Decided to (possibly) go FX! Help?

ads

@proudgeek

"do I reach for the image quality of the D800, while losing the "reach" of a DX body"

If it helps, the D800 in DX crop mode is basically the same as a D7000 if you use the battery grip, and has a far bigger buffer. So you don't lose "reach" compared to a D7000, but its 3 times the price if you only use it for DX :-) The D7100 will put more pixels on a DX area than both though.

As for D3s v D800 - depends on whether you need more than 4/5fps (6 DX with grip) for your wildlife shooting. On top of the extra pixels the D800 has more DR for landscapes (or so I'm told by a friend that owns a D800), but that wont be much comfort if you are missing that vital frame from your wildlife action sequence.

proudgeek

That's sounds like a vote for a D7100 and a D800 (or a D600 if I'm tapped out).

racheldistad

Right; this has been confusing but interesting!! @proudgeek, thanks or your opinions, its great knowing its not just me! ..although you're further in mindset than me I'm afraid

What I have worked out is that I would definitely benefit from going fx, and I love sharp, clear, crisp landscapes. However, I think I'll start with lenses first. I try to buy used and refurbished lenses whenever I can, to save extra money (I'm cheap like that haha. I have £900 (right now), to spend on lenses, although at around September time, I should have around £1300+

So, my next question is, I want one prime, one all rounder and one macro.

Which would you all recommend? If they are more, I'll hunt around thanks for all of the help so far btw

proudgeek

If you think you're going to go FX, here's what I'd do. Others I'm sure will differ.
Macro: 105mm f/2.8
All around: 24-70 f/2.8
Prime: I have the 50 1.4. Others who have the Sigma 35 1.4 might vouch for that instead.

I just spent all your money and then some. You're welcome.

racheldistad

I have the nikon35mm, is that the same as the sigma?

Thanks you

Msmoto

The Nikon 35mm is certainly adequate. Some think the latest design from Sigma is pretty darn good as well.

All of this is about how much money one wants to spend. My suggestion would be to make a decision about your yearly photo budget, then look at the various scenarios. However, I would recommend purchasing the best lenses, and obtain FX coverage so if you decide to go full format, you will not have to buy glass.

I would also encourage you to go slowly.

sevencrossing

So, my next question is, I want one prime, one all rounder and one macro

all rounder
24- 120 f4 or 24 -70 f 2.8
both are great lenses
the 24- 120 has more "reach" and VR
the f 2.8 will give you an extra stop, but less reach and no VR
only you know, which would be better. They both top quality lenses

Macro Nikon 105 f 2.8

Prime do you really need another one ? The 105 f 2.8 is pin sharp
24 f 1.4 is a great lens but expensive

racheldistad

@sevencrossing about the prime, I have the 35mm prime already, so I think that will be fine, especially as j can always get a 50mm or 85mm if I decide to later on.. The 24-120 seems a good idea, I can use that on my current d3100 as well right?

@msmoto, thanks for the advice, I agree, I tik I'll start with one lens at a time and then decide I'm feeling I'd definitely like to fx, but I probably won't be getting a body until at least late this year hence the decision to look further at lenses
At least I have more of an idea of what I want now haha

proudgeek

Racheldistad, I'm guessing that the 35mm you have is the 35mm f/1.8, which is a DX lens. It's an excellent lens (I don't own it but I have borrowed it from a friend), but I suspect it will vignette on an FX body.

Msmoto

OK, then you need to look at the Sigma 35mm f/1.4....FX, sharper than the Nikon 35mm f/1.4 and less money....see the thread:

http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/68/sigma-35mm-f1-4/p5

and a shot wide open:



Full size: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/8612441425/sizes/o/in/photostream/

SquamishPhoto

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.

Exactly. I got my D3 at just over 40,000 clicks. It was a pro's backup to her D3s and she was upgrading to a D4. Other than a few minor scuffs its in perfect condition. Its sometimes about having enough patience to wait for the right deal, rather than the one thats just a good deal.

TaoTeJared

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.

D800 hands down.

D800 vs D3s @6400? My guess the D3s would have cleaner files. D800 more detail. That is a point when you have to start weighing how much cropping you do. If a lot, D800, if none, D3s.

That all said, I would also love to pick up a D3s for a second body.

tman

I'm also considering FX either this year or next.

Though the DOF improvement is tempting, mainly frustrated with the 1.5x multiplier on lenses-- cannot find a portrait prime or WA zoom I am happy with on DX (Everything seems a compromise).
Love images from Tokina 50-135 but kind of heavy and can't find a wider zoom that makes sense to pair it with; and can't seem to find a lightweight prime to do the job.

Thinking if I sell my DX body and lenses [D7000 (2 years old), Tokina 50-135/2.8, 35/1.8, and 11-16/2.8] I'm spitting distance of an FX body (D600).

What's best way to sell?

sevencrossing

but kind of heavy

weight and cost are definite disadvantages of going FX
I prefer a zoom for portraits and use the 70 -200 f f2.8 but yes it is a heavy beast
for a W/A zoom I use the 16 -35 f4 VR but again a bit heavy
if you want to keep the overall weight down, by just carrying one lens
the 24 -120 f 4 vr does most things

proudgeek

D800 vs D3s @6400? My guess the D3s would have cleaner files. D800 more detail. That is a point when you have to start weighing how much cropping you do. If a lot, D800, if none, D3s.

For someone who shoots with a D90 and gets barely serviceable images at ISO 1600, having the luxury of shooting at ISO 6400 seems like a pipe dream.

kenadams

I second that - I have a D80, which I wouldn't take beyond 800.

I've been wondering as well: a D700 or a D3 sells comparatively cheap on ebay, or, if I'm lucky, at a local store. However, the tech is 5yrs old. Does anyone think it feasible to get older cameras? Not talking about exceptionally specialised high ISO stuff, just in general. The D700 is an awesome piece of equipment from what I gather, and so is the D3. One could save a lot of money by getting one of those used and invest the extra money in lenses (or just keep it). Why? Well, no doubt the D800 is better - but saving almost 1k€ has its perks. I think the difference between the D80 and the D700 is far greater than between the D700 and D800. Only downside: it's less of a long term investment that way.

sevencrossing

. I think the difference between the D80 and the D700 is far greater than between the D700 and D800. Only downside: it's less of a long term investment that way.

I think you are correct, the D700 was, and still is, a great camera. There are some bargains out there and I suspect they should not deprecate too much, so a D700 might be a better investment ( want to buy mine)

JJ_SO

If you are willing to add the cost of a Nikon service - checking adjustments, replacing wear parts - to the price, I don't see why a cam which was very good enough 5 years ago not should be a decent spare cam today? Otherwise I would hesitate to buy one. If I know the owner or the shop-assistant/owner is a trustful person, or if the pre-owner was a lady, one of that would give me enough confidence. eBay doesn't give me any.

kenadams

JJ, yes, every one has to decide for themselves what they think is trustworthy. I think that an ebay powerseller account held by a photography store with 40k positively reviewed transactions is is more trustworthy than someone with a quirky username and 10 reviews. However, buying used always involves some risk, I'm aware of that - Im talking more or less about the feasability of getting older equipment, given the prerequisite that the particular piece in question is flawless.

racheldistad

@msmoto ah thats incredible! will definitely look more into that, thank you so much!

@kenadams saying that, i've been wondering about a used d700 myself..

haroldp

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.

For wildlife, the longest lens is often not long enough, and the much tighter pixel pitch of the D800 becomes a serious advantage. This is why wildlife shooters have often stayed with DX.

Under a DX size sensor patch, the D3 is about 5mp, the D800 about 15 mp.

.... H

TaoTeJared

I think the D700 & D3 are very tempting options. Especially the D3 since they are built like tanks and the tech is not out of date. They still beat all the DX sensors to date. The D700 DXo sports low light is 2300, and the D5200 (Best DX High iso yet) is still just under 1300.

Most camera's are babied so there is a lot of life in them. The D700s are going from $1,200-1,800 and the D3 are going for $1,500-2,400 (depending on accessories). A D600s are going in that range as well though. B&H I saw has one for just over $1,500.

roombarobot

Hi @racheldistad, I would highly recommend against the D600. I had a terrible time with the oil/dust problem, as have many customers. Nikon may be in the process of figuring it out, but there is no certainty that they have, nor that the cameras in the supply chain have been fixed. Look at the threads here or on dpreview or just google "nikon D600 dust" for some examples.

If I could do it again, I'd get the D7100.

racheldistad

@roombarobot? Oh, wow.. Really? I've read through the threads, but I'll admit I didn't think it was THAT bad, a girl at my work has one and hasn't had any trouble, so I assumed that it had stopped. Oops. The thing that worries me with the d7100 is the lack of filter, for some reason

TaoTeJared

Personally I wouldn't let the "issues" deter you - a few had issues, most didn't just as the D800. It seems to have settled down with the reports (other than refurb units) so I'm willing to bet the occurrence is next to nothing now. I just wouldn't sell everything off first though