Jump to content

Shopping ... help to compare models


BratNikotin

Recommended Posts

I second heimbrandt's post - I moved from a D7000 to a D610 and have been quite happy with the switch.

 

The D610 will do much better in low light, and while the autofocus isn't Nikon's most sophisticated, it's very good. There's an added advantage to the D610 - the layout of the controls on the camera, meaning button placement, is almost identical to a D7000. That makes the move from one camera to the other easier.

 

Buying from a used gear company, like KEH and others, has something to offer. First, when they classify a used camera's condition as Excellent, you can reasonably expect that it will be excellent. Second, there's usually a warranty, like heimbrandt said. A used camera from KEH will cost more than you can get it for on Ebay or from someone selling the camera locally, but KEH's assessment of the condition will be based on an examination by a knowledgeable technician and the company will stand by the item with a solid return policy and a warranty. You get what you pay for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Adorama and B&H are the two primary advertisers on this site (or maybe I'm confused). They have a good reputation, as far as I know. I've ordered from them in the past. I'm a Brit, so I've not done so regularly.

 

If in doubt, I'd say try the D610 before the D750. If you're coming from a D7000, you won't know what you're missing with the D750's AF module; you might not want to go back once you've got used to the difference. Both these cameras are getting on a bit now, though - a crop sensor like the D7200 or D7500 might keep them relatively honest, although it depends what exactly you're measuring in image quality. I certainly wouldn't expect miracles from the upgrade, but since the D7000 and D6x0 are of similar vintage, you should at least see an improvement from where you were.

 

You might want to give it a month or so, though. I'd imagine some people will have an interest in Nikon's pre-announced mirrorless offerings and be waiting to sell their DSLRs, so you might find that the used market contains more bodies soon, and the prices drop. (There's a chance Nikon will produce a mirrorless camera that's a better option for you, but I would doubt it based on rumours.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was not the best performance in low lights and also .. my pictures keep coming "flat" and grainy for anything above 400 ISO.

 

To be honest, be careful what you wish for.

Yes, generically full frame will do better at higher ISOs. But if you feel a D7000 is grainy at ISO400, then every single camera is going to disappoint. If shot well, the D7000 is practically grainless below say IS01600, and most would agree it only starts to become problematic above ISO3200. Sure, if you pixelpeep photos shot at ISO400, you will see not everything is smooth, but neither will a photo from a D610 be, or a D750. The D7000 is far from a poor low-light performer, except possibly its AF system.

 

The photos being flat - sorry, but I think the camera is not going to be the issue. Flat photos usually come thanks to bad light - no camera is going to change that. You can push things a bit in post-processing, but that has its limits. Pretty often, indoors light is diffuse and flat, and if you do not add a bit of light (flash), the photos will be flat with soft, muddy grey shadows. If this is what you encounter, add a good flash because the camera won't fix this.

 

Not saying you shouldn't get a full frame camera - it's your wallet - but to be honest I wonder whether it will fix the shortcomings you see with the D7000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Referring back to the original post:

Concert, Nature, Street.

 

None of those genres really benefit from use of a full-frame camera, since both concert and nature subjects usually require the use of tele lenses, and street - well it's not very demanding in terms of image quality, and extra depth-of-field is usually welcome. I would certainly be more than happy grabbing my D7200 for any of those subject areas. And my neck and shoulders would definitely thank me at the end of the day!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks ...

People here keep telling to upgrade the lenses.

 

I am looking at the available DX lenses, from Nikon, Tamron and Sigma, and I am not seeing what better can I get in addition to the list I mentioned I have:

Nikon 16-60/2.8-4

Nikon 55-300

Nikon 35mm/f1.8

 

To me this list of lenses, looks as exhaustive as it can get for the DX outfit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider a used AF 180mm f/2.8 Nikkor. The IQ is better than almost any zoom you can buy, and it's a compact and fairly affordable way to get an f/2.8 tele. There's no VR, but the fast aperture gets you a higher shutter speed, and that helps to freeze subject movement. I find subject movement quite an issue with concert/event shooting.

 

I've been known to use an old Series-E f/3.5 75-150 zoom at music events as well. The IQ is really good and the constant f/3.5 aperture beats many modern zooms. Manual focus isn't too much of an issue when a performer's tied to a static microphone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe: Are you sure? The 180 f/2.8 is conveniently small, it's historically been considered to be a very good performer, and I don't dispute the price. But every recent test I've seen suggests that optically it's no match even for the 70-200 f/2.8 VR2 (or the f/4), let alone the FL version (and arguably doesn't even keep up with the old 80-200 lenses). It's much cheaper than them, but it's only slightly cheaper than the (almost as long) 150mm Sigma f/2.8 macro, which is also a very good macro lens and has stabilisation - I have one of those (which for a while subbed as a portable version of my 200 f/2 before I got a 70-200), and I'd much rather spend the extra $100 or so to get the Sigma over the old 180mm. Sigma also do a 180mm f/2.8 macro if you want the reach, but it's quite a bit more expensive, I believe. Sigma's old 50-150mm f/2.8 for crop sensors is a big chunky, but worth a look if you can find it. (If you want to push the boat out, the latest Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 is supposed to be competitive with the Nikkor but half the price.)

 

The latest 70-300 (FX) is supposed to be very good, but obviously you're only going to get f/5.6 at the long end. (On DX, the 70-300 DX is also pretty good, although not as good as the FX version, apparently.) Good for depth of field, not so good for low light. Short of something expensive and unwieldy like a 105mm f/1.4, 135mm f/1.8 or 200mm f/2, low-light shooting of a moving subject at a distance is tricky - your best affordable solution is to get closer and use a fast 50mm or 85mm, but I do think of the Nikkor glass at those focal lengths as compromised wide open. (The pre-Art Sigma 50mm HSM is pretty good within the DX image circle, if you end up looking for something like that. Horrible corners on FX, though.) I can't vouch for the 35mm f/1.8, but if you can get that close, our talk about expensive telephotos may be a waste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe: Are you sure? The 180 f/2.8 is conveniently small, it's historically been considered to be a very good performer, and I don't dispute the price. But every recent test I've seen suggests that optically it's no match even for the 70-200 f/2.8 VR2 (or the f/4), let alone the FL version (and arguably doesn't even keep up with the old 80-200 lenses). It's much cheaper than them, but it's only slightly cheaper than the (almost as long) 150mm Sigma f/2.8 macro, which is also a very good macro lens and has stabilisation - I have one of those (which for a while subbed as a portable version of my 200 f/2 before I got a 70-200), and I'd much rather spend the extra $100 or so to get the Sigma over the old 180mm. Sigma also do a 180mm f/2.8 macro if you want the reach, but it's quite a bit more expensive, I believe. Sigma's old 50-150mm f/2.8 for crop sensors is a big chunky, but worth a look if you can find it. (If you want to push the boat out, the latest Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 is supposed to be competitive with the Nikkor but half the price.)

 

The latest 70-300 (FX) is supposed to be very good, but obviously you're only going to get f/5.6 at the long end. (On DX, the 70-300 DX is also pretty good, although not as good as the FX version, apparently.) Good for depth of field, not so good for low light. Short of something expensive and unwieldy like a 105mm f/1.4, 135mm f/1.8 or 200mm f/2, low-light shooting of a moving subject at a distance is tricky - your best affordable solution is to get closer and use a fast 50mm or 85mm, but I do think of the Nikkor glass at those focal lengths as compromised wide open. (The pre-Art Sigma 50mm HSM is pretty good within the DX image circle, if you end up looking for something like that. Horrible corners on FX, though.) I can't vouch for the 35mm f/1.8, but if you can get that close, our talk about expensive telephotos may be a waste.

 

I must admit I haven't directly compared my 2nd version 180mm AF Nikkor with any of the latest 70-200 zooms, and I have an allergy to Sigma lenses brought on by previous contact :eek:. I was only talking about the IQ of the 180mm in its own right, and not in comparison to other glass, which might give better MTF figures, but I doubt they return better pictures in the real world.

 

The big advantage of the 180mm prime, for me, is that it stays a 180mm throughout the focus range. I briefly owned a so-called 70-200mm VC Tamron that shrank to about 130mm when close focused. I returned it, since I'd paid for a zoom that went to 200mm, not some drastically shorter focal length as soon as the focus fell below infinity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must admit I haven't directly compared my 2nd version 180mm AF Nikkor with any of the latest 70-200 zooms, and I have an allergy to Sigma lenses brought on by previous contact :eek:. I was only talking about the IQ of the 180mm in its own right, and not in comparison to other glass, which might give better MTF figures, but I doubt they return better pictures in the real world.

 

I've got to say that the 200/2 is better than it looks by MTF, so I'm in no position to judge. :-)

 

The big advantage of the 180mm prime, for me, is that it stays a 180mm throughout the focus range. I briefly owned a so-called 70-200mm VC Tamron that shrank to about 130mm when close focused. I returned it, since I'd paid for a zoom that went to 200mm, not some drastically shorter focal length as soon as the focus fell below infinity.

 

The 70-200 VR2 famously has the same problem - in fact the G2 Tamron is worse at this than the FL Nikkor (the working distance at minimum focus is less for the Tamron, but the Nikkor produces the larger image at minimum focus because it retains its focal length better), which is one reason I went with the more expensive item. I'd hope it doesn't matter hugely at concert distances, though. The 80-200 AF-D is notably soft and hard to focus at shorter focal distances, though it holds up well at infinity. I admit to being put off the 180mm by the test results, so I have no personal experience. The 150mm Sigma is definitely very good, though. (I did have a failed focus system, which got replaced under warranty, but it's been fine since. It's not "art", but it's an "ex" lens, and Sigma have been trying to improve their reputation since the days of budget 28-xxx zooms - I no longer assume that a Sigma, or indeed Tamron, will fall apart when you look at it.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the cheap 70-300 ED AF-D and it has serious focus breathing. I found that at the same distance of 6 feet if I focus using the lens focus ring I have significantly less magnification than if I leave the lens at infinity and put the lens on the bellow to focus at the same 6 feet distance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

arguably doesn't even keep up with the old 80-200 lenses

 

Andrew, I sold my 80-200 f/2.8D after getting the 180mm f/2.8. It's no contest, the 180 was just clearly better than the zoom. I cannot compare to newer 70-200 zooms, certainly the last 2 generations are very impressive so those may be a tall order. They're also another price bracket. Still, no idea where reports on the 180mm being optically that inferior to zooms come from. The only serious "defect" I see with my 180mm f/2.8 on my D810 is purple fringing, and it benefits from some stopping down - but from f/3.5 on, there is really little to complain. Plenty detail and sharpness. And second hand prices are very reasonable, so also good value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me this list of lenses, looks as exhaustive as it can get for the DX outfit.

 

Maybe saying something overly obvious, but just to be sure: you do know that for a DX camera, you are not obliged to get DX lenses, right? Any full frame lens will work just fine on a DX camera as well. So, the list of lenses is a lot more exhaustive, only at the ultra-wide end, you typically need DX lenses since the widest full frame lenses (say ~12 or 14 mm) are more moderate wide on DX. Plus for generic midrange zooms like the 17-50 lenses, the DX lenses have a more useful range typically; the full frame lenses (24-85 etc.) lack a bit of wide angle in comparison. But that's more convenience, the full frame lenses will work otherwise just fine.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew, I sold my 80-200 f/2.8D after getting the 180mm f/2.8. It's no contest, the 180 was just clearly better than the zoom.

 

Fair enough. I think I remember someone on this forum expressing the reverse opinion, but it may have been in the context of defending the 80-200 to me, since I got on very badly with it.

 

I cannot compare to newer 70-200 zooms, certainly the last 2 generations are very impressive so those may be a tall order. They're also another price bracket. Still, no idea where reports on the 180mm being optically that inferior to zooms come from.

 

I thought I remembered photozone (now opticallimits) being underwhelmed, but their review now doesn't seem all that negative. I did take a look on DxOMark to check I wasn't entirely making it up, and the field maps certainly make it look bad (especially off-centre), but I don't remember where else I may have seen negatives.

 

The only serious "defect" I see with my 180mm f/2.8 on my D810 is purple fringing, and it benefits from some stopping down - but from f/3.5 on, there is really little to complain. Plenty detail and sharpness. And second hand prices are very reasonable, so also good value.

 

Photozone's images show some pretty horrible LoCA (still there at f/8!) which would stop me from touching it with a barge pole, but most others are a bit less sensitive to LoCA than I am. I certainly wouldn't buy a new one - the latest Tamron 70-200 G2 is pretty good for not much more money, as is the Sigma 150 I mentioned. Used, if it can be found for a lot less than the 70-200 lenses, it may well be worth it. On DX, though, I'd expect the 70-200 VR mk1 to be much better, and more flexible.

 

Should Nikon update the 180mm f/2.8 to a more modern design, I'd look again. I don't dislike the idea of a small, portable portrait lens (I have the 135 f/2.8 AI and the 200mm f/4 AI...) and I like old features like the integrated lens hood, but there's been a lot of attention in the area of moderately priced short telephotos over the years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Thank you all.

I ended up finding an OK price on a used D750

Well ... I can afford to spread the expense for .. about a year or so. So.. I will manage. The quality and "stunning-ness" of photos that come out is what has got me in.

It is sooo impressive. For example, a photo attached here, is out of the box with no processing at all. And I did use the DX (16-80) lens.

To tell the truth, I feel slighly limitted with DX on a FX body, but I think I can get used to using that middle rectangle. At least till I save a little more for a fx lens. DSC_0201.thumb.jpg.14798cdf63db4969b75cdae723b881e2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And to continue the story of buying the first FX camera .. I found one for an OK price at B&H and when I came home I found out that the shutter speed is sooo high.To give an idea ... I use DX7000 since 2013 and I do not deny myself taking a shot when I feel like it. So, I would expect that my DX would have a high shutter count. 37000. The D750 I bought at B&H had ... 73000 !!! It looked as a brand new though. ...

it got me scared. I returned the camera.

Few weeks down the road, I landed a deal at Adorama for even slightly smaller amount. Camera looks brand new and .. surprisingly shutter count is only .. 2800.

Can anyone explain, how such a good camera, can be in a used market with such a low shutter count ? Is there a trick somewhere ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone explain, how such a good camera, can be in a used market with such a low shutter count ? Is there a trick somewhere ?

May be the shutter has been replaced with a new one somewhere in its past life? Or maybe the previous owner did not use it much and never used continuous burst?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would this be "a bad thing" ? Is there a risk that something may fail ?

I was just guessing the possibility of a replaced shutter unit, especially if the camera was refurbished. Anyhow, unless I am greatly mistaken, the shutter count cannot be tempered by the user as the firmware is highly secure. Perhaps it's not so easy to hack it. That said, 2800 count is low but, I believe, not that uncommon in the used market.

 

<<Is there a risk that something may fail ?>>

There's always a risk that something may fail, no matter what it is. There is a greater chance that it will work well. If you are so lucky to have gotten a newly replaced unit, congratulate yourself and enjoy it. ;)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...