Nikon Cameras

<p>I would like to get the opinions of my fellow portrait and fine art Nikon photography friends. Would you please share with me which Nikon cameras are the best for capturing professional indoor/outdoor portraits and very detailed fine art. Thank you in advance.</p>

<p>D3x in FX and D7000 in DX have the highest resolution.</p>

<p>The Nikon D700, a bit on the old side, and a AF 85mm 1.4D Nikkor lens would work as well for portraits. The size of the *fine art* would have some bearing on what lens you might decide to use.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>They're not; there is no concievable situation where the equivalent model Canon camera/lens wouldn't be just as good.</p>

<p>For the art, if you are shooting in museums, for what you describe you need as low noise at high ISO as you can get so you can get pictures without tripod (or monopod) which is usually strongly forbidden these days.</p>

<p>If otherwise, and you can control lighting in a studio setting for indoors, any decent camera with a good set of pixels will do.<br>

Lenses same story, fast for indoor hand-held, tripod and light if you are in control of the environment.<br>

Much more than one or two models of either bodies or lenses in the current and recent line up will meet your needs.</p>

<p>Keith: I believe she's asking <em>which Nikon cameras from their line</em> are best for the roles in question. Not which <em>cameras on the market</em> are such. "Best" in that sense wouldn't include either Canon <em>or</em> Nikon, but would involve a <em>lot</em> more money. <br /><br />Catherine: are we talking fine art jewelry, 10-foot paintings, or table-top sculptures? And ... do you have a budget in mind? Lighting gear and lenses are going to have more to do with this than the camera, regardless.</p>

<p>LOL Wow! That was fast....I blinked! Thank you all for your prompt responses. <br>

I guess my question was a bit confusing...apologies.<br>

I create fine art .....like the works on my site.<br>

I shoot the details of my subjects up close...don't necessarily always want to use a macro.<br>

Need GREAT resolution for fine details and a camera that is best suited for indoor lighting, or say northern exposure available light from a window... and outdoor lighting for portraits. I also do quite a bit of on location portraiture.</p>

<p>Best resolution, as has been previously posted is the D3x.</p>

<p>I'm shooting a D700 and 85mm f/1.4D for portraits and am loving the results. The D700 is a bit long in the tooth and is due to be replaced this fall, but iit gives great results.</p>

<p>RS</p>

<p>Catherine: resolution discussions aren't very meaningful without discussing how you use the images. Are these turned into large prints? Are they mostly for web display? Good light and the right lens and even a modest body might be all you need. But marginal technique, or the wrong tripod could take a D3X and make it less useful than an entry-level body. <br /><br />Let's start with how you actually use the output. That's the right way to look at this.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Need GREAT resolution for fine details and a camera that is best suited for indoor lighting, or say northern exposure available light from a window... and outdoor lighting for portraits. I also do quite a bit of on location portraiture.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>The top end Nikon answer: Nikon D3x.</p>

<p>The best Nikon for low light and very good resolution; D3s.</p>

<p>The best "I-am-on-a-budget-and-speniding-more-than-$1500-for-a-camera-body-is-out-of-the-<br>

question" answer: Nikon D7000</p>

<p>Best Body? I think the lens may be more important. All Nikon DSLR bodies deliver pretty much the same IQ in good lighting. +1 to what Matt posted above.</p>

<p>But ultimately, the D3X, a sturdy tripod and the best quality suitable lens or lenses available would be the way to go.</p>

<p>Thank you all for your prompt responses to my inquiry. I can see the correct answer seems to be very clear...the D3X. Budget-wise...the D7000. Got it!<br>

On lenses. Any suggestions?</p>

<p>Catherine,</p>

<p>What are you shooting? Small, highly detailed sculptures? Big trees in a landscape?</p>

<p>I took a quick look at your PN portfolio. It looks like you've been using a D70 and a D200.</p>

<p>I hate to spend more than is necessary to accomplish a job. I also own a D300.</p>

<p>But, from what I'm seeing, something in the D300 class should give you years of quality service without straining the budget. I don't see you needing high-ISO quality images. I don't see you needing a high frames-per-second-capture rate. I don't see you needing huge prints. A D90, D300, or a D7000 should be more than what you need.</p>

<p>You didn't mention lenses. My go-to lens is the Nikon 17 - 55 f/2.8G lens. I've gotten pretty good close-ups, decent mid-ranges, and pretty good crops from this lens mounted on my D300.</p>

<p>If you go to my web site (<a href="http://auntellensfarm.com/marks-stuff">http://auntellensfarm.com/marks-stuff</a>) most of the pics were taken with a D300 camera and a Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 lens.</p>

<p>Hope this helps - Mark</p>

 

<p>Best? Hasselblad with a digital back. End of story.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Interesting...even though the OP specifically mentioned Nikon and posted on a Nikon forum, there was no shortage of people talking about completely different things...</p>

<p>Anyway, I think it's all a question of ultimate scope. Both the MPs and the lenses should be determined by (a) what you shoot and (b) how you use the images that come out of the camera. Sure, you may THINK you want the ultimate in detail, but if you're only going to view those images in a monitor, then spending 6k on a camera IS overkill. If, on the other hand, you print 3ft long images, then YES, go ahead and spend them. Same with lenses: if you're shooting canvases 6ft by 4ft from a distance of 10ft, then ideally you should be looking at some sort of a wide perspective correction lens simply because you want the corrected image. If you're shooting in a 50ft studio, then literally ANY sharp lens will give you the perspective you want.</p>

<p>Also with lighting. If you're counting only on natural light then all that attention to detail is, in my humble opinion, wasted because your canvas (for example - portrait work is not that much different!) will never be correctly lit and you will lose detail in certain parts.</p>

<p>A few of you have asked me to elaborate on what I shoot.<br /> I am an indoor/outdoor lifestyle photographer and fine art photographer. I am also a digital designer.<br /> I shoot lifestyle photography indoors utilizing every means of available light from windows, doors, skylights etc. These are artistic renditions in which the natural light tends to complement this work beautifully. When it doesn't, I use "fill in" lighting. In this realm, I frequently shoot continuous for various artistic renditions...so speed is important to me.<br /> In my fine art, I shoot common objects in intriguing ways. I shoot relatively close to my subjects to capture their details and essence...in their "personal space" so to speak. I create for the interior enhancement of commercial/residential properties. I don't shoot the interior of properties, I create my fine art works to be used for interior enhancement on the walls of these properties. Some of these works are for generous wall space and can be quite large. I also frequently shoot in-camera blurs/pans for their artistic appeal as well. <br /> In my design work, I incorporate my original captures into my designs for event planning print materials such as posters, banners, signs, thank you cards, save-the-dates etc. so these can be quite large as well.<br /> I am currently using a Nikon D200 and one lens I use frequently is the NIKKOR 70-300mm.<br /> Can you suggest better lens(es) that would be best for the uses above.<br>

I hope this clarified my needs.<br>

Thank you all for participating.</p>

<p>Hmmm....the plot thickens...;-) Well, from what you said, you would indeed be better off with a D3x provided that in some low light conditions you are willing to put up with needing a tripod. The D3x starts losing definition and image quality beyond 1600 ISO.</p>

<p>Your choice of lens however caught me completely off guard. On your D200 that is an effective range of 105-450mm which requires TONS of space to shoot stuff. Oh well, if that's what works for you, then who am I to argue? I would however seriously suggest, assuming you can afford it of course, trying the 70-200 f/2.8 VRII. I know it's an expensive lens, but it is truly a magnificent piece of gear and would complement your D3x wonderfully! After all, it would be a shame to have such a superb camera and then handicap yourself with inferior glass.</p>

<p>Another very good option, especially for landscape work, would be the 14-24 which, despite of the distortions at 14mm (which are normal buy the way and easily correctable in LR) is sharp as a tack and produces incredible image quality.</p>

<p>For close-up images, you could do far worse than the 105 f/2.8 VR which can also be used for portraits!</p>

<p>Simply, I would break it down this way. I believe you want an FX camera (I do not want to explain why FX has advantages over DX here as this info can be found in abundance elsewhere). That leaves 3 choices--all of which are very capable. Those are the D3X, D3S, and D700. If absolute resolution is your top priority, then the D3X is your choice. If the very best low light capability is your absolute priority, then the D3S is your choice. If budget is a major factor, then the D700 is the logical choice. I use a pair of D700's for available light portraiture and landscapes and, frankly, I cannot find a reason to bump up to the D3S. In fact, for the price difference between a D700 and a D3s, you could purchase 1.5 of the following lenses 24mm f/1.4, 35mm f/1.4, or 85mm f/1.4. Each of these lenses, when compared to the next tier prime (i.e. the 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2.0, or 85mm, f/1.8) overcome the ISO capability difference between the D700 and the D3s. They of course would improve your low light capability versus your current lens choice dramatically.</p>

<p>Catherine, admit it -- you <em>want</em> to buy the D3x. You've seriously listened only to those who told you that was the solution and pretty much ignored anyone who suggested that something less expensive might serve your needs as well.</p>

<p>That's OK, just "belly up to the bar" and get the camera. It will serve you well, once you learn how to use it.</p>

<p>Purchasing one of these makes excellent sense for someone who is making money with it, and can take it off on their taxes. It's also a wonderful piece of equipment for those who merely WANT it a lot. :)</p>

<p>Thank you all for participating. You have been a great help to me. I've learned quite a bit. I'll close this discussion, if that's how this works and take everyone's suggestions into consideration. Thank you all again. </p>

<p>That's a very broad question, with a broad answer. Just about any Nikon from the rangefinder models of the 1950s to the latest DSLR is capable of producing excellent portraits or detailed fine art prints. It's much more about the lens, lighting and composition than the camera body. As for detail in a print if that's what your'e after in fine art (and don't forget "fine art" can come from a grainy, blurry Holga negative) some of even the lower-res digital bodies are fine if you are printing small. For film cameras, it's only a question of what film you put in them.</p>

<p>I have to smile at the comment that a D700 is getting "rather old." Oh my goodness! How definitions change. The F and f2 where each around for a decade--the F3 for 20 years. Is a person likely to get better photos with the latest Nikon than with an "old" D700? Not likely. The photographer still is more important than the camera or the lens. Today's ultra short model cycles is more about selling more "stuff" than about needed improvements.</p>