Former Nikon DSLR shooter getting back into photography. Where do I start?

[Rafterman]

Hey all. It's been a minute since I last posted in here (April 2018), and I'm looking to get back into photography again. I used to shoot with Nikon crop sensor DLSRs (D3100, D7000, D500) and I did photography primarily as a hobby (landscapes, architecture, nature and birds) with a tiny bit of more "serious" work peppered in (portraiture, family photos, 2nd wedding shooter). My wife and I are both in our 40s, have no kids, and work fully remote, so we've decided to start traveling more. I want to get a camera that's much more capable than the one on my 6-year-old Samsung smart phone, even though it still takes pretty good shots with its 12MP sensor.

While the primary use of this camera will be travel, I'll also be using it to photograph car shows (mostly outdoor) and possibly some indoor events like pool/billiard tournaments.

I've researched for two weeks on the whole mirrorless vs. traditional DSLR thing, and I'm no closer to deciding on one over the other. I'm perfectly fine with buying gently used gear as opposed to new. As far as brands go, being a former Nikon shooter, I'm leaning towards either a D7200, D750 or the Z 5 mirrorless. However, I don't own any Nikon gear at the moment, so I'm also considering something like a Fujifilm X-H1, X-T3, or X-T4. Obviously, a crop sensor camera would tend to be smaller and easier to travel with, but I've never owned a full frame camera, and the size of the Z 5 is very appealing.

As far as lenses, if I buy a Nikon body, I'll probably get some used F-mount lenses since they're readily available and quite affordable in most cases. Obviously, I would need the FTZ adapter with the Z 5 body. On the other hand, Fujifilm mirrorless lenses are high quality, but not exactly cheap, with the XF18-55mm f/2.8-4 "kit" lens costing $700 brand new. Even the "must-have" for crop sensor cameras, the XF35mm f/2 is $400 new. Ouch.

It's probably obvious based on the gear I mention above, but I do have a pretty decent budget for all this. Something around the $1,500 range would be ideal, with an absolute max of $2,000.

Here's a few initial setups I'm considering, in no particular order. Of course, other lenses for specific needs could be added later on at any time. Thanks in advance for all feedback and suggestions!

- Nikon Z 5 with Z 24-70mm f/4 lens (or FTZ adapter and 24-120mm f/4 G lens)
- Nikon D750 with 50mm f/1.8 G and 24-120mm f/4 G lenses
- Nikon D7200 with 35mm f/1.8G and 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6 G lenses
- Fujifilm X-T3 with XF 35mm f/2 and XF 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 lenses

p.s. Let me mention that I did consider Canon and Sony. If anything from them is on my radar at all, it would likely be either the Canon 7D Mk II DSLR or the Canon EOS R mirrorless. However, if I decide to go with a traditional DSLR, it's going to be much easier for me to jump right back into a Nikon. And if I decide on mirrorless, the Fujifilm options have been around a long time and they have a very extensive and impressive lens library. It would just make more sense for me to choose one of those options over Canon/Sony.

 

[dolina]

I'd stick to Nikon so at least you do not have to

- relearn the menu
- the physical button placements

F mount lenses will have better compatibility with your Z mount body.

 

[Nikon photographer]

Another vote for the Z5 and 24-70, I traded in all my DSLR'S and DX lenses for the very same outfit, I added the 14-30 shortly afterwards, very pleased with the results is an understatement

 

[Rafterman]

Any more feedback on this from anyone else?

I found a used D750 in excellent condition with under 10,000 shutter actuations for about $900. Also found a gently used Z 5 in the same great condition for about $1,000.

I think my biggest question now is if I choose the Z 5, I don't know whether I want to spend money on new Z-mount lenses as opposed to older F-mount lenses and the FTZ adapter. I'm not thrilled with Nikon's $249 price tag on the FTZ adapter, when Canon charges only $99 for their EF to RF adapter. That $249 could get be a brand new 50mm f/1.8 G lens with money left over.

Camera bodies always get upgraded at some point in time, but you can have good lenses forever. I'm sure I'd be happy with either the D750 or the Z 5, it's just that I'm not fully sold on buying into Z-mount lenses just yet.

The IBIS of the Z 5 is very appealing to me, especially if I put older Nikon lenses on it that don't have built-in VR. I also like its other modern connectivity features like Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. The D750, while still a fantastic camera with a great sensor, is now 8-year-old technology.

 

[dolina]

Any more feedback on this from anyone else?

I found a used D750 in excellent condition with under 10,000 shutter actuations for about $900. Also found a gently used Z 5 in the same great condition for about $1,000.

I think my biggest question now is if I choose the Z 5, I don't know whether I want to spend money on new Z-mount lenses as opposed to older F-mount lenses and the FTZ adapter. I'm not thrilled with Nikon's $249 price tag on the FTZ adapter, when Canon charges only $99 for their EF to RF adapter. That $249 could get be a brand new 50mm f/1.8 G lens with money left over.

Camera bodies always get upgraded at some point in time, but you can have good lenses forever. I'm sure I'd be happy with either the D750 or the Z 5, it's just that I'm not fully sold on buying into Z-mount lenses just yet.

The IBIS of the Z 5 is very appealing to me, especially if I put older Nikon lenses on it that don't have built-in VR. I also like its other modern connectivity features like Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. The D750, while still a fantastic camera with a great sensor, is now 8-year-old technology.

I'd opt for the Z body than an F body unless the F body's really cheap.

I'd have concerns about after sales support for a body that's over a decade old by the time it requires servicing. Nikon in your country may not have the parts on hand or if they do then the cost of repair may be equivalent to another old dSLR with 10,000 actuations.

 

[Nikon photographer]

If you go for the Z5, I'd recommend buying into the Z glass, there so much sharper than F mount lenses, the only F mount lenses I use with the Ftz adapter are my Sigma 150-600C and 105 macro, mainly because I don't use them that much, it wouldn't make financial sense in selling them on.

 

[ac12]

Z5 + Z 24-70 or 24-120 + 35/1.8, if you can afford it.
I would carefully compare the Z5 and Z6ii, to determine if the Z6ii is a better choice for you. It may not be.

D750 + 35/1.8 + 24-120
My logic with the 35 is, if I need to use a f/1.8 for low light, it will probably be indoor where it would be cramped. There a wide 35 makes more sense than a normal 50.

D7200/7500 on the other hand, there is no wide DX 24mm lens, so you are stuck with the normal DX 35/1.8.
The 35/1.8 is my fast DX prime.
The 18-140 is a great GP lens.

In your 40s, so weight/bulk is not the issue that it is when you are older.
But be ready for the weight/bulk of a D750 + 24-120.

 

[mjcmt]

I have D750 w/ 35, 24, 70-300 (most use in the order listed) and think its a great system...but large for travel so I usually only take the 35 out or if we're hiking the 24. I've thought about switching to mirrorless but can justify the expense and it won't make me a better photographer.
If I had to start over I'd get the Z5 w/ z35/1.8s or z24-70/4s. Even thought the ftz adapter makes it possible to use f lenses it make for a larger package, then the D750 is a good choice.
Another great option if you don't mind a crop sensor is the zfc w/ kit zoom. It's really small and takes great photos.

 

[JoeW]

Hey all. It's been a minute since I last posted in here (April 2018), and I'm looking to get back into photography again. I used to shoot with Nikon crop sensor DLSRs (D3100, D7000, D500) and I did photography primarily as a hobby (landscapes, architecture, nature and birds) with a tiny bit of more "serious" work peppered in (portraiture, family photos, 2nd wedding shooter). My wife and I are both in our 40s, have no kids, and work fully remote, so we've decided to start traveling more. I want to get a camera that's much more capable than the one on my 6-year-old Samsung smart phone, even though it still takes pretty good shots with its 12MP sensor.

While the primary use of this camera will be travel, I'll also be using it to photograph car shows (mostly outdoor) and possibly some indoor events like pool/billiard tournaments.

I've researched for two weeks on the whole mirrorless vs. traditional DSLR thing, and I'm no closer to deciding on one over the other. I'm perfectly fine with buying gently used gear as opposed to new. As far as brands go, being a former Nikon shooter, I'm leaning towards either a D7200, D750 or the Z 5 mirrorless. However, I don't own any Nikon gear at the moment, so I'm also considering something like a Fujifilm X-H1, X-T3, or X-T4. Obviously, a crop sensor camera would tend to be smaller and easier to travel with, but I've never owned a full frame camera, and the size of the Z 5 is very appealing.

As far as lenses, if I buy a Nikon body, I'll probably get some used F-mount lenses since they're readily available and quite affordable in most cases. Obviously, I would need the FTZ adapter with the Z 5 body. On the other hand, Fujifilm mirrorless lenses are high quality, but not exactly cheap, with the XF18-55mm f/2.8-4 "kit" lens costing $700 brand new. Even the "must-have" for crop sensor cameras, the XF35mm f/2 is $400 new. Ouch.

It's probably obvious based on the gear I mention above, but I do have a pretty decent budget for all this. Something around the $1,500 range would be ideal, with an absolute max of $2,000.

Here's a few initial setups I'm considering, in no particular order. Of course, other lenses for specific needs could be added later on at any time. Thanks in advance for all feedback and suggestions!

- Nikon Z 5 with Z 24-70mm f/4 lens (or FTZ adapter and 24-120mm f/4 G lens)
- Nikon D750 with 50mm f/1.8 G and 24-120mm f/4 G lenses
- Nikon D7200 with 35mm f/1.8G and 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6 G lenses
- Fujifilm X-T3 with XF 35mm f/2 and XF 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 lenses

p.s. Let me mention that I did consider Canon and Sony. If anything from them is on my radar at all, it would likely be either the Canon 7D Mk II DSLR or the Canon EOS R mirrorless. However, if I decide to go with a traditional DSLR, it's going to be much easier for me to jump right back into a Nikon. And if I decide on mirrorless, the Fujifilm options have been around a long time and they have a very extensive and impressive lens library. It would just make more sense for me to choose one of those options over Canon/Sony.

First, I'm impressed with the research you've done. Here's my advice:
1. For travel, it's pretty darn hard to beat mirrorless these days. So much smaller, the kind of thing you can slip inside the pocket of your fleece or cargo pants. You can't do that with a DSLR.

2. The single biggest reason why I'm sticking with my Nikon DSLRs is the grip. I don't mind the extra weight of the bigger bodies. And I just don't feel like the mirrorless body feels right in my hand. I could give other reasons (battery life, etc.) but that's the single biggest issue. So go handle the Z-5 and a DSLR and see how you feel about that. If it's not an issue, go mirrorless. If it is, then go DSLR.

3. I know you said you're going to be traveling more. A lot depends upon what you think you're going to be shooting. But the perfect lens for street photography is something like a 25-75mm f2.8. Look long and hard at that--gives you landscape, nice bokeh for portraits, and good in cities.

4. If you get the Z-5, assume you're going to upgrade bodies in a bit. Everyone I've talked to talks about how the Z-9 and even the Z-7 series are just so much better in so many ways. So view the Z-5 as a placeholder. Also, figure in an extra battery. Smart anyway, but especially with mirrorless.

If you're comfortable getting used or refurbished, I'm going to suggest an option you didn't consider: the D500. Smaller than the D5, great ISO performance (good for travel, like shooting inside buildings you can't use a flash for), great FPS for wildlife, fabulous autofocus (great for sports or just aging eyes). New it would be about $1,400. Used or refurbished I think you could get it under $1,000. Then get the 35mm DX f1.8 lens (great landscape and indoor lens and with a crop body it's close to 45mm). It's small, light, cheap, and pretty reliable. Then you just need to find the finances to afford a longer zoom for those wildlife or distance shots. Depending upon what you pay for the D500 and if you get the 35mm used, you should have no problem affording a good versatile lens (like the 18-140mm).

 

[Rafterman]

If you go for the Z5, I'd recommend buying into the Z glass, there so much sharper than F mount lenses, the only F mount lenses I use with the Ftz adapter are my Sigma 150-600C and 105 macro, mainly because I don't use them that much, it wouldn't make financial sense in selling them on.

I feel like that would be the way I would go if I decide to buy the Z 5. Especially considering I don't own ANY glass at the moment. Buying the Z 5 with the FTZ adapter and then spending money on older F lenses is really penny-pinching at this price point. That said, a brand new Z 5 with the Z 24-120mm f/4 lens is about $2,350 including tax. That would go over my max budget quite a bit.

Z5 + Z 24-70 or 24-120 + 35/1.8, if you can afford it.
I would carefully compare the Z5 and Z6ii, to determine if the Z6ii is a better choice for you. It may not be.

D750 + 35/1.8 + 24-120
My logic with the 35 is, if I need to use a f/1.8 for low light, it will probably be indoor where it would be cramped. There a wide 35 makes more sense than a normal 50.

D7200/7500 on the other hand, there is no wide DX 24mm lens, so you are stuck with the normal DX 35/1.8.
The 35/1.8 is my fast DX prime.
The 18-140 is a great GP lens.

In your 40s, so weight/bulk is not the issue that it is when you are older.
But be ready for the weight/bulk of a D750 + 24-120.

I've looked at the Z 6 II and it's quite impressive, but the body alone is $2,000 and would consume my entire budget by itself. I would still need to buy a lens, memory cards, extra battery or two, etc. Breaking my budget by $100 or so is one thing. Breaking it by $1,000 is another.

You make a good point about picking a 35mm f/1.8 prime for the D750 instead of the 50mm. The 24-120mm f/4 lens would cover probably 95% of my needs, but having a fast, wide lens for darker interior shots (churches/cathedrals, museums, historical buildings, etc.) definitely makes more sense.

At this point, I think I've ruled out buying a D7200. I would only still consider one just because it would be the cheapest of all my options. I can get a used D7200 with the 35mm DX and and 18-140mm DX lenses all for around $1,000. However, then I'm committed to the DX format again, and I'm not sure that's what I want.

As far as weight goes, I have been...um..."weighing" that decision, LOL. Here's a comparison of body weights for the cameras I'm thinking about, heaviest to lightest...

1.90 lb - Nikon D500
1.69 lb - Nikon D7200
1.65 lb - Nikon D750
1.49 lb - Nikon Z 5
1.34 lb - Fujifilm X-T4

The X-T4 wins, which isn't surprising considering it has a crop sensor. However, the D7200 has a crop sensor as well, yet it weighs more than the D750. Go figure. With lenses, I'm pretty much 100% sold on having a 24-120mm f/4 be my "do everything" choice, despite the weight of it. My Fujifilm XF lens choice for travel would be either the 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 or the 18-55mm f/2.8-4.

In the end, it's like you said; the weight isn't going to matter all that much to me. I'll either have a quality shoulder strap on the camera, or be walking around with a backpack anyway.

I have D750 w/ 35, 24, 70-300 (most use in the order listed) and think its a great system...but large for travel so I usually only take the 35 out or if we're hiking the 24. I've thought about switching to mirrorless but can justify the expense and it won't make me a better photographer.
If I had to start over I'd get the Z5 w/ z35/1.8s or z24-70/4s. Even thought the ftz adapter makes it possible to use f lenses it make for a larger package, then the D750 is a good choice.
Another great option if you don't mind a crop sensor is the zfc w/ kit zoom. It's really small and takes great photos.

I now understand why so many people have a smaller mirrorless or crop sensor camera JUST for travel, and then a FF or "pro" crop sensor body for "real" photography. It's a lot for me to ask of a single camera to be light-ish for travel, yet also well-suited for shooting car shows, indoor events, and possibly even some occasional bird photography. There's really not one single option that does all of that well.

I looked at the Z fc, but if I went with crop sensor, I'll either buy a Nikon D7200/D500 or the Fujifilm X-T4.

First, I'm impressed with the research you've done. Here's my advice:
1. For travel, it's pretty darn hard to beat mirrorless these days. So much smaller, the kind of thing you can slip inside the pocket of your fleece or cargo pants. You can't do that with a DSLR.

2. The single biggest reason why I'm sticking with my Nikon DSLRs is the grip. I don't mind the extra weight of the bigger bodies. And I just don't feel like the mirrorless body feels right in my hand. I could give other reasons (battery life, etc.) but that's the single biggest issue. So go handle the Z-5 and a DSLR and see how you feel about that. If it's not an issue, go mirrorless. If it is, then go DSLR.

3. I know you said you're going to be traveling more. A lot depends upon what you think you're going to be shooting. But the perfect lens for street photography is something like a 25-75mm f2.8. Look long and hard at that--gives you landscape, nice bokeh for portraits, and good in cities.

4. If you get the Z-5, assume you're going to upgrade bodies in a bit. Everyone I've talked to talks about how the Z-9 and even the Z-7 series are just so much better in so many ways. So view the Z-5 as a placeholder. Also, figure in an extra battery. Smart anyway, but especially with mirrorless.

If you're comfortable getting used or refurbished, I'm going to suggest an option you didn't consider: the D500. Smaller than the D5, great ISO performance (good for travel, like shooting inside buildings you can't use a flash for), great FPS for wildlife, fabulous autofocus (great for sports or just aging eyes). New it would be about $1,400. Used or refurbished I think you could get it under $1,000. Then get the 35mm DX f1.8 lens (great landscape and indoor lens and with a crop body it's close to 45mm). It's small, light, cheap, and pretty reliable. Then you just need to find the finances to afford a longer zoom for those wildlife or distance shots. Depending upon what you pay for the D500 and if you get the 35mm used, you should have no problem affording a good versatile lens (like the 18-140mm).

Thanks. I'm a programmer by trade, so the analytical part of my brain goes into overdrive when it comes to researching literally anything, LOL. I appreciate the extensive feedback. Regarding your suggestions...

1) The compactness of mirrorless is obviously appealing. However, with a 24-120mm f/4 lens attached to the body nearly 100% of the time, it won't be very pocketable, and that's perfectly fine by me.

2) I have large hands (size XL for most gloves), so a beefy grip on a camera is important to me. When I had my previous DSLRs, the D3100 felt very so-so in my hands. When I upgraded to the D7000, that felt much better. Then, when I got the D500, that felt magical. Yes, it was a lot to carry, but the solidity of that camera just felt nice and instilled confidence that I was using a quality piece of equipment. I haven't handled a Z 5 yet, but from what I've read, Nikon mirrorless cameras have some of the best grips among all the brands for those of us with big mitts. I'm sure a D750 would feel great as well.

3) I thought about the traditional 24-70mm f/2.8 as a go-to walkaround lens, but I feel like 70mm wouldn't be far enough reach for me on a full frame body. The 24-120mm f/4 would serve me better thanks to the broader zoom range. Plus, it would be considerably cheaper and lighter than the big f/2.8 option.

4) If I get the Z 5, I would not be looking to upgrade anytime soon. I can't rationalize spending $1,300 on a camera body now just to upgrade it in a year. If I bought a used D750 or D500 for like $800 or $900, then yes, maybe I would consider something newer (and mirrorless) in the next 18-24 months.

Speaking of the D500 since you mentioned it, it has been in the very back of my mind during this search. Since I owned one before, I know exactly how it feels, how to use it well, and what a great camera it is. I just don't know if I want to return to the DX format again. Also, I'm not the gung-ho bird photographer I used to be and I don't shoot action sports. I don't really need super fast FPS or AF tracking anymore. Most of my travel shots will be landscapes or non-moving subjects, cars at shows are literally sitting still, and pool players don't exactly move very fast either. As great as the D500 is, and as inexpensive as DX lenses are, I just don't know if I could go crop sensor again, especially starting from scratch with nothing invested in the format.

 

[ac12]

Let me throw a wrench in there.
Have you considered micro-4/3?
I have a D7200 and switched to m43 for a 43% weight reduction, which REALLY made a difference when I traveled.
But then I'm 25+ years older than you, so for me, weight was a significant factor.
Except for LOW light conditions (high school stadium and gym), my m43 camera does me just fine.

 

[Rafterman]

Let me throw a wrench in there.
Have you considered micro-4/3?
I have a D7200 and switched to m43 for a 43% weight reduction, which REALLY made a difference when I traveled.
But then I'm 25+ years older than you, so for me, weight was a significant factor.
Except for LOW light conditions (high school stadium and gym), my m43 camera does me just fine.

No, it has never even been on my radar. APS-C would be the smallest sensor size I'd consider.

After lots of back-and-forth, I'm 99% going with a Nikon Z 5 at this point. All I'm trying to figure out now is what initial lens configuration I want to start out with...

1) Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 S with Z 85mm f/1.8 S
2) Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 S with Z 105mm MC (macro) f/2.8 S
3) Nikon Z 24-120 f/4 S

 

[mjcmt]

No, it has never even been on my radar. APS-C would be the smallest sensor size I'd consider.

After lots of back-and-forth, I'm 99% going with a Nikon Z 5 at this point. All I'm trying to figure out now is what initial lens configuration I want to start out with...

1) Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 S with Z 85mm f/1.8 S
2) Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 S with Z 105mm MC (macro) f/2.8 S
3) Nikon Z 24-120 f/4 S

My vote goes to the 24-120 'cause it's a high quality all purpose travel zoom. But I prize compactness foremost so the 24-70 is better for me.

I personally stayed away from your other 2 kits you list as I don't use an 85 or micro, but you know what you shoot with. I usually lean towards wide angle and then out to 200-300mm. That's just me...not you, so go for what your instincts say.

 

[Rafterman]

My vote goes to the 24-120 'cause it's a high quality all purpose travel zoom. But I prize compactness foremost so the 24-70 is better for me.

I personally swayed away from your other 2 kits you list as I don't use an 85 or micro, but you know what you shoot with. I usually lean towards wide angle and then out to 200-300mm. That's just me...not you, so go for what your instincts say.

Although I sure wouldn't want to carry a D850 with 70-200mm f/2.8 all day, size and weight are not near the top of my priority list, so I'd be OK with the 24-120mm f/4. I just have concerns that 70mm would not be long enough reach for travel, so that's why I added those other lenses in the first two kits. I would likely go with the 105mm macro over the 85mm because the former would be suitable for occasional portraits and macro has always been a niche photography style I enjoyed in the past. Plus, 105mm is slightly longer reach than 85mm. I REALLY wish Nikon had a 70-200mm f/4 S lens out right now, because that paired with the 24-70mm f/4 S would make my lens decision super easy. I know they're planning to release a 70-180mm in the future, but I'm not sure if that will be a constant f/4 (I hope it is) or something more like f/3.5-5.6 or whatever.

I've also toyed with the idea of starting out with two prime lenses, specifically the 35mm f/1.8 S plus the 85mm f/1.8 S or 105mm f/2.8 S macro. To save a bit of money, I even briefly considered the 40mm f/2 plus one of the longer lenses, but two things sour me on that idea. First, I'm not a fan at all of the plastic mount on the 40. Plus, I can get a gently used 24-70mm f/4 for just over $400, which is only about $125 more than a brand new 40mm f/2. The 24-70 is FAR more versatile for travel, despite being a little slower at f/4. I can boost the ISO of the Z 5 with confidence to compensate for the speed of the slower lens.

Of course, it's always possible to add more lenses down the road for specific needs, and I undoubtedly would. For now though, I need to decide on something pretty soon because my wife and I are flying to the Bahamas in a couple weeks for an 8-day trip.

 

[Rafterman]

Well, I went ahead and made a final decision.

The Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S in my Amazon shopping cart just went down from $1096 to $896 and that was all I needed to pull the trigger. Along with the lens, I bought a "Like New" condition Z 5 for $1,105, two Lexar Professional 128GB SDXC UHS-II cards, two spare EN-EL15C batteries, and a Tiffen 77mm UV filter for the lens. Can't wait to see what this setup can do. I'm very excited.