hi everyone! i know it's a personal decision, but want some input, am upgrading from a D90, which i've loved, but i want more pro editorial quality and resolution, and i'd like to fine tune my large format art prints for gallery use. ideally, to clear and crisp 24x26 at 300 dpi. i shoot a lot of landscape and i shoot a lot at night and i'd like to make spectacular prints but can't afford to go to the D800's. should i be going to FX if i want to go up a big notch in my output or can i stay in DX and not sacrifice detail on blow up? i have the AF-S 50 mm f1.4 and the kit lens with the D90, so either way i think i'd get a new lens..i'm concerned about the lack of autofocus features on the D610 otherwise, it'd be a shoe-in, but for the extra money to not have that is a major problem, especially when the D7100 seems so strong and has amazing autofocus leeway. would love any thoughts!
Here are some for consideration:
it is a tough call between those two body and I think there are a lot of different opinions on the forum about it.
What exactly do you see as a major problem with respect to autofocus on the D610?
Your main subjects are night and landscape photography, precisly the two applications where autofocus plays only a minor role. The D610 has a superb low light performance.
So being in your shoes, I would not have second thoughts about getting the D610.
Good luck with your decision.
Landscapes are about dynamic range and here the D610 is the winner . Compared to the D90 it will blow you soaks off
Dynamic range is also a must for night photography
consider the following
24 -70 f 2.8
24 - 120 f 4 VR
24-85mm f2.8-4 D AF
yes all zooms, a set a F1.4 primes would nice, but just compare the price
all have been revived here
But what about the D7100 ?
Nikon's best bangs for you bucks and in a different league to your D90
what would I do ?
Buy a refurbished D600 and upgrade to a D800 when I have a few more pennies
already read all of these! and everything else written on the internet almost:) guess i just wanted some more input from real people in real time! also because although i shoot mostly landscape, i do also revert back to rock photography once in a while and am dying to hit the field and shoot political documentary work as well. so i need something very versatile that i won't have to upgrade in a year.
i know, it's a tough one..been reading everything i can and i still can't make up my mind about it.
my concern is that although i shoot a lot of landscape, i also shoot rock photography once in a while and would like to shoot more documentary photography, as in war documentary, so the broad autofocus in uncertain field conditions would matter!
why didn't they just broaden that autofocus on the 610, it would have made it the best selling camera out there!
Post some of your work on PAD
Regarding lenses, zooms are easy, but if you want the best IQ for large prints stick with a prime and crop in post. 24mp is plenty. The only down side to Nikon primes is most don't have VR so become difficult in low light. I wish Nikon would produce at least one VR prime; Canon has a 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm all with image stabilization and all around $500.
But the 16 -24 f4 vr wins
It does have VR so most of the time you can leave the tripod at home
you can "open up" to 16mm for the "big picture"
you can "tighten up" to 35 mm and avoid too much cropping
If you are used to a D90 and a Kit lens, you are going to be a very happy bunny with the D600/ D610 and the 16 -35
Just remember, don't buy cheap lens. The glass is so important and often over looked by amateurs.
|SB-800, Amaran Halo LED Ring light | MB-D16 grip| Gitzo GT3541 + RRS BH-55LR, Gitzo GM2942 + Sirui L-10 | RRS gear | Lowepro, ThinkTank, & Hoodman gear | BosStrap | Vello Freewave Plus wireless Remote, Leica Lens Cleaning Cloth |
Is this perfect? No. The 24mm 1.4G is very expensive but it is a fabulous lens, wide enough for most landscapes and the ultimate low light lens. I would not bother with zooms, as you don't really need a zoom (you can crop in post) and you are giving up a lot on IQ. Even the $500 1.4G is better than any zoom at 50mm, especially if you stop down a bit.
If I needed to save money, I would buy a refurbished D600.
And when you have more money, I would buy the 14-24 2.8, only because it is a rare animal, a zoom that is better (at 14mm) than the corresponding prime.
Definitely a different strategy than is being offered above, but that would be mine so I am adding it as an option.
I have to admit that I do not shoot with a lock, only continuous but focus on the 7100 has been better than the 7000