Two23

Sounds like an incremental increase. The AF ev -4 sounds interesting, but I just can't justify spending $3300 on a camera body. My plan is to keep using D800E, entirely skip the D810, and when the used D850 prices inevitably drop below $2,000, I'll buy two. Meanwhile, I do some lens shake ups: sell NIkon 20mm f1.8G & buy Sigma 14mm f1.8, sell Nikon 80-400mm AFS and buy Nikon 300mm f4 PF + TC-14iii. The better AF on the D850 and 10 more MP just won't make a difference in what I shoot. As for video, I don't even own a 4K TV. Kent in SD

I own both 20mm f2.8D and 20mm f1.8G. The f2.8D is smaller, lighter, and pretty sharp. The f1.8G is much larger, sharper edge to edge, and is f1.8. I mainly bought it for astro shots--I used the 24mm PC-E when I want a really wide lens. The best 20mm right now is the Sigma 20mm f1.4 and I almost bought it (again, for astro.) I'm now probably going to sell the f1.8G and not own any 20mm, and buy the new Sigma 14mm f1.8. I'm waiting awhile until used ones start popping up though. Since I have a choice of the 2.8D and the f1.8G, which one is in my bag? The f1.8g. Much sharper, and I use the f1.8. Camera is a D800E. Kent in SD

I've been using a Nikon F3T (fancy version of F3HP). I have no doubt this camera will do what you want. It's small, rugged, has many lens options, and just has a perfect feel to it. There are a couple of outstanding 28mm lens choices, including the 28mm f2, which I have and love. It does take a tiny battery, to run the meter. The battery lasts a long, long time though. I keep two spares in my camera bag (they are tiny) but have never needed them. Even if the battery goes out the camera can still fire at 1/60s mechanically. The Nikon F3T (F3HP) is the perfect camera. Kent in SD

I had one of those a few years ago, in my box camera phase. It actually has a charm all its own. Kent in SD

Buy a used D7200 and a used D610. Not only will you have dual capability, you will have a back up camera for trips/travel. I use a D800E for weddings, portraits, landscapes and a D5300 for wildlife, "street", and travel. Either camera would work for winter sports. Kent in SD

What do you shoot? That's the WHOLE THING--match the camera to the subject. Kent in SD

Get a used Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS, plus Nikon 60mm f2.8 Micro for portraits, and a Nikon 70-300mm AF-P ($200). These are very sharp and fast lenses. I will add that I always use a tripod for landscapes. Kent in SD

I have a fairly broad collection of premium cameras (1914 to 1983,) shoot at night a lot, and love Brassai. (I even own and use a Voigtlander Bergheil with Heliar lens like he used.) I own a Rolleiflex (mine is 1954) and over all it's the easiest 120 camera to use. I really like it for street and night. I also have a 1983 Nikon F3T and three lenses, including the Nikon 50mm f1.2 AiS. I think the F3T is the best SLR ever made. It's a joy to use, looks really classy, and I consistently get good results from it. I can personally recommend both of these for you. I think a Hassleblad might be too big, too conspicuous, and noisy for some of the things you want to do. I don't think one camera will be the best way to go for you. The Nikon will offer more lens choices and thus more versatility, but if going for only one camera it would probably be the Rolleiflex because: (1) bigger neg (2) quiet (3) WLF is great for street (4) very reliable (5) excellent lens. Most of the more desirable films available in 35mm are also available in 120. I love Ilford FP4 for general use, Acros for night (low reciprocity failure.) I also own & use a Leica IIIc from 1942, but I'm thinking that having to take a meter reading will interfere with your work flow. Very small, inconspicuous, and quiet though! Kent in SD

That could be because someone who is more into taking photos is more apt to put more money into them. Their photos are better simply because they've taken more photos and are more experienced. For specific kinds of images, you do have to have competent gear. I'm thinking of wildlife photos, for example. A 500mm f4 lens is going to outperform a 55-200mm kit lens. However, to me, a "great" photo is one that engages me emotionally. While some of my best shots have come from D800E plus 24mm PC-E, some of my other best have come from a 1904 Brownie. The single most important thing in photography is the Vision. If you don't have that, doesn't matter how much you spend on gear. Kent in SD We always hear that for night shots you have to have the latest camera, an f1.4 lens, and shoot ISO 10,000. Well, a 1932 Brownie with an f11 lens & ISO 100 can work too.

The jump from ~$3K to >$K is a substantial one. Many fewer people will spend that. I think it's more likely that Nikon will price competitively with the nearest Canon equivalent. They also have to be more than a bit worried about losing market share to Sony as well. There is a limit to how high they can price. Kent in SD

I often use exposure compensation, to get shadows where I want them. The meter on my Nikon cameras are pretty accurate, but they don't know what I want. I use their reading as a place to start from, just as I do when shooting large format using an incident light meter. Kent in SD

No, they don't notice. None could tell any difference between images made with D7100 vs. D800E, until I start making big enlargements (bigger than 11x14). I have been doing a couple of those a month for the past several years--they are very profitable. And remember, I do NOT spend $2,000 on a camera--always less than that. (Unless it's an exceptional historical camera, perhaps.) I do buy new cameras every few years, mostly for the reliability aspect. An 8 yr. old digital camera is getting "iffy." Remember that my back up/personal camera is a used D5300. I do have great lenses, and 10,000ws of flash power. :) Kent in SD

I paid $1,800 for one D800E, and $1,500 for the second. I charge $2,000 for a wedding, so one job paid for each. Can't justify the $3,000 because: (1) customers will never see the difference (2) there will be no noticeable improvement at all in my shots (3) rather spend the money on travel. Kent in SD

The sharpest wide angle zoom you can buy is the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS. After a couple of months of research, that's what I bought for my Nikon D5300. I've been very happy with the lens, bought used on ebay for $250. The Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC is close. The only zoom that tests sharper is the $600 Nikon 16-80mm, which sells for about $1,000. I also strongly suggest you buy a polarizer for the lens too, for landscapes. Kent in SD

n $3,000 For the past five years or more my strategy has been to wait until a new top line camera is announced and then buy a used previous one. Currently using the D800E as my main camera (D5300 as back up/travel camera.) I intend to completely skip the D810 as I just don't see any added benefit for me. I can't justify spending $3,000 on a camera; cameras seem to make little difference to my photography. I'll most likely wait a couple of years when the D850 will be selling for under $2,000. I'd rather spend the difference on travel. That's what makes a bigger difference for me. In the past I have attempted to buy a camera for over $3,000, but it wasn't a digital one. It was a pre-Civil War era (1850s) full plate (6x8 inches) wet plate field camera. I bid it up over $4,000 but still didn't get it. These kinds of cameras excite me and hold their value well over the decades. Kent in SD

I've been sending my 4x5 & 5x7 sheets to Citizens Photo in Portland, OR. They said they can also do my oddball film sizes as well since they use dip & dunk. They are easy to deal with. Kent in SD

I recently bought a Kodak Bantam Special, using 828 film. I'd have to say this one is my favorite. Kent in SD

So far everyone seems to be missing the obvious answer, and it isn't a camera. It'a an X-rite Color Passport. Kent in SD

I would not buy the first version of the 24-120--it's a bit soft. The D800 will really show that. Kent in SD

I've bought I don't know how many thousands $$$ worth of camera gear from ebay over the years, from all over the world. I've not had a bad experience. This includes multi-thousand dollar historic lenses from the 1840s and 1850s. However, I do look very closely at feedback and patterns of sales from the seller. That said, I've ordered from KEH in the past and consider them no-risk. Kent in SD

The image quality form the 2-element close up "filters" I'm talking about is actually very good. The advantages are many--no light loss, light weight, and relatively low cost. For someone with a limited budget, or someone who wants to shave weight on a hike, the 2-element diopters such as Canon 500D, Nikon 4T, and the Marumi do a great job. Kent in SD

I would go with used Sigma 17-50mm f2.8, Nikon 70-300mm AFP, used Nikon 35mm f1.8 DX, and a Marumi 58mm DHG Macro +3 close up lens (filter.) This screws on the end of your 70-300mm and makes a really nice macro lens. They cost about $85 and give great results. I would also buy a polarizer if you are serious about landscapes, and eventually a decent tripod. Kent in SD

Looking over my collection of camera gear that extends back to 1845, one trend is clear. The gear was becoming smaller up to about the introduction of the Nikon F4. For the past ~30 years it began to get larger/heavier again, at least until mirrorless began catching on. I think people still value compactness and lightness and the past 30 years have been an anomaly. I sometimes only take either my Leica IIIc with tiny Leica 28/50/90mm or my Nikon F3T with small AiS 28/50/105mm on extended outings. They are easy to carry and hassle free on airline trips. This is what Nikon needs to do: come out with updated Nikon S or early F cameras and a set of very compact lenses. Leica does it. Voigtlander/Cosina does it. Contax did it. Canon did it. Nikon did it. A few weeks ago I was climbing Mt. Rainier and carrying the Nikon F3T + light Feisol tripod and having a great time. On the uphill I passed up a couple of guys with what looked like 40 pound camera packs who had stopped to catch their breath and sweat. Was the extra 35 pounds of gear really going to make their photos better than mine? Maybe I should just sell off everything and buy a Sony A7-something and three Leica lenses........ Kent in SD

I had the 18-35mm AFD and honestly, the newer version is a big upgrade. I'm using a Nikon 20mm f1.8g as my widest lens, and the Nikon 24mm PC-E when I want something even wider. Kent in SD