Haven't owned a real camera since around 2011, advice?

Due to family circumstances, I had to stop shooting in 2010/2011. At the time I was using the D200 with a few lenses, some good, some crap, some mid-range. Decided to sell it all as I knew I wouldn't be shooting and figured a D200 would be worth about $50 by the time I was ready to take it back up.

 

Kids are older now and moving to the very scenic PNW and would like to get back in to photography.

 

Going on the B&H Nikon page now, I don't know what's what.

 

Looking for a mix of landscape and casual family portraits/snap shots.

 

What camera out now would you recommend I ask Santa for for Christmas? I like the feel of the heavier magnesium alloy bodies compared to the plastic bodies and looking for that similar prosumer feel of the D200.

 

I was thinking D500, but if I'm going to be doing landscapes, would the D750 or D850 or D810 (ugh, so many options!) and their full sized sensors be the better way to go?

Nearly impossible to beat the the D7200 for value now. Money saved should go for lenses.

How much do you want to spend? Do you have any lenses left, or would you need new lenses as well?

I was going to ask exactly the questions Wouter did. Do you the OP still have any Nikon lens from 2011? If not, you are not restricted to Nikon or DSLR. However, if you like Nikon, it is still a top brand today.

 

If you have the budget for it, for landscape, etc., FX would be a better choice today as it is not nearly as expensive as it was a decade ago. The D750 is a few years old but still excellent today. IMO you are better off spending more on lenses and flash, etc. I would go for the D850 if your overall budget is at least $10K. My rule of thumb is that the body should be no more than roughly 1/3 of your overall budget. Of course you don't need to spend that much all at once, but with a D850, I would eventually get at least 3 excellent lenses or perhaps more.

Edited June 2, 2018 by ShunCheung

You have already been "imprinted" on Nikon, so sticking with that marque is a good idea

Nikon's own list of digital cameras at Nikon | Imaging Products | Digital SLR Cameras

 

 

as for

I like the feel of the heavier magnesium alloy bodies compared to the plastic bodies

The new bodies are not your father's "plastic" - choose the body based on the feel in the hand, not the total "mass"

(one give-away promo camera had lead weights for that reason)

 

 

Lensrentals.com rents cameras and lenses, but also has good information on durability of the items they rent, if you look around on the site.

Obviously, a most valid question.

Which reminds me of the fact that I still have my beloved D200 lying around.. still good.

But 10Mpx is somewhat limited .. good for stitching panorama's and still like the colours.

But: read the entire (haha!) Which Nikon DSLR would you recommend for me? thread!

And then buy the D800 ;-)

Not to say that just this morning I was walking around in Dutch nature with two happy D7200 owners.

I found Digital Photo Review (DPR) a good source when shopping for equipment. Their reviews and comparisons are very good. Plus they have categories of reviews for differents needs. Good luck.

Digital Photography Review

Since your only significant previous experience was with the D200, which was the smaller DX format, you have the distinct advantage of being "imprinted" on that format. The sensor technology of recent years is leaps and bounds beyond the D200: in those days, FX (full frame) was a huge step up, today, not as much as you'd think for many photographers. On a per-dollar basis, Nikon DX bodies give much more bang for the buck, so you have funds left over for more lenses (or gas to take the car into the wilderness).

 

Despite advances in production efficiency and higher sales volume, Nikon FX bodies remain at a (sometimes staggering) price premium over DX. In addition to cost, Nikon has had teething pains with nearly every FX camera they released after your D200 era. The D600, D610, D750, D800 and D810 all have an assortment of "gotchas" that may or may not prove extremely annoying. Those who prize the FX format above all else will tell you those concerns are trivial, but they can really bite you if you aren't prepared (esp if you wade into the second-hand market for something like a D800, which I would really think twice about at any price). The newest Nikon FX sensors are fantastic, no one can argue that, but unless you grew up in the film era and have your mind locked into the focal lengths used by that format I'd recommend almost anyone opt for DX instead. If you have no budget limits, go for the best new FX technology: the D850 is a watershed camera, producing resolution and color unmatched by anything else in the format. But even with unlimited funds, the D850 is still at a nosebleed $3000: you have to be heavily into your photography to justify it (and the files are of course huge).

 

c_watson's suggestion of the D7200 is a good one, almost a "no brainer". It blows the doors off the old D200, yet its a steal at current prices. The newest "pro-oriented" D500 is better, but "better" is a loaded term. For they type of shooting you mentioned, I don't think the sensor improvements are all that significant. Nikon stalled producing the D500 for several years before finally releasing it, only so the small but obsessive chorus of "I want a new-tech magnesium body pro DX camera waaah" crowd would stop pestering them about it. Aside from the nicer build, the only practical advantage of the D500 over a D7200 is speed: it is a monster body for sports and wildlife with long lenses. D500 is phenomenal, but it answers a need few photographers truly have: if you don't regularly shoot at 9fps or require AF that locks on the subject before you even know yourself what the subject will be, skip it. Get a D7200 and be happy.

 

My own digital Nikons are an old 6-mp D40 DX and 12-mp D700 FX. I picked up the D40 on fire sale when it was discontinued, just to get my feet wet with DSLR after decades in film. Its a fantastic, silent, tiny travel/street body and if I wasn't in the mental rut of old-school film focal lengths I'd probably use it for everything that doesn't require high res (6MP isn't much, but the colors in good light are beautiful and it prints just fine at reasonable sizes). The D7200 is the Incredible Hulk evolution of such ancient DSLRs: you can't go wrong with it. The main reason I bought the D700 instead of D7200 is stubborn-ness: I had wanted it for so long, because it could meter with my old beautiful film Nikkors while giving familiar film framing, but the price would never drop. Year after year I waited patiently, until the release of the D810 finally persuaded all the holdouts to dump their beloved D700 on eBay for peanuts. It has beautiful output, despite all the carping from gearheads thats its "only" 12MP and its strong AA filter "smears everything". Um, no: the D700 is still a killer general-purpose camera unless you're shooting in coal mines and printing billboards from the murk., or making wall-size landscape murals for National Geographic's head office. By opting for a $600 used D700 as my FX Nikon, I was able to save up for a complimentary Sony A7II, which offers double the resolution and ability to mount any random lens imaginable. But thats me, I'm an unusual case with my MF lens fetish.

 

Get a D7200 with kit lens and see how you get along with it. If it doesn't suit you for some reason, you can resell it easily without much of a loss and try something else like the D500 or one of the FX Nikons. If you choose to go down the siren path of FX, save yourself some headaches and skip the D800 (its dirt cheap used but has issues). Consider the D810 or D750 instead, or if you can afford a D850 you'll have the most perfected FX body extant for some years to come. For giggles, you might even consider a D700: they cost almost nothing now, but work great and body is near identical to your previous D200. A D700 with tlow-distortion 28-105mm AFD lens would cover most of your needs in the short run, allowing you to very cheaply scratch the FX itch. If you find it compelling, you can flip the D700 for something newer.

Edited June 2, 2018 by orsetto

I'd stick with the DX format, simply because it'll give you more depth-of-field for a given angle-of-view and aperture. Good for snapshots and general shooting, and modern DX sensors are more than good enough for landscape use at base ISO or a stop or two above.

 

I'll add a +1 to recommending the D7200. I think it delivers the 'best bang per buck' of any of Nikon's current DSLRs, and as has already been said, it maybe leaves room in the budget for lenses.

 

Since buying the D7200, I must admit my D800 gets far less use. Yes, I can see better image quality from the D800 by pixel peeping, but the D7200 is easily good enough for anything at normal viewing distances, and as long as you don't want to regularly shoot the proverbial black cat in a coal cellar at midnight.

 

Edit: Lens quality can easily reverse the superiority of a full-frame camera over DX. If I fit a cheap zoom to the D800 and a good prime or expensive zoom to the D7200, then the DX body is going to win out - within reasonable limits of ISO speed.

D600 FX is the best bang for buck in the current Nikon line up.....not really that different from the lot more expensive D750.

 

Not in the current line up replaced by the 6100 which is virtually the same camera.

If it's actually "for Christmas", I'd wait to see what happens this fall around Photokina - we're expecting announcements that will either give you different options, or likely change the prices on the existing bodies.

 

Within the current Nikon system (and I'd not rule out Sony as an alternative to consider at this point, and maybe also Fuji) then the D7200 is a very good place to start. It occupies roughly the same place in the line up as the D200 did (if you consider the D300 to have been a step towards a professional body, followed by the D500).

 

The current D7500 has some advantages over the D7200, but a few disadvantages too, and tends to have a premium. The D7100, the predecessor to the D7200, is also pretty similar and mostly suffers in shooting bursts of images - if you can find a cheap one I'd not feel I was missing out much. The D7x00 bodies certainly feel less substantial than a D500 (say), but they're solid enough, and there's little they can't do.

 

The D610 and D750 benefit from a full frame sensor, but the benefit over DX bodies is one you have to be sure you want to justify. You'll be paying a weight (and for new lenses cost) premium for full frame lenses - there are advantages, but it's a big commitment if you're just getting back into things. The D610 is actually a step below the D7x00 series when it comes to autofocus quality (it has roughly the system from the D7000), which is fine for landscapes, but might be frustrating for chasing young family members.

 

The D8x0 range are another step up - and the sensor captures enough detail to show every flaw in your lenses (so your lenses might end up being bigger and more expensive as well). They're indisputably the best option for landscapes, if the weight doesn't stop you travelling to them, but it's quite a financial commitment to get close to what the camera can deliver.

 

All of these are good cameras (nobody makes a bad one these days), and all of them are a big step up from the D200. Read around, and this forum is a good place for specific questions (we can't tell what's important to you, though), but don't sweat the decision too much. But, as I said, in the interests of not being swamped by choice, I'd start looking at the D7200 and persuade yourself why anything else you look at is a better option (a feature you want or a budget saving) before going with it. Good luck.

 

Oh, and don't buy an 18-200 zoom to put on it! They were kind of acceptable on a D200, but no zoom that flexible had image quality that will be good enough to do justice to a modern camera body. An 18-55 plus any longer zoom (55-200, 55-300, the new 70-300 DX) will work much better, and a more restrictive recent 18-xxx zoom is way more acceptable optically.

While either format (DX or FX) will probably suit your needs, keep in mind that the relative dearth of good wide angle lenses is the bane of the DX format. I don't know if that's a consideration for you. I prefer the FX format myself and if it fits your budget, I would recommend the D850. It's the best FX body in the current line up (outside of the single digit D's).

 

If you decide to go the DX route, and again if it fits your budget, just go with the D500. IMO, it's the best DX body in the current line up.

I'll absolutely agree (having hired one in the past) that the D500 is the best handling, fastest, most refined DX body Nikon makes. I would hesitate to claim it has an image quality advantage over a D7200, though, and it's certainly heavier. It's also more than $1000 more expensive.

 

If you want the best, or if speed and good AF matter to you (which mostly means sports and wildlife), go for it. But I'd bear in mind that the D7200 was Nikon's top-end DX body until the D500 was launched, and it's no slouch in either aspect. And it's more than $1000 cheaper than the D500 at current B&H prices.

 

YMMV, which is kind of the point. :-)

Christmas is still far away, hard to quess what may come out while waiting. You have probably noticed that You could pick up used D200 + 18-55mm for relatively cheap. New cameras at stores are all very good. Images take more than twice as much hard drive space than they did with D200. Cameras are much better at low light. Cameras shoot video and offer liveview shooting from back screen. Liveview autofocus likes AF-S or AF-P lenses.

 

If You are set with light alloy body, D7200 or D500 or D850 might fit.

D600 (......) not really that different from the lot more expensive D750

 

Except for the AF system on the D750, which is a massive step up. Build quality feels better too. And looking at new prices, the D750 currently doesn't command that much of a premium anyway. So, for most, it's the D750 that delivers best bang for the buck, as it's simply a more all-round capable model.

Now arguably for the OPs uses, the AF system may not be of the utmost importance, so whether spending extra money for it is useful ..... Sure the same can be said for the D500 vs. the D7200, though the price difference between those too is far more uneven, and the D500 really makes little sense for the kind of photography the OP describes.

 

But since the OP never filled us in on how big of a budget he had, it's all a guess anyway.

A lot of good comments. Since I shoot film more than digital right now full frame makes sense because the angle the lenses record is the same. One comment on the D800 for landscapes is the image quality is probably close to 4 x 5 film. I did have to have it serviced once, but have had no trouble with it since then.

Everyone has had wonderful knowledgeable comments here, and I'll just be adding to the noise a little, but if you don't have a system right now, and you're starting with a clean slate, maybe it's a good time to take a look at some mirrorless options. My husband has both a Nikon D5300 and a Fuji mirrorless (I forget the number, sorry!) and the Fuji is a super fun camera to use. Image quality is great, it's lightweight, I admit to having a bit of envy about it. I'm very attracted to it. :) He's holding on to his D5300 but honestly after he acquires a long enough lens for the Fuji he'll probably not use the D5300 anymore.

 

I enjoy shooting my FX camera, for many of the reasons others have stated already. It just depends on what and how you want to shoot. As everyone has said, full frame is a more expensive proposition to get back into. DX is going to be lighter, if that's a consideration. (I don't envy my husband's D5300 except for it's weight!)

But if I were just getting into it now and had no lenses, I'd really consider mirrorless.

 

Also I'd like to second what someone upthread said about lensrentals.com. I've rented lenses from them to see if I like them, it's nice to have that as an option. Their reviews are really helpful, too, and in fact I ended up purchasing a lens from them that I'd rented. If you're not sure what camera and /or format you might want, definitely try some in hand before you buy. I'm lucky because I can rent just about anything locally, but what I can't get here in town I get thru lensrentals. They are really easy to use, too. It's not a hassle on any level. You could rent a mirrorless camera and lens and immediately know if it's not for you, then all that's left is to decide DX or FX.

 

Good luck on your decision, and happy shooting!

I have a D800E and now a D500. The D800E is probably the best bang for the buck right now (used, of course.) HOWEVER, it's a very demanding camera. I use a tripod about 90% of the time, and my lenses are the very best available. I've spent well over $5,000 for lenses for it. The camera is too bulky and heavy to use as a family outing camera though, so for that (and backpacking) I use a Nikon D5300. I just bought a D500 (used) to shoot rodeos, ice races, and air shows with. I would rule it out for what you want because: (1) expensive (2) no pop up flash (3) you don't need the 200-frame buffer. My suggestion to you is to think SYSTEM, not camera. An excellent well rounded system for you would be D7200 or D7500, Nikon 16-80mm f2.8/f4, Nikon 70-300mm AF-P VR, Feisol 3441T tripod, RRS BH-30 ballhead. For landscapes I consider a good tripod & head ESSENTIAL. Most of the above is available used--I always buy used gear. Above system will do what you want and would be a great value. As for renting lenses, I don't. I simply buy a used one from ebay, and quickly resell if I don't like it. I always come out ahead.

 

 

Kent in SD

D600 FX is the best bang for buck in the current Nikon line up.....not really that different from the lot more expensive D750.

 

[ATTACH=full]1248419[/ATTACH]

 

- Sorry Allen, but a DX body would have given a result similar to this:

D600 FX is the best bang for buck in the current Nikon line up.....not really that different from the lot more expensive D750.

 

[ATTACH=full]1248419[/ATTACH]

 

Uhuh! Right now the much more expensive D750 is selling for the same price at the D610 and Nikon gives you a free battery grip too.

"Uhuh! Right now the much more expensive D750 is selling for the same price at the D610 and Nikon gives you a free battery grip too" BeBU.

 

If you look on Amazon at new prices the D610 1,027GBP, D750 1,329GBP. However if we look at" like new" prices for a D600 on Amazon they start at 399GBP and prices for the D750 start at 1,124GBP although there is one for 460GBP which seems too cheap a price compared with the others. Looking at eBay the D600 is selling for around 500GBP secondhand and the D750 around 850 to a 1000GBP.

 

Of course these are UK prices where we have to pay a premium for our gear.

 

"- Sorry Allen, but a DX body would have given a result similar to this": Rodeo

 

Nothing to be sorry about Rodeo I agree and have always argued that thought. I posted the photo from my D600 as a illustration of the cameras abilities not as some special ability of the camera. FX is generally better in low light and a 50mm lens is 50mm, on a DX there's a 1.5 crop factor to take in consideration.

 

"Except for the AF system on the D750, which is a massive step up. Build quality feels better too" Wouter.

 

The D600 shoots at 5.5 fps the D750 6.5 fps. The D600 has 39 focus points and the D750 51.Not sure about build quality as I have never held a D750 but my understanding is that all these mid range Nikons are of similar build.

 

If you can buy a D750 for a similar price to the D600 definitely go the D750 and if action photography is your thing the D500 is the king on the hill.

Edited June 4, 2018 by Allen Herbert

In the USA both the D610 and D750 are selling for $1500. Don't how Nikon would expect to sell any D610.

At B&H, the D750 and D610 are the same price, although the D610 is currently back-ordered..

Two thoughts...

 

- Mirrorless (and potentially new mounts) may significantly change the landscape. There may be a gob of people with DSLR's wanting to sell them to move to mirrorless by the end of this year or early next year. Waiting a bit will give you the option of evaluating mirrorless options and letting you jump straight to the newer technology or possibly provide you the opportunity to buy DSLR much cheaper than today. It will be an interesting 12 to 15 months I think.

 

- Used may be a much better way to go. More bang for your buck and let you try some things to decide how much you want to invest in photography and what direction (DX, FX, Mirrorless, fast action vs higher resolution, etc). I've found B&H to be quite trustworthy for used stuff so I feel comfortable buying used from them when the price/value is right.