D610 dilemma / NAS

[tombest]

<p>The recent 2nd price drop on the D610 has me seriously thinking. I am drawn to the low light performance it purportedly has. I currently have a D7000 with some decent glass that will cover some FF and am wondering if the D610 will be a significant upgrade in low-light indoor photography? A friend recently bought a D7100 and while it has more resolution and a better auto focus module, it is noticeably noisier at ISO 1600 and above compared to my D7000. For what I shoot, resolution is not a limiting factor and while the D7000 doesn't always find focus fast in lousy light, it is so much better than my previous D200 that I'm satisfied with it as is. I would expect the low light focus of the D610 to be similar to what I have. The D750 is a lust item but the difference in price is a hurdle for me.</p>

<p>I cut my teeth on a Minolta X570 and a 50mm F1.7 lens. I loved the look of the photos and bokeh I got with that combo and am thinking a D610 and 50mm F1.8 would produce the look and perspective that started my love of photography in the first place. But... </p>

<p>Another option would be to buy the DX 35mm F 1.8 and use it with my D7000. I mostly read good things about that lens and they are certainly cheap enough. The Sigma 35mm F1.4 is also a lust item that might be an option as well, if I decide to invest in some glass instead of a camera.</p>

<p>Something new is coming soon and it will do something better than the D7100 so I'm a little torn about waiting for the expected new announcement vs taking advantage of a very good deal (that may not last) on a very good D610. Anyone out there have both the D7000 and a D610 and can comment on the noticeable or perceived differences in the two? </p>

<p>For the record, I currently have a 60mm F 2.8 macro, 85mm F1.8D and the 70-200 F2.8 VRI that will cover FF. I know the 70-200 has its limitations corner to corner and can be soft at 200 wide open but it's not horrible. I also have the 24-120 F3.5-5.6 but it isn't a good performer even on DX. OK but not got great. It will cover FF in a pinch, but I intend to keep my D7000 and have a Tokina 12-24 F4.0. The D610 seems to be a lot of camera for its current discounted price. Any thoughts?</p>

[elliot1]

<p>"wondering if the D610 will be a significant upgrade in low-light indoor photography?"<br>

<br>

In general, yes. What ISOs are you typically shooting at? What size prints are you typically making?</p>

 

[tombest]

I usually don't print over 16 X 20 and only for my own walls or as gifts. More get shared with friends and family through the web. I like to

shoot our cats around the house so ISO 6400 isn't out of the question. Also, if I wander to one of the local wetlands or parks here in south

Florida, bumping ISO helps with early morning birding and shake-free shots. I know I lose the 1.5 multiplier with FF and a 70-200 is

barely enough, but some of our birding ops here allow us to get pretty close and I have a TC14E if I need the reach, albeit at a penalty..

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Personally, I find more often than not this dream of super-high-ISO-virtually-noise-free-shooting turns more into a disappointment than that it actually makes a change; and especially with natural indoor lighting, which often is indirect, flat and featureless. The problem with that kind of light is that shadows start to look a drab, dreary and noisy grey - no matter which camera you throw at it. It's just bad light. Is you need more than ISO3200 and you're not shooting sports, then the likelihood of the light quality being too lousy is rather high, in my (limited) experience.<br>

Good, contrast-rich low light exists too, obviously, and in those cases, yes, then a D610 will give you some gain over the D7000. Expect no miracles though, as the D7000 is already seriously good. There are other advantages to full frame too, and if those matter too then the story might change. But else, I'd go for the 35mm f/1.8DX (which is indeed great value for money), and see how that goes. Full frame just for its low-light performance isn't the greatest value for money, even if the D610 is impressively cheap at the moment, mainly because with the D7000 generation, APS-C closed most of the gap.</p>

[User_6502147]

<p>Although I enjoy the D610 a lot and it is a capable rig, the now "antiquated" D700 was no slouch either. Quite often I used a flash either direct (w/ diffusion) or in bounce mode...to get the shot I needed....yes, there is a way without using high ISO's.</p>

<p>Les</p><div></div>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Wouter's observations are dead on, I believe. There certainly are situations where the low light is also good looking light (firelight, or a setting sun filtering through a window, etc). But very often, people are looking to solve the problem of low and <em>ugly</em> light with low-noise, high-ISO exposures. </p>

[andylynn]

<p>High ISO is necessary for taking photos of cats under Christmas trees.</p><div></div>

[tombest]

<p>I just took this shot with my D7000 and my 85mm F1.8D. This was taken at ISO 3200 with pretty dim ambient light that is predominantly from a CFL through a shade. F2.8 @1/15 second. I converted it to JPG with Capture NX-D, ran it through Topaz Denoise and Topaz Detail, then downsampled it to fit @ 700 pixels width. The noise isn't really bad and the detail isn't either. Not sure if a FF is going to do any better, so that's why I'm asking.</p><div></div>

[elliot1]

<p>You will get better results IF you have the right glass. For example, 200mm on you DX body (300mm FOV) will not look that much different from 200mm cropped to the 300mm FOV of DX BUT 300mm on FX will be improved over 200mm (300mm FOV) from DX.</p>

<p>Fast glass always helps!</p>

[tombest]

<p>I guess what I have been blaming the camera for isn't really its fault. Wandering around the house with almost no light and hoping to get decent shots is unfair when the light isn't good to begin with. So, I think you have all answered my question and I appreciate the comments. Wouter, I think I'll take your advice and buy the 35mm F1.8.</p>

[5711]

<p>edit: all shots with a d3, portrait 50 1.8G, cats: 16mm fisheye @2.8 and 14-24 @2.8, max iso: 2000, no noise reduction</p>

<p>i do not have lowlight shots here on pn, well high iso yes but not low light.<br /> but to make my point go take a look at this photo please:<br /> http://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/photos/1916462/</p>

<p>what you want to do with lowlight is to really meter for what you want to show and then adjust.</p>

<p>the photo i linked is quite interesting regarding light.<br /> by pumping up the iso, i made sure his movement, if any, gets reduced (shutterspeed) and i get a good clean shot at his yellowish lightened left side.<br /> i did not adjust +EV, i went for -EV and i think it had been around -0.7.<br /> by doing this i prevent the high iso setting to blow my highlights, still having enough light on his face.<br /> as the scene is quite even in colours and light, not too much falloff to the back or the right side of his face, this works quite well (compare the dark background to his hair, the lightpanels to the light in his face etc).</p>

<p>if the light is very dim and you're stuck with lets say 2.8 @ 1/30th i usually try to get to 1/60. if i am limited to iso 2000, f2.8 and 1/30th i underexpose to get the speed up, maybe if the cat is still it is enough, but usually it hardly is..so set the camera to burst also...exhale and make a few shots in quick succession..should be enough to have one that is quite sharp. usually they start to move then or look at you, which absically ruins some of the shots out of the sequence.</p>

<p>if the background is getting darker, e.g. your room when shooting cats, you should be carefull to not overdo the udnerexposing, as you will not get any information back once the background is all black. check the histogram.<br /> there should be something that is very far to the left but still quite a bit inside the histogram to edit.</p>

<p>also you should not ettr too much as the high iso will blow your highlights and you will lose all detail.</p>

<p>i know it can be frustrating with cats in your living room or whatever as there sometimes is not enough light to get a shot that the cat will be very well lit and exposed properly.</p>

<p>i suggest to go after a well rendered overall interesting photo, maybe with a slightly darker cat as you would wish and thereby make it more interesting as the same thing over and over again.<br /> <br />i had two cats..they're with my ex girlfriend, but i kinda switched to take photos only with fisheyes or 14-24<br /> of them.<br /> its way more fun this way too :p</p>

<p>also the wideangle allows you to adjust the exposure way differently.<br /> first shot, afternoon, second one dawn.</p>

<p>to sum things up:<br /> wouter said you should get a 35 1.8 and i agree.<br /> very few times i go over iso 2000 (on a d3) and i do not reduce the noise.<br /> sometimes when light is tricky, i use in camera nikon active dlighting set to low or normal.<br /> and i would recomment you go for moody shots that have their emphasis on light and mood rather to go for better cameras and try to get even metered shots in all conditions, which is rly not the way to go unless you want to spend more and more money and get dissapointed alot.</p>

<p>as usual i have to add, go take photos of concerts.<br /> lots of different lowlight situations, with a lot of hard to expose things.<br /> very good training<br /> here is my tumblr:<br /> nwfoto.tumblr.com<br /> <br />and here are my two cats..well..ex-cats...or whatever it is</p>

<p><img src="http://40.media.tumblr.com/99c8cd61db396a80071671c06a6c5f80/tumblr_n9iwcuSS0C1tipmvdo1_500.jpg" alt="" width="499" height="750" /><br /> <img src="http://40.media.tumblr.com/6df2e9905732807504c3ddb92a653ad3/tumblr_n9iwcuSS0C1tipmvdo2_1280.jpg" alt="" width="1278" height="1920" /></p>

[Renee Shipley]

<p>I have the same camera as you. You say you are satisfied with it so I'll pass along the advice others have given me, but I didn't see mentioned here: relieve your gas/nas by spending your money on lighting/lighting technique instruction (and, of course, the 35/1.8, which you seem to have already settled on). Happy shooting!</p>

[evilsivan]

I am not a pro and I don't make prints hardly ever. That said I just bought a D750 which I believe has the same sensor as the D610. The low light capabilities are awesome. I had a D7000 which was no slouch in the low light but the D750 is just ridiculous. And the focusing. It was nailing focus in the pitch black dark. So much fun.

 

As for "what's usable"? Camera goes up to iso 56k, therefore 56k is usable. Enjoy!

[Two23]

<p>I went from D7100 to D800E. I have a cat. (Maybe it's the other way around?) The difference in ISO between those two cameras is not what I'd call huge by any means. I picked up at most a stop & half. If you like to photo birds, you will regret not having a DX camera with your 70-200mm f2.8. I would not have bought the D800E if I hadn't also spent over $4,000 in new (used) lenses for it. That Sigma f1.4 ART lens is just astonishing! I would try a new lens, especially that one, before sticking money into a camera. Remember that lenses generally make a bigger difference than a camera will (I found that to be true again this time.) Also remember that by buying the very best lenses used (such as Sigma 35mm & 50mm f1.4 ART) they hold their values well. If you decided to go for another camera, you will already have excellent lenses. BTW, I'll mention the main reason I bought the D800E was not for the camera, but rather so I could use a specific lens (Nikon 24mm PC-E).<br>

One other thing I'll mention is that the AF on the D7100 is a bit better than that on the D800E, especially in low light.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p><div></div>

[tombest]

<p>Kent, funny that you should mention that Sigma. I have been reading reviews on the Nikon 35 F1.8 and the Sigma 35 F1.4 and everyone raves about that Sigma. In fact, it is one of the sharpest ever lenses on a D8XX. If it will resolve on a D800/810, I'm sure it would still be amazing on my D7000. It's expensive, but... </p>

<p>I was also looking at the Sigma 30mm F1.4. DX only and although it rates as a sharp lens, it seems to have pretty serious CA issues. The Nikon 35 F1.8 is the least expensive way into a 'normal'... I'm still thinking. And, as you mentioned, the Sigma 35 F1.4 covers FF if I decide to go that route eventually. Thanks.</p>

[tombest]

<p>Kent, one last thing. I have read about some focus point issues with the Sigma 35 F1.4. Had any trouble in that area with yours? And did you have to buy the dock and calibrate it?</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Tom - I have a cat, but no photos yet this year (I wasn't fast enough last night when she tried climbing our Christmas tree and got stuck - neither the tree nor the cat is very bright). However, yes, massive focus issues with the Sigma 35 f/1.4 on my D800e. I have some very out-of-focus wedding shots because of it. Fine tuning at a short distance leaves it massively wrong at range. The dock is supposed to fix it - I have one, but haven't had time to calibrate it. Maybe over my Christmas holidays. Supposedly the D810 is a little less needy on AF calibration than the D800, so I may have a bad case even though my D800 doesn't have the left AF issue. For now, I've just used live view whenever I've been using the Sigma 35mm. The actual image quality is extremely good.<br />

<br />

I'm vaguely tempted by the Sigma 50mm Art in the future, but I really wish someone would produce a decent f/1.4 50mm with no LoCA. There are exotic slower lenses, and the Sigma and - more - Otus do a bit better than the 50mm Nikkor f/1.4 AF-S, but 50mm is spoiled for me by always coming with colour fringes around out of focus areas.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Tom: So far, my Sigma 35/1.4 has been dead on, focus-wise. I might buy the dock at some point, but I thought I'd wait until I'd seen how the lens did out of the box. Have had no need to touch it. Works beautifully.</p>