My last camera was a F100 can't decide either FX or DX !!!

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>FX - for the brighter and easier-on-the-eye viewfinder alone. Plus you're obviously into a full-frame mindset from the lens selection you've made.</p>

<p>Edit: JDM, by "bokeh" I think Marcello means ease of getting a shallow depth-of-field for a given subject size in frame, and there's no disputing that full-frame will do that over DX. There's about a stop difference in D-o-F between the formats, and no f/1 lenses available for DX. No disputing that <strong>fact</strong>, and it's certainly not in the fantasy realm of sylph clouds.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>The most 'obvious' difference between FX and DX are the size/brightness of the viewfinder and high ISO performance. If either or both are important to you, FX is probably your best path to follow. You will be very happy with either format as both are excellent.</p>

[5711]

<p>fx<br /> d610 - "cheap" and good<br /> d750 - "cheap" and good<br /> d810 - expensive and excellent</p>

<p>for your photography i'd pick up a d610.<br>

if money is no issue i'd pick up a d810 or maybe wait half a year or so<br>

if they throw something new at us with the d5.</p>

 

[jose_angel]

<p>If you`re used to full format, I`d simply get a full format camera. After several DX cameras I never got relaxed until the arrival of FX. So no question here, FX. There is always a price/performance interesting model.<br /> Which lenses? I`d start with one of them. If you don`t shoot too often, I`d get a "lightweight" all round versatile lens, 24-85 or 24-120 type.<br /> If you <em>really</em> want what you call "bokeh", I`d start with a 50/1.4.<br /> Only after that, I`d think on other lenses or whatever.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>If I was starting from scratch and wanted FX, I'd go Nikon D610 myself, unless I could afford those lenses and the D750.</p>

<p>If I was shooting crop-frame, I'd do the Canon 7D mk II, though... (runs and hides...)</p>

[andylynn]

I like Shun's suggestion. Maybe add the 50/1.8G for low light.

[ShunCheung]

<p>As a lot of us know, at least in the US, the D750 has recently dropped to $1996.95, but the kit with the 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR is especially a good deal at $2696.95: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1082604-REG/nikon_d750_dslr_camera_with.html<br>

If you don't need the D750's AF, the D610 with the 24-85mm AF-S VR is also a very good kit: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1008287-REG/nikon_d610_dslr_camera_with.html</p>

<p>Either one would be a good starting point and will cost less than 50% of the OP's budget. There will be plenty of opportunities to add more lenses.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If I was shooting crop-frame, I'd do the Canon 7D mk II, though... (runs and hides...)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I recently added a D7200, but I use a lot of long telephoto lenses. With the OP's budget and photo subjects, I would get FX.</p>

<p>Canon's 7D Mark II is great for those who use long teles. It is not a camera for the OP. A few years ago, I would recommend Canon with no reservation. Sadly, as far as I see, Canon is no longer the market leader it once was from roughly year 1990 to a few years ago. Today, they are lagging behind. It is one thing if you already have some Canon lenses. Otherwise, it wouldn't be my first choice for a new system.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Shun, I agree, I was just throwing it out there. Sometimes people's needs and capacities are different than they seem at first.<br /><br />If I were birding or shooting sports primarily, I think the 7D mk II would be freakin' perfect. The OP isn't really shooting that.<br /><br />But... one more thought, OP.</p>

<p>If you're new to all this, don't buy it all at once. You might end up buying stuff you don't need. Start with one body and one mid-range zoom lens (That D750/24-120 kit would be awesome) and MAYBE add one low-light large-aperture lens like the 50 f1.4G or f1.8G).</p>

<p>Shoot with nothing but for a little while (maybe add a flash if you're into that) and then see how it goes. Add lenses as you go. That's what I'd do (and what I have, in fact done, the 3 times in my life I've built a system).</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>To add to the vast amounts of advice already given:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>family,kids,little landscape,street photography</p>

</blockquote>

<p>None of that to me has a direct advantage of the superior AF of the D7100, D7200 or D750 - I think the D610 makes an awful lot of sense here, if money is no objection. If money is in any way tight, I would go with DX (a D5200 would then already work, realistally, though it does handle different), and choice the lenses for that (no 24-70, but a 17-50, for starters).<br>

I also think the 24-70 and 70-200 are not really convenient 'walkaround items'; they're heavy and large and once you start adding fast primes for the shallow depth of field shots, the need to have f/2.8 zooms for <em>casual</em> use quickly becomes less (if you have plans for professional work, this changes). I'd probably, as Shun suggests above, go for the 24-85VR, or 24-120VR (which tends to be a bit overpriced, but it's a good allrounder), with a 70-200 f/4VR or if the budget is running low, the 70-300VR. Add the two primes that were listed in the OP, and you've got a pretty great kit at very reasonable prices.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>If I were birding or shooting sports primarily, I think the 7D mk II would be freakin' perfect. The OP isn't really shooting that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 7D Mark II maybe perfect for that in the first half in 2015. My guess is that mirrorless will take over that area in another year or two. Again, if you already have lots of Canon lens, a 7D Mark II makes perfect sense. If you start a new Canon system now, there is fairly high risk that it will become a bad decision a year or two down the road, because Canon is clearly behind in mirrorless and is also behind in general.</p>

<p>Of course, I have no crystal ball to precisely predict the future.</p>

[glenncadman]

<p>I was looking at the same problem a few weeks ago, I had an F5 and a number of "pro" Nikon lens from the AF-D days.<br /><br />I ended up with a new D610 on special for approx US$1100 in Oz Nikon was given a cash back discount. I didn't think the step up to a D750 was worth the extra $500 for the only feature that mattered to me, that being the better autofocus system. The other option was a used D4 or D3X, but in OZ most are professionally used with high shutter counts albeit with plenty of life in them yet.<br>

Personally the D610 so far has been great, the old Nikon glass as clear as ever, though the autofocus takes about twice as long as the 18 year old F5 with much more hunting. Now I just need to wish for some photographic talent, all pictures so far have not done the camera justice. Maybe I will over time get some AFS VR glass. <br /><br />The D610 is light weight so if you lets say buy a 28-300 then when you travel light you can just take that lens and a monopod without turning your family holiday into a photographic equipment expedition. With the rest of the budget just get stuck in with the prime lenses, they will retain value long term so even if you find after a year you are not using one you can resell on the used market without suffering a big loss, dont forget a on/off camera flash pair a carbon tripod and an arca swiss monoball.<br /><br /> </p>

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

[aaron l]

<p>Get FX unless you shoot wildlife. I have both and love my FX.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>A clean used D200 (DX) would probably be the closest analog to your F100 film experience, resolution and ISO performance. Plus, with the extra 'reach' of the DX sensor, you could get some nice pictures of birds and stuff.</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>If you'll excuse my contrary opinion but that seems like a lot of money to spend on a casual shooting hobby. Of course it's your money to spend. A nice all-in-one bridge camera would fill the bill I think and make nice pictures and leave thousands in the pocket (or in interest earning instruments)</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Nothing in the OP's lens list suggests DX to me - and - as Wouter already pointed out - the two f/2.8 zooms are rather inconvenient for walking around.</p>

<p>While the D7200 is an excellent camera - for the applications the OP has in mind, the lenses are lacking. While the recommended 17-50 f/2.8 lenses have their place - I personally find the range too limiting on either end of the focal length range The one lens that has a decent range - 16-85 is hampered by the f/5.6 aperture towards the long end. By now, there are some primes available to fill previous gaps (Nikon 20/1.8, 28/1.8, and Sigma 24/1.4) - but at least in terms of price, I would opt for the Sigma 18-35/1.8 instead. Not an option I recommend to the OP though - because of the rather limited range (though it is rather adequate for street). Aside from the 35/1.8DX, the Sigma is IMHO the only higher-end DX lens worth buying.</p>

<p>Hence I add my support to the suggestion made above - go FX. Cheapest option new is the D610 with the 24-85 VR. For $700 more, you can get the D750 with 24-120/4 VR - if that upgrade is worth the money spend on it is for the OP to decide. Handling the two bodies might sway him one way or the other - I quite like the feel of the D750 but not that of the D610; the deeper grip of the D750 makes quite a difference. And there is the flip-out screen. If the choice falls on the 24-120, then I would hold-off on the purchase of a 70-200 as the added focal length range might not really be needed (either right away or at all). The 28-300 seems to be quite popular - but with the extended range come a lot of compromises.</p>

<p>It appears that my perception of what "street" means is different from the OP's - or there would be a 35mm or even 28mm prime showing up in his lens list. </p>

<p>Lastly, as an option that would appeal to me a great deal though certainly not as flexible as zooms: 20/1.8, 35/1.8, 85/1.8 as a compact, lightweight prime lens kit. I can make do without a 50/1.8 - but the OP might want to include that in his kit.</p>

[Mary Doo]

<blockquote>

<p>my last camera was a F100...now I want to get back to photography,mainly family,kids,little landscape,street photography,also interested in bokeh,no studio.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I hear F100 look-and-feel for close-to-casual photography.</p>

<p>So my suggestion is to get a good used D300 and a 18-300mm super zoom - and get the agony of decision over with!</p>

<p>The D300 feels solid like the F100. The 18-300mm is a very good lens for what it does (please don't listen to people who have never used it). Save yourself a bundle to spoil the kids with. And you won't need to be a slave to multiple heavy metals while enjoying quality time with your family.</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>by "bokeh" I think Marcello means ease of getting a shallow depth-of-field for a given subject size in frame</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, that ain't bokeh in my book, but I'd still say</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>In any case, it is not something so overwhelming that it should be a major concern in deciding on one format or another, IMHO.</em></p>

</blockquote>

[Rick Helmke]

<p>FX. If I had to start from scratch now, prices being what they are it would be FX without a doubt. Wish I'd had that option when I first took the plunge in '03.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

[marcello dasilva]

<p>Thanks guys for all the suggestions,I'm 90% with:</p>

<p> <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=cart_accessories&A=details&Q=&sku=1082604&is=REG&bundleId=1082604REG" data-selenium="itemImgLink"><img src="http://static.bhphoto.com/images/images150x150/1082604.jpg" alt="Nikon D750 DSLR Camera with 24-120mm Lens" border="0" /></a> <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=cart_accessories&A=details&Q=&sku=1082604&is=REG&bundleId=1082604REG" data-selenium="iTitleLink"> Nikon D750 DSLR Camera with 24-120mm Lens </a><br>

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/424744-USA/Nikon_2160_105mm_f_2_8G_ED_IF_AF_S.html" data-selenium="smallImgLink"><img src="http://static.bhphoto.com/images/images150x150/424744.jpg" alt="Nikon AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED Lens" border="0" data-selenium="smallImgItemLink" /></a> <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/424744-USA/Nikon_2160_105mm_f_2_8G_ED_IF_AF_S.html" data-selenium="itemName">Nikon AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED Lens</a><br>

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/838798-REG/Nikon_2201_AF_S_NIKKOR_85mm_f_1_8G.html" data-selenium="smallImgLink"><img src="http://static.bhphoto.com/images/images150x150/838798.jpg" alt="Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8G Lens" border="0" data-selenium="smallImgItemLink" /></a> <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/838798-REG/Nikon_2201_AF_S_NIKKOR_85mm_f_1_8G.html" data-selenium="itemName">Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8G Lens</a><br>

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/766516-USA/Nikon_2199_AF_S_Nikkor_50mm_f_1_8G.html" data-selenium="smallImgLink"><img src="http://static.bhphoto.com/images/images150x150/766516.jpg" alt="Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G Lens" border="0" data-selenium="smallImgItemLink" /></a> <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/766516-USA/Nikon_2199_AF_S_Nikkor_50mm_f_1_8G.html" data-selenium="itemName">Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G Lens</a></p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>FX. If I had to start from scratch now, prices being what they are it would be FX without a doubt. Wish I'd had that option when I first took the plunge in '03.<br /> Rick H.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And a lot of us just wish we had $6500 sitting around for more cameras and lenses, either in 2003 or 2015. :-)</p>

<p>As far as I can tell, the D610 should do a fine job for the OP, but with that budget, IMO it is a good idea to go for a slightly higher-end body, especially with considerably better AF. The D750 body is still less than 1/3 of the overall budget, so he should be fine. It isn't like he is spending $6000 on a D4S with nothing left for lenses.</p>

[marcello dasilva]

<p>I was run over by a car in 2013,this is part of the settlement I received.Technically isn't my money.:)</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Well, you can always make that my money. Just don't run me over with a car. :-)<br>

<br />Life is short. Have some fun while we can.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>honestly, i think the lenses matter a bit more from a long-term perspective than the body (which depreciates in value the instant you buy it) for what the OP wants to shoot. but there's no denying the D750+24-120 kit is a pretty decent deal, and probably worth $300 over a d610+24-85 VR at current prices, but it will take up almost 1/2 of his total budget.</p>

<p>as far as his latest lens list, unless he shoots a lot of handheld macro, it might be a mistake to get both an 85 and the 105 VR. they are pretty close in focal length, and there are less-expensive dedicated macro lenses without stabilization which are just as good or better optically (tamron 90, tokina 100). if he doesn't shoot macro that much, i would just get a used lens or forgo the macro option altogether at this time. we also see the long telephoto option (i.e. 70-200/4) missing, which doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me, unless the OP has decided he will never need to go longer than 120mm.</p>

<p>no matter how good a lens lineup looks on paper, in real-world practice, you may find what you actually need (as opposed to what you thought you needed) substantially different. IMO, probably 80% of the OP's shooting needs can be handled with the 24-120 and a 70-200. the 50/1.8 G is a pretty good deal as far as price-performance ratio, but if its bokeh you're after, either of the sigma 50/1.4's will be creamier and more bokehlicious. <strong>personally, i would choose the Sigma 35/1.4 ART over every lens on that list for IQ.</strong> it's just that good, and has a very useful focal length, and with that kind of budget, it should be included. i might also try to find room for the nikon 20/1.8 as a wider option if you dont shoot wide that much, and one of the aforementioned wide zooms if you do.</p>

<p>as far as casual (non-pro) FX kits go, there's a certain logic in having an all-purpose zoom, i.e. 24-120, with a complete set of dedicated--and fast--fixed-focal lenses: 20/35/50/85. (notice im purposely omitting the 24/1.4 for its cost.) i speak from some experience with this: i have the 24-70+70-200 VRII for events, but miss a longer, slower zoom for walkaround sometimes. i only need the 20/1.8 to complete my prime kit, which is fun to mix and match when i want to go lighter, i.e. just a 50 or a 35/85 combo. </p>

[marcello dasilva]

<p>Thanks Arnold,you got me confuse now.LOL</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Marcello, I'll say it again: just start with an FX body and a kit lens. Use that for a while and see what other lenses can enhance your photography. There is no need to spend all of your budget at once. If the money is burning a hole in your pocket, I'll be happy to take it away from your hands. :-)</p>