Upgrading from D5100 to D610?

[alim0h]

I shoot photos mostly for fun but sometimes i make money out of it specially for food and menu photography and for music band shooting. i currently have a D5100 + 18-105 + 50mm f1.8 nikon prime lens. i find photo shooting in low light a bit problematic with my current gear . does D610 offer me much more in any aspect ? i have read many reviews and i just cant decide. some articles say there is no need for upgrading to FF if you aren't printing large and blah blah blah . i want to hear some other opinions . here are some samples of what i do :
http://i.imgur.com/SNOhg21.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/RzGSKsL.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/FuL29Bt.jpg

 

[PaulWog]

I upgraded from the D5200 to the D750. The difference is substantial.

You would likely need a new lens to replace your 18-105 as well. The 24-70 f2.8E Nikon lens is awesome (and enormous), but a 24-105 f4 Sigma lens would be more along the lines of an appropriate replacement to the 18-105. The 85mm 1.8G would do what your 50mm 1.8G does right now, more or less. The 24-120 Nikon lens is less than great.

 

[rightup]

I may be a little confused regarding the Nikon model designation. Is the 7200 I'm considering like a D750 or is it a DX? I want to use the Nikkor AFS 85 1.8G.

 

[alim0h]

I may be a little confused regarding the Nikon model designation. Is the 7200 I'm considering like a D750 or is it a DX? I want to use the Nikkor AFS 85 1.8G.

D7200 has an APS-C sensor(cropped) so it is a DX and 85mm 1.8G would act as a 130mm lens on it

 

[rightup]

Oops, I see that now with a little more reading. I'll need the D610, then.

 

[PaulWog]

I may be a little confused regarding the Nikon model designation. Is the 7200 I'm considering like a D750 or is it a DX? I want to use the Nikkor AFS 85 1.8G.

I wouldn't consider the D7200 unless if you're shooting a lot of action (birds, sports, etc). You would want it for its autofocus system, burst shot rate, and ability to maintain burst shot mode for longer than some other cameras.

The D610 is full frame. The D750 is full frame.

 

[astroNikon]

I had a d7000 which I think had the same 16mp sensor in it as the d5100.
I went to the d600.
The low light difference was substantial. Much more than the pundants say it is. You just have to use it to believe it.

You'll have to upgrade your zoom lens too. There are various options. with the d7x00 and all the FF bodies you do have the ability of using AF-D (which uses to camera bodies focus motor to focus). Nikon still makes AF-D lenses and used ones are quite inexpensive comparatively.

list of all currently made Nikon AF-S (in lens focus motor), AF (uses in body focus motor) and Manual (you use your hands and eyes to focus) lenses ==> DSLR Lenses | Shop All NIKKOR Lenses for DSLR Cameras| Nikon

 

[alim0h]

list of all currently made Nikon AF-S (in lens focus motor), AF (uses in body focus motor) and Manual (you use your hands and eyes to focus) lenses ==> DSLR Lenses | Shop All NIKKOR Lenses for DSLR Cameras| Nikon

I saw the list , what do you think about the 24-85 f2.8-4D ? does the lack of image stabilizer hurt a lot ?

 

[astroNikon]

Image stabilization is great if you have shaky hands under 1/500 shutter
or like to shoot at even slower shutter speeds like 1/60 etc.
I've learned good hand holding technique compared to when I first got my d7000 with the kit 18-105. I practiced shots with VR and without it ==> Stability - making yourself a tripod versus using one | Photography Forum

no-VR doesn't bug me. I never had it back when I used a d70 or n80 so I'm not one that needs it to feel "safe". Most of the time I have it off anyways. It also helps when you use the ISO ability of the camera to keep shutter speeds faster when needed. Most of my other lenses do not have VR, which saves a lot of $$ when you don't NEED a VR lens.

 

[PaulWog]

VR isn't the only difference between the two lenses. Image quality is also better on the VR version.

 

[astroNikon]

VR isn't the only difference between the two lenses. Image quality is also better on the VR version.

I know people keep saying that.
But when I looked at the d600/d610 with the 24-85/2.8-4.0 it keeps coming out better than the VR version.
In the Standard Zoom section it's #3 behind the Nikon 24-70/2.8, Tamron 24-70/2.8 and ahead of the Sigma 24-70/2.8 ==> Standard zooms and primes | DxOMark

I will say it doesn't seem good on a 24mp denser APS-C sensor as compared to the larger pixel FF 24mp sensor. It was good on the 16mp APS-C sensor too. I wouldn't recommend the lens on the 24mp APS-C sensor cameras nor a d800 33mp camera ==> Nikon D610 vs Nikon D7100 vs Nikon D600 | DxOMark

Also, since it's an older design lens it may feel a bit clunky to some people used to the newer Nikons and Tamrons.

 

[nerwin]

I upgraded to a D610 from a D7000 last year and it was completely worth it. Not regrets. The better low light performance was so much better, video too was even better. But I really loved how the camera felt in my hand, it's a bit chunky so it fits my hand really comfortably.

Not long along, I paired the D610 with Nikon's 24-120 f/4 VR and I have to say..what an incredible combo. You already have a 50 1.8G that is perfect to go along with the 24-120 f/4 when you need to shoot in lower light or want more bokehliciousness. Though, I think the 24-120 f/4 makes some pretty bokeh.

If budget is a concern, you can get the 24-85 VR for dirt cheap and it's a swell lens as well as I used it for a long time myself.

Once you step into the full frame territory, you won't step out of it! Hahaha.