Nikon recommendation

Been wanting a new dSLR and was previously a Canon person but want to get a full frame Nikon this time. Was looking at something comparable to the 6d in terms of sensor size but at a budget around $1500 or so. Maybe more but ideally not.

What should I looks at as a noob to the Nikon line?

If you would like a DSLR, the Nikon D750 is still a very good choice:

Nikon D750 | Camera of the Year | FX-Format Wi-Fi Camera

I have had one for 4 years. But you also need to factor in lenses. After you add 2, 3 decent lenses, the overall package is not going to be cheap.

Additionally, at this point I might just start with a mirrorless system. That maybe more future proof in the longer run, although personally, I am still going to use DSLRs in the next few years.

After you add 2, 3 decent lenses, the overall package is not going to be cheap.

Indeed, if you've no glass, that's going to be the decider despite the body choice.......

What kind of shooter are you?

+1 for the D750.

The D750 is the least expensive FX Nikon. The D610 is $100 more

The D750 is a better camera than the D610, with significantly better autofocus, but it is heavily discounted right now. I disagree with Sandy, buying it refurbished is not enough of a savings to make up for a shorter warranty and the fact that the extras in the current promotion would not be included.

Been wanting a new dSLR and was previously a Canon person but want to get a full frame Nikon this time. Was looking at something comparable to the 6d in terms of sensor size but at a budget around $1500 or so. Maybe more but ideally not.

 

What should I looks at as a noob to the Nikon line?

Unless you buy used, you have to crank up your budget to at least $2,000.

Look at the prices on B&H or Adorama, to get an idea of the prices.

The best current sale price seems to be the D750 + 24-120 + grip for about $1,900. Note, this is sale price, and won't stay down at this level forever. The regular price of that kit is about $3,100+, with the D750 alone at about $2,000.

buying it refurbished is not enough of a savings

You're probably right. Hector. I've just had a several year of run of good luck buying used & refurb - everyone's experiences are different. Incidentally, my used D 750 was still covered in the recall.

at this point I might just start with a mirrorless system

I have a mirrorless and a decent set of lenses. I feel it’s limitation is the camera having optimal resolution close to wide open and reduced resolution stopped all the way down. It makes me compromise more than I’d like to in certain situations. I was thinking of getting a dSLR again with 2 lenses such as a 24-70 f/2.8 and a 50mm f/1.4. The budget I suggested was for the body. I realize it’s a commitment for the full frame glass. So I’ll have to weigh that.

Sound like everyone recommends the 750D. I’ll research it a bit.

I have a mirrorless and a decent set of lenses. I feel it’s limitation is the camera having optimal resolution close to wide open and reduced resolution stopped all the way down. It makes me compromise more than I’d like to in certain situations. I was thinking of getting a dSLR again with 2 lenses such as a 24-70 f/2.8 and a 50mm f/1.4.

You might be running into defraction issues at smaller apertures.

If so, you will have the same problem on a dSLR.

On full frame, you can use a broader range of apertures and still get good detail in the focused areas, but depth of field will be shallower at equal f-stops and angle of view. If you stop down enough to get equal depth of field (as your MTF imagr) then your diffraction effects will be similar as well. So the advantage is more on the side of large apertures and shallow depth of field. There is also an advantage in base ISO dynamic range and tonality.

For your budget, the D750 would seem to be a good choice. The first Nikon full frame mirrorless are so new that they are pretty expensive.

Still don't know what kinda stuff you shoot or want to shoot better? ;)

Would a secondhand D3S provide the fps speed and high ISO you need for sport in the dark, or a used D810 provide the DR and pixels for large landscape prints?

When I was referring to the mirror less disadvantage I was specifically talking about m4/3 mirrorless. Don’t know enough about the Nikon mirrorless and lens options to know if that’s a decent alternative to the dSLR without having the issue I haven with the m4/3.

The Z6 and Z7 with same lenses could deliver better images than the D750 and the D850 when speed isn't a problem. You can use the exact same lenses

The Z6 and Z7 with same lenses could deliver better images than the D750 and the D850 when speed isn't a problem. You can use the exact same lenses

But the Z series fall in 1.5 - 2 times the OP's budget for the Body …

ALso important, the Z-series only accept verry expesive XQD memory cards, where the D750 is more flexible in choice of memory cards becausse you can use any grade of SD cards...

But the Z series fall in 1.5 - 2 times the OP's budget for the Body …

 

ALso important, the Z-series only accept verry expesive XQD memory cards, where the D750 is more flexible in choice of memory cards becausse you can use any grade of SD cards...

I answered to the OP saying that his mirrorless can't deliver the image quality of the DSLR. That's because his sensor size not because mirrorless or DSLR.

Been wanting a new dSLR and was previously a Canon person but want to get a full frame Nikon this time. Was looking at something comparable to the 6d in terms of sensor size but at a budget around $1500 or so.

I've been a satisfied Nikon user, film and digital, going back nearly 40 years. Wonderful system, with hits and misses just like every other brand. But I'm gonna go rogue here based on your feedback so far, and suggest: forget Nikon altogether, and buy a nice used Canon 6D (first version) instead. Since you were "previously a Canon user" you'll already be somewhat familiar with the control mentality and color output. The price is an outright steal at the moment: nice clean low-use 6D bodies are going for $600-$750, often complete in original box with all accessories. The 6D has primitive AF so isn't great for sports or wildlife, but in that price range, there is simply no better general-purpose "starter" full frame camera. Canon takes a lot of heat for having "obsolete" sensors, but the 20MP chip in the original 6D is very very good, in some respects the best they've ever offered in that MP range. Colors are nice and predictable, dynamic range is decent if not spectacular at low ISO while quite competitive at high ISO, and banding and noise (Canon's curse) is absolute minimum even compared to top-line Canons.

Going with Canon also gives you more flexibility if you ever migrate to mirrorless in future. The all-electronic lenses are easily adapted for full function (metering, stop-down and AF) to the popular Sony full-frame bodies and the new Canon full-frame mirrorless. Nikon lenses, OTOH, are a PITA when used on non-Nikon bodies: you lose every feature (no coupled metering, no auto-stop-down, and no AF). Don't get me wrong: I enjoy occasionally using my Nikon lenses on Sony and Canon bodies, but being limited to full manual operation doesn't bother me for my projects. Most photographers are extremely unhappy to lose AF, and lose it you will (even on the new Nikon Z mirrorless) unless you limit yourself to the subset of the AFS Nikkors with Canon-style all-electronic design. Sooner or later, most mirrorless users pick up dedicated mirrorless lenses to go with their new bodies, but in the short run being able to use your previous lenses is a great crutch. Quite a few exotic or nice affordable DSLR lenses take forever to appear in dedicated mirrorless versions, are disappointing when they do, or never appear at all: choosing a Canon 6D as your "starter" full frame means any lens you buy for it will migrate with you to mirrorless.

Lenses aside, in the real world today, where people on a budget shop used as well as new, Nikon has nothing quite competitive in the price range of a used Canon 6D. The Nikon D700 is a legendary, beloved older semi-pro body that sells for about the same as a used 6D: phenomenal camera but only 12MP, VERY large/heavy and VERY loud. If you don't mind those drawbacks, it has killer fast AF and a lot of other nice features, but its simultaneously too much yet not enough camera for noobs who don't have specific need for it. The infamous Nikon D600 also goes for about the same as a Canon 6D, but is a lousy option unless you simply must have a "current" Nikon at lowest possible cost. The D600 is the Nikon even Nikon fanatics hate on, and thats before you consider the dreadful oil-spattering shutter that can bite you big time. I'd give the D600 a hard pass unless you find one at a fire-sale price like $400.

If you have your heart set on buying brand new, and have some specific reason to prefer Nikon (like you seriously have full intention to exploit its dynamic range to the hilt in your work), then I agree with all the other recommendations that your best bet is a D750. My only caveat there is I'd suggest buying it sooner rather than later: odds are 50/50 that its 2019 successor D760 will drop desirable features like backwards AF and metering compatibility with older lenses. Should that be the case, D750s will suddenly become more sought-after, used and new. Other than probable loss of those key features (to maintain the current retail price), the new D760 is not expected to be dramatically different or better. Take the backwards compatibility while you can get it: theres a lot of good older affordable Nikon glass out there that works nicely with the 24MP sensor.

You might be running into defraction issues at smaller apertures.

If so, you will have the same problem on a dSLR.

I thought diffraction issues were more pronounced in m4/3 due to the smaller sensor (and high pixel count) and while I’m not a physicist I suspect the distance from the back of the lens to the sensor may play a role.

Still don't know what kinda stuff you shoot or want to shoot better? ;)

 

Would a secondhand D3S provide the fps speed and high ISO you need for sport in the dark, or a used D810 provide the DR and pixels for large landscape prints?

I love cameras and getting out and about to take pictures. I was looking at a dSLR for general purpose photography.

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. 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.

I've been a satisfied Nikon user, film and digital, going back nearly 40 years. Wonderful system, with hits and misses just like every other brand. But I'm gonna go rogue here based on your feedback so far, and suggest: forget Nikon altogether, and buy a nice used Canon 6D (first version) instead. Since you were "previously a Canon user" you'll already be somewhat familiar with the control mentality and color output. The price is an outright steal at the moment: nice clean low-use 6D bodies are going for $600-$750, often complete in original box with all accessories. The 6D has primitive AF so isn't great for sports or wildlife, but in that price range, there is simply no better general-purpose "starter" full frame camera. Canon takes a lot of heat for having "obsolete" sensors, but the 20MP chip in the original 6D is very very good, in some respects the best they've ever offered in that MP range. Colors are nice and predictable, dynamic range is decent if not spectacular at low ISO while quite competitive at high ISO, and banding and noise (Canon's curse) is absolute minimum even compared to top-line Canons.

 

Going with Canon also gives you more flexibility if you ever migrate to mirrorless in future. The all-electronic lenses are easily adapted for full function (metering, stop-down and AF) to the popular Sony full-frame bodies and the new Canon full-frame mirrorless. Nikon lenses, OTOH, are a PITA when used on non-Nikon bodies: you lose every feature (no coupled metering, no auto-stop-down, and no AF). Don't get me wrong: I enjoy occasionally using my Nikon lenses on Sony and Canon bodies, but being limited to full manual operation doesn't bother me for my projects. Most photographers are extremely unhappy to lose AF, and lose it you will (even on the new Nikon Z mirrorless) unless you limit yourself to the subset of the AFS Nikkors with Canon-style all-electronic design. Sooner or later, most mirrorless users pick up dedicated mirrorless lenses to go with their new bodies, but in the short run being able to use your previous lenses is a great crutch. Quite a few exotic or nice affordable DSLR lenses take forever to appear in dedicated mirrorless versions, are disappointing when they do, or never appear at all: choosing a Canon 6D as your "starter" full frame means any lens you buy for it will migrate with you to mirrorless.

 

Lenses aside, in the real world today, where people on a budget shop used as well as new, Nikon has nothing quite competitive in the price range of a used Canon 6D. The Nikon D700 is a legendary, beloved older semi-pro body that sells for about the same as a used 6D: phenomenal camera but only 12MP, VERY large/heavy and VERY loud. If you don't mind those drawbacks, it has killer fast AF and a lot of other nice features, but its simultaneously too much yet not enough camera for noobs who don't have specific need for it. The infamous Nikon D600 also goes for about the same as a Canon 6D, but is a lousy option unless you simply must have a "current" Nikon at lowest possible cost. The D600 is the Nikon even Nikon fanatics hate on, and thats before you consider the dreadful oil-spattering shutter that can bite you big time. I'd give the D600 a hard pass unless you find one at a fire-sale price like $400.

 

If you have your heart set on buying brand new, and have some specific reason to prefer Nikon (like you seriously have full intention to exploit its dynamic range to the hilt in your work), then I agree with all the other recommendations that your best bet is a D750. My only caveat there is I'd suggest buying it sooner rather than later: odds are 50/50 that its 2019 successor D760 will drop desirable features like backwards AF and metering compatibility with older lenses. Should that be the case, D750s will suddenly become more sought-after, used and new. Other than probable loss of those key features (to maintain the current retail price), the new D760 is not expected to be dramatically different or better. Take the backwards compatibility while you can get it: theres a lot of good older affordable Nikon glass out there that works nicely with the 24MP sensor.

I like the 6d for obvious reasons :)

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

Ah! OK. Full frame it is.

Being a naturally thrifty person, I'd buy used and I'd spend more on glass and less on body.

So it would be a 2nd hand D610, a Tamron 90mm VC macro, a Samyang 14mm 2.8 MF and maybe a 24-120mm f4 walk-around lens.

If you decide to move up, the 600 series body has pretty much plateaued (bottomed out!) price wise, so you won't suffer much depreciation. I suspect a D750's value will drop sharply when the aforementioned D760 (or whatever) comes out probably 2019.

Diffraction, DoF etc are all interlinked by a theoretical magnification factor related to the Circle of Confusion. You have to magnify the image more with smaller sensors to make a 10 x 8 print and whenever you magnify anything, film or pixels the, apparent unsharpness gets worse.

Smaller apertures produce diffraction, you magnify that 'cos of smaller sensor size and it looks softer.

It's not quite that 'simple' (!) but depending on your type of macro, full frame stacked images at the lens's optimum aperture (5.6) is the way to go.

I answered to the OP saying that his mirrorless can't deliver the image quality of the DSLR. That's because his sensor size not because mirrorless or DSLR.

Ok Bebu, sorry if i misunderstood your reply.

I was just confused by the comparisson in image quality between the Z-series and the D850 while using the same lenses , my bad ...

Ok Bebu, sorry if i misunderstood your reply.

I was just confused by the comparisson in image quality between the Z-series and the D850 while using the same lenses , my bad ...

Yeah no problem! The OP said that his M4/3 mirrorless didn't deliver the quality like the DSLR so what I said to him that the reason is sensor size and not whether the camera is DSLR or Mirrorless. So as example taken the Z6 and Z7 which have the same sensor size as the D750 and D850 the Z deliver the same image quality if not even better because they have some newer processors.

Yeah no problem! The OP said that his M4/3 mirrorless didn't deliver the quality like the DSLR so what I said to him that the reason is sensor size and not whether the camera is DSLR or Mirrorless. So as example taken the Z6 and Z7 which have the same sensor size as the D750 and D850 the Z deliver the same image quality if not even better because they have some newer processors.

Yeah you’re both right. Mirrorless doesnt mean small sensor necessarily and I wasn’t specific about what format I was using.