Decided to (possibly) go FX! Help?

sevencrossing

IMHO opinion putting a quality FX lens such the amazing 24 120 f 4 on a Dx camera is a wast of a good lens

You need to decide if you want to be broke, with a quality top of the range profession set up; in which case get the D800 and at least one "pro" lens You can then go to sleep, knowing you have one of the best cameras in the world

or

remain a keen solvent , mature and get the D7100 with the 18 -15

If are thinking of a D800, do not be put off by the "MASSIVE files" with a modern computer this is not an issue
and unless you are a very keen birder 4fps is fine

and if you are thinking of waiting for the D400; you might be better off, waiting to win the lottery and buying a D4

Msmoto

Think about this for a moment. Up until the D3 body every Nikon DSLR was crop sensor. All this mania for a full frame is quite possibly something other than rational.

My suspicions are a D7100 will provide an excellent very versatile body for years to come. Once you have decided the scenes you want to shoot, purchase lenses as appropriate. I tend toward primes, and for a normal lens on crop sensor, 24-35mm seems to work. As noted the 24mm f/1.4 Nikkor...great as is the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4.

In post processing the smaller files sizes of crop sensor bodies may be useful.

sevencrossing

Put a Fx lens on an Dx camera such as the the D7100 and like it not, the image will be cropped making a 24 mm lens ~ 35mm equivalent

put an Fx lens on a Fx camera like a D800 and you have the option of using the full frame or cropping in post

with an up-to -date computer post processing large files, is simply not a problem

There are only two real disadvantages with FX Cameras, they more expensive and generally larger and heavier

if size, weigh, cost is not a issue, the D800 wins hands down

but the D7100 wins, on bangs for your bucks

heartyfisher

Hmm okay, thanks for the help
I might more be detailed about my shooting technique; I only ever use manual or aperture, shooting RAW, that's all I ever have done, since I got my camera 2 years ago.. Coming from a Sony dslr was bliss, I hated that thing. With the nightscapes I often use the prime and when I don't shoot nightscapes I shoot portraits, using for my friends website and and my church's display stuff, which is slightly different anyway.
The main annoyance the d3100 is the slight lack of control; I used to think its had loads of control, but not its a pain to have to dive into a menu to change things, they're less buttons for things, and that also takes up time..I shot sports at the Olympics, but that was rare and cause I wanted to have a memory, I'm not usually bothered about sports style shots.

Sorry for being so ..$%#@ but when you say Manual I know you set it to Manual and cnage teh Shutter and aperture. My question is. what do you do with the ISO settings?

...and the flash was suggested by my friend, clearly he knows nothing haha.

"You know nothing, Jon Snow .." :-) - GoT -

At the moment, I'm looking more at lenses, I probably won't change bodies for at least until September/October.. Mostly cause ill take the suggestion of seeing whether the d400 ever appears um I'd like a new body, and I'm thinking that maybe the d7100 is more for me, as a girl in my photography tutorial has the d5100, and I didn't really like it when she let me try it, probably cause its more menus than the d3100, although the screen had its benefits

It sounds like the D7100/D600 would suit you well ! and contrary to my earlier summation, from your description of your technique and frustrations with the D3100 and D5100, I think you are ready for the D400/D800/D4 ! Congrats ! Well maybe Condolences .. since That will cost you ! :-)

Lens wise, the only two I like (in my set) are the 35mm and the 70-300mm.
So, I've decided to concentrate on getting better lenses, so can I ask for suggestions?

- thanks for the help everyone

Wow, thank you!
In terms of lenses, the ones I've been looking at are

24-85mm (i think that is the kit lens)
50mm prime
85mm macro

However I'll definitely look more into your recommendations - I think my tripod is similar to the one you've suggested, I got it fairly cent,y, to replace my crappy one haha.

The first 2 are FX glass and the Last one is a DX glass .. Hmm ?? You are really teetering between Fx and Dx :-)
LOL! I think you need to stabilize your FX/DX strategy ! Note I am not saying that you need to be FX or DX as many of us here use both formats . But that has its own advantages and consequences...
So in terms of camera/sensor platform your options are
1) Stay DX
2a) Move to FX, Big Bang
2b) Move to FX, Over time
3) Use both FX and DX cos they both have their advantages..

Most Photogs have more than one camera body either as a 2 or 3 camera shooter or have a second body for backup.

Once you decide on your sensor format strategy then you can go find the lenses that would build the system you like for the subjects you like.

GL ! :-)

JJ_SO

...As noted the 24mm f/1.4 Nikkor...great as is the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4.

At the moment I tend to be careful to that "Sigma 35 and DX", simply because Photozone tested it on D7000 and it did look worse than on D3 :-?? It's kind of a miracle to me, since I see what it does on D800 and the D7000 has about the same pixel density. With the D7100, it's superb (in my eyes, not in Photozone's, they don't test on D7100 or D800), but if Rachel want's to stay DX, the Sigma 30/1.4 might be the less expensive thing - but she already has a 35.

Rachel, if I were you, I'd go for 85/1.8G.

I hope, by the end of this day we managed to confuse you completely

proudgeek

This is a great discussion for me, as I've put off upgrading my 4 y/o D90 for a while. All three "new" bodies (the D800, the D600, and the D7100) are attractive in their own ways (and have their own shortcomings as well). I feel like I've posted enough photos here that the regulars will know what I like to shoot (landscapes, architecture, and wildlife). Investing in glass isn't the issue, as I've spent the last few years doing that, and my lens collection would be "fx-ready" from day 1. So do I reach for the image quality of the D800, while losing the "reach" of a DX body (and I know that's not technically the right way to look at it)? Do I get a better DX body in the form of a D7100 (knowing that the D400 may not appear in my lifetime)? Do I get a D600 and use it for both wildlife and landscape and keep my D90 as a backup for now, and then replace it with a D7x00 or D400 in a few years? It's hard to know just what to do.

Here's what I do know.
1. I feel like I need two bodies.
2. I don't want to drop $6,000 on two D800s.
3. I feel like for wildlife a DX body might be better for the reach (but tell me why I'm wrong)
4. I feel like for landscapes/architecture an FX body would be better
5. My D90 is still a great camera, and am wondering whether the D7100 would be such a huge step up

I guess I'm not in Rachael's shoes in that I'm a little more sure of what I shoot and have the requisite lenses, but in some ways I'm no less confused.

JJ_SO

@proudgeek: With a FX you can always shoot DX...
If you need fast fps, you might wait 2 more months, I guess a D400 should be at least announced in June, as there was an excerpt in NR of a Japanese magazine with kind of a roadmap and so far they were well-informed.
Architecture with DX is nothing I would try seriously, I guess you're right. Do you already own a PC lens?
The D7100 would be a huge step up - as I was told from a friend who did it (and his wife complains about not getting him away from it)

sevencrossing

This is a great discussion for me, .

I had a D90 and now have a D800
The difference is mind blowing
The D800 will allow you to crop to get that extra "reach" at the same time you will not have to be so accurate with your framing

I don't think you need 2 bodies, unless you shoot weddings ( I have a spare D700 but never use it )

If you do landscapes, the dynamic rage of the D800 ( using RAW and LR4 ) will blow your soaks off. Only a high end Hasselblad or Leaf, is going to beat it

I am new to wild life and yes the slow fps of the D800 can be irritating but only you will know if you need faster than 4 fps ( dont bank on the D400 , even if it does come out, having a higher fps than the D7100)

yes the D7100 should be a big step up from the D90 but if you have Fx glass, take full advantage of them and go FX

i cannot understand the logic of FX glass on a DX body

( the D600 does not tick a lot of boxes for me )

dissent

i cannot understand the logic of FX glass on a DX body

well, they ARE some purty lenses . . . <):)

proudgeek

I started investing in FX lenses about 3 years ago not because I wanted to shoot them on a DX body, but because I felt I might eventually upgrade to a D700 (or whatever replaced it). Seven's points about a D800 are well taken. Even at 4fps, the D800 is only marginally slower than my D90 and I feel like I'm doing ok with that. My reasoning for having two bodies would be to minimize lens changes (and to have a spare in case of an emergency). In a perfect world those two bodies would use the same batteries and accept the same types of cards.

Msmoto

@proudgeek

The big difference in the D90 and D800 frame rate when shooting at 4 or 5 FPS is the D90 chokes after only a few images when shooting RAW. The buffer on the D800 will shoot up to 100 frames....if I interpret the manual correctly. I would guess in DX mode the D800 would be consistently better than the D90.

sevencrossing

In a perfect world ......

In a perfect world, you have a D800 AND a D4

I have found the 24 -120 f 4 avoids too many lens changes

for wild life the new 80 -400 ticks nearly all my of boxes

JJ_SO

... In a perfect world those two bodies would use the same batteries and accept the same types of cards.

Then your world is about to be perfect: D800, D600, D7100 use the same cards and batteries. D800 also a CF card but I really have no idea why I bought one #-o

Msmoto, the buffer from the manual is only valid for JPG With RAW, last exposure comes a bit earlier

sevencrossing

. D800 also a CF card but I really have no idea why I bought one #-o

you obviously have never gone out, leaving your SD card in reader

JJ_SO

No, never :-\"

I also never walked into a nice place and noticed 1 hour away of the car that the batteries were less full than I expected them to be [-(

Or went for nightshots and let the remote control at home. I'm the kind of guy, who knows it's better to doublecheck and this exactly in the moment I realise somebody has put me the wrong gear in my bag.

TaoTeJared

Wow, thank you!
In terms of lenses, the ones I've been looking at are

24-85mm (i think that is the kit lens)
50mm prime
85mm macro

However I'll definitely look more into your recommendations - I think my tripod is similar to the one you've suggested, I got it fairly cent,y, to replace my crappy one haha.

You need to state what your budget is - with this bunch, they will suggest every lens over $1,500. I'm guessing spending $6,000 on glass this year is not what you are looking for.

Sounds like the 50mm (either 1.4 or 1.8G that fits your budget), 85mm 1.8 (G or D - budget) would fit your portrait needs. I personally would look at the 60mm AFD macro as used they are going for under $350 and can be found under $300 pretty easily used. Most macros are babied and almost always in good condition. If you think you will move to FX in the future, I would stay away from DX glass as much as possible.

If you are going to stay DX, and want a mid-range zoom, I would look at the Tamron 17-50VC. Great little lens and the "good" zoom range. If I stayed with DX, it would be in my bag now. Super wide angle, the Tokina 12-24 is a great option that many on here have.

Fred_B

When I switched from DX (D90) to FX (D800) I still used some of my old DX lenses. There are always going to be better lenses out there but when you switch it's not that bad changing between the FX and DX lenses. For me, the D800 has so much resolution that it's just as good in DX as my old camera or better. The reach of a DX means little when you can crop as far as the D800 allows.

That being said, I've slowly started collecting FX lenses and it's really not that bad as long as you think about what is needed first. For me, that was a used 17-35 (from a friend) and a new 70-200. I still use the same cheapo 50mm F1.8 that I had on my D90. It's not great but not at all bad either.

One thing that I'll throw out there is the used market. Why not buy a used D3? The D3 prices are dropping and may be worth a look. For me, the latest model isn't necessarily the best option. The D3 is a professional camera and I've seen them used in excellent condition for way less than a D800 goes for new.

proudgeek

I've considered the used market for bodies, and have tapped into it several times for lenses. My local camera shop is on the lookout for a low mileage D3/D3s for me. The thought of buying something like this on eBay makes me nervous, although I know that many of you have had success.
If I were to buy a D3, would that give me the same ability to crop as a D800? I don't think it would.

sevencrossing

.
If I were to buy a D3, would that give me the same ability to crop as a D800? I don't think it would.

may be at high ISO values; but as it is has "only" 12.1 mp as opposed to 36.3mp on the D800. I suspect at say, ISO 1600 the D800 will be much better
KR has some comparisons

most D3's have had a hard life

John

A D3 is and was a good camera. But right now it's obsolete technology.
Both the D4 and D800 offer far superior sensor technology.

proudgeek

most D3's have had a hard life

My concern exactly. I've been lucky buying used lenses through a dealer. Most times they sold the lens originally so they can tell me a lot about the owner and how they were used. A pro body that's been used by a pro? Who know where it's been or what kind of abuse it's been subjected to?

PB_PM

I've seen many used D3's show up at a local camera dealer. They usual have very low shutter counts (less than 50,000), most likely used by amateurs or as a backup. If anything pros take better care of their camera bodies, taking them in for service more often to insure that they are functional.

proudgeek

So at $3,000, would you rather have a D3s with 50,000 clicks or a new D800 if you were shooting landscape/wildlife/architecture, etc.

PB_PM

That's a tough one. For wildlife the D3s is better, simply because it is a faster camera in many respects. For landscape and architecture the D800 would be the better choice. I think it would be prudent to pick based on what you do the most out of those two categories.

proudgeek

For me, I think I can live with 4 fps (maybe 5-6 if shoot in DX mode or with a battery back). I suspect that at high ISOs (say 6400) shooting in indoor venues the 800 would be as good or better than the D3s.