Is the Nikon D750 Ok for a beginner?

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Maybe getting started is the most important bit here; find out for yourself whether the lenses match your needs or not, rather than trying to decide on the advice of a bunch of strangers (all well-meant advice, but we all have different priorities, different ways of working, different niggles and so on - what one finds unacceptable lens performance, another will call 'charming and artistically useful' and so on).<br>

A D750 won't disappoint, you could consider a D7200 with a kitlens (to cover the wider angles that the 28-70 does not cover), that would be slightly cheaper and help for the wildlife photos. Given that you have a good store close, go there and try the cameras in your own hands, bring your lenses and see what is what. And find a good course and/or books to get started for real - the gear discussion shouldn't detract from actually making photos after all :-)</p>

[michele_anderson2]

<p>When I started this thread, I was very excited about the D750, and honestly, still am. I have read such good things about it. I know it's expensive, but I am willing to take steps in order to have something that will make me very happy in the long run. What I don't want is to get something that I end up less happy with just to have it all now. I am firmly a quality over quantity personality. I haven't ruled out the D7200 but haven't spent a lot of time researching since I only recently came to the conclusion that I have to update my camera. I plan to go to the store and hold both of them side by side. When I mentioned my budget, I said "if possible" because it's not a concrete budget, it's a goal. I'm not going to spend $6000 on lenses immediately, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't have $6000 worth of lenses 2-3 years from now. When it was mentioned that my existing lenses were worth possibly $2000 (and I've taken very good care of them so I'm assuming I should get near the upper end of the estimates), I then added the additional $2000 that I was initially expecting to spend when I started the thread. That is how I came up with my $4000 budget.<br>

A couple of you mentioned that I replace my body and trade in one of the lenses. I have been thinking about this too. I think it was dieter who mentioned that I could get the D750 w/24-140 lens combo for a reasonable price. I looked that up on the website of my camera store and saw that new combo would cost about $2700. My first love is landscape photography, with close up photography being a close second. Being I love nature in general, I would of course, love shooting animals and birds but it is not a priority over the other two interests. I do not like photographing people, but will do it at birthday parties, holidays, and reunions. But for the candid stuff, I find myself using our Nikon S7000 point and shoot. As I get better with my new camera, I will make more of an effort with it in those situations though. So now I wonder what people would think of trading my 28-70 lens for the combo and just hanging onto my long lens for a while? I am still hoping to see if I can find a refurb at the tent sale. I may not since it's such a new model, but you never know. I also think I could easily l find a nice macro lens at the same sale. I think I'm going to have to trade in my old tripod as well. It sounds like there are better options out there that I could replace it with.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>I think it was dieter who mentioned that I could get the D750 w/24-140 lens combo for a reasonable price.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I didn't say "reasonable" but that the current combo deal D750/24-120 VR is hard to beat at $2700. On their website, Nikon sells a refurbished D750 for $200 less than new price (i.e. $1800 vs $2000) but a refurbished 24-120 runs at $900 vs the $700 that the combo deal offers. In the end, the total is the same - but refurbished limits the warranty to 90 days whereas new gives 1 year on the camera and 5 on the lens.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So now I wonder what people would think of trading my 28-70 lens for the combo and just hanging onto my long lens for a while?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As Ilkka pointed out, the 28-70 is a high quality lens and that there is a likelihood that trading it in would result in the purchase of lenses of lesser optical quality. Such is the case with the 24-120. You get more range but the optical quality of the 24-120 does not reach the 28-70; you would need to spend $1900 to match/exceed it with the 24-70 (which replaced the 28-70). Not that I recommend that move - it would make more sense to hang onto the 28-70 and get a wide-angle zoom to supplement it (if indeed needed at all).</p>

<p>Maybe it is indeed the best option to replace your failing camera with the D750, hang on to the lenses you do have and add what you need over time (maybe replacing then too). It appears that what you are lacking most at the time is a dedicated macro lens. I would be on the lookout at that tent sale you mentioned - maybe you can score a deal there. In the future, you can then decide what to do about birds and wildlife - from what you wrote in your latest post, it doesn't appear to be a priority at this time.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>If landscape and close-up photography are your priorities, then I would keep the lenses you have and get the D750 camera (and a good tripod!) and save some money to buy a Micro-Nikkor (or comparable third party macro lens). Remember the camera can use a large range of older lenses; that is one of the advantages of the Nikon system. By doing a search on keh.com you may find something that is in good condition and affordable. It can be Ai, Ai-S, PC Micro-Nikkor, PC-E Micro-Nikkor or any of the AF or AF-S Micro-Nikkors. In close-up photography, manual focus is usually preferable to autofocus, so a manual focus lens would be a fine choice, and less expensive. I think on this forum there are a lot of people who have experience with the various older Micro-Nikkors as well as third party macro lenses. They can help you decide which macro lens to get. I've mostly used the newer models. Bjorn Rorslett's old site <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com">www.naturfotograf.com</a> has a lot of information on older Micro-Nikkors as well.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Michele, the D750 is a fine camera. In these days I use that in conjunction with a D7200 and occasionally a D7100. I also have a D800E that I don't use very often nowadays.</p>

<p>As I mentioned before, the D750 and D7100/D7200 are very similar cameras. The one major difference is sensor size, FX vs. DX. If your main interest is landscape photography, definitely go FX because you'll get better wide angle lenses. If your focus is birds, go DX. There is no one-size-fits all solution, and that is precisely why I use both FX and DX. For birds, I mostly use the D7200 with a 600mm/f4 lens that weight 11 pounds and requires a large series 5 Gitzo tripod. I also have the 80-400mm AF-S VR that has been mentioned quite a few times here.</p>

<p>Your were given two very fine lenses in the 28-70 and 70-200mm both f2.8 AF-S. I also have those lenses. Unfortunately, they are simply the wrong lenses for nature photography. It is like somebody gives you a nice Porsche. As good a sports car it may be, if your purpose is to take a few kids to the soccer and baseball games, you are much better off selling the Porsche and buy a mini van.</p>

<p>So if you can forget about bird photography for the time being, you can go FX. My D750 review is still in draft from and I am just starting the D7200 review. However, you can take a look at our D7100 review from two years ago: http://www.photo.net/equipment/nikon/nikon-D7100/<br>

The D7200 is very similar to the D7200 but has a deeper image buffer and better high-ISO results. Speaking of the D7100, you can get one refurbished from Adorama for $650: http://www.adorama.com/INKD7100R.html</p>

<p>Your sure don't need to buy everything at once. I would say first decide bird or no bird photography, hence FX vs. DX. Get another lens or two and see which lens you can sell. Incidentally, I think selling the old 28-70 and 70-200 version 1 for $2000 is a bit optimistic. Unfortunately, to put it bluntly, I wouldn't use that old Kodak DC5 Pro SLRn if you pay me $100 to do so.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>If landscape and close-up photography are your priorities, then I would keep the lenses you have and get the D750 camera (and a good tripod!)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would get something wide and lighter. I specifically bought the 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR for landscape photography due to its lighter weight, and my 70-200mm/f2.8 stays home.</p>

<p>Landscape photography typically requires some hiking and moving around to find the right angle, foreground, and lighting. And we typically stop down to f5.6, f8 or even f11 for more depth of field. The weight of those f2.8 zooms is counterproductive for landscape photography. I would look into 18-35mm AF-S. It is quite light in weight and fairly affordable: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/zoom/widezoom/af-s_18-35mmf_35-45g_ed/<br /> That is now my go to wide zoom, although I have two other f2.8 wide zooms.</p>

<p>Again, if you have the budget, you don't need to sell anything immediately. Get a new camera and maybe 1 or 2 lenses. Use them for a few months to see what you need to add and what to sell.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<i>"Unfortunately, they are simply the wrong lenses for nature photography."</i><br>I, strongly, disagree. There's really nothing wrong with those lenses for that purpose.<br>They are not too heavy either. Yes, they, just like all other lenses, are not weightless. So? Not even a small miracle, is it, that people used to create beautiful nature photos using medium format or large and ultra large format cameras. Impossible! Counterproductive...<br>And i can't help but smile at the suggestion this thread provides that those lenses are too heavy, and that Michelle needs a 150-600 mm zoom or 600 mm lens lens.<br><br>Michele, you have a fine set of lenses, that only need a good body.<br>The D750 would be a good body. A D800/800E or D810 would be too (and if your budget can stretch that far...). Forget about DX. Size still matters in photography. ;-) (It really does. Seriously.)

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Incidentally, I think selling the old 28-70 and 70-200 version 1 for $2000 is a bit optimistic</p>

</blockquote>

<p>keh trade-in value, assuming "like new -" condition is a little under $1400. A 28-70 in that condition would sell for around $1000 on keh, and a 70-200/2.8 VR might still fetch $1500. On ebay, 28-70 go for around $800 and 70-200/2.8 still go for around $1200 - so selling them for $2K isn't overly optimistic. But, of course, ebay and paypal fees as well as shipping costs will take their bite out of those proceeds.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Unfortunately, they are simply the wrong lenses for nature photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In terms of weight that is. Range on the 28-70 is limited - but corner-to-corner sharpness is very good and hardly matched by slower/lighter zooms (and there are a lot of older primes that aren't a match either). Stopped down beyond f/5.6, the 70-200 is doing fine on FX - with the exception of the corners at or near 200mm that "never quite make it". To which needs to be added - to match the high quality the lens shows everywhere else; taken by themselves and compared to many other lenses, they aren't all that bad (for example, the 24-120 wished it could get anywhere close in corner performance at the 120mm setting). Unfortunately, corner performance on almost every lens can vary substantial from lens to lens - which in turn leads to endless discussions.</p>

<p>I do agree that hauling a 28-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 around on a hike is not my idea of fun (and I did trade my 70-200/2.8 for the f/4 version mainly to shave off the superfluous weight) - but if one is willing to cope with the weight, then the lenses are far from "simply wrong for nature photography".</p>

[User_6502147]

<p>I think, as a beginner, your largest issue is an understanding of optics and how to choose as the situation occurs. If you are beyond this, then you are that much closer to realizing your dream. For some this is easy, while for others this is difficult. Although there are various lens simulators out there (on the net), the best way (still) is to experience first hand what the lens-camera view reveals....so whether you barrow these optics from a friends, rent them, or checking them in the store, etc.....it's up to you how you intake that knowledge. </p>

<p>You can get couple of lenses that fits your mo and grow from there. Each of us shoots slightly differently and what lens appeal to one person may not fit the other. Personally, I shoot with primes (noh, it has nothing to do with being a snob)...and that's a choice I made....tho I'd be first to say that many zooms are capable of high quality images.</p>

<p>True, the recent crop of DSLR's can be complex and overwhelming to a person that's not familiar with it. But, once you understand that you have no need, at least initially, to utilize those hundreds of items on the menu....and you just focus solely on the standard basics: ISO's, aperture, shutter and focusing skill. Anyway, you can eventually expand and learn all those other settings at your own speed. Sure, the camera manual is v. helpful, tho some gray areas and nuances exist....and if you're unclear, you can ask for clarity here or contact Nikon. Essentially, any camera can work for a beginner(IMO)....tho it helps that the person tends to be dedicated to taking images....and hopefully has fun doing so. Sure, it's helpful to handle the gear....and see if you're comfortable with it.<br>

Good luck.</p>

<p>Les<br>

</p>

 

[michele_anderson2]

<p>OK, I called the camera store I use and talked to the assistant manager about my lenses. Yikes, trading in may not be the way to go if I choose to get rid of them. He said without seeing them, they would give me $300 on the 28-70, and $1200 for the 70-200. That is the high end. :( I told him that I might be better off selling them outright and he agreed if I am "comfortable doing that". I have no idea what I'd even ask because although I consider them well cared for and in excellent condition, I have no idea what a pro photographer would think. I think I stepped out of line when I asked him if I could show them to him and if he'd give me an idea of what to ask. He told me "no". They deal only in trade in's, and what I charge is between me and the other party. He won't be able to tell me if the tent sale will have a refurbed D750 until a few days before the sale is held. I know I wouldn't save more than a couple of hundred dollars getting a refurb, but he had pointed out when I talked to him a couple of weeks ago, that if I get a refurb and save $200, I can spend the $200 on their top of their diamond level warrantee which would actually give me a 3 year warrantee because it would go 2 years beyond my one year given by Nikon. So even if I ruined it for some reason, it would cover me. With brand new, I just have the 1 year warranty and I'm sure that doesn't cover things that are my fault. I don't foresee ruining it because I'm very careful, but who ever sees an accident coming?<br>

I continue to have lots of things swirling around in my head regarding all of this. He did mention that he thinks that I may like a Tamron 28-300 lens for a travel lens. Sounds nice, but it's hard to give up the lenses I have if I don't get a decent price for them. </p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>Michele, I would take all the advice you get on forums like this (including mine) with a pinch of salt. Some people have very fixed ideas about what is meant by 'nature photography' (it's not all about capturing ultrawide vistas, or shooting distant birds with super-telephotos!), or have strong opinions about the 'correct' gear for any particular type of photography, or obsess about corner sharpness in 100% crops. The two excellent lenses you already have are perfectly suitable for a wide range of nature work, provided their weight isn't too much of a burden (you will be the best judge of that). Even if you buy longer, wider, or macro lenses later, you will want to cover the 28-200 focal length range anyway, and you'll have trouble finding anything that does it with higher quality than your existing gear. Of course many of us want to have other options for when we're travelling light, but these needn't be expensive additions to your camera bag - e.g. the cheap 28-105 from the film era works surprisingly well on FX digital. If of course you find that you always leave the big guns at home, then that would be the time to consider trading in the f/2.8 zooms. Whatever you decide about lenses, I don't think you'd regret buying a D750, which is a highly regarded camera for most types of photography, and its auto modes make it as easy as any other for a beginner to use.</p>

<p>Edit: the above was written before seeing your post. Personally, I wouldn't let those lenses go for that, and I'm pretty sceptical about extended warranties (insurance may be beter value for accident cover). Have you compared the local D750 prices with what you can get from a reputable online store like http://www.bhphotovideo.com/ ?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Michele, I would take all the advice you get on forums like this (including mine) with a pinch of salt.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is certainly good advice, even though I am aware that Richard is including me. I would imagine that Michele is wise enough to pick up info that is suitable for her.</p>

<p>Your camera and lens selection is going to be highly subject matter dependent. Michele was talking about birds earlier, and my suggestions would be different. (If you are into birds, some long and heavy lenses will be inevitable.) Now we are focusing on landscape and micro, that would demand different lenses. My opinion is that 28mm is definitely not wide enough. One way or another, for landscape on an FX body, I would get something that covers from 20mm or preferably 17, 18mm. Winder than that will be very extreme and only a small group of people would need.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>The only sensible thing to do, in my opinion, is to get that replacement body and use the perfectly usable lenses the OP already has.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>lol... we've already established a) that the 28-70 and 70-200 I are 'event lenses,' not landscape lenses, and b) that kit w/ D750 weighs about 7 lbs. so how does one arrive at 'sensible' from there? i dont know anyone who would consider a 70-200/2.8 ideal for landscape photography. certainly a 70-200/4 is much more sensible for that purpose. a 28-70 is essentially just as meaningless: you dont need the 2.8 aperture and you don't need the weight to do what the OP has in mind. Q. G., if that's your advice, i'm hoping you are not an economist, public policy analyst, or advice counselor by trade.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My first love is landscape photography, with close up photography being a close second. Being I love nature in general, I would of course, love shooting animals and birds but it is not a priority over the other two interests.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that being the case i would consider: a) lenses suitable for landscape and b) a macro lens. i would forget all about a 150-600 or something of that nature unless you are a serious birder, which clearly, you're not.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>OK, I called the camera store I use and talked to the assistant manager about my lenses. Yikes, trading in may not be the way to go if I choose to get rid of them. He said without seeing them, they would give me $300 on the 28-70, and $1200 for the 70-200. That is the high end.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that's a seriously low-ball offer, especially on the 28-70. as i indicated, used prices on that from ebay range from $675 - $900, depending on condition. the 70-200 used sells for as much as $1500. so, $2000 seems like a reasonable estimate of what you could get. i get that its a hassle to sell lenses yourself, but it's probably worth it so you dont get shafted. another option is listing on Nikonians, which is less sketchy than craigslist.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> He did mention that he thinks that I may like a Tamron 28-300 lens for a travel lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>this guy sounds like a typical camera store huckster, trying to pawn off an expensive yet optically suspect superzoom that you haven't even indicated you want. also he's trying to upsell you on a warranty. Red flag city, if you ask me. i wouldn't sell your current lenses without a decent price, but looking at what might work, the D750+ 24-120/4 VR is indeed a decent deal which gives you a base lens with a decent zoom range--effectively replacing two lenses, and saving weight. add a wide-angle and a macro, and you'd be set for most of what you want to do. (i'm withdrawing my previous recommendation of a d7200 since needing reach is no longer a priority, however that is still a good camera.)<br>

<br>

So... the first question is whether you can get a decent price for your lenses. i would hold off on buying a body until you can sell those off. </p>

[User_6502147]

<p>Michele, you can look up these lenses on KEH, ebay or CL and determine for yourself what you'd be comfortable as a selling point for your lenses. Take your time (as I said previously) and determine which lenses are for you....so you don't need to go through loosing $'s again...at least not anytime soon.</p>

<p>I'd get a camera insured through your home insurance (Allstate, Farmers, etc) and I'd stay away from those extending deals that the store offers.<br>

Les<br>

</p>

 

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>they would give me $300 on the 28-70, and $1200 for the 70-200.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Compared to the keh quote I mentioned earlier, that's low on the 28-70 (by about $150) but surprisingly high on the 70-200 (by about $300 - wondering if the store thought it was the newer VR II version). Taken together, as a trade-in offer (if indeed confirmed when they actually do have a look), it's actually quite reasonable. Naturally, you can expect to get more when selling it yourself.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>that's a seriously low-ball offer, especially on the 28-70. as i indicated, used prices on that from ebay range from $675 - $900, depending on condition. the 70-200 used sells for as much as $1500.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Prices for which lenses sell aren't the same as prices for which they are traded in - the camera store does want to make a profit on the eventual sale too.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Prices for which lenses sell aren't the same as prices for which they are traded in - the camera store does want to make a profit on the eventual sale too.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>obviously. it looks like they have about a $300-$400 profit baseline on selling price. i personally wouldnt go this route, as you're leaving money on the table. check out nikonians for a nikkor-centric market, with direct sales. fairly painless if you have paypal.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>it looks like they have about a $300-$400 profit baseline on selling price.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Customarily, trade-in "value" is about 50% of later sales price - sometimes more if they know it's a popular item and will sell fast; then the trade-in can go as high as about 75%. I have sold a lot on ebay in the past (craigslist is usually a dud where I live) but in the more recent past, have quite often resorted to trading-in at the local store. Sure, I don't get the "full value" - but I have gotten some quite nice deals on items I purchased too (you give some, you get some). It got to the point where I had to ask myself if all the hassle with listing items on ebay, dealing with inquiries, and finally packaging and shipping the items off was worth the additional money I would have made. In addition, ebay's policy changes over the last couple of years made me feel quite uncomfortable as a seller.</p>

[stephen_smith17]

<p>Michelle - I am a longtime working photographer who has shot with Nikon equipment for decades, film and digital, DX and FX bodies and lenses. I do a wide range of work, landscapes, macro, food and bev, a lot of interiors with ultra wide angles lenses, covering events of many types with wide, mid and long zooms.<br>

You can build a very good quality Nikon gear portfolio at a reasonable price. You do not have to spend $5000 to start. What I recommend to nearly everyone like you (eg your questions) is to start with a small setup, one good body and a few good lenses, learn how to use those well, then build from there. All of these cameras require some time and experience to learn how to use them effectively, but it is not overwhelming and having some hands-on instruction at the beginning is often very helpful. Addressing the major considerations<br>

- FX vs DX: There are very good bodies in both sensor sizes. What types of shooting you want to do is the key factor. For the long term, for the most flexibility, I usually recommend going with an FX body. You will have the widest range of lenses from which to choose, autofocus and manual, which are designed for that format. Based on what Nikon has introduced in recent years it appears that most of their future lens development will be for the FX format.<br>

The D750 is an excellent body, I own and use it along with a D3s and a D700. The 750 has the latest focusing and sensor technology and 24 MP is more then enough for most needs. Its as good in low light (at high ISOs) as my D3s.The D610 is another very good option, image quality close to the 750 at half the price, factory refurbs are selling for around $1000 at this time (I have had two Nikon factory refurbs, both have been fine, same as new retail). The 610 doesn't have the 750's very low light capabilities and it doesn't focus as well for birds in flight and other very challenging situations, but it would be a very good alternative worth considering.<br>

If you go DX, the 7100 factory refurbished can be found for around $700. My wife uses the 7100 as her main camera, she is a fine nature photographer, and gets great results with it, she prefers a lighter camera that is more comfortable to hold. <br>

<br />The FX cameras such as the 610 and 750 are better in low light, by at least one stop, over the 7100/7200 DX cameras.<br>

The main limitation with the DX format is the shortage of lenses in the very wide range, under 24mm effective focal length. The FX lenses in this range are better and there are more to choose from, zoom and fixed focal length (prime lenses). <br>

<br />- Lenses: Assuming you go with an FX body, a 610 or 750:<br>

The 28-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 VR1 are both high quality professional lenses, heavy and designed for professional use. As others have noted the 70-200 was designed for the DX sensor and is not very good in the corners of the image on FX cameras. Both can be sold for decent prices on eBay and/or Craigslist. That might be a good option to fund other lens purchases. I am going to list some good quality lenses that are modestly priced.<br>

A very good workhorse mid zoom to consider is the AF-D 28-105/3.5-4.5. This is my main lens for event shooting...sharp, good contrast and color, low distortion throughout the zoom range. I have shot with the AF-S 24-70 as well and see little difference in image quality vs the 28-105. Working pros who need to shoot at F/2.8 at times are the market for the 24-70. The 28-105 also has a macrofeature which makes it a great walk-around lens. Available on eBay and CL for under $200.<br>

If you are going to shoot birds in flight or other difficult fast moving subjects frequently with a telephoto zoom, then you would want one of the recent AF-S zooms, 70-200/4, the older AF-s 80-200/2.8 (which I have), 80-400 VR. If most of your subjects will be slower moving or stationary, there are several attractive less expensive options. The AF-D 80-200/2.8 can be found in good condition for under $600, its fairly big and heavy. Or a manual focus lens(see below).<br>

For wides, the 14-24 and 16-34 are excellent but expensive. The 18-35 is worth trying out. You might also consider a 20mm prime lens. The 18-35 and 20mm primes can be found under $400.<br>

- Other lens options - manual focus<br>

One of the fabulous capabilities of the higher end DX cameras (300, 7000, 7100, 7200) and the FX bodies (since the D2) is that you can use Nikon manual focus lenses and get the camera's full metering functions in Manual and Aperture priority modes. Nikon made hundreds of professional quality manual focus lenses that can be bought for $200 or less, many for under $100. With a little patience and practice you can learn how to focus stationary subjects (there is a focus indicator in the viewfinder which helps confirm focus). Canon DSLRs do not work with Canon manual focus lenses, this is a singular Nikon advantage. I often shoot food and bev, products, artworks, other stationary items with manual focus lenses. Nikon MF lenses made since 1977, called AI and AIS, mount right up and meter. Lenses made earlier need a modification to the mount which costs $35. Tow examples: I use the circa 1967 Micronikkor 55mm/3.5 lens for shooting food and small objects, and for floral macros. Wonderfully sharp, easy to focus, bought on eBay for $85. The 1977 era Zoom Nikkor 80-200/4.5 (new version, rectangular rear baffle) is as sharp as current autofocus lenses in this range and can be found for under $200. I used this recently shooting art for a client because of the precise focus. Another great manual is the 50mm/1.8 (earlier versions, not the pancake lens). Bjorn Rorslett's NAERFOTO website has excellent lens reviews of Nikon AF and MF lenses.<br>

So...take your time, try out bodies and lenses if possible. You don't have to have the latest and greatest and most expensive equipment, you can do very well less expensive bodies and lenses.</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>which is why i keep suggesting nikonians. $300 seems a little--okay a lot-- low for a little-used 28-70/2.8. and someone just sold one on ebay today for $675, so not sure your experience is typical of everyone's, especially if you were selling multiple items constantly. the OP only has two transactions to make. </p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>which is why i keep suggesting nikonians</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Seem to vaguely recall that there are some restrictions as to who can sell on that site (member for a certain amount of time or some such thing)? Could be that I am mixing this up with another site - I have not been on that site for quite some time.</p>

[michele_anderson2]

<p>RE: Extended warrantee's. My husband never bites on extended warrantee's either, but when the camera store guy pointed out that no matter what happens to the camera (dropping it, sand in the lens, or whatever else), it seemed appealing especially since our long vacation this coming Winter will be on the beach. I think the D750 is very well sealed but I'm just a little paranoid about the sand. I probably wouldn't spend the extra money for that if I got a new one, but considered it for the refurb. If it's not advised, I won't go for it at all.<br>

RE: my lenses. I did clarify with this guy that me 70-200 lens is the first version, not second. He asked about that. Whatever the case, I agree that I could do better selling on my own. This will sound silly because I know there is always insurance with shipping, but I feel like I'd rather meet with the person face to face rather than sending them through the mail. I guess I'd feel more comfortable with the person actually seeing it, and knowing my lens is what they want to buy. Then I know they will be happy with the purchase. I just have this vision of people buying it over the internet and making my life hard if it is not what they expected. I think that only leaves Craigslist, but as Dieter pointed out, Craigslist is a dud where I live as well. (Maybe we're neighbors!). People seem to want everything for nothing. I guess it doesn't hurt to try though. I could throw a price on it, someone can look at it, and decide for themselves. If they don't like it, I'd just take it home. I'm still not sure that I'll sell them. I might stick my neck out there and buy the D750 with a lens, and just let the lenses sit until I am sure I have something I'm truly happy with. I can't get them back once they are gone. This will be tough to pass off to my husband, LOL, but it's just a thought. </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>im not sure that any warranty would cover damage from sand getting in the camera. usually extended warranties cover drops and spills, and extend the time normally covered by a warranty--which purchasing on credit card automatically does, for another year, in the US. i would read the fine print carefully before buying any non-OEM warranty. if sand is a concern, a $200 dust/waterproof P&S may be better than a $2000 camera.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I just have this vision of people buying it over the internet and making my life hard if it is not what they expected.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>again, check out Nikonians. it's a community of Nikon users who buy things over the internet sight unseen all the time. also, if you buy a body and lens in the meantime, you're in no rush to sell the other gear. prices arent exactly fluctuating.</p>

[michele_anderson2]

<p>Eric, I'm pretty sure the warranty is something done through my camera store, not Nikon, although I am not clear on that. I know the first year is through Nikon, and the diamond warranty would kick in after that. I will copy here from the website what it covers. I believe the additional 2 years would be $200. </p>

<p><em>The Diamond Extended Warranty provides the following coverage: </em><br /><em>Impact Damage (Dropping your camera) </em><br /><em>Sand & Grit Damage (Sand or grit in the gears from going to the beach) </em><br /><em>Water/Liquid Damage (Dropping in water, rain, spilling your bottle of water into you camera bag) </em><br /><em>Normal/Abnormal Wear and Tear</em><br /><em>Manufactures Defects</em><br /><em>Mechanical Malfunctions</em><br /><em>Toll Free or Online Support</em><br /><em>No Deductible</em><br /><em>2 Free CCD Sensor Cleanings during the life of the warranty ($90 Value)</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

I have been the beach with camera's before and never gotten sand in them, but I always fear it. Any of the other issues it covers could happen too. I may be crazy for considering this because I always hear what a scam extended warrantees are. I had never thought about the homeowner's insurance and haven't researched that option, so I will look into that as well.<br>

<br>

I am really looking forward to the sale. I will probably get totally ripped off on my tripod trade based off of the estimates he gave me for the lenses, but it just seems easier to trade it than sell it. At this point, I feel quite confident that I'll get the D750. I know my current lenses aren't ideal, but they will work for now. The thing that I am really missing is the macro lens. So when I buy the body, I will probably start with one of those. I'm sure there will be many good choices for me either new or used. I'll get a tripod and ball head, which he said would be 25-30% off, as well as an extra battery and memory cards. I cannot wait! My store also offers 4 free classes with the purchase of a camera. I will be excited to take those, and I won't stop there. I will take other classes as well. I know you all have expressed concern over the weight of my lenses, and I totally agree! Realistically, I don't know that I would be out all day very often. I probably will go out for a couple hours at a time, and as someone mentioned I can keep the lenses I'm not using in my car while I'm off using the one of my choice. I will make it work.<br>

<br>

I apologize for being wishy washy about my decision. I've gone back and forth with all the different ideas, and I could even change my mind again! But I feel pretty good about all of this after considering all you have told me. I so appreciate the insight that all of you have shared. You've all made such great points. I've really enjoyed all of the discussion and want to thank each and every one of you for putting in the time to help me figure this out. More than anything, thank you for having the confidence in me that I will be able to learn and use this camera. I have never had a lot of confidence, and I think 20 years from now I'll still call myself "a beginner". I really needed to hear that I can do this.</p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Michele, all of us change our minds once in a while. As long as you don't tell us that all of a sudden you have decided to take up painting instead of nature photography, most of us would be happy to answer your questions.</p>

<p>But as I said from the beginning, as good a camera the D750 is, it is useless by itself; you need some good lenses in front of it and a good photographer behind it. All of those components are necessary to create great images. People have suggested a number of macro lenses already. You don't necessarily need AF for macro, so some older manual-focus lens may work for you.</p>

<p>Good luck.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

On warranties in general: when buying something, you enter into a contract with the person or company selling that thing to you. Not with the manufacturer. That person, and not the manufacturer, is responsible for selling you something that is as advertised.<br>A bit of a tautology, but when buying something new, a product of which is known how it works and what can be expected from it, there is that reasonable expectation of how it will hold up to what is known to be normal use of such a thing. And that is part of the contract, even if not explicitly mentioned as part of the transaction.<br>If the product doesn't hold up to that, the seller is defaulting on the contract and is responsible for making good.<br>The reasonable expectation about cameras is that they do not fail within one year, or two, or three.<br><br>Suppose that Nikon, the manufacturer provides a one year warranty, and the camera fails (not due to abnormal use, abuse, accidents and such) in the second year of use. Do you need an extended warranty to get that covered?<br>Well, no. What Nikon does is between Nikon and the person or company they sold the camer to: the dealer. Not between Nikon and you (there is that thing called product liability, which extends a manufacturer"s responsibilities to the users of their product. But that doesn't apply here.) The dealer in turn is responsible for what you got of him.<br>And, again, unless you bought the product directly from the manufacturer, the manufacturer does not figure in this. A dealer cannot hide behind whatever limitations he says the manufacturer puts on warranty. That's all between the dealer and the manufacturer.<br><br>That's the general principle.<br>In Europe, that means that you can claim "warranty service' for every failure that based on that reasonable expectation regarding the normal life of a product is deemed premature or unexpected and (important) is not your own fault. I'm not familiar with how this is put into legislation where you are, Michele, but the principle is the same.<br><br>'Extended warranties' as described above are not warranties, but service contracts. With limitations. You can only claim service when the need for service is recognized by the contract party. You can't, for instance, send the camera in at regular intervals to have it checked and cleaned, unless the terms of the service contract allow that. Nothing wrong with that, though when presented as an extended warranty there is that opportunity to refuse service on the grounds that it was not a product failure and you have not been careful enough. Depends on the terms. And do they have to be that expensive? $100 per year? I wouldn't. I would take the risk.<br>In fact, i always do, and the amount of money i have saved, not paying for service contracts, insurance and 'extended warranties' over the years, despite the few repairs and service i had to pay for, is huge. Would buy me a couple of D810s and some nice lenses easily.<br><br><br>Re your decision: i still think all you should do is get that D750 body. You do have perfectly good (not just fine, or acceptable, but good) lenses, that will allow you to cover a multitude of subjects, including the one you are after. Add a 105 mm Micro-Nikkor for the close-ups (can be had used for very little money). And if you must add (!) a really long lens later on.<br>All the options thrown at you in this thread do nothing but make you lose a perfectly good kit you already have. Those lenses are fine. DX format would be a step back from FX (what you need to get all of what those lenses deliver).