Advice on updating camera Dx or FX ( Genuine advise)

goodguy · Sep 15, 2015

Looks like not all my good forum friends agree with me and that just proves yet again that everybody has their own perspective and thought process.
For me owning the D5100 has few benefits.
1.Its a small camera and light weight with a swivel screen.
2.Modern sensor
3.Uses all my D750 lenses
4.Gives me extra reach if I need it
5.Back up camera
6.Camera I use when I am in an area I dont want to risk my "good equipment"
7.Bought used for an affordable price

Getting a D7xxx for me would not be good because its too big and heavy so I might as well use the D750

astroNikon · Sep 15, 2015

goodguy said:
Looks like not all my good forum friends agree with me and that just proves yet again that everybody has their own perspective and thought process.
For me owning the D5100 has few benefits.
1.Its a small camera and light weight with a swivel screen.
2.Modern sensor
3.Uses all my D750 lenses
4.Gives me extra reach if I need it
5.Back up camera
6.Camera I use when I am in an area I dont want to risk my "good equipment"
7.Bought used for an affordable price

Getting a D7xxx for me would not be good because its too big and heavy so I might as well use the D750

I have no quelms. everyone has different opinions as I went from a d7000 to a d600 - nearly the same size unlike the d5100. I help a friend from time to time on a d3x00 and not having dual controls drives me nuts, but I'm not used to it at all. And on the extra reach part, tests of things far away my FF cropped image actually was better than my crop image. YMMVG though. So I never ended up using it.

goodguy · Sep 15, 2015

astroNikon said:
I have no quelms. everyone has different opinions as I went from a d7000 to a d600 - nearly the same size unlike the d5100. I help a friend from time to time on a d3x00 and not having dual controls drives me nuts, but I'm not used to it at all. And on the extra reach part, tests of things far away my FF cropped image actually was better than my crop image. YMMVG though. So I never ended up using it.

Almost all my photography is done with the D750 but from time to time I find especially when I just walk with my wife in the evenings I like to slap the 50mm on the D5100 and use it if I find something interesting to shoot.
Another big advanatge of the D5100 is its role (which is extremly important to me) as a backup camera, its small enough for me to put in the camera bag and in trips if (god forbid) something will happend to the D750 I still have a very capable camera to shoot.
But as I said almost all my shoots are done with the D750.

astroNikon · Sep 15, 2015

goodguy said:
Almost all my photography is done with the D750 but from time to time I find especially when I just walk with my wife in the evenings I like to slap the 50mm on the D5100 and use it if I find something interesting to shoot.
Another big advanatge of the D5100 is its role (which is extremly important to me) as a backup camera, its small enough for me to put in the camera bag and in trips if (god forbid) something will happend to the D750 I still have a very capable camera to shoot.
But as I said almost all my shoots are done with the D750.

Totally understandable.
My battery grip is always on my d600 (and the d7000 too).
so anytime I wanted to make it smaller I remove the grip and have my 50AF-D to make it seem so much smaller ...
the only time I needed the d7000 was when I sent my d600 in for it's obligatory new sensor replacement.
but during that week, I didn't use the d7000. I figured why keep it at that point. :/

BananaRepublic · Sep 16, 2015

Thanks for the help guys I will start going to stores now to start eyeing things up :sneakiness:

f2bthere · Sep 18, 2015

You might add the 85mm f1.4 to your considerations. It is a bit bigger and much more expensive than the 85mm f1.8 mentioned above (which would also be a good lens to consider). The f1.4 has several distinct advantages:
1. Like most fast pro lenses, it is designed to shoot well wide open, so you are buying more than a partial stop of extra light-gathering ability.
2. It renders better. In fact, it might well be the best lens rendering in the Nikon line.
3. It is far handier than the 70/80-200 f2.8 and two stops faster.
4. It is an 85mm on a full frame and a 135mm eq. On your crop sensor.
5. All other things being equal, the less burdened photographer gets better, more dynamic shots.

I'm not saying the 70-200 and 85 1.8 are not good options--they are. But if it were me and I could use the 85 1.4, that would be my choice.

The 80-200 f2.8 was a very good lens and can be had for less. The main question to consider is if you want VR or not.

BananaRepublic · Sep 19, 2015

Derrel said:
My advice would be to first acquire the 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom lens. That alone will move you out of the DX Kit zoom lens stage.
If I were shooting an on-stage dance show, I would bring the Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 AF-S G, the 70-200, and the 135 f/2. The 85mm lens is of such high quality that it can be used as a shoot-loose-then-crop type lens, and it is also very small, easy to handle, and has a short overall length so it is very easy to handle and to brace and support with the left hand. I think the lens issue needs to be addressed first.

Rehash!! I been looking in stores, only one physical place in my area, and they are ruffly €380/$430 more expensive then online on bodies alone and round the same on lenses but I suppose that is to be expected.

The d750 online in Ireland, body only, €1819. D610 is not offered. Interesting the guy in the store said the D610 was no longer being stocked by them nor where Nikon replacing sold units but I countered that with "What about the one on the shelf".

Any who I now have to face the lens bit: I could get deals on the body that involve either Nikkor a 24-85 mm f3.5 to 4.5 or Nikkor 24- 120 f4, both VR but not entirely suitable. Or just go get something similar but faster separately. I then have to consider the 70 200. Is thinking sigma 120-300 stupid

Derral I have been looking for the 85mm you said but can only find sigma prices

Whatever the outcome I will end up spending more or around about the 4 Gs as pronounced earlier I think but I can claim some expenses back from the revenue commisioners / $IRS,

cgw · Sep 20, 2015

Derrel said:
My advice would be to first acquire the 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom lens. That alone will move you out of the DX Kit zoom lens stage.
If I were shooting an on-stage dance show, I would bring the Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 AF-S G, the 70-200, and the 135 f/2. The 85mm lens is of such high quality that it can be used as a shoot-loose-then-crop type lens, and it is also very small, easy to handle, and has a short overall length so it is very easy to handle and to brace and support with the left hand. I think the lens issue needs to be addressed first.

The current AF-S "Poverty Primes"(35-50-85) are tough to be beat for value. The 70-200/4 is also worth a look. The features/performance/value sweet spot now is arguably DX and the D7200. Wait for the next round of Nikon discounts on bodies and glass which should be launched around the holidays.

Derrel · Sep 20, 2015

The Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 is a large, heavy lens that demands a really serious commitment to carrying; a lot of people are not really excited about roughly seven pound lenses...I own a couple...I often elect to go with smaller, lighter lenses, just because the big ones are such a hassle when photography is not the #1 priority for the entire day. Sure; if you go to an event JUST to photograph it, and you need a longer telephoto that is also fast-aperture, a lens like a 300/2.8 prime, or the 120-300/2.8 Sigma makes some sense. The issue is when the lens is on-camera or off-camera, it is a big-ass lens...needs its own ballistic nylon case to be transported, won't fit in many carry systems, stuff like that. Bulky, shoots best from a monopod, draws attention.

I think cgw's comment makes a lot of sense: the three new-ish f/1.8 G-series lenses, the "poverty primes" as he calls the 35/50/85 models, really do offer a lot of value, and the prices are VERY affordable compared against many prime lenses being sold today. I really like the 85 out of that bunch, and used it a lot yesterday. I have the 50/1.8, and it is respectable for the money. I don't own the 35, I have a couple 'other' 35's I use. As far as the 70-200 f/4 Nikon...neat lens, light, smallish...wish I owned one for times when I want pro-glass in a light, small form factor. F/4 is fast enough most of the time; I shoot at f/5.6 a lot anyway, and when you need REAL SPEED< you have primes that are f/1.8, so, the real value of f/2.8 in a zoom is not as high to me as some people seem to place of f/2.8 in a 70-200 lens; it adds weight and size. It helps mainly in low-light focus acquisition in really tough situations. But images SHOT AT f/2.8 are not what I am after, so, again, I wish I had a 70-200 f/4 VR Nikkor for a lot of outdoor work, days at the beach, knocking around shoots,etc. I think the 70-200/4 is a light "pro-glass" zoom.

I would not buy overpriced, in-store camera bodies; buy on-line for sure, save the hundreds.

BananaRepublic · Sep 20, 2015

Derrel said:
The Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 is a large, heavy lens that demands a really serious commitment to carrying; a lot of people are not really excited about roughly seven pound lenses...I own a couple...I often elect to go with smaller, lighter lenses, just because the big ones are such a hassle when photography is not the #1 priority for the entire day. Sure; if you go to an event JUST to photograph it, and you need a longer telephoto that is also fast-aperture, a lens like a 300/2.8 prime, or the 120-300/2.8 Sigma makes some sense. The issue is when the lens is on-camera or off-camera, it is a big-ass lens...needs its own ballistic nylon case to be transported, won't fit in many carry systems, stuff like that. Bulky, shoots best from a monopod, draws attention.

I think cgw's comment makes a lot of sense: the three new-ish f/1.8 G-series lenses, the "poverty primes" as he calls the 35/50/85 models, really do offer a lot of value, and the prices are VERY affordable compared against many prime lenses being sold today. I really like the 85 out of that bunch, and used it a lot yesterday. I have the 50/1.8, and it is respectable for the money. I don't own the 35, I have a couple 'other' 35's I use. As far as the 70-200 f/4 Nikon...neat lens, light, smallish...wish I owned one for times when I want pro-glass in a light, small form factor. F/4 is fast enough most of the time; I shoot at f/5.6 a lot anyway, and when you need REAL SPEED< you have primes that are f/1.8, so, the real value of f/2.8 in a zoom is not as high to me as some people seem to place of f/2.8 in a 70-200 lens; it adds weight and size. It helps mainly in low-light focus acquisition in really tough situations. But images SHOT AT f/2.8 are not what I am after, so, again, I wish I had a 70-200 f/4 VR Nikkor for a lot of outdoor work, days at the beach, knocking around shoots,etc. I think the 70-200/4 is a light "pro-glass" zoom.

I would not buy overpriced, in-store camera bodies; buy on-line for sure, save the hundreds.

Thanks Derral

Peeb · Sep 26, 2015

goodguy said:
Looks like not all my good forum friends agree with me and that just proves yet again that everybody has their own perspective and thought process.
For me owning the D5100 has few benefits.
1.Its a small camera and light weight with a swivel screen.
2.Modern sensor
3.Uses all my D750 lenses
4.Gives me extra reach if I need it
5.Back up camera
6.Camera I use when I am in an area I dont want to risk my "good equipment"
7.Bought used for an affordable price

Getting a D7xxx for me would not be good because its too big and heavy so I might as well use the D750

If I upgraded to FX, I would likely NOT get rid of my DX camera. I leave the competent 55-300 zoom on it and use carry it for backup and/or longer telephoto needs (effective reach of 450).

Of course, this all assumes I could buy an FX rig without raiding the kids college fund....