Jump to content

Nikon recommendation


keith_anderson7

Recommended Posts

I I think the biggest deficiency with my m4/3 is when shooting macro where depth of field demands stopping down and then the diffraction is an issue so I’d like to use a dSLR for that.

In its defense, it has the advantage of being able to get better depth of field at bigger aperture; for example f/5.6 is equivalent f/11 in full frame. If one hesitates to stop down to f/22 in full frame for fear of diffraction, then it would make sense to not stop down to f/11 in M43. As far as getting good "bokeh", it works well to avoid busy backgrounds - same theory for full frame DSLR's. Newer M43 camera sensors are getting bigger in size, to over 20mm in quite a few models. One advantage is the ability to shoot macro with decent results without a tripod due to the lighter equipment weight; though it's always better to use a tripod of course. The Nikon 200mm macro lens is still superior, but that's a different story. ;) Good luck in your search for the equipment that works well for your purposes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with @Mary Doo upon the 2 stops difference between MFT & FF for the same DOF and basically facing the same problem in the end. - I guess in the macro realm things turn even worse since you 'll shoot a MFT 2:1 shot 1:1 on FF with even less DOF. - If DOF in macro shots is your main problem: Better learn focus stacking; FF can't get you anywhere.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering the budget, the original EOS 6D can certainly be found within budget, and 2nd hand light used 5D Mk. 2 and 3 probably as well. Sure the D750 is a great option (and definitely the Nikon I'd recommend - consider 2nd hand here as well), I wonder about the rationale of changing brands. Apart from 'muscle memory' for the Canons (which helps getting up and running in no time), you may still have Canon lenses which may actually free up some budget for other things too.

With switching brands, the grass is always greener somewhere else. The differences between similar specified cameras from the same era are getting so small, that switching brands seldomly makes sense. The only serious argument I can think of is availability of specific lenses. But 24-70 f/2.8 and 50 f/1.4 are readily available for both brands, so there is little gain there too.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the 6d for obvious reasons :)

 

I haven’t done much pixel peeping to see how it is in low light.

 

It does surprisingly well, from what I've seen. Nobody quite understands how or why it happened, but the sensor in the "budget full frame" 6D is better balanced than the sensor in almost any other Canon at any price. The (original) 6D is prized by many Canon landscape shooters over the "pro" 5DII-III-IV because of its much lower incidence of banding and color noise: shadows push somewhat better than other Canons, and any visible sensor noise tends to mimic organic film grain. At base ISO, a Nikon D600, 610 or 750 will unquestionably have wider dynamic range. But the real-world usefulness of that depends on the photographer and subject: despite what gear reviews would have us believe, few photographers lock their ISO at base and clamp their camera to a heavy tripod 100% of the time. At most points along a normal DSLR usage envelope, at more common ISO settings like 400, 800, 1600 and 3200, you will be hard pressed to give an absolute sensor advantage to a 24MP Nikon over a 20MP Canon 6D. And unlike most other recent Nikons and Canons, the 6D did not debut with a cluster of defects: they are a fairly safe second-hand bet.

 

The current 6DII revision added nothing significant, aside from higher price, more complexity and less predictable sensor performance. The original Canon 6D is one of the great "sleeper" cameras: very cheap second hand, no dramatic design flaws, and midrange resolution/performance that will remain reasonably competitive in future. The only compromise in its design is simplified AF (essentially center point only): it isn't the best spray-and-pray camera for sports, wildlife or chasing small hyperactive children. If you can live with that, its a nice little full-frame package. You can even get an optional focus screen optimized for older manual-focus lenses, and use old manual Nikon glass on the 6D. I've been tempted more than once to trade my old Nikon D700 for a Canon 6D, as a smaller quieter platform for my vintage AI and pre-AI Nikkor lenses. I sometimes use a Sony A7II with my old Nikkors, but the Canon 6D offers some advantages even the Sony lacks.

Edited by orsetto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot recommend a D 610. I had two of them. Both developed oil spots the sensor caused by the shutter in the camera during the first week of use. Maybe Nikon finally fixed this (early) problem, but why take a chance if other Nikon FF bodies are available without the problem like a D750. ?

How can you recommend the D610 as it's more expensive than the D750. I think even Nikon doesn't want to sell it the way they price the 2 cameras.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with @Mary Doo upon the 2 stops difference between MFT & FF for the same DOF and basically facing the same problem in the end. - I guess in the macro realm things turn even worse since you 'll shoot a MFT 2:1 shot 1:1 on FF with even less DOF. - If DOF in macro shots is your main problem: Better learn focus stacking; FF can't get you anywhere.

 

Won’t get me “anywhere” or will get me marginally better but not night/day better?

 

I do think there is still a decent upgrade in quality comparing m4/3 sensors like in the Oly M1 II vs a FF camera regardless of the shutter type. I also think night and low light are superior with a larger sensor (and presumably larger pixels).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering the budget, the original EOS 6D can certainly be found within budget, and 2nd hand light used 5D Mk. 2 and 3 probably as well. Sure the D750 is a great option (and definitely the Nikon I'd recommend - consider 2nd hand here as well), I wonder about the rationale of changing brands. Apart from 'muscle memory' for the Canons (which helps getting up and running in no time), you may still have Canon lenses which may actually free up some budget for other things too.

With switching brands, the grass is always greener somewhere else. The differences between similar specified cameras from the same era are getting so small, that switching brands seldomly makes sense. The only serious argument I can think of is availability of specific lenses. But 24-70 f/2.8 and 50 f/1.4 are readily available for both brands, so there is little gain there too.

 

Just to be clear, though, I divested my crop sensor Canon stuff in favor of m4/3 with the understanding that crop sensors are maybe very slightly better in performance than m4/3 and that’s become even more so (in my opinion) over time. So I felt that if I were to go back to a non-m4/3 where quality was my primary goal, it should be FF. I’ll look for a used 6D. But since I have no canon glass anymore and I haven’t had a canon in years I think I’ll have to buy new glass and learn a new camera whichever way I go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No clue about absolute low light performance but

I’d also like to do night sky shooting and like the performance in low light due to larger pixel size. I thought some of the Nikon models were better performers for low light relative to Canon.

For that purpose I'd recommend looking at Pentax. - If you put their K1 on a tripod the OIS mechanism can get used to compensate the earth's movement during exposure. Price point is in the d750 range sensor the same as in D810 but AF performance is surely significantly worse than Canikon's

If you stick with Nikon ponder Tamron's stabilized 45/1.8 instead of the 50/1.4 for really nasty low light.

Bigger pixels are not absolutely desirable. -Having a lot of pixels so you can bin up to 75% of them is probably better than having a bit less noisy bigger ones.

 

Upon your macro issue: Just try running stuff through a DOF calculator to figure out what you'll get? I stick to "no DOF benefit from a bigger sensor in real makro range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some nice starscapes taken with a Canon 6D, along with comparative remarks for better and worse vs Nikon and Sony, can be found here. As has been the case for years now, in nearly all forms of photography, Nikon seems to take a slight lead based on more polished overall implementation of Sony sensors, Sony themselves never seem to know WTH to do with their own sensors (so A7 performance is all over the place depending on application), and Canon 6D floats serenely in the middle, nipping gently at Nikon's heels.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some nice starscapes taken with a Canon 6D, along with comparative remarks for better and worse vs Nikon and Sony, can be found here. As has been the case for years now, in nearly all forms of photography, Nikon seems to take a slight lead based on more polished overall implementation of Sony sensors, Sony themselves never seem to know WTH to do with their own sensors (so A7 performance is all over the place depending on application), and Canon 6D floats serenely in the middle, nipping gently at Nikon's heels.

 

This was my feeling re: Nikon quality and not to be a PITA, I am unlikely to buy a Sony. I know DPreview raves about some Sony models but I feel like Canon and Nikon have a better understanding of a photographers needs and have a more refined user experience. In terms of pixel peeping, I tend to agree about Nikon having an edge but realize Nikon and Canon both have their pros/cons and each have models that hit and some that miss, and it’s largely a personal about which of the two options are best for the individual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot recommend a D 610. I had two of them. Both developed oil spots the sensor caused by the shutter in the camera during the first week of use. Maybe Nikon finally fixed this (early) problem, but why take a chance if other Nikon FF bodies are available without the problem like a D750. ?

 

Hi Joseph. Just to be clear, you got oil spots from a D610? That is, the camera with the redesigned shutter module that was supposed to remove the oil spots that some D600s used to have? I didn't know the D610 had ever still had the problem.

 

I'd still say the D750 is enough more of a camera (faster, significantly better AF, tilt screen...) that I'd be very hesitant about getting a D6x0 these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't Canon still make their own sensors?

 

Yes, indeed. In that comment I took it for granted that OP was aware of Canon's independent sensors from their prior Canon ownership. I should have been more clear, since of course OP is not the only one reading the thread.

 

May as well repeat here that (at the moment) Nikon sources Sony sensors for all full-frame bodies except the D4-D5, which is hybrid tech, and in the past has used Toshiba etc for APS-C sensors in the lower-end D3xxx and D5xxx series. Sony uses its own sensors in every camera they sell, and Canon exclusively uses its own sensors. Each brand/type sensor has pluses and minuses, depending how it is implemented in the specific camera and what your primary photography goals are.

 

Earlier Sony A7 iterations are a poor fit for starscapes because of their hardware raw image processing, while Nikons with the same sensor will work better for starscapes because the processing design is different, and Canons sensors fall somewhere between depending on camera model (the original 6D seems to be the best Canon for starscapes). For general-purpose photography you'd have a harder time telling them apart, aside from default color output. Extreme shadow recovery is usually easier with the Sony sensors at base ISO, which can be important for daytime landscape and architecture. At higher ISOs, all modern sensors become similar unless specifically optimized for high ISO like D4-D5, or slightly handicapped by ultra high density like Canon 50MP 5Ds.

 

If your photography tends toward a specific niche, its usually not a good idea to buy the very latest camera model until several months to a year has passed, and more than a few credible reviews/user reports appear describing how that model performs in your niche. This can change even when the model seems to only be a slight upgrade with the same sensor: when Nikon updated the D800 to D810, the D810 unexpectedly had issues with starscapes.

Edited by orsetto
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...