DSLR choice help requested :)

[johne37179]

<p>It is not just cameras and lenses that you need to think about. If you go the FX route (D8XX) you also need to think about a really good tripod, you need to consider the in camera memory. You also should include the digital darkroom side of the system -- your computer, software and printer (if you are going to make your own prints) or print house if you are going to outsource your printing. Photography is a process that starts and ends in the mind. In-between are the capture devices (cameras and lenses) and the file processing and storing systems and then the output components. They all should fit into your vision of what you want to do with it.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>the D800 is probably the best route as I get the impression that it won't be outdated technology and image-wise for years</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i dont think <em>any</em> camera these days is future-proof. we already have an upgrade to the 800, the 810, and another 8xx camera will come out this year, most likely. That said, the 800 is a good choice if you need a resolution monster for large prints, but probably not the best choice for more casual shooting. honestly, if i was just testing the digital waters, i would start with a basic body and 1-2 lenses, and then upgrade in 6 months to a year, once i'd mastered the learning curve. Everyone always has so many ideas of what they think will work for them before they actually take the plunge. Sometimes it's a different story once you get there. </p>

[Two23]

<blockquote>

<p>I would definitely use the word "invest" when thinking of digital cameras. Their value drops like a rock!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ooops. I made a typo I meant to say, "I would definitely NOT use the word 'invest' when thinking of digital cameras." The two problems with them are (1) value drops so fast (2) they are still improving. I have avoided thinking of getting a good "last" camera as the reality is that just isn't going to work. Instead, I have concentrated on building my lenses (most important thing & holds value much better), a really first class tripod (will hold value for at least a decade), lighting (hold value fairly well.) Computers/software now seem to be about one third of photography, and I have been upgrading software and computing power to match. Cameras are almost an after thought for me--I buy a used one that has been out for a couple of years and replace them regularly. They come and go; I have no personal attachment to any digital camera (or format for that matter.) Lenses are the true treasure.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[nigel fraustbyte]

<p>My Choice would be A Nikon D7100 or D7200 with the 16-80VR lens.</p>

[darren_malbut]

<p>Okay, I'm in the process of making a ginormous about-face at the moment.</p>

<p>After really spending some time researching some of the other options people put across here, I'm now thinking that a D7200 would actually probably be a far better choice for me at this point (as recommended by a few people...) and the 16-80 does look like it would probably be a very good, all-purpose, lens to get first.</p>

<p>However, based on other recommendations, I decided to have a proper look into the mirrorless category, most specifically the Fuji X-T1.</p>

<p>It looks like that could possibly even suit me better. But, it does seem like that camera is looking increasingly old in comparison to the rest of their competition (16mp, 1 SD slot). None of that bothers me too much because the results and usability look very impressive (I love the control layout on the top. Why hasn't any one else made ISO, shutter and aperture this easy to get to on a modern DSLR?!?) but I can't help but wonder when the next model might be out? Especially if it's going to make my <em>new</em> camera feel a little old (and reduce its value drastically in the process).</p>

<p>Thanks again for the input. It takes me a while sometimes but things do go in eventually.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>Kent is right in that lenses last, cameras get obsolete, break or wear out. I still use a lens I have had since my first Nikon F -- way back in the day.</p>

[darren_malbut]

<p>Double post!! I realised this had ended up at the bottom of page 3 and might not be seen, and I didn't want anyone to think I'd just not come back to this...</p>

<p>Okay, I'm in the process of making a ginormous about-face at the moment.</p>

<p>After really spending some time researching some of the other options people put across here, I'm now thinking that a D7200 would actually probably be a far better choice for me at this point (as recommended by a few people...) and the 16-80 does look like it would probably be a very good, all-purpose, lens to get first.</p>

<p>However, based on other recommendations, I decided to have a proper look into the mirrorless category, most specifically the Fuji X-T1.</p>

<p>It looks like that could possibly even suit me better. But, it does seem like that camera is looking increasingly old in comparison to the rest of their competition (16mp, 1 SD slot). None of that bothers me too much because the results and usability look very impressive (I love the control layout on the top. Why hasn't any one else made ISO, shutter and aperture this easy to get to on a modern DSLR?!?) but I can't help but wonder when the next model might be out? Especially if it's going to make my <em>new</em> camera feel a little old (and reduce its value drastically in the process).</p>

<p>Thanks again for the input. It takes me a while sometimes but things do go in eventually.</p>

[richsimmons]

<p>D7200. Great camera, I have the D7100, totally happy. But why the 16-80? Isn't that 2.8 - 4? Why not get a Tamron or Sigma 17-50 f/2.8. I did. I don't miss the other 30mm. I got the Tamron non-VR, by the way. My go to lens for walk around.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p> I decided to have a proper look into the mirrorless category, most specifically the Fuji X-T1.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>unless money is burning a hole in your pocket, i would <strong>not</strong> get an XT1 right now. that's for a few reasons: 1) the XPro2 just came out and is Fuji's best body to-date, with an updated 24mp sensor and AF module. that means that 2) an XT2 isnt far behind. it might make sense to wait for the XT2 to be released with the higher-resolution sensor, which should 3) also cause XT1 prices to fall. The camera will be the same whether you pay a few hundred dollars more for it or not.<br>

<br>

Choosing between a D7200 and one of the Fuji bodies is a little bit more difficult. D7200+ 16-80 is a pretty competent basic kit. However Fuji has a better line of APS-C lenses overall, and specifically has both wide-angle and fast primes in focal lengths Nikon has neglected, as well as a 50-140/2.8. So from a long-term perspective, if you envision yourself getting deep into lenses, the Fujis warrant a strong look. OTOH, if you think you might just get 1-2 lenses and not go any further, the Nikon kit should be sufficient.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>why the 16-80? Isn't that 2.8 - 4? Why not get a Tamron or Sigma 17-50 f/2.8. I did. I don't miss the other 30mm. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>in my experience, and i've owned both the Tammy and Sigma lenses, the 17-50's are just a little short both for walkaround use and for portraits. constant 2.8 is nice to have, but if you supplement that with a fast prime or two, it becomes fairly superfluous. if a 17-50 is your only lens, you will definitely have instances where you miss that reach on the long end, IMHO. i also have a Sigma 50-150 i pair with the 17-50, but there are times when i would like to just take 1 lens.</p>

[mon_goose]

<blockquote>

<p>A new crop-sensor camera from either maker with the appropriate lenses will probably take better photos than something as old as a D700 or 5D Mk I. Yes, you'll be able to get shallower DoF, but you'll be able to shoot in way lower light with a newer camera.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I doubt it.<br>

Being able to shoot in lower light doesn't make better photos. I guess you haven't owned a full frame body, have you.</p>

<p>Besides, a d700 or 5dmkii take excellent pictures, better than the latest toy camera, and deliver clean pictures up to iso 2200 - 3200. </p>

 

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>I doubt it.<br />Being able to shoot in lower light doesn't make better photos. I guess you haven't owned a full frame body, have you.<br>

Besides, a d700 or 5dmkii take excellent pictures, better than the latest toy camera, and deliver clean pictures up to iso 2200 - 3200.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have used full-frame, I have shot digitally for 15 years, Before that, I used film since about 1982.<br /><br />No, it's not all about low light (although it is for some), but a 10-year old body? Seriously? No. (and he was talking about a 5dmkI, not mkII).</p>