orcama60

<p><em>I am still using Nikon because I already have the appropriate equipment. If I was starting out these days I would not. That is exactly what you are speaking of. Not brand loyalty.</em><br>

I do agree with you 100% Rick. I have been shooting Nikon since 1989 ( my first camera was the N8008 ) and I am not with them for brand. Back in those days, I simply picked that brand. They were good all those years. Finally, I bought my D300 in 2007, when Nikon really hit the market with the D3, D300 and the D700. Options were there for every single one and they were by the way, excellent options. Now they have the defected D600, the improved D610, the D750 ( that is lacking 1/8000 and 1/250 sync speed .. very silly ), the D800, the D800E, the D4 and the D4s ... 7 FX cameras out there that resume to only 3 : The D4s, the D800E and the new D750. I do not understand why this camera. Professional shooters have now the D4 and the D800; question is, will the D750 be a better option than the D800 as a backup camera ? <br>

I do believe that is very debatable !! Why to spend on this camera if very soon Nikon will come up with the D5 which ( I hope ) will have 20-24 mp and will shoot 10 fps ? What would be better I guess ? To sell the D4 so you get the D5 or to sell the D800 for the D750 ? That does not make sense to me. So, what market are they aiming with the D750 ? <br>

Are they expecting DX users to just jump to the D750 ? That is not going to be that easy. Are they expecting the pro’s to sell their D800E for the D750 when probably they have the D4 or D4s already for wildlife and sport ? That is very debatable. I would not !! Are they expecting those D610 users to sell this camera that they just recently bought to jump to the D750 ? I simply do not understand their business approach. Canon is making more sense with the introduction of the new 7D Mark II. Congrats Canon’s users. They heard you and they provided to you with a very good camera ! </p>

<p><em>Think about it, it took Canon 5 full years to update the 7D (introduced on September 1, 2009) to the 7D Mark II, if Nikon introduced some D400 in 2011 or even 2012, it would have little competition for a couple of years.</em><br>

<em>.... </em>then now is the right moment ....<br>

<em> </em><br>

Shun, here’s are my questions :<br>

is not possible that Nikon already have the design of a camera to match the Canon 7D Mark II and probably producing this camera as we speak ? As you said, it is strategy on both companies but being Canon the first one to respond to their customers’ need, don’t you think that Nikon is leaving behind a very resentful and probably anger on their customers by not giving us the replacement of the D300 or the D7100 upgraded model ? <br>

Do you think that it will be a great strategy not to match what Canon did ? It does not makes sense, don’t you think so ? Switching from Nikon to Canon will not be that easy for the D300’s users, but it is not impossible either; do you think that Nikon just give up on us and instead updating the D300, is forcing us to jump to FX which for a lot of us is not what we want ? What do you think please ?<br>

Don’t you think that we will have a D7100 upgrade by the end of the year ? It won’t matter what the name of that camera would be, but it will make sense and not just will retain a lot of customers but at the same time, Nikon will be still in the game.<br>

When I see the cell phone industry, then we have the famous iPhone but Samsung has come with some products that were introduced in the market and were well accepted by the customers to the point that now, if you are a Samsung’s owner, you do not have anything to envy to the iPhone. Samsung entered this industry with the intention to stay ahead of Apple and they got it!<br>

Canon came up with this camera and now, Canon is ahead of Nikon in all respect. Do you think that is a great strategy for Nikon, to stay behind Shun ? What would you do Shun if you were one of Nikon’s owner ? <br>

Thanks for your answer.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>This camera is not the DX killer. I will never trade the D7100 for this new camera, which is practically, a new D610, which at the same time, is not longer being produced by Nikon. It is very disappointing the shutter speed and the flash sync on this new camera. 6.5 fps are not better than my 8fps on my D300. ISO performance yes, but I do have the D7100, capable to shoot clean shots at ISO 6400. For wedding and portraits, more than enough !<br>

A new lens f/1.8 ? For some it will be a “must-have-lens”, especially if you are looking for a light wide aperture lens, but there are other options as good as this new lens for much less money. Not a big deal to me. <br>

New flash ? Are you kidding me ? I am more than ok with my 2 SB-700 and my SB-910. I guess this camera is for FX’s users as a second camera and that will be very debatable. If you have the D4, and enough money to buy another FX, then the right move should be to go with the D800 instead this one. For new FX users, perhaps this is the new option but I don’t think it will tempt DX users to the point to jump to it and leaving behind the excellent D7100 and / or the D300.<br>

Nikon is obligated to come up with another DX camera very soon if they want to get money from this side of the field. Soon, they will come up with another D... whatever the number is and that will at least, be as good as the D7100 in all respect. At least, the buffer problem will not longer be an issue. Dx world is not finished ! I prefer to be at the top of the DX world with my D300/D7100 rather than at the lower-end of the FX world. </p>

<p>I do agree with Kent Staubus. I have been shooting weddings with my D300 ( not the D300s ) and I never had any problem. It is about knowing what to do and to know the technique to use your flash ( this is a MUST if you want to get into this business ). <br>

My suggestion is to read and learn from a professional wedding photographer like Neil Van Dierke. His technique is simply superb. And, the D7100 is enough camera to get excellent pictures in a wedding with the right lenses attached to it ... without minimizing of course, who is the “man behind the wheel” .... </p>

<p>Maurice.</p>

<p>I don’t understand what you were trying to achieve on the first pic Kyle ? Why did you use f/2.8 ? Were you trying to panning ? Were you trying to have a sense of motion in that pic ? Were you trying to get a sharper pic ? What is it that you were trying to achieve ? Can you explain please because I don’t understand your approach at all. Why did you think that you needed a fast lens to take those pics ? Even with a kit lens like the 18-55, a person who knows what to do, will get better results and I so sorry to tell you this. <br>

F/2.8 is too shallow depth of field. Also, I do not understand why you had to use f/2.8 on a stationary pic like the second one ? Why do you believe that f/2.8 will give you better results than f/4 or f/5.6 ? Why you didn’t use a tripod to get sharper results on the stationary pic or why you did not use a speedlight, or why you did not use f/4 or f/5.6 ?<br>

You only talking about if there is a better combo but not analyzing your mistakes or what you were trying to get. Camera + lens is not the problem in my opinion but your technique. I don’t think you need a better combo but to read books and practice so you can improve your shots.<br>

I don’t understand why a lot of people believe that f/2.8 is always the best aperture for all kind of pics ! </p>

<p>I agree that Tokina 100 is a pretty good lens. I do have the Nikon 105 f/2.8 and it is also a great choice but more expensive. But my preferable lens to shoot insects, is the Sigma 150mm f/2.8. The reason is that I can be far away from my subject ( insects ) and still be able to capture them. If you get too close, they will fly away. <br>

In my opinion, forget about any other lens that is not at least 100 mm focal length because what is the point to have for example the Nikon 40mm to shoot flowers if you can do the same with a Tokina 100mm ? Beside, with the Nikon 40mm, you will not be able to shoot insects cause you would have to get too close and obviously they will fly away.<br>

Here is a shot taken with my Sigma 150mm ( the new version has VR, just in case ). Just my 2 cents.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>I don’t think we could tell you what to bring Allan because that will depend on too many factors that ultimately only you can decide as a photographer. As you can see, everybody have a different opinion about your question. You should be able to determine by yourself, exactly what is it that you need. <br>

For example, if you like to shoot architecture, antique buildings ( inside and outside ), etc, I will definitely bring a wide angle lens ( 11-16 Tokina or any other in that range ); if you like macro photography, then a 100mm Tokina or 105 mm f/2.8 Nikon will be the answer; again, only you know what type of photographer you are and what is it that you need. <br>

Listen to your inner voice and needs and you will decide exactly what to bring. Nobody know you better than yourself and everybody will have a different approach to make this kind of decision. Have a happy shooting ! </p>

<p>...http://neilvn.com/tangents/ </p>

<p>... this is Neil Van Nierke website, a professional wedding photographer and a master of using speedlights. Learn from him and forget about if this flash is more powerful than the other or anything else. It is about technique and know how to manage lighting. Unless you want to become a full wedding photographer, your SB-700 is more than enough. Just my 2 cents. Happy shooting!</p>

<p>The SB-700 is a powerful flash and you should be able to shoot it above the sync speed up to 1/8000 ( if your camera allow it ) by using the TT5 ( or one TT1 and one TT5 ) ... but, above the sync speed, any flash ( SB-800, SB-900 or SB-910 ), not just the SB-700, will loose power so you need to get closer to the subject. <br>

I do have two TT5 and I have been able to shoot my SB-700 above the sync speed. I do recommend to use a f/2.8 lens just in case. See the below picture and tell me if it is not possible. I will not deny that the SB-800 and above flashes are more powerful, but do not underestimate the power of the SB-700 and if you know how to manage the light and some techniques about using it, you should not have any trouble. </p><div></div>

<p>If you want to “reach longer”, you can have a DX camera with the new Nikon 80-400 which at the long end will be 600 mm due to the sensor crop factor, however, this lens price is $3k; if you go FX, you could use the same lens but it will not “reach further” than 400 mm. If you want a better crystal, perhaps the Nikon 200-400 f/4 is the answer but the price is $6,750 ... + the price of the FX camera, which the cheapest out there is the D610 ( 3k ).<br>

I don’t think you need to go FX just to shoot birds. Matter of fact, DX cameras are better to reach further.<br>

Shooting manual, increase ISO ( the D7000 and the D7100 are pretty good in that regard ) and use a long telephoto lens and probably tripod, are your best options. Happy shooting and good luck. </p>

<p><strong><em>People and lighting, that's what you need to be good at."</em></strong></p>

<p>I do agree with Dan. Talking about equipment, you need in the DX world, the D7100. Why? You need a camera capable to shoot clean shots at high ISO in case the church does not allow you to use a speedlight. f/2.8 lenses are a must have as well; I will pick 16-35 f/4 at least, 50 f/1.8 and 70-200 f/4 at least. SB-910 and probably alien bee 1600. Remember, you will also need a second camera ( just in case your main one does not work at the time of the wedding and a second speedlight ( SB-700 at least ) ... second photographer is a must addition if you are shooting big weddings. Base on my experience, it is very tedious and a very delicate assignment. You do not have any room for failing. You must get the job well done and sometimes resolve complicated scenes that would require from you, the most important skill : light !<br>

But most important Alessandro, is that you need to find out how good you are shooting people, dealing with people and managing light. Only you know if you are capable. Good luck and have a happy shooting !</p>

<p><em>So far the larger aperture has proven to be more useful than a slower lens with VR.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>...</em> you need to consider too many things when buying a lens, not just that it is f/2.8. This aperture of f/2.8 is very useful, mainly for indoor shooting and that depends on what type of photography you are doing. </p>

<p>I cropped that image almost to a 100%. This shot was taken at the Air Show in McDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida 2 weeks ago. I put this lens to a test that day. I decided to shoot in Aperture mode ( something that I usually don’t do ) to keep the Aperture at f/5.6 the entire day, which it is, one stop above the widest aperture of this lens, so it should not be that, really that sharp. It should be sharper at f/8 but again, I decided to go with f/5.6 because I wanted to give it a test so you can tell me if it is sharp or not. <br>

With 200 mm, is impossible to get that close. I wanted to rent the Nikon 80-400 VR to obtain better pictures, but at the last minute I decided not to. My intention was to give my lens, the Nikon 70-200 f/4, a good test on the field and against rapid moving objects. Let me know if you have any question. Simply, I am impress with its performance. </p>

<p>Gene,<br>

I recently bought the Nikon 70-200 f/4 after I sold to Adorama my beloved 70-300 VR after 7 years being shooting with it. The 70-300 VR is a great lens and never let me down, but it was not that fast, especially, for indoor photography. I needed either a f/2.8 or f/4. I had the money to buy the state-of-the-art Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR II but after an extensive research and a lot of reviews, I decided to go with the Nikon 70-200 f/4. <br>

Why ? Because soon, I will buy either the Nikon D7100 or the expected D7200 and either one, will allow me at least, one ( or more ) ISO stops over the D300 that I got so, combining either camera with the Nikon 70-200 f/4, in practice, I am not loosing the stop that I should gain by buying instead, the 70-200 f/2.8. ISO will compensate that stop between f/2.8 and f/4. <br>

But also, the main reason I decided to keep this lens ( Nikon 70-200 f/4 ) was among other things, that it is sharp as razor blade even wide open and at the longest focal range. The VR works excellent and so far, after more than a month being shooting with it, I have nothing bad to say about it. Yes, I am loosing 100 mm that I had with my previous 70-300 VR but, I am also planning to buy a teleconverter, the TC-14EII or TC-20EII, so my focal range will drastically increase. <br>

I also bought long time ago, the 80-200 but I returned it. First of all, is lacking VR and it was front focusing, so I decided to return it. If you buy the Nikon 70-200 f/4, you will not be disappointed at all and I can guarantee you that. <br>

I do not know how to insert a pic here ( I think that photo.net changed something here ) but I will find out how to insert a pic and I can show you how sharp this lens is and help you to make a decision. </p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Check the D4s ISO performance in real life by Brad Hill on his website and decide for yourself if this camera has better ISO than others.</p>

<p>http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>"except if you are shooting in extreme low-light conditions"</em><br>

<em>And if you do find yourself in an extreme low light condition, are you going to shoot a group using your 50mm @ 1.4? I totally understand the periodic need for a very fast lens, but I seldom shoot a group shot (or even a couple) wide open. I might use my 85/1.4 to shoot the ring, or the shoes or the corsage with the intention of a very narrow dof, but if the light is problematic while shooting an event, I never found opening up to be a practical solution. Espescially with today's camera's that handle hi -iso so well. Lighting a problem? Bump the iso is my sloution, not opening up. With my D3 and D3S, I found that my default iso setting at an event is 400 and I have no fear at all going up to 1600. Have gone higher, if circumstances left me no option.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>>> </em>I do agree with you Eric. I have not shot any wedding in extreme low-light condition. Beside, if you a wedding photographer, where is your speedlight ? And if the church does not allow you to shoot with flash, do they turn the light off ? Increasing the ISO is your best choice and I do agree with Eric on this. </p>

<p>I have had my D300 since 2007 and I have passed on too many cameras since then. I love my camera. It is a great camera for : outdoor sports ( and some usable pics within the category of indoor sport at ISO 3200 which will require post processing ), macro, landscaping, portrait, wedding ( with speedlight and f/2.8 lenses ), street, arquitecture, etc.... but I feel the need to jump to a better camera. <br>

I wish I could have the money to go FX and I could probably get the D610 but in the lenses area, I am dead if I go FX, so I have to remain a DX’s user. My D300 will become my second camera and my first will be either the D7200 ( or whatever title Nikon wants to name with ) or the D7100. I am waiting. I do have my reasons : better ISO is a must to have for me, better sensor and if I have more pixels, it won’t hurt to have more and they will play its rol when cropping pics. <br>

Even though I could go FX, I would keep my D300 as a second camera. When you shoot weddings, you must have a second camera available just in case. But the electronics and things you can do with the D7100 and I expect with the probably upcoming D7200, are way ahead of the D300. It will be easier to achieve what I struggle to achieve now, especially in the are of indoor wedding photographs. That’s my whole point ! </p>

<p>ISO 1600 is not enough and still at that range, you need to post-process your pic to clean it up a bit more with the right software. I also have a D300 but I need a camera that allow me to shoot very clean shots at ISO 6400 or more. I struggle a lot with this camera when I am shooting weddings. I MUST have more ISO and my beloved D300, simply, is lacking this extremely important capability. <br>

Depending on what your style is, you may pass on ISO or not. If you are a wedding photographer, you are in the “red zone” with the D300s, especially if they do not allow you to use your speedlight. You will struggle and suffer. If you are a sport photographer, you are not even close to shoot indoor sports with the D300s and get excellent results. On the other side, if you a dedicated landscape photographer, then you do not really need high ISO but a very good tripod and play with your speed. If you are shooting indoor, street, low-light, definitely, you will need more ISO than the D300s allow you. <br>

The best DX camera at the moment is the D7100. Better ISO ( up to 3200 clean shots and very usable shots at 6400 ), better sensor, 24mp and still, 51 AF points. The only problem with this camera is the buffer issue. If Nikon fix it in the expected D7200 and increase the ISO to take clean shots at 6400 ISO, then, this will be my next camera, otherwise, I would have not other choice that to buy the D7100. <br>

But if you Michael are satisfied with what the D300s allow you to do, according to your style, then I guess you should stay with that camera. Good luck !</p>

<p><em>..its not the same, in no aspect...</em><br>

<em><br /></em>That’s right ! They are not the same but the D7100 is much better ISO camera than the D300, more pixels and much better sensor. If Nikon fix the buffer issue, keep the 51 AF points, give us 6 fps ( and with the grip to reach 8 probably ) and .... the most important to me : let us shoot with ISO 6400 and get very clean pics out of the camera ( and very usable shots at ISO 12500 ) then, I really do not care what the name of the next DX camera should be. I hope the next DX, introduce all of that so that will be my next camera and the one that will replace my D300. <br>

I do not think that Nikon will create the expected D400 or the replacement for the D700. They already created the D800, the Df, the D610 and the D7100. None of them call my attention at all though, except the D7100 that I hope, Nikon replaces it with the expected D7200. I do believe the most versatile Nikon camera out there is the D4 ( D4s). This camera has it all that you need to shoot any type of photography in my humble opinion and I do not think that we need more than 24mp. Perhaps the only thing the D4 is missing, is the mp that should be nice to increase to 24. If I would have enough wallet, that would be my camera.</p>

<p>I expect Nikon to give us : a new 24-70 with VR, a new 300 f/4 ... and a new 16-85 f/4 VR II. I personally have the new 70-200 f/4 VR III and I would love to pair it with either the 16-85 f/4 or the new 24-70 f/2.8 VR to be complete ( yeah, I know that some will say : the 24-70 on a DX is not the best choice but it is for me, and if Nikon does not replace the 16-85 to be a f/4 lens, and introduce the 24-70 VR, then, this will be my middle range lens ). We also have the 16-35 f/4 and it is an excellent choice for DX but I need a zoom lens that covers up to 70 or a bit more, so I pass on this lens. </p>

<p>For wide angle shots, we have some options : 10-24, 12-24, 14-24, Tokina 11-16 ( 12-24 and the new 12-28 ). Either one is more than ok so I don’t think we need anything else on that area, but the middle range ( between 16-70 ) is not that good, except for the 24-70 that is lacking the VR and that is very silly from Nikon. Yes, I need VR and I guess a lot of photographers will welcome the introduction of VR on this lens, the 24-70. <br>

When I shoot weddings with my D300, I need more ISO and more pixels, especially when they do not let me use my speedlights. Give me that and fix the buffer issue on the new DX and I’ll be half happy. Add the 16-85 f/4 or add VR to the 24-70 and then, I’ll be completely happy. </p>

<p><em>....I have a D7100, don't get me wrong, it would be nice to have a few more shots in the buffer, but other then that I can't see this Camera needing to do anymore then it does for awhile (for me - I don't shoot video...). Its my thought that Nikon, and Canon, and whoever else have almost gotten themselves into this place where they can't keep making new cameras that are 'better enough' to justify new models so frequently - and maybe they will need to change their release model, but then they will need to make cameras that last longer...</em><br>

<em>>> </em>I do agree with Daniel. However, coming from a D300 and because of my shooting style, I passed on the D7100 and I am waiting for the D7200, just because I expect this camera to fix the buffer issue and ..... if Nikon does not give us the expected D7200, I will buy the D7100. The 51 AF-Points + the ISO behavior of this camera and the 24mp, are enough for me to get rid of my D300. By the way, I do not care at all about the video capabilities.</p>

<p> </p>