Which Nikon DSLR would you recommend for me?

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

 

Well, the AF-S 50mm f/1.8G and 85 f/1.8G are very solid performers too. The AF-D 28mm f/2.8 is probably the weaker link, but it won't be terrible either. In fact, I'd worry with none of these lenses on a D8x0. They'll do the job just fine.

 

Frankly, the "camera shows lensfaults" problem should be seen in perspective. Yes, these cameras are more capable of showing the limitations of lenses than lower-resolution cameras are. That does not mean that lenses suddenly are worse or no longer useful or suitable; in fact they're as good as they ever were, and possibly the combination of lens and camera yield a better resolution than before. It'll not be less in any case. And, as Ben rightly notices, some of these issues require large prints or pixelpeeping, but at normal magnifications, the problem simply isn't visible.

 

My favourite (and most used) lenses are older AiS lenses, and when I went from a D700 to a D810, I was curious to see if these lenses were as bad as some people frequently claim. Well, frankly, they're not. Some are downright excellent, some clearly have limits, but still show a solid increase in resolved details compared to the D700. So, they continue to be my most used lenses, since they are still the same lenses. The whole resolution-limit story shouldn't be made too important: there is a lot more to a good lens or photo than just resolution and sharpness in the extreme corners.

So, if you have Ai/AiS lenses you like, there is no reason to not try them on your future new camera. They'll work just fine.

The curse of modern times is that the print size only sometimes matters - the first thing I'm likely to do with an image I see online is zoom in on bits of it to see more detail (whereas previously I'd

), so assuming I'm not weird (in this particular way) sharpness matters way more than it used to. I do tend to stick above f/6.3 where possible (f/7-ish for the 14-24 because of field curvature), but then this also makes the images less sensitive to dust on the sensor. Software can deconvolve diffraction to some extent, so we perhaps shouldn't be too terrified of f/16, but I've certainly seen full-frame magazine shots from high MP cameras that were clearly soft, presumably because of their stated f/22 apertures.

 

I also used to be quite happy shooting most of my lenses wide open on my D700. Not so much with a 36MP body. I've just given the Sigma 85mm Art a work out at f/1.4, but it was in the dark; certainly I'm looking at a 70-200 upgrade from my VRII f/2.8, which looks sharp at all apertures on a D700 (and much better than an 80-200). And my 28-200 was a lovely lens on a D700, but a paperweight on a D800.

 

DPReview demonstrated this sometime around the Eos 50D generation - the issues they saw when they tested it were mostly lens artifacts you couldn't see with the previous, lower-resolution body.

Well, the AF-S 50mm f/1.8G and 85 f/1.8G are very solid performers too.

 

Oops, I missed that he had the G version of the 50mm.

 

I'm not terribly hot on the AF-Nikkor and AF-D version of this lens. They use a multi-coated version of the Series E design rather than the AI-s design(I forget if there was an AI 50mm f/1.8-it would have been fairly late as the excellent 50mm f/2 survived well into the AI era). Although the Series E 50mm isn't a BAD lens, it's not as good as the AI-s version and IMO the "cult" status the lens seems to have achieved is a bit overblown.

 

The G version uses a newer optical formula, and for what I've seen it's quite a good lens.

 

BTW, I agree that issues with "old" lenses are often overblown.

 

I'll leave you with this-a photo taken with my D800 and a non-AI 55mm Micro mounted on bellows. I think I worked out that it was in the range of 2.5x lifesize, and shot at a set aperture of f/5.6 on the lens(this was done under strobes that normally give me around f/28 at ISO 100). The camera was mounted(via the bellows) on the massive ~20lb aluminum tripod that I bought for large format, but rarely take out of the house for obvious reasons.

 

The first is the full frame, while the second is a 100% crop.

 

The 50mm f/1.8 AF-S I bought when I wanted to test the AF performance of my D800 (since there was a production problem with the AF module), and the AF-D version was so soft wide open that I couldn't tell whether it was in focus. The AF-S version is better, but it's certainly not all that sharp until it's stopped down quite a lot. The AF-D is sharp by f/6.3 too, to be clear, but the bokeh is a bit ugly - and buying an f/1.8 lens to use it at f/6.3 is a bit disingenuous. The Sigma Art 50mm is in a different league, but also vastly heavier. I still have, in increasing size, weight and image quality, the 50mm f/1.8 series E, the AF-D f/1.8, the AF-S f/1.8 and the Sigma f/1.4A. They each have their place. As with a number of older lenses (mostly primes), the older f/1.8 design stands up to a 30+MP sensor perfectly well so long as you're not shooting wide open. Of course, if you want the depth of field control or you're in very low light, that trumps sharpness.

 

The 85mm f/1.8 AF-S is lovely and decently sharp, and has much better bokeh than its predecessor. Unfortunately used anywhere near wide open it has LoCA that reminds me of my 135mm experience. Shooting a portrait, the subject would be sharp, the bookshelf in the background would be beautifully blurred, and every title on the bookshelf would look green because of the LoCA. I traded it for the Sigma 85mm. (I used to have the 85mm Samyang too - I think the LoCA may have been a little less offensive, but manual focus of an f/1.4 lens was too tedious on a 36MP body.)

 

Rex, I'd strongly suggest a D750 over a D610 if you're looking at the 24MP bodies - the handling is substantially ahead, particularly in autofocus. But I'd take the D800E (or 810 if you can stretch to one) in preference if you can afford it. Bear in mind the D800 hangs when you've taken a live view photo (which you'll probably do more than you expect, coming from a D1x, since it's one way round any AF accuracy issues) until it's written an image to a card, so it's worth getting fast cards for that camera. Just to add to your budget. (To express solidarity, I've just dropped about £500 on memory cards for my D850 upgrade.)

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

 

Ben he buys a lot of stuff but he tends to buy old stuff so the money not that much. You tend to buy the latest and greatest.

Rex, a used D800 or D800e is right at your price point. It's image quality is superb and your lens collection will work well with it. I bought mine new in June 2012 and have been very happy with the quality over all. Dedicated Kirk and RRS arca plates and L brackets can be found on the used market for half their new price and the dedicated vertical grip is 1/3 it's original price if that is what you choose. There is much discussion that high mega pixel cameras show the limitations of many lenses. That is true but they also bring out the best in a lens. There are professionals who use and make a living with lesser glass than any that you own. I would take the plunge. Congratulations on your choice. Check out Adorama, B&H and KEH used gear. I have bought new from the former two and used from all of them and they are all good about accepting returns . Stay frosty.

Ben he buys a lot of stuff but he tends to buy old stuff so the money not that much. You tend to buy the latest and greatest.

 

Ah. Yes, guilty. Not that it's making me a particularly good photographer, but at least it means I've not been able to pull the trigger on a 400 f/2.8 yet!

 

Incidentally, I'd meant to call Ben out on his tripod comment. I'd say it's worth keeping the shutter speed a bit higher than you'd think, but don't be afraid of shooting a D800 hand-held. It does have a bit of visible mirror slap/shutter vibration around the 1/10-1/100s range, though. I absolutely have my share of images that aren't, at a pixel level, tack sharp - but at least a reasonable number seem to be, and I use a tripod a small minority of the time.

Oh, and since we seem to be gravitating towards the D800, I'll point out that, shooting with a D800e, I saw moire issues perhaps twice in three years (on distant railings), and software fixed them trivially. The plain D800's AA sensor is mild enough that it's not a complete fix anyway. So I would (and did) go for the D800E (or D810) over the plain D800 for the (mild) sharpness benefits, possibly unless you spend your entire time shooting fashion and are worried about threads.

I went from the D800 to the D800E and my experience is in line with the difference in perceived sharpness that DxOMark shows when you compare the same Nikkors on mounted on the two bodies. That is in itself a very good reason for going for the E.

 

I have seen hints of moiré on some photos, a couple of bird photos, but nothing that could not be fixed in post.

I can get moire pretty easily with my DCS 14/n-a full frame 14mp camera without an AA filter. It's mostly an indoor camera for me, and I see it with some frequency on fabric backdrops.

 

Even though I don't have a D800E or D810, I know that in theory the higher pixel density means that moire is a lot less likely to occur. That's why 36mp+ cameras typically go "naked" these days.

That's why 36mp+ cameras typically go "naked" these days.

My 24 Mp D7100 DX does not have the AA filter, and I have yet to see any problematic moire. Perhaps it's due to the pixel density on the sensor, similar to that on a much larger 36 Mp FX sensor?

My 24 Mp D7100 DX does not have the AA filter, and I have yet to see any problematic moire. Perhaps it's due to the pixel density on the sensor, similar to that on a much larger 36 Mp FX sensor?

 

A 24mp DX sensor is most dense sensor Nikon makes these days. The new D850 is about the same as a 20mp DX camera(I think it's 19.6mp in DX crop mode).

 

I think the D800/800E/810 are somewhere close to 16mp in DX crop mode.

Yes, Ben. The D800 and D810 are roughly the D7000 16MP sensor, with a load of extra pixels around the edge to take it to 36MP. The D850 is roughly the D500 20MP sensor with a load of extra pixels taking it to 45MP. For me, that's enough to stop having slight reach envy over the DX 24MP sensors - but if I solely shot birds I might be better served by a D7200. The only way to get more density behind a lens within the Nikon system (without adapting something third party) is to put a 1-system body behind an F-mount adaptor. That's a very large crop and quite a compromise in how the camera works, though. And this is what teleconverters are for!

if I solely shot birds I might be better served by a D7200.

For dedicated action sports and wildlife I'd be tempted to just go straight to the D500 with its 20MP sensor. However, for general use including action sports and wildlife, I heartily agree on the D7200, if DX is the plan. (Anybody have a D810 they want to sell cheap?:rolleyes:)

For the OP:

 

I'm not sure if anyone has brought this up, but I really think the D800 would be a good choice for you :) . In any case, I thought it might help you to see what you'd gain.

 

I dusted off my D1X and stuck it on a tripod with the 105mm Micro on it. I picked that lens because it's the only lens that you and I share in your mentioned kit.

 

In any case, here's the D1X photo and a full-res crop. This was shot as a RAW file and processed in LR 6.13. The WB was way off, so I let LR do AWB on it. It was also shot at ISO 124 with -.3 EC as the chairs looked blown out on the LCD(it was actually a lot better in the file).

 

 

 

 

Here's a D800 image of the same scene, and a full-res crop of the same area. I intentionally did not move the camera to show the difference in FOV. This, again, was shot as a RAW file and processed in LR. The white balance was left as shot. It was at ISO 100, and I actually did pull the highlights(specifically the chairs) back a bit since I didn't realize that I'd blown them. This is a good example of one of the strengths of a relatively modern sensor.

 

but if I solely shot birds I might be better served by a D7200

Hell no - I'll take the D500 over the D7200 for the better AF alone any day.

 

Did anyone suggest the D800E to the OP?

Personally, I like my Winchester Model '97 or Browning Auto 5, both in 16 gauge, for shooting birds. Both are on a "real" 16 gauge frame and are nice and "lively" with wonderful balance.

 

Oops, sorry, wrong forum.

Oops, sorry, wrong forum.

I, too, shoot more than cameras. For birds (mostly clays) I like my Italian O/U, but that's for another day...:p

Did anyone suggest the D800E to the OP?

Yes, repeatedly. The OP notes the D800 as a prime candidate in post #49. My only concern is if he can get a good copy within his budget.

I went through similar analysis, not as deep, and happily wound up with a D750 bought used (with a brand new shutter).

It has a low pass filter, but it is a weak one.

 

Great pictures, even with my DX lenses in DX mode.

I, too, shoot more than cameras. For birds (mostly clays) I like my Italian O/U, but that's for another day...:p

 

I haven't been bird hunting in ages, and I've never really been a clay shooter. Of course, out on a friends farm you can use anything you want for clays, but none of the disciplines have a 16 gauge class. Commercial 16 gauge shells are all hunting loads-in my typical fashion I bought a shell press but haven't even made a dent my first bag of 250 wads. Fortunately, a shot shell press wasn't a huge deal since I do a lot of metallic cartridge loading so I have powder out the rear end.

So, if you have Ai/AiS lenses you like, there is no reason to not try them on your future new camera. They'll work just fine.

 

Point noted. I have two: the 50mm f1.4 Ai-S and the 105mm f2.5 Ai-S.

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:

 

I'm not yet sold on the D800. I'm also considering the D610.

Hell no - I'll take the D500 over the D7200 for the better AF alone any day.

 

Did anyone suggest the D800E to the OP?

 

I considered the D800E and thought it hard to justify the extra cost in my particular circumstances.

For the OP:

 

I'm not sure if anyone has brought this up, but I really think the D800 would be a good choice for you :) . In any case, I thought it might help you to see what you'd gain.

 

I dusted off my D1X and stuck it on a tripod with the 105mm Micro on it. I picked that lens because it's the only lens that you and I share in your mentioned kit.

 

Interesting to see these pictures. Apart from the larger field of view, I'm seeing the D1X shots being more murky in tone and not as crisp as those taken with the D800.