looking to buy the best camera for myself

[benhasajeep]

I suggest a Nikon D610. Right now it's the best deal in full frame cameras. It will also allow for more lens money in your budget. It still is the 9th overall best camera listed by DXO under 40k in price! With a new D610 you will still have about $2k for lenses and a flash of your choosing. That could be one high end Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 VR lens (would make you $300 over budget for just the D610 and 24-70vr).
Or a combination of different lenses. There is no perfect lens. Some people use only primes, some only zooms. Others a combination. Don't raise your nose up at the 24-85 kit lens either. It's a very sharp lens. And very useful for its price. Almost all the prime f/1.8 lenses perform very well. As any of the f/1.4 primes will blow your budget with one lens.

Of course with a D610 your not limited to the new AF-s lenses. All Nikon full frames have a body AF motor. You can save a ton and buy very good AF-D lenses (new or used). Can fill out you lens collection a little sooner with used lenses. You can also look at third party lenses like Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina. They have upped their game lately. But you have to remember they backwards engineer their communications with the bodies.

I have D600 and D800 for my working bodies. If one were to go down. I would not hesitate too buying the same or D610/ D810. I have older AF-d to new AF-s lenses in my stock.

 

[Derrel]

If low light is a really big thing for your photos you'd be better off alright going fullframe as you suggested originally.

The Nikon d750 is a great all around camera, that is fab in low light, hi iso situations. Some of the shots in your link were using this camera

the d750 seemed like a great camera, but it was released 3 years ago, it's on sale now for just under 2k. is it still worth the buy?

I would not buy a new D750, but a refurbished or used one. The Nikon D610 is nice, the D750 even nicer, better-spec'd, better AF module.

I bought a D610 used recently with the Nikon brand MBD-14 grip and three batteries and 4,802 clicks on it, brick and mortar retail shop, for $849 US...a good deal...I do not like its AF module...wish I had a 750 or 800 or 810...I VASTLY prefer the power of the 51-point AF system...

There are a LOT of very affordable AF-D used lenses for the 600 and 700 and 800-series cameras! Same with the 7000-series bodies; the AF-D Nikkor zooms can be pretty good, pretty affordable, but almost all were designed to be used on full-frame sized film.

 

[jcdeboever]

I wouldn't buy a D750 at all. Too many recalls. Nikon is on a no questions asked return policy now, due to so many shutter and flair issues. It has really has been a disaster for them.

 

[canIphoto?]

Thanks everyone I really do appreciate your response. I'm taking every reply into my decision.


Why are some lenses more expensive than others? I was surprised to find Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR Lens cost more than most camera bodies.

I wouldn't buy a D750 at all. Too many recalls. Nikon is on a no questions asked return policy now, due to so many shutter and flair issues. It has really has been a disaster for them.

Should i avoid nikon altogether and switch to Sony or canon? Again, I dont have a preference since all fits nicely in my hand.


also, i am NOT set on full frame. I just figured somewhere down the line I may switch to a full frame, and it'll save me tremendous amount of money.

 

[Derrel]

Full frame can save a LOT of money right now--by allowing you to use over 100 models of older AF- and AF-D lenses on the used market! APS-C demands wide zooms that start at 16 or 18mm...and the "good" APS-C DX Nikkors, the 16-80 and the 17-55 are EXPENSIVE. Not so for the 28-80 models, or older 24-70 AF-S or the older 35-70/2.8,etc.etc. 24=85 AF-S models are for FULL-frame sized cameras, and affordable.

 

[jcdeboever]

Why are some lenses more expensive than others? I was surprised to find Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR Lens cost more than most camera bodies.

I wouldn't buy a D750 at all. Too many recalls. Nikon is on a no questions asked return policy now, due to so many shutter and flair issues. It has really has been a disaster for them.

Should i avoid nikon altogether and switch to Sony or canon? Again, I dont have a preference since all fits nicely in my hand.


also, i am NOT set on full frame. I just figured somewhere down the line I may switch to a full frame, and it'll save me tremendous amount of money.

Here's the thing. The D750 is a great spec'd camera but your taking your chances due to all the problems. It's well documented on the web so don't take my word for it. I'm surprised by anyone recommending it. I'm not saying avoid Nikon or Canon altogether, I was just giving my honest opinion on that particular model based off all the recalls and camera store owner telling me they have a no questions asked return on the model due to so many issues.

I know nothing about Canon other than my AE-1 and SX60HS bridge camera.

I ended up ditching my Nikon digital because I had another model that was a lemon and the fact I shoot a lot of film. So I bought a camera (Fujifilm XT2) that operates like a film camera to keep things consistent. I was fortunate to be able to borrow one before I made the decision, I haven't looked back. The glass is expensive but excellent in build quality and rendering characteristics. The viewfinder is fantastic as well and was important to me.

If I were a wildlife shooter, I'd by the Nikon D500. If I was a portrait or landscape shooter, I'd buy a Fujifilm GFX or any Canon or Nikon Full frame other than the D750. If I wanted a nice all around shooter that does everything good, then I would buy a Fujifilm X-T2 or XT20 or X-Pro 2.

I think it's about how you shoot, what you shoot, or what you want a camera to do. Nikon D610 is probably your best choice at this time considering your budget, original vision and so on. Also, you will be investing in glass and I don't see FX going away any time soon. I'm sure Canon has a model to rival it, I just don't follow it enough to know. Have no clue on Sony but those are mirrorless like the Fujifilm's. The thing about Sony is they seem to come out with a new model every quarter. Good luck in your choice, hard to go wrong these days with so many good choices.

 

[canIphoto?]

Thanks!

would Fujifilm X-T2 be a viable option as well for my budget? Are lens interchangable and can be used with a canon/nikon glass?

also, what makes you say d610 is a great choice for my budget?

 

[benhasajeep]

Thanks!

would Fujifilm X-T2 be a viable option as well for my budget? Are lens interchangable and can be used with a canon/nikon glass?

also, what makes you say d610 is a great choice for my budget?

The D610 sensor is the key. It has very good low light capability, very good color rendition, and a large dynamic range (going by DXO tests). It is Nikon's base full frame camera. And the price was just lowered $500 for msrp. The performance in low light is much better than the best aps-c body (Nikon or Canon). By more than several stops. It's AF system is just fine. Is it the latest and greatest? NO. Does that means it's bad? Absolutely NOT. It works very very well!!! Again the D610 can use just about any AF lens Nikon has made since the late 80's, can even use manual focus lenses from earlier than that (obviously in manual focus mode). If you get a good copy of the D750 yes it does have some better features. But it's sensor is not quite up to same specs as the D610, and its about $400 more. The D810 would be the best body to buy if budget was larger. But for your budget the D610 gives you the best performance and the ability to buy some lenses as well. Even if your budget was $500 to $750 more. I would still suggest the D610 and a couple lenses. $1,000 more I would switch my suggestion to D810. I think it's important to have more than one do all lens. Don't have to buy the greatest expensive lens. Just lenses with high quality results. Only you know what range of lenses you need. Many buy the kit lenses and decide from there. But if you can decide on lenses right off the bat. Can save yourself that $400 or so and put towards better lenses. The kit lenses do perform very well though. Not like they put out fuzzy out of focus shots. They put out good clear pictures same as the third party lenses.

As for Canon. Bodies in the same price range do not have the same sensor performance. Yes, they make good cameras and good lenses. But right now, Nikon has the better value in each level of cameras. Visit DXOmark.com . They test combinations of cameras and lenses.

As for the price of the 24-70 F/2.8 AF-s VR. It's their top of the line pro mid zoom lens. It is a very good and sharp lens. But for the price, it's really for pro's or those who absolutely demand the best. There are other lenses 1/2 it's price that in normal situations will be more than adequate in taking the pictures. I just sold my Nikon 28-70 f/2.8 AF-s lens and will be buying a 24-70 f/2.8 AF-s VR soon. My 28-70 was a very good lens in it's own right. The motor was just starting to make some noise, so I decided it was time to let it go and upgrade. I still have the previous top Nikon mid zoom the 35-70 f/2.8 AF-D. It's a very good lens. Maybe just doesn't AF as fast as the newer lenses. But still a very good lens. For me it's worth more as a spare than the $300-400 I could sell it for. Still sharp and functions just fine.

 

[canIphoto?]

Thank you sooo much for the responses everyone. I am so greatful this forum has one of the best community I could ask for.

With that said, I went to b & h and had a long conversation with some agents there . I have considered the d610, d750 and d810. I was really considering the d810 because the guy (one of the best photographer claimed by his peers who aren't bias) showed me sample pic of some photos he shot. However I pull the triggered and bought the canon eos mark 3 with the kit len 24 - 105 mm. I really was contemplating on the sigma wide 35mm and the canon 50mm lens to replace the kit, but guy told me ill get a better purchase with the kit.

Again, these are salespeople, so i don't know if their being 100% truthful. Anyways, i'll like to hear your opinion.

after tax total came out to about 3500 and that includes body, extra battery, sd memory card, case, strap and of course the kit lens. also, 2 yr warranty.

did i make the right choice? you could be honest, I have 30 days to return

 

[jaomul]

I would say the 5d3 is excellent, my friend has one so I got to give it a go a few times.

Enjoy

 

[canIphoto?]

Thanks.

so there's an option of buying it with a kit lens which is their Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM Lens so i save some money on that compare to buying it separately. That's an advantage i suppose.

on the other hand, Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Lens is more expensive and doesnt come in the package deal so ill have to shed out more cash. so given the cost ill assume the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Lens better than the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM Lens? how much of a difference is it when shooting? will it be noticeable?

Excuse my ignorance as I am fairly new to cameras, but also what is a zoom lens vs prime len?

do i need both? will i be okay with just shooting with one expensive zoom len or will i need multiple? By doing some research online i figure prime lenses are lens for specific task.

also what are mm? like say 35mm - 70 mm vs a 35mm-105mm. I take it that it's the distance in which you can zoom in. However, if thats the case why dont i buy the highest mm like 35mm-200mm?

ALSO, i was told by an agent that although the camera body of the mark 3 is fairly old (5 yrs), and a successor has released, that this camera will last me forever. i dont know how true that statement is because with all technology doesnt it become obselete? like my iphone 4s certainly isnt the same phone i got when it first released. I suspect older model cameras become bad after a certain period? correct me if i'm wrong. Again, excuse my ignorance.

 

[cherylynne1]

Thanks.

so there's an option of buying it with a kit lens which is their Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM Lens so i save some money on that compare to buying it separately. That's an advantage i suppose.

on the other hand, Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Lens is more expensive and doesnt come in the package deal so ill have to shed out more cash. so given the cost ill assume the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Lens better than the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM Lens? how much of a difference is it when shooting? will it be noticeable?

Excuse my ignorance as I am fairly new to cameras, but also what is a zoom lens vs prime len?

do i need both? will i be okay with just shooting with one expensive zoom len or will i need multiple? By doing some research online i figure prime lenses are lens for specific task.

also what are mm? like say 35mm - 70 mm vs a 35mm-105mm. I take it that it's the distance in which you can zoom in. However, if thats the case why dont i buy the highest mm like 35mm-200mm?

ALSO, i was told by an agent that although the camera body of the mark 3 is fairly old (5 yrs), and a successor has released, that this camera will last me forever. i dont know how true that statement is because with all technology doesnt it become obselete? like my iphone 4s certainly isnt the same phone i got when it first released. I suspect older model cameras become bad after a certain period? correct me if i'm wrong. Again, excuse my ignorance.

I'm sure someone more experienced with Canon specifically will chime in with details, but I can give you generalities.

Generally speaking, cheap zooms (like the kit lens) and all-in-one zooms (like a 35-200) are not as sharp and do not have bokeh as pleasing as primes or more expensive, wide aperture zooms (like the 24-70 2.8.) Will a beginner notice these tiny details? Likely not. I say stick with the kit zoom and start saving up for the day when you decide what you don't like about it. Different photographers with different styles all decide on different priorities. Best to stick with the cheapest option until you know what your priorities are, and that will make your next lens purchase very easy.

The 5d mk3 is an excellent camera. It's possibly the most popular professional camera of the last decade. Will it take good pictures forever, or at least until the pieces literally collapse from use? Absolutely. However, will the general public' opinion of what constitute a good photo remain static as technology progresses? Doubtful. Back in the 90s, 3mp constituted a top of the line camera, and was considered more than enough for any professional photography needs. Now every crappy cell phone has at least 8, and you'd be laughed out of the studio if you showed up to a shoot with a 3mp camera.

So it won't be the best of the best forever, but it will always be very good. And if you use it with any kind of regularity, it will likely wear out before it becomes completely obsolete.

 

[jaomul]

The 24-105mm is a great lens. I wouldn't worry about it being a cheap kit lens, it's a good kit lens

 

[Derrel]

The 24-105mm is a great lens. I wouldn't worry about it being a cheap kit lens, it's a good kit lens

It was kitted in a nice big box when I bought my original Canon 5D...body,battery,charger,strap,24-105 L IS-USM...price was $3,995. So yeah..."that" is the kind of kit zoom it is. Not a cheap kit zoom, but the kit zoom Canon paired with a very nice camera, for years.

The 24-105 L is best bought used if you want to save money; might be a million of them out there.

 

[OGsPhotography]

That'll be my next camera 5diii with 24-105 f4L. You did good and smart besides buying new. Should be a great camera for years to come.

I may go crazy and get the 5div with something silly attached like a 85mm 1.2, if I ever get a chance to go to bnh and let a salesperson talk my wife into it
Hehhehehe

Have fun!