Full Frame or....

[gckless]

Well, I'm in your same shoes: upgrade to D7200 or D610?

I have been shooting with a D7000 and the kit 18-105mm for almost 4 years now. I've been wanting a bit more image quality for a little while, just mostly more MP so I have the flexibility to crop some more when I need to. I have two other DX lenses, a Nikon 35mm f/1.8 and a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8. I'm trying to sell my car audio gear and break even on the upgrade, but I'd be willing to spend a little if it's worth it. I'm thinking I can get $450 if I sell the D7000 and 18-105mm.

D7200 would be much easier, I would only have to get the body. Well, I would probably try to sell my 18-105mm and get the D7200 kit with the 18-140mm, I would like the little extra reach and reports say the lens is a touch better throughout the focal range.

If I would get the D610, I would have to get the kit 24-85mm lens with it, and would have to sell both of my other lenses, and then buy a fast ~50mm (as that's basically the same as 35mm on my DX), which the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 is only $220 I believe. I would still be left without a longer reach lens, and the kit zoom would not replace the Sigma I have now in terms of aperture (I need low light performance). Granted, f/2.8 on a DX is probably right around f/4, so it's actually probably close in terms of that. But still left without anything more than 85mm, and FF telephoto zooms aren't cheap.

Simply because of money, I'm pretty sure I'm just going to stick with APS-C. FF glass is just too damn expensive. And shots from the D7200 are not anything bad. But there will always be part of me that wants FF....
Then again, there's a part of me that wants a Ferrari, but that **** ain't happenin' lol.

 

[Gary A.]

Some high ISO stuff. All with the Xt1 - All @ ISO 6400:

No NR applied. I haven't a clue what a FF Nikon could do in a similar situation, but for me, I don't see how less noise would significantly improve these 6400 ISO images.

DR is different from noise. You can shoot a photo at 100 ISO with sections that are completely black to the naked eye and bring them up to usable with noise not being an issue. So if you shoot a scene outside with a bright sky and your subjects are dark, you can bring up the dark objects to give you a good overall exposure.

I know ISO is different than DR. I wasn't addressing DR, I was addressing high ISO (per earlier posts). Personally, I'd rather expose for my principal subjects when capturing the image, than correct in post.

So youd rather have a blown out sky and properly exposed people instead of a properly exposed sky and properly exposed people?

I'd rather use a fill flash and pretty much match the sky.

 

[jaomul]

A good friend has the d750, I have the d7200. There are differences, but in ok light the difference in image quality is negligible in my opinion. However at high iso there is no comparison. The d750 is miles better, but the d7200 is just good enough for me that I'm not thinking I need an upgrade.

For me that's a good thing cos I'm a bit of a gear nerd

 

[astroNikon]

I used to have a d7000 for a few years with the kit 18-105
All my other lenses after that were screw focus driven lenses which took use of the in-body focus motor.
All FF lenses
All much cheaper than the latest and greatest Af-s lenses.
It saved me a bundle in cost comparison but I was able to go to f/2.8 or faster lenses at a much lower cost.
I eventually went to a refurbished d600 and I had to buy NO new lenses for it

So even though NEW AFS FF lenses cost a lot there are other options.

I've since sold the d7000 as the advantages for my type of photography was great compared to the d7000
But then I do a lot of low light, longer exposure stuff.

I thought of upgrading to the d7100 at the time too because I do a lot of sport shooting but the d600 actually is pretty good considering especially when the light isn't perfect.

 

[ThomF]

Get a used D700 and a used 24-70mm 2.8 and go to town. It's my set up 75% of the time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[beagle100]

Some high ISO stuff. All with the Xt1 - All @ ISO 6400:

I don't see how less noise would significantly improve these 6400 ISO images.

some high ISO stuff with a $100 camera

ISO 6400
crazy stuff !!


Smithsonian - Hope Diamond by c w, on Flickr

 

[Village Idiot]

Some high ISO stuff. All with the Xt1 - All @ ISO 6400:

No NR applied. I haven't a clue what a FF Nikon could do in a similar situation, but for me, I don't see how less noise would significantly improve these 6400 ISO images.

DR is different from noise. You can shoot a photo at 100 ISO with sections that are completely black to the naked eye and bring them up to usable with noise not being an issue. So if you shoot a scene outside with a bright sky and your subjects are dark, you can bring up the dark objects to give you a good overall exposure.

I know ISO is different than DR. I wasn't addressing DR, I was addressing high ISO (per earlier posts). Personally, I'd rather expose for my principal subjects when capturing the image, than correct in post.

So youd rather have a blown out sky and properly exposed people instead of a properly exposed sky and properly exposed people?

I'd rather use a fill flash and pretty much match the sky.

It's not always an option. If you're shooting several people and using a modifier at the same time, you're either going to need a lot of power, or enough flashes to cover everyone. And not to mention the logistics to do all that. If you're shooting an event that's fast paced, you're going to be hard pressed to stop everything to break out flashes, power supplies, soft boxes, stands, sands bags, etc...

And then the other potential: Pulling detail out of shadows where you would otherwise not have it with a camera having less dynamic range.

 

[sashbar]

I couple of ISO 6400 night shots with XT1

 

[jbylake]

Wow! So many people with so many very sound ideas, that it seemed like any way I went would be a good choice. The FX folks and the DX folks made such compelling arguments that I thought my head would spin for weeks.

I read all of your posts, googled some of the things I didn't know about, and lost a lot of sleep. I'm glad, that this didn't happen: a lot of times, on forums of any subject, there wasn't a bunch of crap thrown at each other, everyone expressed their opinion, and explained their suggestions, based on their own experiences. I truly appreciate that everyone laid out an opinion, backed by their idea's, experiences, 53 freakin posts, without a single troll, and sound reasoning for each person's reasoning. Hard to get that these days, without one a-hole screwing things up for everyone.

Man, that was totally cool, if not making my decision more complicated, and causing me to lose even sleep..really.

If anyone is interested, I purchased Nikon's entry level FX the D610 and a Nikon 50mm F/1.4 G lens. I'm not going to explain my decision, due to the fact that I got so many intelligent and experienced opinions, I don't want to offend anyone, (no, I'm not politically correct), because so many were much more educated on the subject than I am, and I didn't want experienced folks to think that I thought I knew better than they. The D610, should, at my age, last me 'till I start getting ready to wear those socks that you have to strap at the top..

Next things are best "portrait" lens, and my most annoying and always foe, shooting with flash.

All kidding aside, I appreciate each and everyone of you for helping me with this decision, and if I chose separate from your suggestion, believe me, it wasn't out of disrespect for your expertise and opinion, it was from a synthesis of all of the ideas that I received in this thread.

Very grateful,

J.

 

[jaomul]

Enjoy the d610. Its a sound choice in a world of sound choices

 

[jbylake]

Ha..ha..ha.. Thanks man. I can't wait to just pop the lens on and shoot a few shots, I don't care if they look like they came off a Kodak Brownie... This is my dilemma, I have to take what B&W 35mm film skills, and try to use them using a very complex media, or DSLR. Some of my former skills, such as framing photo's, etc...etc..will carry over. DSLR camera's, well just the operation of, will be a *****! However, it's one I'm looking forward too, will be fun. Lens should be here as soon as camera.
Thanks to all of you (disregard my poor typing skills), for helping me make a decision. You are definitely some awesome folks.

J.

 

[goodguy]

The D610 is Nikon's entry level to FX but its a bit of gold nugget hidden in a PR description as "entry level".
The D610 is an extremely powerful and capable camera that doesnt cost an arm and a leg.

I dont think you will find it too complicated to learn how to operate a modern DSLR, I am sure the learning curve will be short.
For portraits there are so many lenses that are considered a "go to" lenses.
You have the classic 85mm 1.8 and 1.4
105mm f2
135mm f2

But many (including me) use 70-200mm 2.8 for their portraits, its a nearly perfect portrait lens which I find only drawback is its weight which could be a bit too much after a long shoot.

The 50mm isnt a classic head shot portrait lens but it will do a good job for 1/2 a body or full body shots.

 

[jbylake]

Thanks. I was actually looking at the 85mm, the 105mm and the 70-200mm 2.8, which could be an outstanding addition for other things other than portraits. For now, I need to re-learn what skills I had during my film days, and also learn the nuances of digital. So, I'm going to try not to buy anything else (lens wise), and shoot everything with the 50mm until I'm comfortable that I've learned enough to "reward" myself with a new lens. We'll see how that goes...

Thanks,
J.

 

[Gary A.]

Good Luck and Good Shooting

 

[Vtec44]

Post some pictures already!!