash at high ISO.

ggbutcher

This, from someone who right now doesn't have the money to do anything to upgrade from his D50...

I want more dynamic range, and the ability to crop down to 25% of the frame. My current tactic is to wait for the intro of the D7100 successor, then get a D7100 at whatever markdown would then be offered. I think it would be plenty of camera for for both of those needs, and it works with my current lenses.

Buuutt.. I'm considering giving the D50 kit to my wife, find a way to get a D750 to use cropped with my 18-200, and start working on a FX lens set. I think that's just the "gawd, that's a nice camera" bone in my head. I keep trying to remember, that the D50 is like beating myself in the thumb with a hammer: it'll feel good just to stop.

spraynpray

I have seen some superb shots taken with D40's,D50's, & D70's.

Photobug

+1 @spraynpray. Those are excellent cameras and in the right hands I have also seen some terrific images.

@ggbutcher - interesting position you are in. The D50 kit has a small value, I like your idea of giving it to the wife and then buying a NEW D7100 when the D7200 is announced early next year. Although there are some excellent deals right now on new D7100 and refurbished D7100, that price should still come down more when the replacement model is introduced.

A comment about not buying the D7100 and going with a D750. Part of that decision is "do you stay with Nikon FX lens" or do you do your research and buy 3rd party lens that are as sharp or nearly as sharp". That is the question that requires some thought. Just wanted you to be sure you did not overlook 3rd party alternatives.

ggbutcher

@spraynpray: Actually, what the D50 has done for me in the decade I've owned it is, first, after shooting manual with my F2 in the '70s, caused me to become sloppy with my exposures because "P" is just really good at it. Then, more recently as I've started to re-blue myself in more serious shooting, I've really inspected its shortfalls and now am paying more attention to my exposures, and working out digital post-processing that replaces my old 'dodge-n-burn' skillset under the enlarger. So, the D50 is "re-disciplining" me.

Considering a new camera has led me to wonder if I'm not just trying to compensate for exposure laziness. That, and if most of my 'publishing' is to web albums, I probably have all I need right now, if I pay attention to how to use it. The exception I still consider is being able to crop; for the types of shooting I like, I don't have the opportunity to do much setup, and sometimes I see a composition I like that didn't occur to me at the time of exposure, so creative cropping is just my thing. Back on 11/19, I posted two PADs; the second one (http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/comment/119300#Comment_119300) is a 50% crop of a 6MP image. It's being able to do this sort of photograph that keeps me looking at a more-resolute camera...

The_Other_Steve

Hi.

If low-light performance is your goal, and the D7100 wasn't satisfactory, how about considering a new or used D600 or D610. I've used both and the D750 shooting events for corporate clients, and I didn't think the D750 was much different than the D610. ISO 6400 is usable in all three cameras, cleans up well in LR or NX-D. I no longer use the D600, but I did experience the shutter debris issue, and believe that Nikon may service that for you. What I mean is, I wouldn't necessarily be put off a used D600. If it's in your price range, it might be your best low-light option. But be aware, the D7100 has the 320 top sync and 1/8000 shutter speed. D610 and D750 do not.

Also, if your goal is low-light shooting on a budget, I'd pass on the 24-70/2.8. Fine lens, but you're spending a lot of money on that, and if you're already dissatisfied in low-light, 2.8 isn't that fast. I'd go with primes and get yourself another stop. You could get the 50/1.8 AND the 20/1.8 AND an SB-700 for less than the 24-70, and then use your savings towards a new D610 instead of a DX body. That's a pretty nice kit; I'd definitely take that over the 24-70 on a D5300. For kids' concerts, you don't have anything for reach, but the difference between the 50 and the 70mm end of the zoom is negligible. I shoot my 50 at f/2 all the time, and it's just fine. And that stop is the difference between ISO 6400 and 12800.

My 2 ¢. YMMV.

Good luck, and Happy Holidays.

Steve.

Msmoto

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art.......and possibly the Tamron 24-70/2.8 with VC. Use the D7100 and when your ship comes in, the D750 if that floats your boat.

heartyfisher

the sigma 18-35 F1.8 gives you that stop and a bit in a dx zoom. levels the playing field a bit. I would consider the 18-35 F1.8 and D5300 or the expected soon to be released D7200.

ggbutcher

Sorry, didn't mean to hijack the thread earlier...

+1 on @heartyfisher's post. Low-light concerns bring deja-vu from shooting high-school football; I wanted badly to open one more stop on my tele to avoid having to try stupid pet tricks pushing Tri-X film past it's rated 400 ASA. Even these days, I'd think letting more light in is the first priority, then worrying noise-reduction in post processing is pushed down that many stops. Not a FX lens, though...

spraynpray

It isn't my aim to cause confusion here, just to give my personal experience: I am finding the low light to be so good on my D750 that I don't use the largest aperture, I would prefer to go straight to 12800 on my D750 if necessary, going with a smaller aperture for sharpest images and larger DoF to get sharper stars and subject.

My image on PAD today is an example. It is no prize winner, it is an example of me getting to know the low light capability of the camera. Only (!) ISO 10000, f5 and 15 seconds. It has only had the lightest touch of noise reduction - only 20 on the lightroom slider. Incidently, it is using the 11-16 @16mm in FX mode. I'll post another one tomorrow with different settings and using the 24-120 f4. It was a slightly misty half-moon night. I have taken some on a properly dark moonless night which were still quite good, but I didn't ETTR them enough so the noise was worse than it could have been.

I did try a shot with my D7100 but it is almost a couple of stops behind the D750 so I shot at 6400 13s f2.8 and the results were not near the D750.

Photobug

Wow...all the comments are correct about the AF focusing in low light and the noise level on the D750. Got mine on Friday and had to let it warm up and did not put a battery in it until Saturday afternoon. Nice.

snorbo

Once again thanks for all the comments. My attack plan was to get back into the Nikon system. All i currently have is a Sony A77 body and a few lenses now. My idea was to pick up a cheaper DX body and some FX lenses as my ultimate goal is to own a D750 next year. To sum it up should i just keep adding lens to the A77 or should i buy a D5300 and start buying FX lenses in preparation for my FX body purchase.

snorbo

My thought was that a 16-50 mm f2.8 mm lens for the a77 is about 800 bucks. I can purchase a D5300 for about 700 bucks. I know that the 5300 is a slightly better camera than my a77. Would this be a wise purchase?

spraynpray

So you are thinking of going from Sony to Nikon next year with a D750 but are thinking of buying a D5300 in the interim. Are you nuts? Why not just put the money towards a keeper lens or get the D750 body sooner? Buying a body that is only slightly better than your existing one is a waste of money. Seems like you have bad GAS and are looking to buy anything to relieve the symptoms. Step away from the PC for a few days - it will pass and you will be able to think clearly again.

Photobug

+1 @spraynpray
Forget buying the D5300. The controls are "different" from the D750. If you must buy something because the $$$ is burning a hole in your pocket, go buy a Nikon lens. Focus...focus on getting that D750 and great glass. So start buying that glass now.

WestEndFoto

Start with a D750 and 1.8 prime as soon as you can afford it. Don't spend any money on anything else in the interim. Sell the Sony stuff as soon as doing so will help you afford the above.

My 2 cents.