Which Nikon DSLR would you recommend for me?

Coming from a 5 Mpix D1x, the 16 Mpix on a D800/E/810 in DX mode is still a significant upgrade if reach is needed for birding/wildlife.

I still think the D800E is the most bang for your buck. I went from a D80 to a D7000 and then to a D610 which I sold when I got a D800 that later got sold when I got a D800E. Each camera offered a notable uppgrade in image quality. Using some really good glass, I am happy with the upgrade from D800 to D800E. The difference in micro contrast and sharpnes is bigger than many would imagine. The D810 is more refined, but not significantly better in terms of image quailty than the D800E. The D850 is better in all aspects, apart from high ISO performance (6400+) where the D800E has less noise.

For highest value within the OP's stated budget, it will be hard to beat a used D7200, which will accommodate and meter with all but pre-AI lenses. If he must go FX, then it's harder to differentiate between the D8XX, D7XX, and Df choices. Prices in the US for used D810 are still running above $1,500 (I know, since I'm shopping). D800's are somewhat less, but most of these are somewhat elderly now and many are heavily used. They do have the 36 Mp sensor, but I wonder if the net product is really that much better than the more advanced, 24 Mp sensors in both the D750 or the the D7200. I'll be very curious to see what Rex chooses.

I'm feeling the pressure, David. I suppose that because of my familiarity with film, I've been equating full-frame with medium format, and maybe this isn't an apt comparison. It seems to be coming down to a simple choice between FX (probably the D800/800E or 810) or DX (the D7200, which seems to be getting unanimous praise).

I assume you understand that your current camera is not a full-frame camera and that when/if you move to a full frame you will lose reach on your lenses. It might be helpful to know what lenses you have and what you typically shoot. If you are a birder or wildlife shooter, you should stay with a crop sensor camera. if you do mostly landscapes and family events, the full-frame is probably the better choice. You are currently experiencing the 1.5 crop effect on all your lenses and will gain width at the expense of reach if you go full-frame. I recently bought a D500 since wildlife is my primary target but I will NOT sell my D7200. It's that good of a camera.

 

However... if you are accustomed to the hand room your camera gives you, you will find the D7200 pretty compact and much less roomy. Might be an issue if you have large hands.

 

Tom

Among my more recent lenses, Tom, I have several of the D and G series Nikkors. Yes, I've got pre-Ai and Ai manual focus lenses. I think it's unlikely that I'll use them with the camera I get, but I'd like to know that I can if push comes to shove. I like photographing people and am developing a particular interest in portraiture; I've just invested in some studio gear. I have small hands, long fingers. The plot thickens.

AI is fine, but for pre-AI on FX you'd probably need a Df - see:

Can I use an older F mount non ai lens with a Nikon Dslr?

You can get a nice D800 or D800E in the UK for under £1000 (Aperture sold a high mileage user D800 for £650 recently). The D810 is still in the £1400-£1600 range at dealers.

I'm feeling the pressure, David. I suppose that because of my familiarity with film, I've been equating full-frame with medium format, and maybe this isn't an apt comparison. It seems to be coming down to a simple choice between FX (probably the D800/800E or 810) or DX (the D7200, which seems to be getting unanimous praise).

All current Nikon cameras are good. Please don't minus D750 or D610 from FX choices merely because of one or two aspects only. D750 is probably the most popular among the FX line. My suggestion of D7200 was only of the budget you mentioned and the crop factor of your previous camera. I only mentioned "my experience" of low light between D750 and D7200, but this does not means I depend solely on D7200. One factor only.

I had used Medium Format in film for almost ten years, and scanning these negatives are a different kind of output. They are different horses .

However for Enlargements while printing sizes larger than 16x20 inches the D810 shows a very clear difference than the others and specially the DX models. Here printing large sizes is again a factor only. There are pluses and minuses depending on the use of the cameras mentioned above.

Fundamentally, FX digital still looks like 35mm. Yes, the image even from something like a Df(16mp) is technically better in virtually every respect than even the best films made today, but it still looks like it's 35mm film.

The only way to really get the medium format "look"(which I attribute a lot to the shallower DOF inherent in a large format for an equivalent FOV) is with...medium format. I admit to not really keeping up with it, but I don't think anyone yet has made a commercially available "full frame" MF sensor, and I think most are somewhere 45mm in the long dimension(typical medium format dimensions are around 56mm across the film, although it can vary as much as a full millimeter depending on the camera). Still, though, that's enough to get the "look" much better than a 24x36mm sensor.

I don't know how much they sell the D750 in the UK but 1000 pounds is $1350 right now and a brand new D750 in the US is only $1500.

Nikon UK's exchange rate calculator seems to be broken, unfortunately. It's above £1700 at most dealers, though there's one selling it at the 'bargain' price of £1605. 20% of that is VAT, but it's still over $1800 USD before tax.

Syed - I'm not disputing your eyes, I just haven't heard others claim that the D7200 sensor actually outshoots the D800's (at the same ISO). It is, I admit, an appreciably newer design - the D800 sensor (and with minor tweaks the D810's) is essentially the Sony one used in the original A7R. That's of a similar generation to the original D7000, with both the D7100 and D7200 giving improvements (and arguably D7500, too). It's also true that smaller sensors tend to behave a little better than a crop of a larger sensor of the same technology (presumably due to read noise over a larger area) - the D7000 behaves a little better than the DX crop of the D800, I believe, and the D500 behaves a little better than the DX crop of the D850. I've never compared to a D7200 myself, but it's been the recommended go-to DX body for a long time for a reason, and I certainly don't doubt it's a good body - if we're not sticking to the DX requirement, it's absolutely worth a look, especially with the D7500 having quite a premium last I looked.

I'm not sure I'd claim the D750's sensor is "more advanced" than the D800's - it's certainly barely any newer, being essentially the same as that in the D600 and D610 (at least, it tests almost identically). The D750 handles much better and has much more advanced autofocus, and it's certainly a very good camera, but I'd not claim it's a generational step forward. It's also got the AA filter, which makes the pixel-level sharpness lower than a D800e or D810 (but reduces moire).

MPB have a D810 listed for just over £1100, which to me would be worth it over a ~£1000 D800e. At £1700 it's obviously a harder sell. I've not checked if there's anything subtle wrong with that D810, though.

The D810 is more refined, but not significantly better in terms of image quailty than the D800E.

The ISO 64 behaviour does give a small but significant benefit to the D810. And I absolutely do find myself shooting at ISO64 a lot. I can't so much vouch for the per-pixel sharpness benefit of a genuinely missing AA filter vs a "cancelled" one.

The D850 is better in all aspects, apart from high ISO performance (6400+) where the D800E has less noise.

I haven't yet had the chance to give my D810 and D850 a proper side-by-side test in low light, but... really? What I've seen so far holds up remarkably well, and the dual-ISO readout design ought to be benefitting the D850. One of the reasons I upgraded was the measurements indicating just under a stop advantage; it may be less than that, but I certainly wouldn't expect it to be worse. I know Shun demonstrated an image with some slightly odd sections in comparison, but my impression was that other areas of the same image looked better on the D850.

For what it's worth, I don't believe in some magic that gives different formats a different "look". I've absolutely seen a difference between some 35mm film and some 6x6 shots, but that had a lot to do with the microcontrast of the medium. I've seen 35mm film next to DX shots professionally printed at large sizes in the Wildlife Photographer of the Year exhibition, and the local contrast of even a 12MP DSLR sensor made the 35mm shot look ridiculously soft in comparison; telling DX from FX digital is very much harder. You can argue that effective aperture makes a difference, but then there aren't a heck of a lot of f/1.4 lenses available for medium format cameras, and the f/1.8 DX zooms don't really have an FX equivalent - so that effect can be cancelled out to some extent. It is easier to limit optical artifacts at lower relative apertures (even with more coverage, at least for some lenses), but modern designs are getting very good at handling aberrations anyway; larger sensor areas are a little less demanding on the lens design for sharpness, but not much for the sizes we're talking about. At a given generation, there's an advantage to electron well depth that comes with larger sensors, but we're not dealing with a lot of photons these days - at minimum ISO, the dynamic range of the best sensors hasn't changed much for a few years.

I do, for what it's worth, shoot exclusively FX myself - the image quality benefit is there over DX (though the smaller format has advantages too) at least with the lenses currently on the market. But I absolutely don't delude myself that my pictures are measurably better than if I were shooting DX except under very extreme circumstances.

There have, historically, been some medium format sensors that got close to 645 format - The Phase One IQ180 and XF are 53.7x40.4mm, for example. There seems to be a recent move to 44x33mm or thereabouts, which are probably a more sensible price/performance trade-off. None are anything like as refined to use as a premium FX or DX DSLR, though. I suspect Rex will be fairly astounded at the image quality improvements of pretty much any current DSLR over a D1x (although sensor quality obviously doesn't trump the photographer in making a good image) without bringing medium format to the table.

Fundamentally, FX digital still looks like 35mm. Yes, the image even from something like a Df(16mp) is technically better in virtually every respect than even the best films made today, but it still looks like it's 35mm film.

 

The only way to really get the medium format "look"(which I attribute a lot to the shallower DOF inherent in a large format for an equivalent FOV) is with...medium format. I admit to not really keeping up with it, but I don't think anyone yet has made a commercially available "full frame" MF sensor, and I think most are somewhere 45mm in the long dimension(typical medium format dimensions are around 56mm across the film, although it can vary as much as a full millimeter depending on the camera). Still, though, that's enough to get the "look" much better than a 24x36mm sensor.

But if you only talk about DOF then most MF normal lenses are f/2.8 while you can get f/1.4 for the smaller format. Wouldn't that make up for the DOF?

But if you only talk about DOF then most MF normal lenses are f/2.8 while you can get f/1.4 for the smaller format. Wouldn't that make up for the DOF?

Not really. I wish I had side-by-side examples handy to post...

BTW, the last few MF portraits I've shot have been with my 150mm f/4 Sonnar, although I also have a few interesting ones taken with the 180mm f/4 SF on my RB67(that's an intentionally weird lens wide open). Usually my grab and go portrait lens on my D800 is the 105mm f/2.8 Macro, although depending on the situation I might use my 80mm f/2 or 135mm f/2.8(the 135mm f/2 DC is still on my want list-my AI-S version I'm afraid is dead...)

MPB have a D810 listed for just over £1100, which to me would be worth it over a ~£1000 D800e. At £1700 it's obviously a harder sell. I've not checked if there's anything subtle wrong with that D810, though.

Just looks like high shutter count and paint wear, etc. - could be worth going for at that price (the shutter is supposed to be good for 200k shots). They also have a D800 for £634 with fewer shots on the clock, though it looks a fair bit scruffier.

I've looked at MPB and never bought anything from them. I take it that these comments imply that they are worth considering.

I had two D610's and they both had shutters that put oil spots on the sensor so be aware of this issue. If you use Nikon Capture NX2 as a raw processor, the last FX body supported for NEF files is the D800E. I love this camera and still use it all the time with some old manual focus Nikon lenses.

NX2 works with my Df NEF. I think the Df was introduced after the D800/D800E right?

Andrew, let me elaborate on what I meant with image quality. If you look at Photonstophoto’s chart showing photographic dynamic range versus ISO, the difference (in percentage) is higher to the D800E’s advantage on the higher end of the scale (ISO 6 400-12 800, over that everything falls apart) than it is to the D810’s advantage at the lowest ISO settings. With that in mind look at DxOMark’s sensor score and note that (the D850 has a lower sports score than) the D810 (, which in turn) has a lower sports score than the D800E. While at DxOMark, look at the sharpness results shown for the same Nikkor lenses mounted on the D800E versus on the D810. The number of lenses that score a point or two higher on the D800E than they do on the D810 is notable. The sum of those parts was the basis for my claim that the D810 does not offer a significantly better image quality than the D800E. (I would not dispute the fact that the D810 is more refined, handles better and therefore is the better tool.)

Off topic, comparing to the D850:

I regularly shoot indoor dressage and showjumping and clearly noted the difference in noise when I compared the D800E to the D850. (I know that for indoors sports, the D4S or D5 would be the logical choice, but they are different animals in all other aspects and well above the OP’s budget.) The D800/E do have occasional problems getting the color temperature right, something the D850 only rarely displayed when shooting under these nightmare lights.

I suspect Shun’s review of the D850 has been canceled, as it still has not been published and that camera has long since been returned to Nikon. Personally, I do not mind as I got to test the D850 for a week and see what is what from my perspective. I will upgrade, the D850 offers a significantly better image quality than the other D8X0X versions in a body that offers much better AF and handling. I can crop more, the AF gives me more keepers. The only downside I noted was the noise at higher ISO, even when downsampled. (Photonstophotos also indicate this). That I can live with.

Not that I'm recommending it as such, but I was looking for a modern sensor FX Nikon body to convert to IR and I was amazed at how low in price a lightly used D600 goes for. I know of the oil 'issue', but as I'm taking the poor thing to bits anyway...;)

You could buy 2 for £1000...or some new glass....:cool:

The main issue is FX v DX.

What glass, specifically, do you have?

Ah, Heimbrandt, the challenges of indoor showjumping.........:)

I had two D610's and they both had shutters that put oil spots on the sensor so be aware of this issue. If you use Nikon Capture NX2 as a raw processor, the last FX body supported for NEF files is the D800E. I love this camera and still use it all the time with some old manual focus Nikon lenses.

You got oil spots from a D610? That surprises me. The D600 had an oil spot issue; the D610 is essentially a D600 with a slightly redesigned shutter that gives it an extra half fps, but also was supposed to restore the reputation of the body after the oil spot thing. Of all Nikon's cameras, I'm worried that you've seen a D610 with an oil spot, let alone two. They definitely weren't D600s?

That said, I believe a recall fixed most of these oil spot problems, so - while you should check - I wouldn't be too scared of a D600 these days. But the D750 is quite a lot better!

(the 135mm f/2 DC is still on my want list-my AI-S version I'm afraid is dead...)

As forum regulars will recall, I had a terrible experience with the 135 DC, which was one of the lenses that made me switch from Canon based partly on Hynoken's review. I found it not terribly sharp, hard to focus, and - especially with any setting on the DC dial - spectacularly prone to LoCA. The 1001 nights article is very flattering about it, but it also claims it's light, which it isn't. The background rendering is beautiful, and the LoCA goes away if you treat your f/2 lens as an f/5.6 lens, but the coloured halos around the focal plane were massively distracting to me. I shot some photos at a friend's wedding on it, and spent hours in photoshop trying to stop the jewellery looking purple and the bride's blonde hair from looking green. Others seem to have had somewhat better luck, but certainly try before you buy. I still have my 135 f/2.8 AI, however. I have vague hopes that Nikon might decide to update the 135mm with one that handles the background with an apodisation element - a lens with the sharpness and LoCA handling of the Laowa but the stronger element of the Sony f/2.8 STF would have a lot of appeal to me.

You got oil spots from a D610? That surprises me. The D600 had an oil spot issue; the D610 is essentially a D600 with a slightly redesigned shutter that gives it an extra half fps, but also was supposed to restore the reputation of the body after the oil spot thing. Of all Nikon's cameras, I'm worried that you've seen a D610 with an oil spot, let alone two. They definitely weren't D600s?

 

That said, I believe a recall fixed most of these oil spot problems, so - while you should check - I wouldn't be too scared of a D600 these days. But the D750 is quite a lot better!

 

 

 

As forum regulars will recall, I had a terrible experience with the 135 DC, which was one of the lenses that made me switch from Canon based partly on Hynoken's review. I found it not terribly sharp, hard to focus, and - especially with any setting on the DC dial - spectacularly prone to LoCA. The 1001 nights article is very flattering about it, but it also claims it's light, which it isn't. The background rendering is beautiful, and the LoCA goes away if you treat your f/2 lens as an f/5.6 lens, but the coloured halos around the focal plane were massively distracting to me. I shot some photos at a friend's wedding on it, and spent hours in photoshop trying to stop the jewellery looking purple and the bride's blonde hair from looking green. Others seem to have had somewhat better luck, but certainly try before you buy. I still have my 135 f/2.8 AI, however. I have vague hopes that Nikon might decide to update the 135mm with one that handles the background with an apodisation element - a lens with the sharpness and LoCA handling of the Laowa but the stronger element of the Sony f/2.8 STF would have a lot of appeal to me.

I think you have the problem of being too rich! The 135mm DC is way too expensive and promises to take soft pictures.

I think you have the problem of being too rich! The 135mm DC is way too expensive and promises to take soft pictures.

I hope that was directed at Ben. :-) I'd be a lot richer if I hadn't spent quite so much money on NAS...

Not that I'm recommending it as such, but I was looking for a modern sensor FX Nikon body to convert to IR and I was amazed at how low in price a lightly used D600 goes for. I know of the oil 'issue', but as I'm taking the poor thing to bits anyway...;)

 

You could buy 2 for £1000...or some new glass....:cool:

 

The main issue is FX v DX.

 

What glass, specifically, do you have?

 

Ah, Heimbrandt, the challenges of indoor showjumping.........:)

Good question. Ignoring the older lenses, I have (all Nikkor): AF Micro-Nikkor 105mm f2.8D; AF 28mm f2.8D; AF-S 50mm f1.8G; AF-S 85mm f1.8G.

One decision made: I'm definitely going FX, and I understand that the D800 will ruthlessly show up any imperfections with my lenses and my technique. So be it - a good way to learn, I reckon, and if I feel compelled to shell out on better lenses in order to get the best out of the camera, I'll take a deep breath and do it.

The D800 seems the most likely choice at the moment. The D610 an outside bet.

Your 105 f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor is probably the sharpest lens in your bag.

I use the snot out of mine, and that includes doing some ultra high magnification work on bellows(something that will also magnify any issues in the lens). I actually had and sold the newer AF-S VR version because, while it's better on paper, I found it more difficult to use as a true macro lens and with no appreciable difference in sharpness vs. the old 105 D. I'd say it's the only time I've found a D lens to be superior to its newer AF-S equivalent.

I'll also say that I no longer own an example of the legendary 55mm f/2.8 AI-s Micro, and instead have the AI 55mm f/3.5(along with a late pre-AI one). Used as a "normal" lens substitute, the AI-s is better, but I find that as you start approaching and go beyond lifesize, the older lens is better. I'm not the only one to make this observation.

BTW, if you pixel peep with a D800(or any other 36mp+ camera) you'll find a couple of things to be true. First of all, no matter how good you are and how careful you are, a tripod almost always makes a difference. Second, the effects of diffraction will jump out at you and if you'll be terrified of going smaller than f/5.6(until you realize that you're not going to print your photos 10 feet wide and everything looks worse than it actually is). Third, you'll realize that DOF really is an artificial concept and that there is only ONE plane of sharp focus and just different amounts of out of focus. Again, this is something that you'll only see in the real world on a huge print-with an 8x10 the DOF will look the same as any other 35mm or FX camera.