Replacement for Nikon D300? A D7100?

<p>Mervyn: Thank you for sympathising with the hijack! I feel bad if we divert before we've actually resolved a problem, but it sounds as though you've got a good solution. I'm curious about the 56mm f/1.2 myself (especially the APD version, which is more what I wanted the 135 f/2 DC to be), and have heard good things. Best of luck with it.<br />

<br />

Q.G.: My reason for not (often) using a tripod is that I need mobility in framing candids, not that I don't think they're useful. I have a RRS TVC-34L and an Arca d4 - and I'm not so flush that I could get these irrespective of need. I just can't use them for the majority of what I shoot. (When I need them, I really need them.)<br />

<br />

I struggle to see the benefit of a design which can make you miss a shot when there is an alternative (particularly software-only!) that would not. My body is absolutely in need of a redesign, not only from the point of view of photography, but the time and energy cost of doing so is beyond what I'm willing to pay at this point. Would I, similarly, buy a new Nikon solely for improved controls? Doubtful. Would it encourage me to upgrade rather than skipping a generation? Absolutely. Handling was a big motivation in my D800e to D810 upgrade.<br />

<br />

I don't need the camera to be ready every second of the day - I need it to be ready when I'm prepared to take the shot and conditions change. If I have to take the camera away from my eye - and sometimes rest it on the ground - because the AF mode or metering (I'd add white balance if I didn't shoot raw) is incorrect for the subject I'm tracking, the subject will be gone by the time I've made the change. I'm an amateur; if I miss a shot of a lifetime, it's just annoying, not something that impacts my livelihood (other than buying camera gear). The current controls clearly aren't <i>terrible</i>, because I'm using them and haven't switched to another body. That's not the same as there being "nothing wrong with" them. They clearly have a usability deficiency for the case I'm talking about, and "<i>I</i> never want to do that so <i>you</i> can't have a problem" isn't really a valid argument - just as, now I understand why people want one (I think), I'm not going to tell someone who's lusting after a Df that they should buy a modern camera instead. :-)<br />

<br />

Let's say there are three classes of lens, for the purposes of this discussion:</p>

<ul>

<li>There are some lenses that allow the camera to be supported by the right hand in a relatively normal position, allowing the left hand to make reasonably fast adjustments. Let's say a 50mm f/1.8. To make an adjustment using the top-left controls, I can remove my left hand from its normal, stable grip, reach for the top of the camera, assume I'm practised enough to do this without needing to take my eye from the finder, make a change, and take a shot with the camera supported only by the right hand (with whatever impact that has on sharpness). Unless I'm holding the camera in portrait mode, in which case I have to reorient the camera so I can actually reach the controls past my chin(s). I understand that, possibly, the inconvenience of doing this may, for some people, be less than the extent to which they don't like an overloaded right hand. Not me - I'm a respectably fast typist and can vaguely play a piano, and I can even work the interlocks on an F5 - I don't have a problem with independent finger control.</li>

<li>There are some lenses that cannot be stably (or comfortably) held in position by the right-hand grip while the left hand is fumbling on the top of the camera. Even pressing the camera to my face, I don't have sufficiently prehensile eyebrows to stabilise that combination. Let's take the 70-200 f/2.8 as a reasonably indisputable example. Yes, you <i>can</i> take one-handed images (and with an 80-200, I have, in order to shoot over a crowd), but unless you've got a forearm like Popeye, I doubt you'll have accurate framing, let alone a blur-free shot. I'm not worried about the lens snapping the mount (the 80-200 didn't come with a tripod collar, it was supposed to be cantilevered), but my biomechanics would be a problem. I'd put the 150mm Sigma macro, the 135 f/2 DC, the 300mm f/4 and the 150-500 in this category. Borderline between this category and the previous one are pretty much everything I shoot with, from the Sigma Art lenses to the 14-24. Mostly for those I can hold the camera with only mild discomfort (especially if I'm not trying to use any right-hand buttons - like AF-On - at the time), but not really as stably as I'd like, and I'd rather not in a long shoot. My right hand is trying to finesse the controls, not tire itself out with a power grip that I can't maintain for a day's shooting.</li>

<li>There are some lenses that cannot be supported at all by the right hand. I strongly suspect the new -600mm zooms are in this category; the 200mm f/2 certainly is (as has been mentioned, the manual says don't lift it by the camera). Certainly anything bigger, from the supertelephoto range. While tracking a subject, there is no alternative but to stop whatever you're doing and find another way to support the camera (whether by a strap on a lens or resting on something) while you adjust the controls. These are exactly the lenses for which you tend to be tracking a dynamic subject, and don't want to be interrupted.</li>

</ul>

<p>I don't buy for any of these that, during shooting, it is better to control the camera via controls on the top left of the body than it is to have the same controls mapped to the right side where the right hand can already reach the controls with the grip, and don't need to look to see what you're changing. The critical bit is "during shooting". If you enjoy wandering around, seeing the world around you, waiting for photo opportunities; then when you see one, you adjust the camera, raise it to your eye just for the final framing and take the shot, before continuing with your day - controls on the top left are absolutely fine. For you, I don't want to get rid of them. If you've set the camera up on a tripod so you have a relatively free left hand (which is not using controls on the lens), I also believe that you can train yourself to use these controls, with the disadvantages only of them being awkward when in portrait mode and that in landscape mode, you're blocking your left eye (maybe that's a price you're willing to pay to avoid overloading the right hand). But if you're shooting a subject that is moving, waiting for the exact timing of your shot, anything that takes you away from being able to make that shot is a bad thing. If you're supporting the camera yourself, that's going to happen. Even if you're using a tripod, that's probably going to happen - I've really not seen many pros using a <a href="http://www.collection-appareils.fr/graflex/images/WEEGEE.jpg">speed graphic grip</a> even when their lens is supported.<br />

<br />

Lenses that "can be hand held" don't need two hands on the camera all the time, but they do need two hands in place for a stable grip when shooting, including changing settings during shooting. Show me someone who is shooting with their left hand "free" to adjust the top left controls (and not using external support) and I suspect I'll show you someone without a very stable grip on the camera.<br />

<br />

There are lenses that, practically, do need to be on a tripod. The 2000mm f/11, perhaps. Probably the 1200-1700mm f/5.6-f/8. Even the Canon 1200mm f/5.6, or the 1000mm f/6.3 refractor that Aperture UK had (still have?) in their window. For most people, the 300-800mm Sigmonster, the 600mm f/4 and 800mm f/5.6 lenses from Canon and Nikon, and the Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8 <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/10/a-big-addition">Sigzooka</a>. There are plenty of lenses that will be much more comfortable and give better results (to a greater or less extent) used on a tripod - even my 500 f/4 AI-P is one of those.<br />

<br />

But there are also a lot of shots that you can get only with a large lens, but also only while being able to move around (not just pan). I hand-hold my 200 f/2 <i>a lot</i> (and also the 70-200, obviously). It lets me capture people in quite dim conditions while blurring an ugly background. Sure, I may get better technical sharpness by using a flash gun and a tripod and by asking everyone to hold very still while I set up. But - especially with VR and the fact that it's really quite hard to shake a 3kg lens even if you're trying - I'd rather get a pretty acceptably sharp image (even on a D800, as below) by being able to be in the right place to frame it than get a tack sharp technical masterpiece of a still life in daylight. So no, a tripod isn't always "the right" solution, and a shot isn't necessarily any more "missed" than it would be if I'd not been able to get into the right place to take it because I was tied to three extra legs. I certainly don't want to need a tripod just to adjust the controls when I use a 70-200 f/2.8.<br />

<br />

This isn't a catastrophic user interface issue. It's a niggle. But it's a niggle that's not particularly rare (it applies to all of my kit, under common circumstances, so it's Chinese water torture rather than a red hot paperclip under the fingernails). It's easy to fix (software only), and it wouldn't hurt anyone (I'm not talking about removing the top left controls for those who want them - that area is dead to me anyway). I'm a perfectionist - when I see something inconvenient, I try to work out how to improve it, which includes finding out (in fora like this) whether anyone agrees with my assessment and sees a problem with the solution. Hopefully, if there are only upsides to this, the message will eventually filter back to Nikon - or they'll eventually produce a camera with open firmware so that geeks like me could actually fix it ourselves. Claiming that there can't possibly be a problem, that missing shots is just part of life, that nobody in their right mind would hand-hold the most common press lenses around, and that the existing mechanism is perfect - is all very zen, but not a way to improve things.</p><div></div>

The use of the word "catastrophic" is fitting, Andrew. There is too much of this 'catastrophizing' going on in internet forums like this one. Things such as that you will miss the most important shot in the world if you have to move your left hand for a moment.<br>And a lot of denial too. The fact that you can get sharp enough shots handheld doesn't mean that your rate of really sharp shots doesn't go up considerably when you do not handhold.<br>There is also reality. Reality, in which you move your left hand a lot, do lots of things with your right hand too, in which you do not even have the camera glues to your eyes. In which you happen to be in the U.S. when the opportunity of a lifetime presents itself in europe, and vice versa. And in which you may miss a shot or two, but also get more than you miss. Etcetera. And in which the placement of a meter mode button on the left is (as you acknowledge - which is noted and appreciated) not the biggest worry.<br>And yes, of course: in that reality it is not always possible to use a tripod. I know that all too well. I have taken a gamble many times, for instance in gale force winds on deck of a heaving ship (literally) pounding the waves, on which you wouldn't use a tripod even in calm weather and a flat sea because of the many vibrations travelling through the metal structure anyway. Sometimes you get lucky.<br>The placement of that left hand control? A worry?! ;-)

<p>So glad no one brought up the worrisome issue of the missing left-handed camera (some ten percent of the population after all is left-handed) - we'd all be worried then about the right hand having too much to do and there would be endless back-and-forth about the placement of controls on the right of the camera! And which hand would then be used to manipulate the lens switches? A whole new layer of complexity would enter into the arguments - in particular if another worrisome problem might make an appearance - left-eyed vs right-eyed shooting. Would it be better for left-eyed shooters to use a left-handed camera even if the person is right handed? Wouldn't that result in "freedom" for the nose? And the absence of "catastrophic" changes made by its contact with the multi pad?</p>

<p>Then - ballhead with left-handed controls - imagine the possible worries. Left-threaded tripod legs. Left-threaded screw-clamps. An entire mirror-imaged universe...<br /> <br /> <br /> It's all so easy folks: the right side is the right side and the left side is the wrong side. Or something like that. Maybe just a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing - or vice versa.</p>

Dieter, i can't agree. If there would be such a thing as a left-hand camera (and ditto lenses), surely some left handed photographers would moan about some control being moved to the right side. No new layer. Same old same old.<br><br>All camera are made for noseless people. No matter whether they are left or right eyed. A much more important issue, that. When is the industry going to do something about that?

<p>This post has been up for a while so I thought I'd chime in a couple thoughts of reality, especially about upgrading from a D300 to a full frame body. First, there is no upgrade from the D300 which is a rugged, cropped frame, pro grade, 8 FPS with grip, large buffer (sort of), sports camera. If that's your shooting style, you'll have to move to Canon. Sorry Nikonians. (I'n one also.) I didn't need the rugged part so I added a couple 12 FPS, Sony A77IIs to my photographic tool kit, with Sony lenses of course. If sports is not your primary concern, and you want a cropped frame body, either the D7100 or D7200 bodies are outstanding, providing more dynamic range than anything else on the market. This is really important if you are shooting images with a lot of dark and light content in the same image. Finally, cropped frame and full frame are very different creatures. You just can't go from one to the other with out affecting your personal style. I use both together. In a recent trip to Iceland, I used a FF D810 with 24-105 for large landscape images and a CF D7100 with 17-70 for more personal, close-up, and difficult images. At first, it appears that I am just duplicating my equipment coverage, but the cropped frame body has more depth of field and I achieve a larger percentage of keepers, especially since my technique doesn't have to be quite as precise in difficult shooting conditions. The rest of the time I used my iPhone. <br>

</p>

Michael, you can lighten your load and ditch the cropped frame body. It does not have more depth of field. That's a misconception.<br>Besides, any FF body is a cropped frame body if and when you want it too be.

<p>Q.G...Yes, I've read that a cropped frame body doesn't have more depth of field but if I am trying to take a picture of the exact same scene covering the exact same elements in the image with a full frame, cropped frame, and iPhone, why does the iPhone have the greatest depth of field (tiny sensor), the CF body is second, and the FF is great for blurring a background or foreground. My reference is from "in-the-field" experience, not testing. I am shooting my cropped frame body with a 17-70 macro lens I can get images with very close-up subject elements that I simply can't get with my D810. I've tried many times. In fact, on my trip to Iceland, I only used my D810 with this type of image for the first 2 days and have regretted that decision. After reviewing my images, I immediately reverted back to CF for those types of images. I view camera and lens combos (different sensor sizes) as tools with very different capabilities (based on my shooting style) and view the CF body critical for both for nature and sports. <br>

<br>

http://mdougherty.com/100-THEPHOTOEXPERIENCE/110-LOCATIONS/15-iceland-south/00-loc-southiceland-15-intro-150718-htm.htm</p>

"Tiny"is the key word. Depth of field depends on three things: ,agnification. f-stop and how sharp the sharpest bit in the photo is anyway.<br>Low magnification (smaler image projected on a smaller sensor) will have more DoF. That however is negated when you enlarge the image later to the same size as that of, say, a FF sensor: it"s the final magnification - relation between real-life-size to image-you-look-at size - that counts.<br>While the unshaprness gets magnified and becomes more apparent, the sharness does not incrase with magnification. So the difference between sharp and unsharp does not increase with magnification. The resolution of a photo taken with an iPhone cannot match the resolution of a crop frame of FF camera. So when you enlarge it, the difference between the unsharp bits and the supposedly sharp bit still remains lower that it would when using a DX or FF camera. So though not as sharp, more apparent sharpness, i.e. more DoF.<br><br>In the case you described however, the important bit is that any FF sensor also is a DX sensor. You just have to crop away the extra bit. So what you use your DX camera for can also be had using the FF camera. No need to carry both.<br>If you can't (and i do apologize for it sounding rather harsh) you really do need to see what you are doing wrong. Because it is you, not the camera, that is the cause of your disappointment. And (since it is so simple - both in theory and practice - that there is really nothing in the camera that could cause this) my first thought would be that the cause lies with your expectations, somehow not recognizing what you get, even though you did get the same as you would have using the DX camera, because you know that it wasn't the DX camera you used. Bias.

<p>I already knew that I would lose this argument but I was so extremely happy with my images from my Iceland trip and several trips before that (using my current equipment strategy), I felt brave enough to venture forward and offer a few thoughts that really work for me. After all, isn't the entire objective of photography to "get-the-shot". I carry 3 combos with me on all trips, a D810 with 24-105, a D7100 with 17-70 macro, and a Sony A77II with 70-400. Based on my experience after taking over 100,000 images in the field, and I was forced to get rid of one body, it would easily be the D810 and it's the best body I own. I just think that advanced amateurs like myself shouldn't think that full frame is the holy grail. </p>