jorish

<p>Like Shun I also think the 85 is on the long side. I have it, and I took some nice portraits with it now and then, but I usually like the 50/1.8 better. And lately I've started to use the 60/2.8 micro as well. And I like that too. So, what to recommend... the 50/1.8 if you want to save money and still get a very very good lens. The 60/2.8 micro if you want a lens that can also do macro every now and then. And the 85/1.8 if you're sure you can/want to be farther away from your subject.</p> <p>As for landscape work, and also very versatile; maybe the 17-50/2.8 by Tamron? The non-stabilised version. They've had a v1, a v2, and now a v3 with stabilisation. The v2 is still readily available and seems to be slightly better than the v3 IQ-wise. Cheap (for a 17-50/2.8), light, and pretty good.</p> <p>You could check out some tests at photozone.de if you want some more info on the various possibilities.</p>

<p>@Michael Darnton: as far as I know the D7200 is not inferior in any way to a possible D400, and is in every technical aspect probably superior to my D300. For my taste however, I think (but am not sure until I've tried one in the shop) it's too small for my hands. I'm basing this on the D50, D70 and D80's that I used in the past. I *can* use those smaller cameras, but I like the heftier bulk of the D300 and D8**'s.</p> <p>@almost everyone else: my main topic was (and probably will be in the next year at least) theatre performances. Both inside regular theatres and outside (in the street or in special locations like an old factory for instance). So low light capabilities are important; the less light the camera needs, the better. And since I always try to be inconspicuous; if a shutter should be (a lot) more silent, that may be a point in favour as well.<br> Reach is not that important; I have a 70-200/2.8 (first generation) but I hardly ever use it; my 85/1.8 is usually long enough on the D300 and has a larger aperture of course. This may of course be different with a FX camera.<br> Besides performances I'm also slowly starting to expand into landscape (both nature and city) photography, and I'm expecting all options to be perfectly capable of that.</p> <p>I've been checking prices further, and a.t.m. the D750 and the D7200 here in the Netherlands have cash-back deals going. €150 for the D750, and €75 for the D7200. This puts the demo 800E about 15% above the D750, so the choice will probably be between the D750 and the D7200. The D7100 is close enough to the D7200 that I'll take the newer model if only for the minimal gain in low light situations.</p> <p>I understand that in almost every way the D7200 is the most logical path from the D300. Transition will probably be easier because by now I usually know which focal length I want to use, whereas this will probably take me some time to learn with an FX camera. I was already considering it, but now I will definitely take my lenses with me to the shop to try them out, and see if they measure up to the new sensors. I'm hoping that *if* I go for a FX, at least my primes and the 70-200 will be up to the challenge...<br> <br />My current lenses are:<br> DX: Nikon 10.5/2.8, 35/1.8 and Tokina 11-16/2.8<br> FX: 24/2.8, 50/1.8, 60/2.8 micro, 85/1.8, 28-70/2.8 & 70-200/2.8<br> My computer(s) are a MacBook Pro 15" late 2013, with 16GB RAM and an SSD drive, and a MacMini late 2012 also with 16GB and an SSD. I'm expectiing them to be up to handling anything Nikon can throw at them ;)</p> <p>I really appreciate the time everyone takes to share their thoughts. Some of them are in line with what I've been thinking myself, but new considerations came up as well, so your time is not wasted as far as I'm concerned.</p>

<p>Hi all,</p> <p>I'm looking for some input/thoughts. I currently own a Nikon D300, and while this camera is in many ways good enough or even better than what I need, the time has come for a purchase. I've been hoping for a "D400" for some time now; my D300 is showing signs of age (the rubber on the handgrip is coming undone, the back screen is scratched), the low light capabilities are beginning to hamper me when compared to newer Nikons, and my girlfriend is starting to photograph again \o/, so a second camera would be welcome.</p> <p>I've been hoping for a D400 because I like the 'Pro' body (compared to the D7xxx models) for the size and dedicated controls, and because I don't feel a need for FX. Sure, the possibilities for more DOF and the slightly better low light capabilites are nice, but I would also have to upgrade some of my lenses (the 10.5 fisheye, the 35/1.8 and the Tokina 11-16 are all DX). Now, since this would become a second camera (for the first time I'm not looking to sell my old camera), the DX lenses become less of a reason to stick to DX; I can still use them on the D300. And so the 'bonuses' of FX become more attrective.</p> <p>For tax reasons it would be better to buy the camera in this year (instead of taking my time figuring things out into the next year), and that's why I'm asking for some input from you guys. I've not handled any of these cameras yet, but know the D50, D70 and D80, and I'm guessing the D7200's body will feel somewhat similar; slightly too smal, but doable. Handling comes somewhere the next week, and will be very important in my decision making, but on the capabilities you can probably give me a better (less biased) idea than the shop can.</p> <p>My budget can stretch to the D750 (plus some sd cards), not the D810. So the choice seems to be between the D7200, the D750, or an ex-demo D800E (which the shop says is in very good condition and which is about the same price as a new D750). My own first thoughts:<br> * <strong>D7200</strong>: pro: I can use the same lenses; it's already a lot more capable in low light; price. Con: small body; more indirect controls compared to D300; need to buy sd cards<br> * <strong>D750</strong>: pro: the benefits of FX (more DOF capability, larger image); even more capable in low light than the D7200. Con: small body (compared to D300), but larger than D7200 (I think?); more indirect control compared to D300; need to buy sd cards<br> * <strong>D800E</strong>: pro: the benefits of FX; more capable in low light than the D300 (but how does it compare to the D7200 and D750?); no direct need for sd cards; a bigger body with more direct controls (big plus). Con: older design than the D750 (but where exactly does that impact it, and is the impact negative?); according to Thom Hogan more need for careful post-processing (which I'm not very good at), but how does this compare to the D750?; not new (not too big a problem, as there will be a 1 year warranty in the shop).</p> <p>Frame rates are unimportant to me (I try to press the shutter just the once, at the right time), as is video (I only shoot stills). </p> <p>So, what are your thoughts on this?</p>

<p>Depends what kind of event it is; I mainly shoot theatrical performances, where there's not always a lot of light. Anybody using flash during a performance where there is theatrical lighting should be bodily thrown out IMO, so in that case, yes, I need faster lenses. 2.8 is even kinda slow as far I'm concerned; I usualy grab my 50/1.8 or 35/1.8.</p> <p>If you shoot with enough light (whether provided by someone else or by your own flash(es)), the equation changes. Sometimes to the point where you can work with slow lenses. And the best lens is the one that works for you, just like the best camera is the one that you have on you, not the one that you've got lying at home in your cupboard ;)</p>

<p>I gave my copy to a friend, beacuse the VR in the 70-200 was very usefull to me. However, this was the first lens that made me understand what reviewers sometimes mean when they say that a lens has beautiful colours and contrast; the first pictures I took with it blew me away, and were the first ones that I did not want to make punchier.<br> I have no other lens that made me so happy with the results.<br> The focus speed was ok for me (even though I photographed a lot of dance performances with it), but maybe that was helped because I used the focus-limiter ring a lot. If it starts hunting you will not come back in time. I don't know if all versions have the limiter.</p> <p>While typing this I realise I have a performance that I completely photographed with this lens. See here: http://www.pbase.com/puchelaar/chalonrue2009_adlibitum I don't think I punched the contrast; just black & white transition.</p> <p>My advise; try it out and if you think you can work with the push/pull system; buy it. You can't go wrong for that price ;)</p>

<p>Sensor technology seems to have bypassed the D300 in many ways, and probably the D7000 has some extra features the D300 does not. However, the body and controls are more like the ones on the pro bodies, and may be an excellent reason to like it over more modern bodies like the D7xxx and D5xxx.<br> For me it's the main reason for not having upgraded my D300 yet, even though I could use the better performances on high ISO of the newer cameras.</p> <p>The 71k doesn't need to be a problem I think, especially if the camera has been well cared for (as yours seems to have been).<br> <br />Only you can decide which one feels and handles better for you, so good luck with that and remember to have fun with it ;)</p>

<p>I'm with Lil here.Somewhere next year I'll probably start shopping for a new camera to replace my D300. I want to stay with DX, and want the prosumer controls. If NIkon does not have such a camera by then I'm going to sell my NIkon stuff and start with another brand. I fear it's the only way (if there is a way at all) to make them listen...</p>

<p>I agree with the travel > gear advice.<br> However...<br> I started with a D50; I learned a lot of basics on it, but had a feeling it was a bit small, and I sometimes had to go deep into menus<br> I quickly went to a D80 (also because I could help a friend out with my D50), and although the smallishness and menudiving stayed, the differences between the two also showed me that yes, a new camera also makes you look at your workstyle differently.<br> I then had a possibility to buy a barely-used D200. In many ways that was the camera I'd been looking for; just that much bigger, more direct controls; holding a camera that's just the right size for you instead of slightly too small makes a big difference indeed! But the D200 and I also had issues; I always seemed to have focus problems (I had the camera checked with 2 of my lenses, but they were fine. Looking back I think I did not quite understand how the more outlying focus points worked), and I felt the camera was a step back in what I could get out of it (compared to the D80).<br> So, within 3 months I bought the D300, the camera I currently own. And that has been the best camera to date for me. I did not have the problems that I had with the D200, but it did have the same body that felt good to myn hands.</p> <p>So I understand about a camera and a photographer not working together. And what you're saying about the differences between the two FX bodies sounds a lot like the differences I experienced between the Dxx series and the Dxxx series).<br> But seeing what lenses you own, and what it would cost you to change to FX (I do not see it as an upgrade per se), I would stick to DX. Ideally, Nikon would announce a 'D400' now (the D300's body but with all the upgrades of the last years); I'm also waiting on that one. But in your case I would not wait for that, and try out the D7100; still an upgrade (albeit a small one in your case), but most of all a new camera. Because it sounds to me like you and your camera are in a unhappy relationship, and it's time to find a new love ;)</p> <p>If you do decide to go with an FX body now, I would definitely listen more closely to your own feeling and experience in the shop, than to all the advice offered here (including my own ;) ). After all; you are the one that has to be happy with your purchase in years to come, and happiness with gear is more dependant on the combination human <> gear, than on the gear's capability alone...</p> <p>Good luck choosing.</p>

<p>I've just had my camera cleaned by a professional sensor cleaner here in the Netherlands. The guy has a real cleanroom (read more about it <a href="http://www.chipclean.nl/content/view/13/27/lang,en/">on his website here</a>).</p> <p>He takes 'before' and 'after' pictures. Mine was not even that bad, but he had one Canon in, that he'd already cleaned 8 times, and more dust kept falling out whenever he fired the shutter again. He said it looked like they'd tried to either clean it with a bicycle pump, or a very old (dusty) phtography blower (is that the proper name for it?).</p> <p>Anyway; be very careful how you do it and try to avoid blowing anything into the camera. I thought it well worth the €50 (~$65) that he charged, because his cleanroom is a *lot* cleaner than the cleanest room I've ever been in...</p> <p>Good luck.</p>

<p>Since you've tried various cards, it seems to me you've almost cerntainly ruled out a card problem. And since you formatted your cards in-camera, your computer is probably not the problem either. Which leaves the camera...</p> <p>I'd take it in to a repair center ASAP.</p> <p>Good luck with it.</p>

<p>While the final footage is indeed shown at 25fps (in the States at least), I doubt that you'll want to put a time-lapse in the final footage at the same speed with which it was recorded; usually you'll want an image to stay for a bit longer, because you want the viewer to register the individual images (albeit shortly). The 25 fps were designed to NOT make you notice individual frames.<br> I can't find the time lapse app I used on my iPhone (I probably deleted it), so from the top of my head, I think I was using something like 2~5 images per second.<br> If my memory is indeed correct, that would give you 200~500 secs of final footage. Still no feature length though ;)</p>

<p>And all the while there's me hoping film will be removed from still cameras...</p> <p>I'm wishing for a D400 without film possibilities, with very high ISO capabilities.<br> Making a atill camera try to compete with film cameras will make the still-part of that camera (a lot) more expensive without adding anything to the still posibilities.</p>

<p>I use Photoshop. Or rather, I use Adobe RAW converter. Since the only things I usually do to my photos are cropping and corrections to exposure, white balance, etc. (which are things I could have done when taking the shot if I'd had enough time), I don't really need more than what Adobes Raw converter offers.<br> Big exception is conversion to black and white, for which I use a plug-in in Photoshop.<br> I've never taken to Nikon's software, so I don't miss it.<br> I guess the best way to go is to make a list for yourself which actions/corrections you used to make in Nikon's software, and then look for the equivalent in Photoshop (through plug-ins or through self made actions). Once you get comfortable with those, you can start exploring the rest of the vast world of Photoshop ;)<br> As a side-note; once you know how to make a certain correction, it's usually quite simple to automate that; under 'actions' you can make a new action (which gives the action you're about to record a name, e.g. "sharpening"), then you press the round icon for record (which looks just like the old 'record' icons on a tape deck for instance) and run through your correction again on a new image. Once done, you press the square 'stop' icon, and your action has been recorded. To use that correction/action again on a new image, all you have to do is open a new image, and press the triangular 'play' icon (again styled in the time-honored tradition of tape-decks, cd players, etc.).<br> Good luck, and try not to get intimidated by the seemingly endless possibilities of LR and PS; if you know you want to make a certain correction, just try to Google it very specifally (e.g. "<a href="http://lmgtfy.com/?q=photoshop%2Bcc%2Bhow%2Bto%2Bsharpen%2Bjpg">photoshop cc how to sharpen jpg</a>" or "<a href="http://lmgtfy.com/?q=photoshop%2Bcc%2Bhow%2Bto%2Bopen%2Bnef">photoshop cc how to open NEF</a>"), and chances are there's a tutorial on the web.</p>