What camera would you buy (expanding on my other question)?

KatiePurple

TPF Noob!
Joined
Feb 9, 2019
Messages
10
Reaction score
1
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Imagine you have $1000 to spend, and the following:
  • 15 year old Nikon D50
  • Nikkor 50mm f/1.4
  • Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8
  • Sigma 105mm f/1.? macro
  • Kit lens, but I forget what that was
Photos you take:
  • HS basketball & volleyball (indoors, often poorly lit gyms)
  • Soccer & lacrosse outside
  • The sports photos are mostly for myself, my kids, my kids' friends/teammates & families
  • Macro stuff for fun
  • Outdoor portraits of family & friends for fun
  • Other stuff for fun...
Main issue with current setup: I think I've pushed that little D50 about as far as it can go. It just can't do low light--although doing surprisingly well in the better-lit gyms with very steady hands, pretty wide-open aperture, ISO 1600, and good competency with Photoshop, but still want a better end product

What camera would you buy with that $1000? I'm totally fine with used. If you read my other post, I was considering a D700, which I'm finding for around $500. But then I made the mistake of doing more research and happened upon other options. I've now decided I could stretch to $1000 (I do like the wifi aspect of the D750, since most of the time I am taking pictures I have someone next to me saying "send me that," but I don't think that alone is worth an additional $500).

Clearly I buy things for the long haul, so I want something that will carry me for the next 15+ years if possible!

Thanks for your help! I've been spending way too much time reading these forums in the past couple of days, and it seems like there is a lot of expertise here. Hoping to be able to contribute soon :).

Katie
 
O.K., then for sports in low light, it's a "no-brainer". Stretch your budget a bit and find a lightly-used D500 body.

You already know to shop at Adorama and B&H, but I went to E-bay where there is a wide range of prices. Looks like for around $1,000 or a little more you can get into a D500, known for low-light performance.

nikon d500 in Camera and Photo Digital Cameras | eBay
 
Last edited:
As an eBay Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
I think I totally don't understand Nikon's camera numbering system...is a D500 better than a D700 or D750? The numbering isn't consecutive?

And regarding the lens, isn't the 50mm f/1.4 a much better lens than the f/1.8? I have a 50mm f/1.8 at home also, but I don't know about the "g" part. And I usually use the long lens (70-200) for the sports, because even though the 50mm is better and faster, I'm far away up in the bleachers (I'm talking about the indoor sports of course...soccer & lacrosse are easy in daylight!).

The sigma 105mm macro I really only use for macro...it's a pretty amazing lens for that.

Thank you SO much for your response--there is so much about equipment that I don't understand!

Katie
 
Last edited:
It's probably good you're taking your time and researching options. I'm not familiar with their numbering either but whatever you get, try for sharp lenses for sports. I've bought plenty of used, and don't care how 'pretty' it is if it's a good lens.

I would think about a couple of prime lenses. I see more poorly framed shots because people are zooming in and out trying to cover the entire playing field or court 'chasing' the play. If you can, go early and figure out some good vantage points in areas where you're allowed to sit. Pick the end where 'your' team will be and move to a different seat/end as needed later in the game. (I usually sit where I won't be blocking anyone's view and where I can scoot out of my seat without climbing over peopole and move during intermission/time outs.)

As you said, the 50mm is better and faster. Decide if you're going to sit up high and take a long lens or sit at floor level and take a shorter lens.

And I'd probably forget the wifi. You may find it gets real old people wanting freebies, and it would eliminate that option if you can't send them the photo immediately. Think about the time and effort you put into taking photos; that has value. And once you give out a photo, you have no control over how it gets used or where it goes. People can use their phones or buy their own darn camera! lol
 
I think I totally don't understand Nikon's camera numbering system...is a D500 better than a D700 or D750? The numbering isn't consecutive?

And regarding the lens, isn't the 50mm f/1.4 a much better lens than the f/1.8? I have a 50mm f/1.8 at home also, but I don't know about the "g" part. And I usually use the long lens (70-200) for the sports, because even though the 50mm is better and faster, I'm far away up in the bleachers (I'm talking about the indoor sports of course...soccer & lacrosse are easy in daylight!).

The sigma 105mm macro I really only use for macro...it's a pretty amazing lens for that.

Thank you SO much for your response--there is so much about equipment that I don't understand!

Katie
Sorry for the confusion.

Shooting from the bleachers, you'd be correct in wanting more reach, but remember; with a long lens, you're more likely to introduce camera shake blur. Too bad you have to be so far away.

Nikon (corporation) is something of an enigma. The numbering system is strange, but Nikon doesn't care.

The D700 is getting long in the tooth by now, and its sensor technology has been eclipsed by newer offerings, although it renders skin tones quite well.

The D750 has some issues, and is not the camera that most people assume it to be. Just because it's newer doesn't mean a lot.

The D500 has a DX-sized sensor, but the dynamic range is outstanding, excellent in low light, and is very good for sports and wildlife.
 
I recently spent $1000 for a D800e and a 24mm f/2.8D lens. My plan when I went to the camera shop was for the D500 (the top DX camera in the Nikon line - and is definitely a good option for 15+ years of use). However, I also wanted to add an 85mm f/1.4D lens and a few other accessories and stay below $1500 - and the D800e met that limit. I could have skipped the lenses and gone with the D500 (refurbished D500 bodies were around $1400 last month).

In the end I just wanted to give the FX body a try so as to give me a better idea on what my next camera will be. So far I have been very happy with the D800e files - except I had to add more hard drive space. I also like how the 24mm is actually wide angle (for my landscapes) and the 85mm is not too long, however my 70-300mm is now too short for birds so need a longer lens. The D800 also has a slow frame rate with 4 fps max in fx mode. The D500 is better for sports, especially indoors, and like all current Nikons it can shoot anything for fun.
 
yes, look for a used D500
 
Huh, glad I asked. I would never have considered a d500. I'll do more research tomorrow, but it looks like an amazing camera. Might be stretching the budget too much since the original budget was around $500, though. And it might be too "pro" for me--I usually shoot in manual, but there are times when I want to hand the camera to someone else and let them take pictures, and most people need an auto mode which it looked like this doesn't have. But I just took a quick look...I'll look more carefully tomorrow. Thank you all for all of the advice! I really appreciate it.
Katie
 
Last edited:
I think I totally don't understand Nikon's camera numbering system...

Why, thats very simple. If its a different number, then its a different camera.

Everything else is "historically grown", i.e. total chaos.

For example they made the semiprofessional D70, D70s, D80, D90 and then they continued that line as D7000, D7100, D7200. Recently they decided to stop that series and the D7500 is no more a real semipro body, but some kind of hybrid between semipro and entry level, missing important features a professional would want to have.

After they introduced their first semipro full frame, the D600, the oil on sensor disaster happened and they made the D610, which really is the D600 with hardly any change but the shutter mechanism, and then continued that line with the D750.

The D700 is the predecessor of the D800, both of which are professional, and not related to the D750 at all. That line continued with the D810, and now the D850 is their 100 year anniversary body which offers both high resolution and high frames per second. Also the D700 was their low resolution body, while the D8x0 are high resolution.

Their line of one digit cameras are the highend cameras, that goes D1, D1H, D1X, D2H, D2X, D2Hs, D2Xs, then these cameras turned full frame with the D3, the first full frame camera from Nikon, then they made a final D3x body which was the last high resolution body of this type ever since, then came the D3s, D4, D4s, and finally the D5 which will probably soon be followed by the D6.
 
:lol::lol: You have no idea how helpful this is--thank you so much for the detailed explanation. I'm trying to get the best camera I *should* get for who I am and what I need, which is not necessarily the most professional or the most expensive I can afford. So your genealogy is great and can help me see where I fit in. THANK YOU!!

Katie
 
Huh, glad I asked. I would never have considered a d500. I'll do more research tomorrow, but it looks like an amazing camera. Might be stretching the budget too much since the original budget was around $500, though. And it might be too "pro" for me--I usually shoot in manual, but there are times when I want to hand the camera to someone else and let them take pictures, and most people need an auto mode which it looked like this doesn't have. But I just took a quick look...I'll look more carefully tomorrow. Thank you all for all of the advice! I really appreciate it.
Katie

D500 has a "P" or programmed mode. P mode selects aperture and shutter speed for you given the ISO you set. I usually set ISO to a range of 100 - 400 using the camera's menu. Most of the time, I use A mode, but I usually change to P mode before I put my camera away, so if I have to pick it up quickly, I don't have to worry about anything else but taking off the lens cover, turning it on and concentrate on the shot. Set it to P mode if you are going to hand it off to a friend. Most of the time, P mode will give you reasonable settings and / or give you a good starting point for M mode.
 
If shooting sports indoors is important then you really need a full frame. The low light capabilities are so much better. The enjoyment of getting the shots that used to get away is worth the cost.
 
If shooting sports indoors is important then you really need a full frame. The low light capabilities are so much better.
How does a larger sensor help in low light?

If you're talking about a Nikon D3, then, yes, that sensor does have phenomenal low light performance, but just having a "full size" sensor means nothing by itself. For instance; the Nikon D850 (FX "full frame") and D500 (DX "crop sensor") both have the same pixel pitch, which means they will perform about the same in low light. A larger sensor will not in and of itself have better low light performance.
 
How does a larger sensor help in low light?

In general full frames are better in low light. Are there exceptions? Perhaps. I believe it has to do with the physics surrounding pixel density. I have both and the full frame at 26 mpx is far superior to the 24 mpx crop and the latter is a generation newer image processor.
 
How does a larger sensor help in low light?

In general full frames are better in low light. Are there exceptions? Perhaps. I believe it has to do with the physics surrounding pixel density. I have both and the full frame at 26 mpx is far superior to the 24 mpx crop and the latter is a generation newer image processor.
Naturally. Similar number of pixels spread out over a larger area = larger pixels.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top