nikon camera/lens combo for indoor natural daylight shooting

I only have Nikon equipment, so I am going to stick with Nikon--I am looking for a camera/lens combo I can use in natural light indoor settings, primarily for portraits/boudoir. Neither my d5300 or d7100 seem up for the job. So I am considering a Nikon D7200 body with a medium length lens (85 - 105) either fixed or zoom with a 1.8 aperture (either 1.8 fixed aperture or 1.8 aperture as fastest setting). I am planning to buy used equipment. I am on a budget. Will this camera/lens combo work for my purposes, and if so, any recommended lenses? Thanks

What's the shortcoming with your current cameras? I shoot a D7100 (and 7000's) for available light portrait work at weddings. I don't think that a D7200 or D7500 is going to give you any more.

 

I use a 50f1.4 for wide portrait shots and an 85f1.4 for closer shots. I also often use my 80-200f2.8. I'm not sure that you are going to find any zooms with an f1.8 aperture.

Keep in mind that a 105mm lens on APS-C sensor will be fairly long for your needs. f/2.8 is likely the best you'll be able to do with on a zoom. An FX camera would be the best for the purposes you've stated, including the best DoF control, and a used D750 can be had for very reasonable prices. The Nikkor 85mm/1.8 is the sine-qua-non of portraiture lenses.

Keep in mind that a 105mm lens on APS-C sensor will be fairly long for your needs. f/2.8 is likely the best you'll be able to do with on a zoom. An FX camera would be the best for the purposes you've stated, including the best DoF control, and a used D750 can be had for very reasonable prices. The Nikkor 85mm/1.8 is the sine-qua-non of portraiture lenses.

Great advice. I'll look into d750. Might be too expensive for me, though.

I'm not familiar enough with Nikon bodies to tell if the DX body upgrade will give a significant benefit.

Neither my d5300 or d7100 seem up for the job

Why? What is missing?

I would not rely on having f1.8 at hand, to fix any low light issue I might encounter. Since you consider zooms at those speed, are there others than SIgma? Why not go for Tamron VC primes? Like 45 & 85/1.8?

The Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 ART lens is a fixed aperture zoom and has excellent IQ. Heavy beast, though.

Most of the fastest zooms are f/2.8, and those tend to be heavy and expensive. None of my zooms is faster than f/4. For something faster, you will have to look at primes.

 

Keep in mind that there is no free lunch. Depth of field gets very narrow at wide apertures. This is more extreme on full frame cameras. Many people consider that a benefit of FF cameras, but it can also be a handicap. You may find that you can use very wide apertures for some shots that you want. I don't do boudoir, but I do candids of kids, and I rarely go wider than f/4 on a FF, which is roughly equivalent to the DOF you would get at f/2.8 with a FF.

 

I agree that 105 mm would be very long for inside work with a crop-sensor camera. With a Nikon crop, a standard 50mm is only a little bit shorter than a common portrait length in terms of framing and distance from the subject.

I'd think a fast 35mm prime would be reasonable for a DX sensor and indoor work. DOF is an issue for sure. I've actually resorted to a P&S camera, with it's tiny sensor, for sufficient DOF in some cases.

So . . . The OP still hasn't come back and told us what problems he has with a D7100 that he thinks will be solved with a D7200.

 

How can we actually help?

For a lot less money than a Body and Lenses..... are you opposed to buying a (used) flash and some affordable modifiers...maybe even make your own.?

You can get some very affordable stands and shoot-throughs..... especially on the used market.

As others have said, do you really want to Have To shoot at f/1.8 or larger..... And/Or a big ASA?

That can be a rather shallow DOF for general portraiture.

+1 to getting some lighting equipment.

 

'Available' light is rarely available when, or where, you need it! And shooting portraits and boudoir with window or domestic room lighting is pure amateur-night. The low CT and brightness of domestic room lighting will test the ISO and White Balance abilities of any camera. Let alone having almost zero aesthetic appeal or controllability.

 

Get a couple of speedlights or cheap studio strobes plus stands, radio triggers and brolly-type softboxes. Total outlay - well, a lot less than a new camera body. Then start to do the job properly by lighting the subject in a controllable and repeatable way.

 

A simple setup needs only a key light and fill. Even the fill is optional if you want a dramatic look. Add a small snooted hairlight or 'kicker' and you have all the ingredients for an entirely professional-looking portrait.

 

There are quite a few tutorials on portrait lighting free online as well.

Edited August 21, 2019 by rodeo_joe|1

are you opposed to buying a (used) flash and some affordable modifiers...maybe even make your own.?

I did not dare to suggest the same yesterday, but it would be the safe path and should be still portable for your bicycle. (Too bulky solutions exist too and have their place in studios.) I'd add a ring flash converter to the list of desirable modifiers.

I see absolutely NOTHING wrong with using available light for boudoir. Nor do I think that there is inherently anything wrong with shooting at f1.8 since softness doesn't often become an issue in this work.

 

But, again . . . Why is anyone suggesting the switch from available light to flash when the OP didn't even tell us what the problem with his current rig is?

I had to look up "Bessel functions"! It's been a long, long, time since I took differential equations . . .

I know at least one poster in this thread thinks I have "no skills as a photographer"...so take my opinion for what it's worth but I'd suggest the following:

 

1. Learning to use external light, if possible, will give a more meaningful improvement than any camera upgrades you can possibly make. Well-used flash is in many cases looks more natural than bad "ambient" or "available" light, although badly done flash is even more terrible. This is where having even simple modifiers and learning how to use them is invaluable.

 

2. Unless you want to make the jump to full frame, you're not likely to see any improvement in low light performance by upgrading your camera body. There is no appreciable difference in high ISO performance between a D7100 and a D7200. The D7500 is SLIGHTLY better, but not enough, IMO, to spend the money on and something like a D610/D750 would be much better. I don't consider this a great option, though.

 

3. Every Nikon DX shooter owes it to themselves to have the DX 35mm f/1.8 Nikkor. This is a little jewel of a lens that runs $200 new, and can be thought of as a "standard lens" for DX format cameras.

3. Every Nikon DX shooter owes it to themselves to have the DX 35mm f/1.8 Nikkor.

Please pardon my curiosity, Ben but why insist on a 35mm at that point with a portrait / boudoir leaning OP? Are the previously suggested 50mms that bad? While no Nikon guy I am dealing with DX's crop factor and considering 50mms 1st choice people lenses on it (or even APS H).

Please pardon my curiosity, Ben but why insist on a 35mm at that point with a portrait / boudoir leaning OP? Are the previously suggested 50mms that bad? While no Nikon guy I am dealing with DX's crop factor and considering 50mms 1st choice people lenses on it (or even APS H).

 

Actually, it's not a terrible choice.

 

With that said, you basically have two Nikkor options. The older AF-D version won't AF on the OP's D5300(although it's fine on the D7100), while the AF-S version is a decent bit more expensive. I'm also not wild about the optical design of the AF-D, but it's more than serviceable. The AF-S is an updated and improved design.

 

Still, though, a pairing of-say-a 50mm f/1.8 AF-S and either the DX 35mm f/1.8 or the 85mm f/1.8 AF-D wouldn't be a terribly bad choice for the OP, and the total cost would still be less than a new camera body.

. . . and we STILL don't know what the OP thinks will be solved by buying a new body . . .