Nikon DSLR - which body?

[Colblimp]

My first ever DSLR was a Nikon D90 which was superb, but I quickly outgrew it.  I then upgraded to a D700 and, like other posters have stated in this thread, it was an amazing machine.  I used it when I turned pro for 2 years, before I bought a second hand D3 and then, most recently, a D3s.  I was devastated when I had to sell my D700, but I simply couldn't afford to hold onto it.  Rest assured, I will buy another 700 when I have the means.

 

In terms of new vs second hand - of my 2 bodies, 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 50 1.4, Tamron macro, SB900 and SB910, everything apart my 14-24 was bought second hand.  If you know what to look for, buying second hand is a fantastic way of kitting yourself out.

 

In answer to the OP's question, I'd go for a D700, get rid of your two lenses and buy the 24-70 f2.8, whether that be Nikon (the best) or the Tamron (95% as good, for a whole lot less money).  As for MP size - no-one needs more than 12MP, indeed I had an image from my D700 printed on the side of a truck!

 

Hope this helps.

[Allan Bell]

Morning all

I have a dilemma, my D200 body is on its way out!

I have 2 good lenses a 14-24f4 Dx and a 24-120f4 Fx - and a limited budget with which to play with. Whilst I'd love the latest D500 or 750, I have at the present moment to be realistic about what to get. I shoot mainly landscapes, architecture and want to retain a walkabout ability. I don't really need high ISO, video or rapid fire FPS. I've been looking at the 610 and 7200 but I remain unconvinced by the build quality - the joys of having a mag alloy body for so many years! I've thought about selling the 14-24 and switching to FF completely.

What would people suggest? Are the 610 and 7200 better built than I think.

 

Thanks for any thoughts, got the outlaws coming in 20 mins- no idea if I'll get chance to look again before this evening.

Martin

 

 

Don't know your location but if in UK WEX are offering discounts on preowned camera bodies at the moment.

 

Allan

[MDM]

 

 

In answer to the OP's question, I'd go for a D700, get rid of your two lenses and buy the 24-70 f2.8, whether that be Nikon (the best) or the Tamron (95% as good, for a whole lot less money).  As for MP size - no-one needs more than 12MP, indeed I had an image from my D700 printed on the side of a truck!

 

 

 

 

I have to disagree with the last statement. Firstly, I do a lot of my own printing (Epson SC-P600 A3+ printer at the moment) and you would be getting to the limit of the D700 uncropped and not upsized even at A3 size). A3+ prints from a D800 have a medium format feeling in terms of detail whereas the D700 is  pushing it at that point. Secondly, there is little room for cropping with a D700 whereas a larger MP size is more than very useful in that regard - portraiture and flower close-ups are two areas where I find the larger pixel size indispensible. I loved my D700s but I would never want to go back to 12MP. The detail on the D800 family with good lenses is astounding.

 

As for lenses, the Tamron 24-70 2.8 is very good to excellent on the D800 and has image stabilisation whereas the equivalent Nikkor with VR is almost 3X the price. The older Nikkor did not have VR and was nearly 2X the price of the Tamron when I last looked.

[Colblimp]

 

 

 

In answer to the OP's question, I'd go for a D700, get rid of your two lenses and buy the 24-70 f2.8, whether that be Nikon (the best) or the Tamron (95% as good, for a whole lot less money).  As for MP size - no-one needs more than 12MP, indeed I had an image from my D700 printed on the side of a truck!

 

 

 

 

I have to disagree with the last statement. Firstly, I do a lot of my own printing (Epson SC-P600 A3+ printer at the moment) and you would be getting to the limit of the D700 uncropped and not upsized even at A3 size). A3+ prints from a D800 have a medium format feeling in terms of detail whereas the D700 is  pushing it at that point. Secondly, there is little room for cropping with a D700 whereas a larger MP size is more than very useful in that regard - portraiture and flower close-ups are two areas where I find the larger pixel size indispensible. I loved my D700s but I would never want to go back to 12MP. The detail on the D800 family with good lenses is astounding.

 

As for lenses, the Tamron 24-70 2.8 is very good to excellent on the D800 and has image stabilisation whereas the equivalent Nikkor with VR is almost 3X the price. The older Nikkor did not have VR and was nearly 2X the price of the Tamron when I last looked.

 

In all fairness, that's a ridiculous comment.  The D700's file size is perfectly fine - only amateurs think they need a gazillon MP cameras; the only caveat to that is if images are being printed billboard size.  I've printed as big as 30"x 20" for clients from my old D700 and there's been absolutely nothing wrong with those prints.  Who wants to deal with 75mb images from the D800/810?  Definitely not me!

[Guest]

 

 

 

 

In answer to the OP's question, I'd go for a D700, get rid of your two lenses and buy the 24-70 f2.8, whether that be Nikon (the best) or the Tamron (95% as good, for a whole lot less money).  As for MP size - no-one needs more than 12MP, indeed I had an image from my D700 printed on the side of a truck!

 

 

 

 

I have to disagree with the last statement. Firstly, I do a lot of my own printing (Epson SC-P600 A3+ printer at the moment) and you would be getting to the limit of the D700 uncropped and not upsized even at A3 size). A3+ prints from a D800 have a medium format feeling in terms of detail whereas the D700 is  pushing it at that point. Secondly, there is little room for cropping with a D700 whereas a larger MP size is more than very useful in that regard - portraiture and flower close-ups are two areas where I find the larger pixel size indispensible. I loved my D700s but I would never want to go back to 12MP. The detail on the D800 family with good lenses is astounding.

 

As for lenses, the Tamron 24-70 2.8 is very good to excellent on the D800 and has image stabilisation whereas the equivalent Nikkor with VR is almost 3X the price. The older Nikkor did not have VR and was nearly 2X the price of the Tamron when I last looked.

 

In all fairness, that's a ridiculous comment.  The D700's file size is perfectly fine - only amateurs think they need a gazillon MP cameras; the only caveat to that is if images are being printed billboard size.  I've printed as big as 30"x 20" for clients from my old D700 and there's been absolutely nothing wrong with those prints.  Who wants to deal with 75mb images from the D800/810?  Definitely not me!

 

 

There is a happy medium with Nikon which are their 24MP sensors. 12MP, in stock and commercial, can be limiting, especially for POS. You don't need large MP for billboards, they are printed at very low dpi but glossy POS is another matter.

 

I do agree that 36MP+ is bonkers for stock and most work. You don't need anything much larger than a 50MB file for commercial agencies and certainly nowhere near that for secondary editorial. Most of my clients end up with files that are rarely bigger than 4000-5000 pixels on long side and that's for the same for glossy brochure work or POS.

[MDM]

 

 

 

 

 

In answer to the OP's question, I'd go for a D700, get rid of your two lenses and buy the 24-70 f2.8, whether that be Nikon (the best) or the Tamron (95% as good, for a whole lot less money).  As for MP size - no-one needs more than 12MP, indeed I had an image from my D700 printed on the side of a truck!

 

 

 

 

I have to disagree with the last statement. Firstly, I do a lot of my own printing (Epson SC-P600 A3+ printer at the moment) and you would be getting to the limit of the D700 uncropped and not upsized even at A3 size). A3+ prints from a D800 have a medium format feeling in terms of detail whereas the D700 is  pushing it at that point. Secondly, there is little room for cropping with a D700 whereas a larger MP size is more than very useful in that regard - portraiture and flower close-ups are two areas where I find the larger pixel size indispensible. I loved my D700s but I would never want to go back to 12MP. The detail on the D800 family with good lenses is astounding.

 

As for lenses, the Tamron 24-70 2.8 is very good to excellent on the D800 and has image stabilisation whereas the equivalent Nikkor with VR is almost 3X the price. The older Nikkor did not have VR and was nearly 2X the price of the Tamron when I last looked.

 

In all fairness, that's a ridiculous comment.  The D700's file size is perfectly fine - only amateurs think they need a gazillon MP cameras; the only caveat to that is if images are being printed billboard size.  I've printed as big as 30"x 20" for clients from my old D700 and there's been absolutely nothing wrong with those prints.  Who wants to deal with 75mb images from the D800/810?  Definitely not me!

 

 

There is a happy medium with Nikon which are their 24MP sensors. 12MP, in stock and commercial, can be limiting, especially for POS. You don't need large MP for billboards, they are printed at very low dpi but glossy POS is another matter.

 

I do agree that 36MP+ is bonkers for stock and most work. You don't need anything much larger than a 50MB file for commercial agencies and certainly nowhere near that for secondary editorial. Most of my clients end up with files that are rarely bigger than 4000-5000 pixels on long side and that's for the same for glossy brochure work or POS.

 

 

 

I went straight from the 12MP D700 to the 36MP D800 and D800E because that was all that was available at the time besides the incredibly expensiveD3/ D4. I would have been more than happy with a 24MP camera if Nikon had released an affordable one at that time in 2012. It took a bit of learning and some investment in lenses to get the best out of it but I would never wish to go back down the MP scale now (nor up for that matter). The 36MP can be liberating in terms of ability to do some serious cropping and still get very high quality. And there is no arguing when you see a downsized 12MP image from a D800 on screen at 100% side by side with an equivalent D700 image - the former oozes detail that is just not possible with the latter. With that I think I will get on with the rest of my life - each to his own as they say.

[Allan Bell]

Love my D750 @ 24MB.

 

Allan

[Allan Bell]

 

Love my D750 @ 24MB.

 

Allan

 

+1 

 

(smiley meant for the D750 ...... NOT for you, Allan  )

 

Cheers,

Philippe

 

 

 

Aww! Shucks! 

 

Allan

[Dave Richards]

It's straight forward really. For a new body, of compact size and retailing, brand new, at less than £1K, the only Nikon choices are the D7200 or the D610. The only thing you need to decide on is whether you want to stay with DX or go full frame. My son uses the D7200 and I use the D610. No problem with build quality or reliability. If you stay with DX your existing lenses are fine; go full frame and you may want to think about them a bit more.

[Matt Ashmore]

It's straight forward really. For a new body, of compact size and retailing, brand new, at less than £1K, the only Nikon choices are the D7200 or the D610. The only thing you need to decide on is whether you want to stay with DX or go full frame. My son uses the D7200 and I use the D610. No problem with build quality or reliability. If you stay with DX your existing lenses are fine; go full frame and you may want to think about them a bit more.

 

I suspect there are no real right answers... just lots of personal preferences. The choice of bodies is fairly bewildering. Lots of people seem to like the D700 and D800. People have also said good things about other bodies including the D750 and D7200.

I'm not sure that given the current lineup of new bodies, any of them will be truly disastrous... they are all perfectly capable.

 

Assuming the OP is still looking at D7200 or the D610 then I think Dave sums it up pretty well... it might also come down to budget as switching to Full Frame might arguably lead to the expense of newer lenses.

Personally I use a D7000 which I bought six months ago off Ebay for £290 and am very happy with it's build quality (predecessor to D7200 so I assume similar build quality) ... but I was upgrading from a D50 and immediately discovered how bad one or two of my lenses were with a better body and did end up buying another lens as a consequence.

[Dave Richards]

Matt has a point about upgrade bodies showing up lens deficiencies.

My maxim is that camera bodies come and go, but good glass is forever. I used a D90 with kit lens to start with, but before upgrading the camera I spent time saving and investing in top end lenses. I still use the D90 and it is still the one I carry in my bag every day when I go to work.

[Sultanpepa]

Just wondering if those of you, like Chuck, who recommended the D800 are using the D810 now, or was the upgrade minimal ?

[MDM]

Just wondering if those of you, like Chuck, who recommended the D800 are using the D810 now, or was the upgrade minimal ?

 

The real and definitely visible difference is between the D800 and the D800E/D810 - deactivating or removing the anti-aliasing filter makes a distinctly noticeable difference in sharpness. To put this in perspective, the D800 is an incredible camera and the images with the right lens ((not necessarily an expensive lens - the Nikkor 50mm 1.4D for example) are amazingly sharp and full of detail but the D800E/D810 are even sharper again - astoundingly sharp.

 

However this is really only noticeable on screen viewed at high mag (100% or so) so in practice probably makes little difference. Having said that, the lack of the AA filter is becoming a lot more common even in the entry level Nikons. Fears of moiré appear totally unfounded.

 

The upgrade is best considered as D800E to D810 and there are a few differences but nothing really major. The shutter is a lot quieter on the D810 - it's a little snick rather than a clunk. The D810 goes to ISO 64. I can't remember the other differences offhand so they are probably not very important to me. There no noticeable difference in image quality between the D800E and the D810 that I can detect, even in mad pixel-peeping mode.

 

Whether a D810 would be better for your photography than a D800 really depends on what you do with the camera although in practice there is little difference. I like to photograph landscapes with as much detail as possible. I also do wild flower close-ups and do some significant cropping with those so maximum sharpness in-camera is very useful. For portraiture except less detail might be more advantageous but I go by the philosophy that I can always soften excess detail but I can't add in what's not there.

[Phil Robinson]

If you want a really low budget option, the D3300 is brilliant. It's embarrassingly cheap, gives great result, is small and light and has 24MP. I know it's not a 'pro' camera and lacks some features and handling of bodies that cost eight times as much - but they cost eight times as much. I also have a D300 which these days lives permanently on a tripod in the studio.
All my outdoor works nowadays is using the D3300 and similar. The only thing it doesn't do that I miss is fine focus tuning - I have one telephoto that needs it. Otherwise it's great.

[Sultanpepa]

 

Just wondering if those of you, like Chuck, who recommended the D800 are using the D810 now, or was the upgrade minimal ?

 

The real and definitely visible difference is between the D800 and the D800E/D810 - deactivating or removing the anti-aliasing filter makes a distinctly noticeable difference in sharpness. To put this in perspective, the D800 is an incredible camera and the images with the right lens ((not necessarily an expensive lens - the Nikkor 50mm 1.4D for example) are amazingly sharp and full of detail but the D800E/D810 are even sharper again - astoundingly sharp.

 

However this is really only noticeable on screen viewed at high mag (100% or so) so in practice probably makes little difference. Having said that, the lack of the AA filter is becoming a lot more common even in the entry level Nikons. Fears of moiré appear totally unfounded.

 

The upgrade is best considered as D800E to D810 and there are a few differences but nothing really major. The shutter is a lot quieter on the D810 - it's a little snick rather than a clunk. The D810 goes to ISO 64. I can't remember the other differences offhand so they are probably not very important to me. There no noticeable difference in image quality between the D800E and the D810 that I can detect, even in mad pixel-peeping mode.

 

Whether a D810 would be better for your photography than a D800 really depends on what you do with the camera although in practice there is little difference. I like to photograph landscapes with as much detail as possible. I also do wild flower close-ups and do some significant cropping with those so maximum sharpness in-camera is very useful. For portraiture except less detail might be more advantageous but I go by the philosophy that I can always soften excess detail but I can't add in what's not there.

 

 

I'm probably becoming a bit obsessed about sharpness but Alamy QC tends to drive you to it. It may also be said that I'm trying to compensate for lack of technique with the purchase of better equipment, or maybe I just have an unquenchable thirst for a new toy to play with, but I really do fancy an 810. Can I help it? lol The only thing putting me off is 36.3 MP files swallowing up my hard drive space.     Thanks for your review.

[MDM]

 

 

Just wondering if those of you, like Chuck, who recommended the D800 are using the D810 now, or was the upgrade minimal ?

 

The real and definitely visible difference is between the D800 and the D800E/D810 - deactivating or removing the anti-aliasing filter makes a distinctly noticeable difference in sharpness. To put this in perspective, the D800 is an incredible camera and the images with the right lens ((not necessarily an expensive lens - the Nikkor 50mm 1.4D for example) are amazingly sharp and full of detail but the D800E/D810 are even sharper again - astoundingly sharp.

 

However this is really only noticeable on screen viewed at high mag (100% or so) so in practice probably makes little difference. Having said that, the lack of the AA filter is becoming a lot more common even in the entry level Nikons. Fears of moiré appear totally unfounded.

 

The upgrade is best considered as D800E to D810 and there are a few differences but nothing really major. The shutter is a lot quieter on the D810 - it's a little snick rather than a clunk. The D810 goes to ISO 64. I can't remember the other differences offhand so they are probably not very important to me. There no noticeable difference in image quality between the D800E and the D810 that I can detect, even in mad pixel-peeping mode.

 

Whether a D810 would be better for your photography than a D800 really depends on what you do with the camera although in practice there is little difference. I like to photograph landscapes with as much detail as possible. I also do wild flower close-ups and do some significant cropping with those so maximum sharpness in-camera is very useful. For portraiture except less detail might be more advantageous but I go by the philosophy that I can always soften excess detail but I can't add in what's not there.

 

 

I'm probably becoming a bit obsessed about sharpness but Alamy QC tends to drive you to it. It may also be said that I'm trying to compensate for lack of technique with the purchase of better equipment, or maybe I just have an unquenchable thirst for a new toy to play with, but I really do fancy an 810. Can I help it? lol The only thing putting me off is 36.3 MP files swallowing up my hard drive space.     Thanks for your review.

 

 

 

Although I probably would not have gone 36MP in 2012 if there had been a 24MP full frame alternative at the time, I'm really glad I did and I would never go back as there are some really major advantages with these Nikons among which are that the sensors have amazing dynamic range, the amount of detail captured is astounding and there is enormous room for cropping. The need for a tripod is a fallacy - I frequently shoot handheld and have no problem. It's also not a heavy camera.

 

Yes go for it but you shouldn't ignore the negatives: for one thing it's not really disk space (very cheap nowadays), it's computer power that is the main issue there - a fast processor and plenty of RAM are essential which can involve significant additional spend if you don't already have a fast machine. Raw conversions can be painfully slow on older machines. You will need excellent lenses to achieve edge to edge sharpness - not necessarily expensive lenses as there are good 3rd party primes available but forget about cheaper zooms.

 

It won't compensate for lack of technique - it's the opposite - you need to be more careful with focus and depth of field. Yes for sure - Alamy brings out the inner pixel peeper. It's essential here. I had one QC fail shortly after I went 36MP in summer 2012 and that actually made me a better photographer technically - almost 4 years now of clean sheets - maybe I'm tempting fate

[Keith Burdett]

Dougie - back in the thread I called the 800 a slower camera in various ways compared to the 700. The 810 solves that to a great extent with improved AF, not blanking the rear screen after live view capture while it writes to card and perhaps more. It is sharper than the 800 due to no aa filter and has a new release mode with reduced vibration.

When I chose the 800, I passed on the 600 as the tests at 100% online just looked soft. The 800 was way sharper. I never looked at samples for the 610 but could forsee qc woes with the 600. There's a whole bunch of other reasons I'm glad I got the 800 of course.

Point is I think you'd find the 810 a huge step up from the 610 but it's a big expense to justify. A used 800 would arguably be pretty much as good and for general stock the 700 is still perhaps the slickest option...

Why can't it be simple eh?!

[Christopher Price]

I am having a similar issue as the original poster, I have a D200 that I use primarily now for bird photography (I use my fab D800 for everything else). It probably has over 50000 shutter activations on it and is starting to fail, but when working still makes a great image. I noticed nobody has recommended the D7100, I saw one for under $900 CDN and was thinking of taking the leap. I would try for a lightly used D800 but don't think I would be able to get one at a price that wouldn't cause me having to camp out in the garage for a while.

Thanks, Chris

[Betty LaRue]

Anyone who shoots birds will not enjoy FF unless you have a 600mm or thereabouts lens.

I shot birds with my 80-400 on everything from D70 to D7000 before going FF. Yes, you can crop. It just wasn't the same. You are not seeing the birds eye as closeup through a FF viewfinder. I hated it. Crop cameras are the way to go unless you can afford the really long lenses. IMHO.

[Keith Burdett]

Chris, I do use the 800 for birds a bit, often in dx mode which gives a 15 MP image. As Betty says you always want more reach but for me a 300/4 with tc is the most I want to carry for opportunistic shots. With a 7100/7200/500,  even a 7000 you would get more reach but there are other advantages to full frame and when the scene works the extra area/ reduced dof can be really useful.

[Colblimp]

 

 

Just wondering if those of you, like Chuck, who recommended the D800 are using the D810 now, or was the upgrade minimal ?

 

The real and definitely visible difference is between the D800 and the D800E/D810 - deactivating or removing the anti-aliasing filter makes a distinctly noticeable difference in sharpness. To put this in perspective, the D800 is an incredible camera and the images with the right lens ((not necessarily an expensive lens - the Nikkor 50mm 1.4D for example) are amazingly sharp and full of detail but the D800E/D810 are even sharper again - astoundingly sharp.

 

However this is really only noticeable on screen viewed at high mag (100% or so) so in practice probably makes little difference. Having said that, the lack of the AA filter is becoming a lot more common even in the entry level Nikons. Fears of moiré appear totally unfounded.

 

The upgrade is best considered as D800E to D810 and there are a few differences but nothing really major. The shutter is a lot quieter on the D810 - it's a little snick rather than a clunk. The D810 goes to ISO 64. I can't remember the other differences offhand so they are probably not very important to me. There no noticeable difference in image quality between the D800E and the D810 that I can detect, even in mad pixel-peeping mode.

 

Whether a D810 would be better for your photography than a D800 really depends on what you do with the camera although in practice there is little difference. I like to photograph landscapes with as much detail as possible. I also do wild flower close-ups and do some significant cropping with those so maximum sharpness in-camera is very useful. For portraiture except less detail might be more advantageous but I go by the philosophy that I can always soften excess detail but I can't add in what's not there.

 

 

I'm probably becoming a bit obsessed about sharpness but Alamy QC tends to drive you to it. It may also be said that I'm trying to compensate for lack of technique with the purchase of better equipment, or maybe I just have an unquenchable thirst for a new toy to play with, but I really do fancy an 810. Can I help it? lol The only thing putting me off is 36.3 MP files swallowing up my hard drive space.     Thanks for your review.

 

No need to buy a camera with a gajillion MP - I do quite alright with my 12 MP D3s and D3, thanks very much!

[MDM]

No need to buy a camera with a gajillion MP - I do quite alright with my 12 MP D3s and D3, thanks very much!

 

 

 

It's not just about the number of pixels, amount of detail captured, ability to crop etc. It's also about dynamic range and the higher MP Nikon cameras have significantly better dynamic range than the D3/D700 (see dxo for numbers). This is important for capturing shadow and highlight detail (relevant to wedding photography given the high contrast situations) as well as recovering under or overexposed images.

[Colblimp]

 

No need to buy a camera with a gajillion MP - I do quite alright with my 12 MP D3s and D3, thanks very much!

 

 

 

It's not just about the number of pixels, amount of detail captured, ability to crop etc. It's also about dynamic range and the higher MP Nikon cameras have significantly better dynamic range than the D3/D700 (see dxo for numbers). This is important for capturing shadow and highlight detail (relevant to wedding photography given the high contrast situations) as well as recovering under or overexposed images.

 

I wondered when DXO would rear its ugly head!!! I've had no problems with dynamic range, detail etc, and I've had an image printed on the side of a truck.  I'll stick with what I have as me and my clients are very happy, as is Alamy, it would seem...

[MDM]

 

 

No need to buy a camera with a gajillion MP - I do quite alright with my 12 MP D3s and D3, thanks very much!

 

 

 

It's not just about the number of pixels, amount of detail captured, ability to crop etc. It's also about dynamic range and the higher MP Nikon cameras have significantly better dynamic range than the D3/D700 (see dxo for numbers). This is important for capturing shadow and highlight detail (relevant to wedding photography given the high contrast situations) as well as recovering under or overexposed images.

 

I wondered when DXO would rear its ugly head!!! I've had no problems with dynamic range, detail etc, and I've had an image printed on the side of a truck.  I'll stick with what I have as me and my clients are very happy, as is Alamy, it would seem...

 

I don't understand - I wasn't criticising you or your work or saying you should change what you do. I certainly was not intending to wind you up which it seems I may have done reading between the lines. I was just pointing out the practical advantages of higher megapixel Nikon cameras from my own experience and answering Sultanpepa's query. I mentioned dxo to back up what I was saying - not sure why it would be considered ugly - it's the science behind the art. Dynamic range is not some airy fairy techie geek thing - it's practical. I've recovered images accidentally underexposed by 3 stops.

[Marvin McAbee]

I would have to give a + to the D3300.  It is small light and probably has the same sensor as the D7200 also it is at a very good price.