Not disappointed.. Not satisfied.

[MVPernula]

I dunno, that 10-20 is also a dx lens that won't give you a full fov on a d800.

I think unless your set on spending money buy a 35mm f1.8 dx and go take some photos. 24mp was twice what anyone had only a few years back

Oh.. Man I didn't know it was DX.
Lack of research again, rip.

Yeah. Hm, you've made me think twice.
I'll take a step back and collect my thougts.

Look at it this way, 10-20f3.5 excellent wideangle, 50mm on dx very nice portait lens, 70-300, good Tele on dx, nothing wrong with kit lenses either in good light. You add that 35, you have there or thereabouts the same field of view that a 50mm gives on fullframe, if it don't work out you are only a little money down (cost of 35mm dx) from where you are now.

Make sure you've good tripod, cable release or infrared remote. It's the small things make the bigger difference, shoot (raw)in 14 bit lossless if you are gonna be at iso 100 and learn a little editing

Settings and editing are no big deal, studied media in high school so I have, photoshop, premiere, in design, after effects, lightroom and all of those in the bag!

But I have no shutter controller, really gotta get me one of those.

 

[MVPernula]

Used D800 is what I did after having bought a used D610 eight months ago or so. I prefer the D800 is every category. The 800e minus AA filter does not seem to be that big of a deal, to me at least, I'm plenty happy with the 800's detail level even on landscapes.

Ugh, it seems so good. Although I know what I have is fine too.
I'll look around more.

 

[Cortian]

Sure I get more megapixels, I get a bigger camera like I wanted, but aside from that it's basically the same (Yeah more focus points and many other improved specs but you get the general idea). Lenses I put on from my D5100 gives pretty much the same result on this camera.

I'm not a Nikon guy. (Heck, I'm not even really a "Canon guy," yet.) And I wasn't here for the original discussion, so maybe I'm going over old ground. But I have to ask: What did you expect? What was it for which you were hoping? What is it about what's happening with your current setup with which you're dissatisfied?

The point to all these questions is this: Improved hardware is wonderful and all--who doesn't like new gear, but it's not going to perform miracles. Probably .

One of my best photos ever resulted from me seeing something interesting from a cabin window, grabbing my lowly Olympus Stylus Tough 6000, running down to a dock in my PJs, and snapping several photos laying on my belly on the end of that rickety pier.

 

[MVPernula]

Sure I get more megapixels, I get a bigger camera like I wanted, but aside from that it's basically the same (Yeah more focus points and many other improved specs but you get the general idea). Lenses I put on from my D5100 gives pretty much the same result on this camera.

I'm not a Nikon guy. (Heck, I'm not even really a "Canon guy," yet.) And I wasn't here for the original discussion, so maybe I'm going over old ground. But I have to ask: What did you expect? What was it for which you were hoping? What is it about what's happening with your current setup with which you're dissatisfied?

The point to all these questions is this: Improved hardware is wonderful and all--who doesn't like new gear, but it's not going to perform miracles. Probably .

One of my best photos ever resulted from me seeing something interesting from a cabin window, grabbing my lowly Olympus Stylus Tough 6000, running down to a dock in my PJs, and snapping several photos laying on my belly on the end of that rickety pier.

That's a really good question actually. I think what I wanted was.. Difference.
Like sure, the piece of equipment I held in my hands was bigger and had more megapixels along with easier use (I mean it has buttons man, BUTTONS!).

Slapping my lenses on it gave the same result. I think I'm way too focused on the fact that it's not a full frame sensor, but I also think that's what I *actually* wanted to make it feel like an upgrade. AF felt as "fast", which isn't very fast and snappy, everything just felt the same. Like I could've used my D5100 for what I was doing with it, I just added a battery grip.

Idunno if that makes sense, but I don't think I can explain my feeling better

 

[astroNikon]

What lenses do you have? What do you feel you need with a new setup?

D800 would give me this:

• More pixels, cropping alot.
• Full frame, which suits all my current lenses except the 18-55mm I got with the D5100

And right now I'm looking for a 35mm lens since I wanted that 50mm specific lens.
To get that I have to about 2000-2500 sek, which is basically as much as I have to pay to get the D800 anyways (after selling my D7100). So either way I'll get my sought after 50mm portrait lens, favorite! And since I have a 10-20mm I would looove to actually get those wider shots.

I currently have:
50mm, f/1.8
70-300mm f/4-5.6
35-70mm ais f/3.5
18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 (DX)
10-20mm f/3.5

So either way I will spend money to get what I'm looking for, so the question then is;
Do I upgrade or do I get a new lens?

I'll spend as much.

Keep in mind a few things. The D800 and variants are a pro body.
So you lose all the Beginner stuff you find on the D5100/D7100.

Also it really needs high IQ lenses.
I know some of my older lenses went to mush on just a 24mp sensor. But you'll have to check DXO for those numbers assuming some your lenses are even listed.

FYI, "DX" lens are different in that they are designed for the Smaller image circle of the DX Sensor. Thus they use less diameter glass as compared to a FX lens. Thus they are lighter, cheaper, etc. If you put many of them on a FX camera you'll have the outer edges all black on the image as the image circle is not large enough to fully cover a FX sensor.

 

[john.margetts]

Slapping my lenses on it gave the same result. I think I'm way too focused on the fact that it's not a full frame sensor, but I also think that's what I *actually* wanted to make it feel like an upgrade. AF felt as "fast", which isn't very fast and snappy, everything just felt the same. Like I could've used my D5100 for what I was doing with it, I just added a battery grip.

Idunno if that makes sense, but I don't think I can explain my feeling better

The lens creates the image - the body just records it. Same lenses has to give you the same images.

 

[Cortian]

The lens creates the image - the body just records it. Same lenses has to give you the same images.

That is both a gross simplification and manifestly untrue.

 

[john.margetts]

The lens creates the image - the body just records it. Same lenses has to give you the same images.

That is both a gross simplification and manifestly untrue.

But explains why the Op did not notice any improvement with his body upgrade which is the topic de jour.

 

[Destin]

OP: I have chased upgrades for the last 18 months. Went from D7000 to 7100 to 500 to 750, then swapped the 750 for the 810. I know all too well
How tempting the upgrades are.

Currently I shoot with the D500 and the D810. The images really aren’t much different.. you get more resolution in the 800 series bodies but it doesn’t make any difference whatsoever unless you are cropping massively or printing gigantic prints.

You can buy the D800, but you won’t see any massive changes in your images. Sure, you’ll get a wider FOV on equivalents lenses.. but that doesn’t really change much because you can always zoom out more or get a wider lens.

It used to be that full frame cameras offered better low light performance, but that isn’t even true anymore. My D500 massively outperforms my D810 in low light/high iso performance. The images made by the cameras are generally indistinguishable from one another if you’re looking at a final product and not pixel peeping.

The reason that you upgrade to pro level bodies is for better durability, longer life expectancy, more external controls, faster AF, better low light performance, etc. But it generally isn’t for better image quality as the entry level and amateur bodies have professional level image quality at this point.

You could go buy a D5 or any other high end professional body, and at iso 100, you will be extremely hard pressed to notice any difference whatsoever in image quality when compared to your 7100.

Basically, it’s about the photographer and not the camera. If I were you I’d buy a few pro lenses and hone your skills. When you start feeling the camera slowing you down, then you will know you’re ready to upgrade. But that generally takes years.

 

[Designer]

Your thinking is rather shallow, and can be summed up thusly:

• More pixels
• Full frame

So it's no wonder you are not satisfied, and you will not be unless and until you acquire a D800. Your mind has already been made up.

Some of us actually appreciate the differences between the D5xxx series and the D7100, but it's obvious that you will not be satisfied unless you have your D800.

 

[adamhiram]

The reason that you upgrade to pro level bodies is for better durability, longer life expectancy, more external controls, faster AF, better low light performance, etc. But it generally isn’t for better image quality as the entry level and amateur bodies have professional level image quality at this point.

This is probably the best advise you'll see on this thread. Last year I upgraded from a D5100 to a D500, and under ideal conditions I couldn't tell you which body was used to take the photo. My main reason for upgrading was better autofocus, and I was willing to to pay a high price for that. I didn't need higher resolution or a full frame sensor, but I wanted the D5 AF system. I could have gotten the same high ISO performance and higher resolution from a recent generation D5xxx for less than half the price, and without giving up some of the integrated features like the IR remote shutter release and pop-up flash.

Going from a D5100 to D7100 means going from 11 to 51 AF points, and from 1 to 15 cross-type, which is huge. It doesn't mean your shots will be any nicer, but try tracking a moving subject, particularly in low light, and you'll notice your number of keeper shots goes up tremendously.

 

[Timppa]

I was so close on switching to FX, but then i found the Nikon 10-20 with VR for wide angles and now I could set my needs for FX aside ^^. (the VR is awesome, I actually hand hold a 1.5sec picture and it was sharp! But generally taking pics at 10mm are no problem at 1/5 of a second)
If you want the 50mm-feel on DX, get a decent 35mm (the nikon 35 1.8 is cheap and good), if you want better, sigma has a 1.4 one and tamron a 1.8 with VR (i've heared they are awesome).
And like I mentioned before, the sigma 18-35 1.8 is like having primes from 18 to 35, it is that good! (it will be like 27-50mm on FX, isn't this was you look for?).
you want better low light control, but all your lenses are f3.5+, those are fast on FX, but slower on DX.
Can you rent a sigma 18-35 for a day, give it a go? and then you could decide to get the lens, or upgrade to FX.

Also, the idea that FX lenses are better on DX bodies is not always true! Yes you use only the center of the frame, so no vignetting and you have sharper parts in the edges, but the lens is not made for DX, you also lose a lot of information. (check this good video for example: )

And I'm in Finland, I think finding a used D800e is indeed difficult

 

[MVPernula]

Your thinking is rather shallow, and can be summed up thusly:

• More pixels
• Full frame

So it's no wonder you are not satisfied, and you will not be unless and until you acquire a D800. Your mind has already been made up.

Some of us actually appreciate the differences between the D5xxx series and the D7100, but it's obvious that you will not be satisfied unless you have your D800.

Yeah, my mind mas pretty set on it when I started this topic, but the discussion has made me think differently.

And it's not like I dont appreciate the differences between the two, I know you might think that after the things I said.

 

[MVPernula]

The reason that you upgrade to pro level bodies is for better durability, longer life expectancy, more external controls, faster AF, better low light performance, etc. But it generally isn’t for better image quality as the entry level and amateur bodies have professional level image quality at this point.

This is probably the best advise you'll see on this thread. Last year I upgraded from a D5100 to a D500, and under ideal conditions I couldn't tell you which body was used to take the photo. My main reason for upgrading was better autofocus, and I was willing to to pay a high price for that. I didn't need higher resolution or a full frame sensor, but I wanted the D5 AF system. I could have gotten the same high ISO performance and higher resolution from a recent generation D5xxx for less than half the price, and without giving up some of the integrated features like the IR remote shutter release and pop-up flash.

Going from a D5100 to D7100 means going from 11 to 51 AF points, and from 1 to 15 cross-type, which is huge. It doesn't mean your shots will be any nicer, but try tracking a moving subject, particularly in low light, and you'll notice your number of keeper shots goes up tremendously.

Yeah.. I'm coming to the conclusion that I should play around a bit more with this guy before doing anything else. Put my focus on a new lens if anything.

 

[MVPernula]

I was so close on switching to FX, but then i found the Nikon 10-20 with VR for wide angles and now I could set my needs for FX aside ^^. (the VR is awesome, I actually hand hold a 1.5sec picture and it was sharp! But generally taking pics at 10mm are no problem at 1/5 of a second)
If you want the 50mm-feel on DX, get a decent 35mm (the nikon 35 1.8 is cheap and good), if you want better, sigma has a 1.4 one and tamron a 1.8 with VR (i've heared they are awesome).
And like I mentioned before, the sigma 18-35 1.8 is like having primes from 18 to 35, it is that good! (it will be like 27-50mm on FX, isn't this was you look for?).
you want better low light control, but all your lenses are f3.5+, those are fast on FX, but slower on DX.
Can you rent a sigma 18-35 for a day, give it a go? and then you could decide to get the lens, or upgrade to FX.

Also, the idea that FX lenses are better on DX bodies is not always true! Yes you use only the center of the frame, so no vignetting and you have sharper parts in the edges, but the lens is not made for DX, you also lose a lot of information. (check this good video for example: )

And I'm in Finland, I think finding a used D800e is indeed difficult

I don't have any camera shops close by, sadly. To rent one would be quite a hassle.
But I'll definetly keep that lens in mind!

Right?? Like I hadn't even heard of it until a friend om mine showed him his.