So what would you choose if you didn't have a camera ?
I went to have a look at the D600 last weekend but I'm still not sure. Now Nikon introduces the D7100 to totally confuse me. The D600 has 5.5 fps and the D7100 has 6 fps. Both seem to be ok for my photography bearing in mind that I'll be buying the holy trinity anyway. But what would you choose ?
Hoping for some input to help me out.....Mike
Comments
neither the 14 -24 ; the 16-35 or the 17-35 or going to be much use as wide angle lenses, on a Dx camera
@PB_PM, sevencrossing - You rarely use this kind of lenses in wildlife photography, not to mention motorsports, so UWA/WA lenses are not an issue over here.
However, if I had no camera, thus no lenses, I would very seriously be looking at the other manufacturers out there. The multiple issues with the latest bodies, customer service concerns, I might go see what the talk is on some of the other forums and learn...and, I have been shooting Nikon for nearly 50 years.
Unfortunately for many of us who are invested into one brand, we actually do not know all the issues of the other side. So, a lot of investigation would be in order. But, those gray lenses we see are not there by accident. Mmmm, maybe they have two or three bodies for a reason...like a spare tire... )
but Mike said he was buying the holy trinity so I assume he was going to get a W/A
Wild life photography is not limited to birding and a wide angel lens has its place
( note to self : must learn how to post photoes)
I agree with Godless above. The D7100 is a better option.
My other recommendation is to look at the Nikon 300mm f/4, a teleconverter (1.4x) and Kirk collar attachment. There is no VR on this lens: but it's not necessary for wildlife or racing, as you will be shooting at high shutter speeds (which eliminate hand shake blur) or shooting panning shots (which you don't want to use VR for). You will get effectively 630mm of reach (with 1.5x crop factor)
Many Thanks in advance.....Mike
If you buy a Dx camera; personally, cannot see the point in buying Fx lenses, unless you intend to one day move up an expensive professional camera such as the D4
3 advantages of going to FX
better quality at high ISOs
the ability to make poster size prints ( from files shots at low ISOs)
the ability to crop or enlarge a small part of the image; It is this, that I find most useful
The very big disadvantage of Fx is everything is more expensive
When I did not have any gear I fully agree with Msmoto. You have a very tense time when you buy a Nikon body at this moment, this is completely new.
My advise, wait ...... , who knows which problems the D7100 has and maybe, maybe ... Nikon is making a statement in the future about all the trouble they created.
Oh, and I shoot Nikon for about 35 years.
Awaiting a DX D400
I cannot remember who shoots the 10.5 fisheye, about a foot away from the subject, but WA can be fun in motorsports, especially if on a monopod. The issue is a safety factor and using remotes is helpful.
Always, if one wants to be able to capture what I suspect most of wait for...an "incident" we need to be able to push the button and get 20-30 exposures over the three second "incident".
An example
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/6901695857/sizes/o/in/set-72157629055356347/
(D90, 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6) Lucky to get this as the D90 would clog up after only a couple shots...maybe four or five...
Yes, the buffer is the BIG issue on some of the cameras...
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d7100/spec.htm
Please correct me if I´m wrong about this.