cc_chang1

<p>The Nikon is a great value, a light, compact, inexpensive lens with excellent all around IQ. But it is 35mm not 30mm, which is a big deal if you are shooting indoors when the space is tight. Even for my toddler boys, I need to back up quite a bit to get their whole body in the frame and they run out of the frame so quickly that it is hard to chase them around with a 35 mm lens. Another thing to keep in mind is that the SIGMA is a f 1.4 lens. Although D7100 can produce pretty clean image at ISO 1600. At ISO 3200-6400, however, it is not really usable. Thus a f1.4 lens will give you much more flexibility when shooting in low light using available light. The down side is that you have to pay more to get it and use more muscle to carry it around. For the latter, it may not be a problem to you yet. :) The Nikon is easy to find used in excellent condition so it you buy used you can sell it in a year or two with about the same price you paid for it. Finally I must second Kent's excitement that the AF is truly outstanding on the D7100 to focus track a fast moving object (e.g., 4-6 yr old boys). It is fast and enjoyable to use. The limited buffer is not a major issue even when shooting RAW, provided that you time your shots properly. Good luck. </p>

<p>From what I read, the new SIGMA 30mm is more tuned to deliver sharpness edge to edge and can be used on the FF, while the older one is a DX only lens but may give you better bokeh. They are both heavier bigger and more expensive than the Nikon 35. I would have to disagree with Chip on its bokeh assessment as it is pretty good considering it is a 35mm lens that is light and cheap. Most of the time, you would not find its bokeh objectionable. However it is longer than the 30, and in tight space, the 30 is more useful.</p>

<p>I think the D7000 will be a much better choice before you have the money for a FF. Although D7000 and D610 use the same AF module, the AF points cover more fully the sensor area of the D7000. Being 16 MP, it is easier on the buffer and your technique. The Nikon 35/1.8 DX is a very nice lens with great bokeh.</p> <p>In terms of color, to Nikon's credits, when you look at the RAW, there is very little difference between those from D90 and D7100. However the JPEGs from D7100 (and perhaps from D7000 as well) are much much improved. If you do not mess up the metering or WB, the RAW and JPEG from D7100 look identical. However JPEG from the D90 is much softer than the RAW, and I did not use JPEGs straight out of D90. With D7xxx, you could, especially when you need to shoot at max frame rate for sports. In terms of vividness, I feel that the images from the D90 seem a bit punchier. The images from D7100 is slightly flatter but the DR is noticeably better. You can get the D90 look by increasing the contrast/sharpness just a little bit. The skin tone on the new bodies seems more accurate and generally more pleasant. The WB in mix artificial light in the new bodies is greatly improved but still needs correction, which means that it is better to still shoot RAW. </p>

<blockquote> <p>I would prefer a D610 for the AF <a id="itxthook5" href="/nikon-camera-forum/00cqiW?start=70" rel="nofollow">performance<img id="itxthook5icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a>, no oil issues, etc. but they're quite a bit more expensive than a D600. And considering I only do this for fun, I prefer not to spend a fortune on a camera body because it depreciates and becomes "outdated" <a id="itxthook6" href="/nikon-camera-forum/00cqiW?start=70" rel="nofollow">faster<img id="itxthook6icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a> than any piece of equipment.<br> Sadly, my craigslist D600 sold this morning when I called about driving down to buy it. :(</p> </blockquote> <p>I personally would not touch a D600 as some people have reported still having the same oil/dust issue even after Nikon has repaired it. May be this has been addressed after Nikon has finally replaced the whole shutter, but may be not, and I personally do not want to live with that doubt and to constantly worry that my camera will fail without warning.</p> <p>My take on the bokeh issue, bokeh is the "quality" of the out of focus area, whether it is creamy or harsh. This is a LENS issue, not the sensor. For the same 50mm or 85 mm lens, the AFD versions have harsh bokeh, while the new AFS version have much smoother bokeh, regardless of what cameras you mount them on. In order to get a whole body shot, with a FF sensor, you would normally pick a 50mm lens, but with an APSC camera, to cover the same person, you need a 35mm lens. A 35 mm lens being wider will give you "more DOF" (not worse bokeh) than a 50 mm lens covering the same object. However to even out the degree of blur (again not bokeh just DOF), you may shoot a 50mm lens on a FF camera at f 3.5 (to get the person in focus but throw the background out of focus) but with a 35 mm lens on APSC, you could shoot it at f2.8 or wider to give you the same <em>degree of blur</em>. Thus, if you want creamy bokeh, pick the right lens first. To get less DOF with a APSC camera, use faster lenses and shoot them wider. This should solve most of your "bokeh" problem.</p> <p>I have recently "upgraded" from D90 to D7100, and I can tell you the focus tracking ability in the D7100 is superior, period. Although D7100 is rated at -2EV (and the D90 at -1?), in low light single area AF, however, I don't see that much a difference (but my lenses are all f2.8 or faster). The higher resolution sensor is great for cropping; however it is very true that it seems more difficult to get tack sharp images with the D7100 unless I raise the shutter speed (which to some degree negates the ISO advantage of the D7100 over that of the D90). I have a thread discussing this if you want more details. Dual card slot is nice when I am asked to do a job. I also love the fact that it has an electronic level to teach me how to keep the camera level, and is water resistant so I can shoot my kids splashing. I did not upgrade to D610 because the 39 AF points in a FF camera are clustered all in the middle and there is no AF sensor reaching out to the corners (the rule of third). These corners could be the eyes of a person in portrait orientation, for example. You could AF and then recompose but this may cause the focal plane to change enough to degrade sharpness of your images. If so, where is the "upgrade?"</p> <p>In summary, if you want to go FF, D750 to me is the right camera. If you can't afford it, just wait. Keep the D90 and upgrade your lens. To improve bokeh, replace the 85/1.8 AFD with the 85/1.8G. If your 50 is the AFD version, get the AFS version for $200. If you can spend a little bit more, the older SIGMA 50/1.4 at $400 gives you superb bokeh. (Since I replace my 85/1.8D with the 85/1.8G, I no longer use the SIGMA very much) Instead of a big and heavy 24-70, consider the SIGMA 17-50/2.8 at about $400. It is a DX lens but lighter and cheaper than the 24-70. It is very sharp with nice bokeh. You can get nicer lenses within your budget.</p>

<p>Thank you all for the comments. Time to save up! :(</p>

<blockquote> <p>However, if you plan to buy the D750, do wait a couple of months to see real-world user feedback and also reviews, to be on the <a id="itxthook1" href="/nikon-camera-forum/00cpv7?start=10" rel="nofollow">safe<img id="itxthook1icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a> side.</p> </blockquote> <p>Absolutely! I have waited almost 5 years to upgrade to the D7100 so I am into getting the newest toy. I also use m4/3 as my travel fun cameras but they are not ideal for focus tracking and its high ISO performance is still not close to what Nikon FX can do. I did not get the D6xx because of its 39pt AF, a step down from the D7100. Thus when I find D7100's price in the low $900 range, I pull the trigger ...</p> <p>I will do my best to change my techniques to adapt b/c the D7100 is otherwise a fun camera to use. However the D750 seems like an ideal camera for me considering I also use m4/3 (whose IQ is close enough to that of the D7100). I already have the 85/1.8G and the Sigma 50/1.4. If I get the new 20/1.8, I will have a nice, not too heavy, kit. So I will be watching indeed if the D750 is going to work for me.</p>

<p>Yes, Kent, I know the caveat with the OS. I don't blame this on the camera or the lens. Since I switched to D7100, I also changed the way I use flash. I used to just use a card taped on th back of my SB-600 to bounce. I have recently added the Gary Fong's sphere and in a few times when I put the camera on a tripod (Gitzo G1127 MK2), the photo was also a little bit blurry. This is probably something to discuss for another time, but I wonder whether with a big diffuser sphere on top, I am generating camera shake. Or it could just be that I was not careful with where I pointed the AF ... Thus there are quite a few things that are new, which together with a new camera, may generate several issues that I need to iron out. </p>

<blockquote> <p>posts like these make me glad i've kept my d90, which is still a capable camera.</p> </blockquote> <p>Very true indeed which is part of the reason why I posted. </p> <p>This is mostly a pixel density issue correct? So if I "upgrade" again to the D750, I will have less of a problem? Nikon will love me for this of course; however, I wonder whether FF is also not very forgiving for imperfections even at 24 MP.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Thank you for the detail instruction. Does it matter what size I will down-sample it to? For example if the original image is of 6000 x 4000 p, can I down-sample to any size I wish? 16, 12, 8, etc or is there an optimal smaller size from a particular sized original?</p>

<blockquote> <p>downsample the D7100's output to the same pixel count you'd have seen from the D90.</p> </blockquote> <p>This is the part that I don't know how to do. :(</p>

<p>Like many have said before that the D7100 is very demanding on the technique. While I am getting great shots of kids running wildly under broad day light with high shutter speeds, with much higher keep rate than with the D90, when the light is low, I am seeing much more just so slightly softer images as compared to those I got with the D90 using the same lens (Sigma 17-50/2.8, Nikon 85/1.8 G, etc). Some of the images from the D7100 is just a little soft around the edges (the edge of the face, for example) and in some cases there are clear signs of motion blur when zoomed in (double images). I know the lenses are focusing correctly, no front or back focus. I was also surprised to find that my Sigma 50-150 (the older non-OS version) is optically mediocre on the D7100 — when zoomed in the images are not as sharp and contrasty as it was on the D90. </p> <p>So the first thought that came to my mind was: I should not have "upgraded." But I did and sold my beloved D90. However I must say that the AF on the D7100 is superior and when the images are sharp, they are really sharp with lots of details and you can crop a lot. I can/should certainly change my habits and begin to increase shutter speed. What is your general rule of thumb now with the D7100? (I know this varies from person to person but will give me a good place to start) 1/FL, 1/2xFL, etc?</p> <p>At the same time I wonder for most of the pictures that I do not need the full 24 - 36 MP size, can I "downsample" to fix these small imperfections? If so, how exactly do one "down sample" an image? I am using ViewNX2 as my primary RAW editor/converter and I do have PS.</p> <p>Thanks.</p>

<p>When your dSLR kits are too heavy/big for the intended use. That's all, fundamentally. </p>

<blockquote> <p>If he went the Nikon route as you suggest, any thoughts on a relatively inexpensive lens that is good for close up as he needs to get within a foot for some of the smaller pieces?</p> </blockquote> <p>I am not an expert in macro but I know Nikon has a 85/3.5 VR macro lens for about $500 for the DX format. Besides this, there are two other macro lenses, 40/2.8 and 60/2.8 for about $250 and $500 each. If the working distance of a 40mm lens is OK, then this could be the lens to get. There is no major difference between D3300 and D3200 so he can get the latter to save money. There are also third party options for macro lenses. Does he really need AF for this? If not, a used Nikon macro 50/3.5 lens can be found for <$100. </p> <p>Is a 16MP sensor not enough resolution for him? Properly not if he plans to crop a lot; otherwise, he just needs to buy a lens because you already have a camera. The same 50/3.5 can be used with an adapter or he can go with either the Panasonic 45/2.8 or the Olympus 60/2.8. I had the former until it was stolen. It is a wonderful lens.</p>

<blockquote> <p><strong><em>high resolution</em></strong>. The objects (cups, bowls, pitchers, etc.) being photographed are small ranging approximately from 3" high by 2" wide to 1' high by 6' wide. The camera will be only used for this purpose. He has a tripod and head, background, etc.<br> </p> </blockquote> <p>For these stated purposes, I don't think a mirrorless camera offers any advantage over dSLRs which are generally cheaper to get a good kit. The single most useful feature of the mirrorless cameras is size that they are much smaller as compared to the dSLR counterparts using the same sensor. Using them makes more sense when you need to carry the gear on foot. However since the camera will be used on a tripod to shoot things that don't move, I would go for a high res entry level dSLRs. Nikon dSLRs start at 24 MP even in the lowly D3x00 with very good dynamic range for its class. What is his budget?</p>

<p>The key reasons that I and may be others prefer to use the back button for AF are:</p> <p>(1) This separates AF from the shutter release giving you full control of when to AF and when to stop (=AF lock). For example, you can press the AF-ON button, acquire the AF, and then when you remove your finger, the AF will be "locked." You can then recompose and use the shutter release to take the picture. This works great even for stationary subject.<br> (2) During AF-C to track a moving subject, using AF-ON in the back allows you to have a firm and secure press on the button to track the AF without worrying that pressing it too hard will trigger the shutter, and you can trigger the shutter when ever you see fit. </p> <p>The only time I don't use it is when I need to shoot one-handed, e.g., when I am holding a flashing light in my left hand. My right hand is just not strong/big enough to hold the camera (D7100) this way when my fingers are so spread out.</p>

<blockquote> <p>" it's perfectly possible for it to get caught on something and bent, or for something to wedge behind it and damage the ribbon cable."</p> </blockquote> <p>The screen is stiff to pull out and has good resistance when being turned around in use. Furthermore, "normal" people will fold it in before putting it in a bag. It is one simple snap, the same way you would fold your wallet before putting it back into your pocket. For what you said to happen it would be like saying what if people get into the car with an open umbrella. As I said, where is the proof that the screen is prone to breaking in actual use? The mighty D800 is known to have an issue with the lens mount that it breaks when dropped with a lens on it. Just being big and heavy and all metal does not guaranteed anything. You just like to argue, don't you? :)<br> <br> The more probable reasons why Nikon has not put more flip out screen in their cameras:<br> 1. To save a few bucks.<br> 2. Many will not use it often b/c Nikon's live view is not so robust to use.<br> 3. Too much trouble to rearrange buttons that are now on the left side of the screen. This is Nikon's favorite side by the way as they seem to like to put new button there. D7100 and on has a new "i" button at the bottom making it even harder to find the ISO button. <br> <br> Not only I hope it is true that D750 has a flip out screen, I wish it is state of the art. It should be touch sensitive to make it easy to change settings, zoom in and out, select and change AF points, etc, features that are long available on Canon and Panasonic with a touch screen cameras. Given the current limitation of live view in Nikon's cameras, the lack of a flip out screen is not a deal breaker. However if they put a state of the art screen that makes live view more enjoyable to use, that will be a feature worth bragging about.</p>

<p>There are two things I find myself defending in these on-line forums. One of them is the flip out screen, which I love after using it for the first time on a m4/3 camera, and which Nikon cameras mostly lack. Interestingly this one feature is popular with mirror less camera and its lacking often creates an outcry among mirrorless users. dSLR users, in contrast, do not care about this because they cannot find it to be useful and many think the screen must be flimsy — they are not. Another one is auto-ISO in "manual" mode completed with EC. Here the situation is the reverse as this is found in Nikon's higher end dSLRs, but often lacking in earlier mirrorless cameras. When mostly Nikon and Pentax users requested this, people reacted in amazement because this destroys the purity of the "manual" mode.</p> <p>The flip out screen is not flimsy, unless someone has statistics in its repair frequencies to prove me wrong. I have not found any complain on line about the screen breaking off. How do you take pictures of toddlers at their eye levels to be more engaging? If you often take pictures of children by shooting down, you need a flip out screen. Not to mention how useful it is for macros, street, and to shoot at any angle you like. Try it guys, especially those old guys like me who cannot bend! You will love it.</p>

<blockquote> <p> delicacy of a flip-out screen</p> </blockquote> <p>D5xxx has had it for many many years, and SONY, Olympus, and now Canon also use these. I have not read a single complain on line that these screens are delicate. If any thing, you can flip them in ward to protect the "delicate" screen itself. I would rather suspect that Nikon does not put them in higher end cameras b/c its live view sucks so few will "bother" to discover how useful they are. Or Nikon just wants to sell us the $200 wast level finder from the film days. :)</p>

<p>What I like about the rumored specs are: Fully articulated screen and a lighter body. These are enough for me to say "Finally, …"</p>

<blockquote> <p>I don't understand consumers buying 4K video gear.</p> </blockquote> <p>For two reasons why 4k can help everyone, provided you have the means to edit it:<br> (1) 4k videos down-sized to 1080 look stunning. Those from GH4 beat the 1080 videos from FF Canon in terms of sharpness, DR, and noise.<br> (2) you can extract 8 MP stills from GH4's 4k videos and they look fantastic. This may make a "sports" camera with 6 fps looks like a toy.</p>

<blockquote> <p> I understand people focus manually because they are filming with a high aperture which allows for focus compensation if either you or subject moves a few feet.</p> </blockquote> <p>Don't take it the wrong way but I have to agree with others that you seem to be new in video; thus I wonder whether it is wise to spend so much money on a camera with capacity that you don't yet need. You may want to invest in lens first and buy a more capable camera when you "need" it.</p> <p>Frankly, the key reason why movies or other profession videos are shot with MF is because AF sucks, period. Even with GH4, I have seen videos during which the AF "breathes," focusing back and forth to "regain" focus, every few minutes even when the person<em> is standing still</em>. Movies are shots in scenes, a few seconds here and there with a lens, aperture, and focus lock in place. Focus racking is done by marking the lens with two different focus points and shift manually and smoothly from one to the other. To capture movement, the camera is typically moved along the subject in a defined distance. All of these need to be pre-planned. It is possible to shoot "live events" by either MF or AF, but it is something you need to study and practice and be very good in editing in post.<br> <br> The AF in GH4 shooting 4k is not very different from previous generation of m4/3 cameras. If following the objects by AF in videos is important to you, you may want to consider a Canon 70D or SONY A6000. If you want to stay with m4/3, get a cheaper camera to learn the skills. GH3, GX7, or even G6 (with older sensor), are all much cheaper than GH4. 12-35/2.8 is a fantastic lens if AF during video is critical. It also has OIS so you can shoot hand held. Another lens I would recommend is the 25/1.4 lens, which allows you to shoot in very low light with creamy bokeh. I think getting a GH4 without a good lens to match is not wise.</p>

<p>No one makes an adapter that can communicate with the camera electronically, but an adapter that can mount a Nikon G-lens with control for the aperture can be found on eBay for very little money.</p> <p>Do you really want to constantly change the aperture during a shoot? The GH4 has autoISO in Movies mode so it will adjust ISO to match the change of light. Changing the aperture will change the DOF, thus the look of video, which can be annoying. The Panasonic 12-35/2.8 is an outstanding lens which covers a very useful range (FF eq of 24-70mm), although it is pricy. The Tamron seems a bit too long (and too big) on a m4/3 camera. </p>

<p>Slow to turn on is a known issue with the A7 but I think the latest firmware addresses that to some degree. Do you have the latest firmware?</p>

<blockquote> <p> I look at the mirror less bodies like GH4, EM-1, with touch focus and wonder?</p> </blockquote> <p>The touch AF allows you to quickly change focus point and/or take the photo by one touch to the screen with the meter seemingly switch to spot focus mode to properly expose the object in focus. It works well. However this won't work for the panning shots. </p> <p>These mirror less cameras also have face-detection AF with the ability to focus on the nearest eye. This works remarkably well when about 2/3 of the face is facing the camera. Not sure about GH4, but the Olympus cameras will default to focus on the nearest object, the head, when it cannot find the face. If there is enough DOF, an advantage of the m4/3 system, your shots will get the face in focus well enough. The signal AF in these mirror less cameras, or even in my lowly EPL5, is fast and accurate even in very low light, assuming you have a high quality lens, like the 12-35/2.8. I don't see my D7100 doing better than EPL5 in this regard. The D7100 comes alive when you need to AF-track something. Its VF does not black out making it easy to follow the subject, and AF can track the object with a high degree of accuracy. I have not tried the same with GH4, which is rumored to come much closer to the dSLRs.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"So far it sounds like everyone is just speculating, but I don't think anyone has actually gone, and looked from the sounds of it."</p> </blockquote> <p>I for one did not and will not because I don't care. What we are trying to tell you is that since there is no major sensor upgrade, any difference is not "substantive" or worth the time to sweat over.</p>