Upgrading from D90 - Sept. 2015

<p>Hello there!<br /> I've been looking to upgrade from my D90 for a while now and I'd like some advice! I've had my D90 for about 4 years. I mainly shoot portraiture, along with the occasional wedding and sporting event. My main reason for upgrading is image quality. I'm not worried about lens compatibility when I upgrade. I've been thinking FX for some time now, and most recently the D750. I'm looking for a body that will last me many years, so I'm interested in spending whatever's necessary if it will be something I can grow with.<br /> Should I go beyond the D750? I'm looking for something that will increase my image quality, and more specifically I want to be able to notice it in the clarity of my prints.</p>

<p>Is there a noticeable difference between the D750 and D7200? <br /> If I want to grow, right now it makes more sense to me to move to FX...</p>

<p>Again, I'm interested in going beyond the D750 if it will be a camera that I can grow with. However, if the D750 has great quality then I think I'll lean that way...Thoughts?</p>

<p>Any current dslr should provide image quality improvement in images shot with high iso and printed big. In small prints that were shot in good light, difference can be next to nothing. Having both full frame and dx has some advantages. Using wide angle or normal in fx body and tele in dx body one can maximize zoom range. You mention D750 and D7200. I have not yet seen or tried either of them, but those specifications are up to modern standards.</p>

<p>Personally I wholeheartedly recommend moving to FX.<br>

I did so upgrading from a D2X to a D3 shortly after the introduction of the D3, and haven't looked back since. Admittedly the IQ of DX camera's had much improved since the the D2X.</p>

<p>But apart from the (admittedly in my personal opinion) better quality of the IQ and high ISO of eg the DF and D800 (which I own), vs D7100 and D7200 (which I don't own, but have handled and done some test shots with) I much better like the image rendering of FX lenses like the 1.8/85mm AF, 1.4/85mm AF or 2.870-200 VR when used on FX rather then when used on DX. Especially since the lenses are then utilized at their native focal lenghth (rather then being extended, with consequences for the DoF, by the DX crop).</p>

<p>IMO the DX crop sensors were originally conceived as cropped for mainly economical reasons (at the time when they were first introduced manufacturing a FX sensor was much more/too expensive) and while the DX crop is a great solution for eg shooting birds or wildlife without having to buy (expensive) FX super telelenses, the latter simply also is more an economical then a technical choice.</p>

<p>I don't own a D750, but seriously considered buying one when it was introduced.<br>

The 36 megapixel of the D800 are great for what I shoot a lot (catwalk and occasionally some surf) where I gladly have the extra pixels for some room for cropping afterwards, and the detail and color are great for the other fashion stuff I shoot.<br>

But at times it's a bit much, resulting in files of 50+ MB (even in lossless compressed mode) , which makes even my i7 Macbook Pro make an occasional run for the money. The 24 megapixel are a nice compromise between the 12 megapixels of the D3 (at times just not enough, eg when some cropping needs to be done) and the D800 (for the above stated reasons) resulting in big enough, but not oversized files which won't force you to upgrade your computer (my 4MB memory Fujitsu Siemens note book was great for the D3 files, but severily choked on the D800 ones).</p>

<p>Didn't get a D750 (purely for economical reasons, already having 3 FX bodies, getting yet another one would rather be more out of NAS then necessity). But handled and did some test shooting with it, and it's a great camera. There are enough reviews around that go into the specs, but from a practical view I like the handling (nice grip, size, weight), fast AF (even under low light, important for weddings and sports) and IQ, not only widely praised for the high ISO, but also more importantly, great shadow detail recovery (sometime you can't avoid under exposing the shadows, and it's great if you can still recover them without IQ loss).</p>

<p>No doubts there will be a newer and 'better' body in the works already, but IMO a great camera will still give great results no matter how many newer bodies may be introduced. Still use my D3 with great results, and that's a dinosaur by modern technical standards, so I don't think the D750 will become completely obsolete overnight if a 'newer' model would be introduced shortly.</p>

<p>HTH</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If I want to grow, right now it makes more sense to me to move to FX...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Growing in photography has got nothing to do with the size of the sensor. Really nothing. Cameras as the D90 do not lack much functionality that could hinder your development. Are newer cameras better? Sure, but the added capabilities do not mean you learn better, faster or more - it's rather that they might allow you to work in some circumstances where older cameras are not delivering the best.<br>

So, I'd take a more pragmatic approach:</p>

<ul>

<li>In which ways do you feel the "image quality" of the D90 is lacking, and in which ways does it hold you back?</li>

<li>What advantages you see in FX cameras that would move your photography forwards in a way that DX cameras cannot do?</li>

</ul>

<p>In other words: is FX the right answer to the problems I experience, or could I spend my money more wisely?<br>

I'm not saying there are no advantages to FX cameras - there sure are, and I know for which reasons I use FX. But that doesn't make FX by definition better than DX - most certainly not from a cost perspective. My reasons to use FX, or those of others, may have got nothing to do with what you experience as a problem. So, advice from us to which camera suits you best - take that with a grain of salt until you clearly define for yourself what you want to see fixed with this new purchase.<br />For the kind of work you describe, in my view your primary concerns should be light (flash) and lenses - not waste too much of the budget on a camera body, as they age quickly, deprecate fast and usually they're not what holds you back. I'd rather have a D5200 with a 17-50 f/2.8/70-200 f/2.8 and a SB910 to cover a wedding, than a D750 with 28-300 f/3.5-5.6 and a SB700, for example.<br>

Any camera from the D90 level on can do whatever it takes to learn about photography, and grow into it (more), and deliver good professional looking results. So don't worry about being too limited by gear, it is not likely to become the issue. Define the problem you want to fix, and then check what is the most effective fix for it. Might be a FX camera, a DX camera or a pair of SB910s - better to investigate first than to spend money and find it didn't help much.</p>

<p>moving from DX to FX isn't just about switching sensor formats. it's also about lenses. there's nothing wrong with the D90's image quality, but it has a 12 mp sensor which may seem outdated in 2015. a D750 would be a serious upgrade, but if you also have to upgrade your lenses to retain the same functionality you had with DX, that could get pricey.</p>

Again, I'm not worried about pricing. I realize that the switch means upgrading to fx lenses as well, and that's no big deal.

I really and truly do not find the image quality on my D90 satisfying anymore. Mainly due to the lack of clarity. I realize that

instead of switching to fx, I could add some new lenses and stay with my current body. However, I'm interested in

switching to fx now because if it's a change that I will make eventually, why not start it now? That way the fx lenses I

acquire will be compatible with any future fx body I may upgrade to (after this current upgrade).

 

Will I see an improvement in the clarity of my photos simply by switching to fx, as I begin to grow my fx lens collection?

<p>I shot weddings for several years with a D7100. Really, truly, there are two things I consider crucial for weddings: (1) a backup camera (2) f2.8 lenses. Do you have a camera for back up? What lenses do you have? Absolutely, I'd rather have two D7100 (or D7200) than just one D750. I'm also assuming you have all the needed flash/lightstands/modifiers. I did end up buying a D800E for my architecture-type shots--the 24mm PCE lens doesn't fit on my D7100. I spent $1,500 for the camera and then another ~$6,000 on lenses. The REAL improvement comes from lenses.</p>

<p>My experience between D7100 and D800E is that not one of my customers could tell the difference in images as to what camera was used. They could generally tell when I used a state of art lens (on enlargements) and immediately tell when I used a well planned lighting set up. I'm assuming you already have something like 17-50mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8 VR, a pair of SB-900 flash, good tripod/head for group shots, and a back up body. If not, THOSE are the priorities. Cameras just don't make nearly as big a difference. I'd rather have a pair of D7100/D7200 with the above system than a D750 and less capable lenses/flash any day. I'll add that since using D800E I'm not making any more money (on weddings) and it made zero difference business wise. There's a bigger difference between D90 & D7200 than D7200 and D750. You are reaching the point of diminishing returns there. I did see a difference in "clarity" between D7100 and D800E, but ONLY after spending $6,000 on lenses and only when I make photos bigger than 11x14. (I suspect more than half the difference came from the lens upgrades.) </p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>What is clarity?</p>

 

<p>Which lenses are you using now with your D90? Have you given any thought to a used Df? Just something to think about.</p>

<p>Given that you only shoot the 'occasional wedding' I think the whole lecture on the necessity of getting a second body, specifically wedding shoots orientated lenses, and extra speedlights is pretty much overkill, to say the least.<br />Following that train of thought, there should also have been comments made for also needing to get a few D4S's, a 2.8/400, 4/600 etc. since you also mention the shooting the occasional sports event.</p>

<p>If you are not satisfied with the IQ of the D90, and ask whether an upgrade to a FX/D750 will show any improvements, that should be the starting point to make any comments/recommendations on, rather then delving into what supposedly is necessary for what only is a side activity.<br>

I think that you will indeed see a distinct improvement when switching from a D90 to a D750. I noticed it myself when I switched from a D2X to a D3, and even saw it between the D300 I had for a short spell and the second (intended as back up) D3 I replaced it for.</p>

<p>I do think the newer sensors for the D7100 and D7200 show much improvement over the older DX sensors like e.g. the D300 and D90.<br>

But from what I've learned from using/shooting with the newer model FX bodies is that with the right software and processing the files/IQ of the newer FX bodies absolutely shine, and IMO in the end are superior over those of the DX ones.<br>

I'm sure that with the necessary patience, skill and TLC the files from the older DX camera's can come a long way. But if you don't have the time, patience etc, I'm just as sure that in an immediate comparison between shots at the same time of the same scene, the shots of a D750 will simply outclass those of a D90.</p>

<p>And last, but not least, if you don't feel comfortable any longer with your old camera for the purposes you intend it for (and you can afford it), just upgrade to what you think you need.<br>

I e.g. heard plenty of comments that I should be able to use my old AiS glass comfortably on my D3 and D800. I didn't feel like that, and got a DF instead. I love the feel, balance and way it focuses with my old glass, and am glad I made the choice, despite all the 'advice' saying using those lenses on eg my D800 would not have made a difference.<br>

It's a matter of personal choice and preference, and if you don't feel you older equipment is no longer up to your intended demands (and again, you can afford it), just do it, no matter what the 'experts' say.</p>

<p>Rachel, I've been there. </p>

<p>My progression was D200 to D300 (both terrific and successful cameras for me). Then, I bought a D600 to try full frame. I have plenty of lenses, so being able to fit the right lens for the task is not a problem.</p>

<p>Image quality is great with all the cameras you are considering. My D300 is a bit old but still produces great shots. What I noticed immediately is the size and weight difference:<br>

- DX body with 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 vs. FX body with 85 f/1.8 for portraits<br>

- DX body with a kit zoom vs. FX body with 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 for general shooting</p>

<p>Take a look at camera size.com or hold these in a shop.</p>

<p>The net for me: I don't use the FX, and I've started experimenting with even smaller cameras (Sony mirrorless). </p>

<p> </p>

<p>The d90 is a very nice camera, and I used it a lot with very good results even with a cheap 18=55 plastic lens. It was however frustrating not to be able to get bigger prints (but only once for an exhibition), also I am so used to film cameras that I wanted a camera with a 50mm lens that really looks a like a 50mm. I wanted a fx camera and I bought the Nikon d610. To my surprise, even the auto focus was better. Certainly not as good as the d750 in dim light, but good enough for me and also very nice pictures at iso 3200. The Nikon Photographers i knpw all have a d750 or a df, and if they are better than me it's not because of their camera. I'd recommand the d750 for its great autofocus but a d610 would save some money for a good prime.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Will I see an improvement in the clarity of my photos simply by switching to fx, as I begin to grow my fx lens collection?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>yes, but only because current FX sensors have twice the resolution as the d90. a 24mp DX body would do the same thing, mostly. the main difference for what you shoot will be shallower DoF with fast lenses. you gain about a stop with FX.</p>

<p>Related question: Will a current FX camera produce better images (e.g. clarity) than a current DX camera, with comparable lenses of appropriate focal lengths?</p>

<p>With larger pixel areas on the sensor, the FX camera should be able to have better high ISO; DXOmark.com confirms this, their number are about one stop better for FX than DX. That said, I do indoor available light with today's DX cameras and I'm very happy with the results.</p>

<p>Other than high-ISO, and slightly harder to blur backgrounds with DX, I have trouble finding an image quality advantage in FX.</p>

<p>I bought the D90 for my daughter. Yes, I can certainly see an image quality difference from the D90 to current cameras. I'm sure you will too, whichever way you go.</p>

<p>If the problem is "clarity", then as asked before: what is clarity? Could you upload an example? It's not something very well defined, so you might mean something else than I read into it.<br>

What I'd call clarity has way more to do with lenses (the ability to play more with depth of field with fast lenses) and processing. And it has most of all to do with light and the contrast created by that light. So, what lenses do you currently actually use with your D90? Do you have and use flashes? How do you process your images?</p>

<p>Getting a camera before getting suitable lenses is, for me, really the wrong way around. A camera is useless without a lens; while FX lenses you can already use today on your D90. I'd prioritise the "main" FX lens, and then go for the camera, then at least you will start of right with the new body. If you end up putting something like a 28-80 f/3.3-5.6G on a D750 because you spent too much on the body (and way too little on the lens), you will not see any improvement in clarity, colours or whatever other magic FX is expected to be done.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Will a current FX camera produce better images (e.g. clarity) than a current DX camera, with comparable lenses of appropriate focal lengths?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And that's the right question to ask. I'll go against most replies posted so far. In my opinion, in most cases: no. For me, there are two reasons to shoot FX: less depth of field, bigger viewfinder (given that I use manual focus most of the time, this is big to me). High ISO is an advantage to FX, but with cameras as the D7100/D7200, the real-world advantage of that for most uses is pretty minor. Most here, me included, shoot FX and prefer it, and as a result FX sees more promotion. But none of that answers <em>your</em> question whether <em>your</em> problem will be solved with it.</p>

<p>There is a distinct advantage to FX in terms of shooting in low light and with high ISO. FX can also more easily give you a shallower depth of field without resorting to shooting with telephoto. You also can make use of the best lenses.</p>

<p>The disadvantages of FX are primarily weight and cost--in that order, if cost is no object.</p>

<p>I shoot both--a lot. Lately I have shot more with the smaller format. I have two DX cameras and two FX cameras, so why did I shoot mostly DX this summer? It's easier and more convenient in some ways. Every outing does not feel like an expedition. I'm having fun.</p>

<p>Yes, I have had my eye on the D750 for quite a while. I would probably buy it if I were in your shoes, but heed the advice about lenses--and choose your first lenses very carefully.</p>

<p>My first inclination is to say, if money is no object, stop spinning your wheels and take the plunge. Having said that, however, do you have a good computer system with adequate speed, storage, and backup? Is the monitor top quality and calibrated? Do you have a good, light tripod with a good quick release head? Do you have good post-processing software? I don't know just how deep your pockets are, but doing a full switch from scratch is going to lost a lot--more than ten thousand dollars if you really jump in at the deep end and go for the best lenses.</p>

<p>I shot mostly my D5200 a lot this summer with a Sigma 17-50 f/2.8, along with my cell phone camera. I was happy. You might spend all that money, then look back and say, "Why did I think that FX was going to make that much difference?" You might need a newer car, and that might be more important than switching formats.</p>

<p>So. . . my final recommendation is to proceed cautiously and rationally--test the waters with an upgraded DX system. Get a D7100 or D7200 and another good lens or two for that system, and then reassess. If you are like most of us, you are not going to want to throw away your DX gear just because you have the FX gear.</p>

<p>FX is great, but it is no panacea.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I mainly shoot portraiture, along with the occasional wedding and sporting event.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>a d750 would be better than a d600 or d7200 for these applications -- with the caveat that you need appropriate lenses. i use a 35 and an 85 on FX for portraits; for events i shoot both DX and FX with 2.8 zooms, mostly. if your portrait style involves a lot of subject isolation, the shallower DoF of FX is a plus.</p>

Okay, another question. Has anyone ever used Sigmas? I've stayed brand name, Nikon, previously. Right now I'm thinking of grabbing

the D750 body, a sigma 70-200 2.8, and a few Nikon 1.4 or 1.8 primes. Thoughts on the sigma 70-200 2.8 being used on the (fx) D750?

Any other lens suggestions? I'm pretty set on the D750.

<p>i have a bunch of sigma lenses. their recent lenses over the past 3-4 years are pretty good to excellent. the 35 and 50 ART lenses have been well-received and have been reviewed to be optically superior to comparable nikons. in my own experience, their primes are pretty good -- i have the 35 ART and the 85/1.4 and very happy with both. i would definitely consider the 24/1.4 ART as well as the new 50. However, they dont have the best reputation for zooms, although the 17-50 OS for DX is a solid performer, as is the 50-150/2.8 (non-OS). i chose the Nikon 70-200VRII for my FX 2.8 tele which is expensive but worth it (if you are doing paid shoots). ive never used the Sigma version -- of which there are two, the latest being stabilized, but according to <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_70-200_2p8_os_c16/6">DP review</a> , it's softer and less contrasty at 2.8 than the canon and nikon versions. So this lens appears to be more of a case of you get what you pay for than the high-quality/affordable price combo of the ART primes. Your happiness with it may come down to whether you shoot at 2.8 a lot; if not, you may want to consider the nikon 70-200/4 which covers that same range in a lighter package. if you're considering the 35mm, the new tamron 35/1.8 adds stabilization and a short MFD at a lower price than the Sigma ART, so that might be worth a look. and i've heard good things about the Nikon 85/1.8 G, which appears to be a fine choice if you don't need 1.4. </p>

<p>I find the high end Sigma, Tokina and Tamron lenses to be excellent. I don't even have a high end Nikon lens and shoot professionally for concerts, events, portraits, catalogues and even a little sports.</p>