kj_thomas

<p>Instead of dealing with all of the hassle of buying and selling, I would just try to find a used 24-85 VR lens and a new battery grip. As others have mentioned, there are probably quite a few people who do not want the kit lens because they want more reach (24-120 or 28-300) or a pro lens (24-70). Given the right timing, you should be able to find one for under $400.</p>

<p>If you buy the new kit and sell, will likely come out ahead, but keep in mind it won't be by much. This D600 sale is running until tomorrow for the kit. After that, prices (may) return to previous levels, but the D600 body is still around $2000. If you can sell the body for $1500 or 1600, then you come out a couple of hundred ahead. Anything above $1600 and some buyers may be not be willing to go used sans warranty. Is that couple of hundred worth the extra aggravation of selling?</p>

<p>Also, after the holiday season people are spending less, which decreases demand, so it will be harder to sell (i.e., a bit of a buyer's market). This is one more reason to be a buyer and search for a used 24-85 instead of being a seller and unloading the D600.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yet strangely my old pre-D800 era laptop works perfectly well for the odd 36mp image editing job<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My experience was the same. When I picked up the D800 earlier this summer, I thought my two year old MacBook Pro would have issues. Not a problem whatsoever...like you, I did have to spring for a new 1TB hard drive...all of $100. So...<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>D800 + grip + extra battery + L-bracket + new computer (required)<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>...is not an accurate statement for some people, which makes the price delta from a percentage standpoint much larger.</p>

<p>Get the D800. You don't need the "E" version. The "E" has the anti-aliasing filter removed to increase sharpness, but this difference is negligible to most users. The "E" version is also more prone to moire since the filter is not there.</p>

<p>Save the money, or use the extra cash towards a pro lens.</p>

<p>As others have said, the D600 and D800 will give you the printing size power you need. My old D90 could make 13x19 prints easily. The key is the lenses you use. I have two D90 prints - one using an 18-200 dog of a lens (terribly soft), and one using a 16-85 (tack sharp...probably the best Nikon-branded DX zoom you can buy). That said, you should head to a camera store, check out both, and figure out the best lenses to use. I have a D800; the D600's focus points are just too cramped to the middle of the finder for my tastes.</p>

<p>I again considered a D600, but bought a D700 as a backup about a month later for about $1600. It doesn't see any action unless I'm shooting action or just walking about in the city, but I really like having it around when I don't feel like dealing with those large D800 files. The D700 also has plenty of res for what you want to print, and you can get a nice one with low shutter count for much cheaper than what I paid. Even though it's a five year old camera, a D700 would be a HUGE upgrade from the D70 you have. You should consider all three of these smaller body FX models.</p>

<p>I used to fret about this when using a D300s. I just bit the bullet and bought a D800. I just read somewhere that refurbished D600 bodies are in the $1600 range. For anyone who truly needs a wide angle, a D600 at that price is a great opportunity to move to FX. Add a new 28mm f/1.8G there's the wide angle prime.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And I am not sure why you say it won't be economical for Nikon. <strong>It's the DX cameras that give them a really big profit (and not the high-end pro SLRs).</strong> So if they introduce a quality zoom lens for hobbyist to semi-serious shooters, that'd be a bestseller in my opinion.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure about this statement, particularly the piece in bold. I would need to see the product detailed accounting behind this to believe it. True: Nikon has far more unit volumes on DX cameras than FX cameras. But does this generate more profit? It's not that clear. Most DX products are made in Thailand, while most higher-end FX products are made in Japan. Production cost in Japan are certainly higher than production costs in Thailand, but I would argue that the level of engineering effort relative to unit cost of a DX product made in Thailand versus an FX product made in Japan is not that substantial (the key: relative to the unit cost to produce). For example, at D3200 which sells for $599 (with a lens) may cost $350 to produce and sells to a reseller for $400 - $50 margin for Nikon, however a D4 which sells for $5999 may cost $1500 to produce and sells to a reseller for $4000 - $2500 margin for Nikon. These numbers are finger in the air estimates, but as someone who has worked in the tech sector, I've seen this cost/price behavior play out in other industries, and Nikon is no different.</p>

<p>Nobody knows Nikon's actual product line costs (this is proprietary), but I'm sure the D4 is Nikon's highest margin body, and while the D3200 is likely the lowest margin body. The difference in those margins are likely quite large. The actual profit from DX could approach that of FX based on higher volumes, but to say that the DX bodies give Nikon "really big profit" is a statement that requires further digging.</p>

<p>And that's just camera bodies...lenses have more rigid prices to the end consumer but follow the same dynamics. And for that reason, Nikon, which believes users can simply use FX telephotos on DX bodies, will not introduce a 55-200mm f/2.8 DX lens. Its profit margins wouldn't make sense compared to the higher margin of the 70-200 f/2.8, and then there is the issue lost margin because of 70-200 cannibalization.</p>

<p>I was going to say the on-sale D600 kit (with the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 VR), a 50 f/1.8G, and an 85 f/1.8G until I saw weddings. I would still get the kit (he can use the zoom as a walk around), but I would add a 24-70 f/2.8. Once he gets a few gigs in, he can afford a 70-200 f/2.8 and a second body...then he'll be set.</p>

<p>Hello. I have a simple question: What is the best filter effects program for post processing digital photos?</p>

<p>Great shots Martynas! I agree, one can get some great shots while shooting at 1/100 or even a little faster (even with an older DX camera). I actually love shooting in these types of settings. The focus on technique is critical.</p>

<p>What lens and f-stop did you use for these?</p>

<p>For your D80, I would suggest going with any of the f/1.8D or f/1.8G lenses that you can afford based on where you can position yourself in the audience. From the cheapest, there is the 50 f/1.8D (around $120), 35 f/1.8G ($200), 50 f/1.8G ($220), 85 f/1.8D (around $450), and 85 f/1.8G (around $500). All of them will autofocus with your D80, and all you can use wide open with decent results (although the 85 f/1.8D lens can have some color fringing).</p>

<p>Here is a shot I took with the 85 f/1.8D lens on a D90 of N*E*R*D three years ago. I would say always shoot in RAW so that you can make adjustments to the exposure or the WB after the fact. This is a pretty bad edit on WB, but the point is to show you what you can do with a fast aperture even in challenging lighting situations. This was shot at 1/200 sec outdoors at night with only stage lights. I spot metered for Pharrell's face and went into rapid fire mode on the D90 (which isn't really that fast).</p>

<div></div>

<p>That price for the D60 kit is not bad. It's all a matter of what she wants to accomplish. Even though the D60 is old, it may just suit her needs (with $675 to keep in her pocket or use on other equipment that could help her in other ways).</p>

<p>My first run into photography with a dSLR was with this very same kit. I took it on two vacations and have some spectacular shots with it. I sold mine after five months because I got the photography bug and wanted to expand my capabilities a little...ended up going with the D90 for two years.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Eric, that was exactly what Nikon did, and the reason is very simple. If Nikon only provides a $1500 f1.4 option for a modern 85mm AF-S, people would find other alternatives such as the Sigma, etc. Nikon is simply not going to sell very many lenses at $1500 each one way or another.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Shun is correct. Nikon is not crippling sales of the f/1.4, and it if is, we are talking very small volumes. When the f/1.8G was not available, I don't think people with $500 budgets were saving up money to buy the f/1.4G. They simply stuck with the f/1.8D or went with another brand. Now that it's available, there may be some with a $1500 budget who may buy the $500 f/1.8G instead, but I'm not one of them. The f/1.4G is hands down my favorite lens (followed by the 70-200/2.8 and the 14-24/2.8), and based on my experience with the f/1.8D and the nasty color fringing, I went all out with my follow-on purchase.</p>

<p>And the photo on the right (4531) was shot with the f/1.4G. The bokeh is quite obvious. The f/1.8G is holding its own though!</p>

<p>Given we are in the holiday season, she may be able to find a new kit of a D3200/18-55 VR/55-200 VR (or 55-300 VR) for well under $1000. The D3200 can be interchanged with a D3100 or a D5100 to get the price down further. With the balance, she can pick up a nice SB-700 flash or a 35mm f/1.8 for low-light photos. If she went used across the board on the kit and those additional items, she may be able to get everything for under $1000.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you focus by eye, the D3 is superior to <em>all other models</em> mentioned in all the replies.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If I'm shooting a wedding, I would pick a D800 over a D3 anytime...no question. D3s or D4 (better ISO on both) is a different story.</p>

<p>I agree with the D600 direction to a certain extent. The D600 is better except for the focusing system. I'm not sure about the D200, but the D600 is a step back on focusing compared to the D300. Also, those prices are kind of high given those shutter counts. I recently paid $1600 for a D700 that only had 5000 actuations to back up a D800. If you buy either of these cameras, negotiate the price down another 10% or so. Elliot is right - if you buy that D3 and have to put $300-400 into a new shutter, it makes more sense to buy a refurbished D800 for a couple hundred dollars more. My recommendation would be to work with what you have until you can afford a new D600 or D800 (testing them both as choosing the one you want).</p>

<p>@Dieter - I'll take another stab at it for sure!</p>

<p>Off topic, but that D800E looks pretty nice at ISO 1600. I love my D800!!!</p>

Dieter,

 

That nasty purple fringing is exactly

what I'm referring to. That really

frustrated me with that lens, because

otherwise it's excellent. The size was

perfect, the weight was fairly negligible

compared to other lenses I own, and it's sharp enough for me by f/2.2.

 

When I said the exposure looked

lighter with the shot I'm assuming is the

f/1.4, I'm really splitting hairs. Not sure

how Shun shot those frames, but if he

shot in manual and just switched

lenses and changed the (only)

aperture, then that would account for

any perceived exposure variance. But I

would image he made a more apples

to apples comparison and made an

exposure adjustment when he changed

lenses. As I mentioned, this is splitting

hairs...what I may see others may not

see or see it differently. Also, a litany of

things could cause any perceived

exposure difference (subject position,

precise camera position, any slight

change in the ambient lighting). The

specific dynamics of the lens wouldn't

be the first thing that comes to mind, I

just threw it out there.

<p>The one on the right. DOF shallower and the exposure is a touch lighter (although her position may have effected the look of the exposure). If I'm wrong then I'm selling my f/1.4 and I'll buy the f/1.8!</p>

<p>I've owned the f/1.8D, and one thing I will say is that the color fringing from f/1.8 to about f/2.8 was horrible...downright unacceptable. If I was outdoors, I would not shoot any wider than f/2.8 in most situations. When I bought the f/1.4G, this issue was much more controlled. I used my buddy's f/1.8G once and noticed that the fringing appeared to be a little more controlled, but not as good as my f/1.4G. One day I'm going to borrow his lens and put it through the extreme test with the f/1.4G and an f/1.8D. The point I make is that the differences in the two lenses is about more than bokeh and sharpness, which is obviously an issue of splitting hairs in the images above. There are some other factors that go into the price difference. Again, 3X the cost is a personal decision that will vary from person to person.</p>

<p>If you don't need the cash, I would not sell it to get the f/1.8 version. I would only sell it if you really feel you have no desire to own an 85mm prime lens. The f/1.4 is technologically a better lens with less CA. The "is it worth 3x more than the f/1.8" question is a personal issue that varies from person to person.</p>

<p>As far as the lens not getting a lot of use, I think many of us here are in the same position as hobbyists (with full time jobs, families, and other interests). Personally, I have a 105mm VR micro that I bought in February and have used only three times since, but I absolutely love macro when I do it. Maybe I could have saved some money and rented the lens when I needed it, but every time I used it, it was on an occasion when I woke up saying "I feel like going out to shoot some macro today." Hobby versus job. I have a buddy who has $2500 golf clubs and only hits the course four or five times a year. He's not a terrible golfer (not great either), but he wanted the Callaway clubs because of the quality and reputation. Hobby versus job...if you have the means to enjoy a hobby, then by all means do it as long as you don't bankrupt doing it. You may not use the lens very much, but on that morning when your kids are in order for a great shot or your significant other has that certain look you want to capture that only the 85mm can give you with its 1.4 aperture, you'll be happy you had it in that drawer.</p>

<p>Since the 90mm prime doesn't have a built-in motor, I would put that on the D300 and put any of the other lenses on the D5100 and use that as a the "primary".</p>

<p>A 16-85mm f/2.8 lens would be a dream come true if it didn't have to be ridiculously large and expensive. When I used a DX camera, I loved this lens on a D300s. The weight was perfect, the range was substantial, and the optics were excellent (best of all the Nikon made DX zoom lenses in my opinion).</p>

<p>A 24-70mm f/2.8 is not a great idea for FX in my opinion, and I don't think the 24-120mm f/4 would get you much more either. I find the 24-120 just good enough on FX, and it can't touch the 16-85 on DX. I would give the 17-55mm f/2.8 another look, or look at some third party f/2.8 options. Personally, I would couple the 16-85 with a 35mm or a 50mm f/1.8 and call it a day.</p>

<p>I would suggest the 16-85mm VR with a 35mm f/1.8 prime for low light. In my opinion, this will give you the best versatility for what you are planning to do. I would also suggest the 17-55mm f/2.8 Nikon pro-level DX lens, but that is $1400 new and about $900 for a good used one. If you want to go third party, you can go with a Tamron 17-50 (?) f/2.8 and an Nikon 85mm f/1.8. You have a lot of great options. The 18-105mm VR Nikon with a 50mm prime would be good also.</p>

<p>What I would suggest is testing the 18-200 against the 16-85 , the 18-105, and other lenses. You can pixel-peep if you want, but I say pay attention to the color detail and distortion. I had an 18-200, and after three months the lens creep got on my nerves so much that I traded it in for a 16-85. Once I started using the 16-85, I was blown away by the sharpness and color difference over the 18-200.</p>

<p>18-105. More range and VR. 18-70 has a metal mount though. I would still go with the 18-105.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would have preferred to see the D800 with a higher frame rate and even 18 Megapixels. I would have gladly paid $3K for a body like that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, Nikon won't do that because of D4 cannibalization. Nikon can certainly make a camera that does this with much less engineering expertise than what was needed for a D800, but it's an education proper market segmentation. Nikon failed to do this with the D3, and introduced the D700, and subsequently experienced reduced D3 sales until they announced a D3s (with video and a larger ISO range as product differentiators). No "D750" is all about marketing.</p>

<p>I had this same quandary when I moved to FX with the D800 from a D300s. I eventually bought a D700 and I use this with the battery grip as my poor-man's D4. We'll never see an FX camera that shoots at the frame rate of the D700 in a similar price and body-type because of the D3 sales that were lost with the introduction of the D700 four years ago. A "D750" would eat into D4 sales the same way. A "D400" would solve some problems, but I don't think any follow-on DX product will match the ISO performance of the the D700 or D3s, much less match the performance of the current FX products.</p>

<p>There is no substitution for the higher frame rate once you develop a shooting style after you've had it. Sure, you can get some keepers at 4fps, but 8fps+ is where you want to be to get the most out of shooting action. If I'm shooting any kind of live action, my body choice is the D700+grip; for studio, portrait, architecture, and fashion work, I use the D800.</p>