Thoughts on old DSLR

[Derrel]

My point still stands though:it's not just a few steps, it's 14 ft difference between the two distances, and most 50 mm lenses are ugly imagers, and relatively cheap lenses , while there are a number of really good, beautiful imagers in the 85mm lens category. My attempt was to dispel a commonly repeated canard. I have yet to see a single 50 mm lens that has the beautiful Imaging quality of the Nikon 85 mm F 1.4 AF-D as a portrait lens, nor one that is as razor-sharp as Nikon's current $399 85 mm f/1.8 AF-S G Series, which is one of the sharpest lenses around for less than $4,000, according to the extensive testing at DXO Mark. I owned the 85 mm 1.8 G for about 7 years, and photos made with that lens are extraordinarily sharp and clear. If you want second-tier lenses from Canon or Nikon, then their DX lenses have that in spades. Both Canon and Nikon have maintained a "second-class citizen" status for their DX line of lenses, but their full frame lenses are at the best they can make. Using a 50 millimeter prime lens on a DX body gives you a roughly 75 mm equivalent field of view which is not the same as an 85 mm.

There have been millions and millions of high-quality lenses which have been designed for use on a 24 × 36mm Imaging
area, but just a handful of lenses have been designed for the newer DX format, many of them relatively bad quality, non-professionally oriented lenses.

Despite your attempt to give the guy a bum steer (misleading information), my math is 100% correct. There is no comparison between shooting a DX camera and an FX Nikon. I shot both formats about the same number of years, and the world of FX in Nikon is much better than the world of DX Nikon. FX Nikon cameras are incredible for the most part, but cameras like the original poster's Nikon D3200 are cheap $350 bodies with one control wheel. We are not talking about just lenses here, we are talking about Nikon FX camers options, which have always been of the very highest quality possible at the time of manufacture,whereas Nikon DX options over the last decade have with the exception of the D500, been cheap entry and mid-level cameras, but all Nikon FX cameras are capable of astounding image quality. For someone who is used to a Nikon D3200, the originally $2,700 Nikon D700 will be a remarkable upgrade, like moving from a Yaris to a Cadillac DTS.

 

[jcdeboever]

I had the D3300, I dropped that and went to Fujifilm for how I want to make an image (similar to Nikon F) and the fuji glass, which was way better than any dx lenses I own. I had the 85 1.8 nikkor but it was too long for any practical use other than shooting a concert from 10 rows in. For fuji crop sensor, I shoot 35mm for portraits.

I also have a D610 now and let me tell you, way better than my D3300. I shoot sports with it, 70-300 fx vr for baseball and soccer. For basketball, I use the 85 1.8d. I prefer this camera to the fuji because the AF seems to work a little better. The D700 is the camera I wanted but everything I seen was beat to all get out. My late mentor had one and it had like 750k shutter clicks if I recall correctly and never been serviced by Nikon. It was one ugly, beat up money maker for him. I stumbled across the D610 at a steal of a price by the original owner's who I helped out on many occasions. She sold all his stuff but found this on a shelf behind something so she called me.

 

[Derrel]

Nikon D610 with a used $250 70 to 300 VR lens which is about 15 years old now.

 

[Derrel]

Here is a shot on full frame with the legendary 105mm f / 2.5 Nikon AI-S, which I bought brand new back in 1982. this photo was made just a few years ago,with a lens that is over 30 years old. Yes you can make good photos with a D3200 but did I mention that the view through the viewfinder is much larger and clearer through a full frame camera than it is through a cheap pentamirror? I think it bears repeating that the Nikon D700 was originally priced at $2,699 when it was new, and the D3200 was what, a $349 body?

 

[jcdeboever]

View attachment 181628

Nikon D610 with a used $250 70 to 300 VR lens which is about 15 years old now.

I love this lens, its a super value for the image output. I have the 85 1.8d, and the 18-35 fx, they are really awesome as well. The 18-35 blows me away every time I use it.