Full Frame Nikon Recommendations?

[LittleSparrow]

Howdy,

I am a Beginner/ Intermediate photographer. I got my first SLR 2 yrs ago and have gone from shooting auto mode to shooting full time manual mode. At the moment, I shoot for hobby only although since my photos have improved I have been asked by friends and family for a photo session. I most photograph my children outdoor and indoor (candid or with studio lighting).
I currently have a Nikon D3100 and use a 35mm 1.8 lens 99% of the time. It has been great to learn on and I love it. But as I improve my skills and start to find my style I'm noticing that the cropped sensor is not working for me. It's great for up close portraits, but I hate having to back up a lot to get more in the frame. I also find i lose a lot of bokeh too. So i'm wanting to upgrade my camera body to a full frame model.
As i said, im beginner/intermediate so all of the nook and crannies of a camera are still quite new to me and i'm still learning, so i'm hoping for some recommendations. I'd like to stick with Nikon, my budget is around $1500 - $2000. Something that is good in low light situations. Can anyone help?

[ameerat42]

Hi and welcome.
The first Q that comes to mind is: Why do you use that lens 99% of the time?

To consider a full frame system on the basis of how you use a lens is an unusual approach.
I would have expected it to be based on perhaps any dissatisfaction with image quality of your present camera.

Presumably, you have other lenses. If so, are they of wider angle. Have you tried them to overcome the limitations you
have mentioned? What other benefits - apart from overcoming the use of that lens problem - do you expect to gain with
a full frame system?

Am.

[ricktas]

based on what you have written above, you are not a beginner. You are using manual, you understand bokeh, you have studio ligjhts, you have been asked to do photo sessions, so we have upgraded you to intermediate level. Congrats.

My suggestion for a camera body. Keep saving, and get a D800 or D810.

[MissionMan]

Actually, having recently purchased a D750, I'd take the D750 over the D810 and put the extra $1000 towards glass. I don't think the D810 will add anything over the D810 at your current level.

On the issue of your current problems, I would say you may be better off investing in glass as a starting point and then moving to full frame after that.

From a bokeh perspective, it depends on what you mean by losing bokeh. Do you mean the lens isn't wide enough to get the bokeh you want in the frame, or do you mean that the bokeh isn't that nice on the photos. I'd also clarify whether what you are referring to is DOF or bokeh as a lot of users mistake the two when they start. DOF is background blur, Bokeh is the out of focus light blobs you get in the background.

Given the cost of a full frame DSLR body, I would say that you would be better off investing in a Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 and a Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 as a starting point. The 24-70 will give you the wider frame options to look at and the lens is optically good the whole way through the range. The 70-200 has incredible bokeh and is considered to be one of the best portrait lenses. It's not as good as a 85 1.4 but its pretty close and offers more flexibility at your skill level. That will set you back $2,000 if you buy Tamron for both which is pretty close to the Nikon optically. Make sure you get the VR versions because indoor photos may require stopping down the camera if you are not using studio lights.

Once you have those two lenses, I would wait until the budget allows and buy a D750 (although the full frames may be upgraded by then). As mentioned above, I don't think the D810 will really add much over the D750 at this point and the D750 is better for low light focussing and ISO quality. If you're female, the D750 is also smaller which will help it fit a little better in your hands. Top wedding photographers like Ryan Brenizer (http://ryanbrenizer.com/2014/10/review-nikon-d750-and-d810/) have picked the D750 over the D810 so if they think it's good enough, chances are it's good enough for you as well.

[LittleSparrow]

Thank you! I've only got the kit lens and the 35mm. I don't like the kit lens because I don't like the quality of photos I get from it in comparison to the 35mm (i mostly only use the kit lens if I need to zoom in on something far away). I guess im talking about background blur over all not just little bokeh blobs :) I want to be able to take a photo of my subject and get more of the background in. When I try to do it with my D3100 and 35mm I have to back way way up to get that to happen. So with the full frame i'm hoping to be closer to my subject while fitting in extra background into the frame. I would also like my images to be sharper and of a higher quality than they are now.

Thank you very much for the body recommendations and also the lenses! I am off to do some googling and research :)

[MissionMan]

A 24-70 will give you virtually the same photo outcome on a d3100 as a 35mm on a full frame. I.e. 35mm vs 36mm equivalent. The difference being that you now have the flexibility and the range of two amazing lenses and lenses are what make the difference as you would have realised comparing to your kit lens. With the 70-200, you'll find you produce incredible shots. Do some searches on Google for portraits taken with the 70-200.

[oneeyedphoto]

Not sure why you feel the need to go Full Frame yet LittleSparrow? There are some great used DX camera's available these days for less than $600. D7000. You'll need to consider the additional costs of FX lenses too if you upgrade. If you really must, you might want to enter FX cheaply with the D700 (12mpx but still no slouch when it comes to IQ). You can pick these up for around $900 for a low shutter count model. As MissionMan says above, you'll find more benefit in investing in some nice lenses which hold their value and offer you some complimentary choices to your existing 35mm.

[J.davis]

JB Hifi sell at $2060 (on Sale) for the D750 body, hang around for a bargain. If that is what you want, They also do interest free finance on specials.

[MissionMan]

The other thing I just realised us that I assume you probably have the 35mm DX prime which will be automatically cropped back to DX on a full frame so you won't actually gain anything

[arthurking83]

From what I can make of the OP's dilemma, the switch to Fx is about the best way forward .. even tho it's only one way in which the process could be achieved.

LS seems to want a wider FOV, either of which are achieved by using a shorter focal length(ie. new lens) or a larger sensor.

Image quality dissatisfaction shouldn't be a primary reason for choosing a larger sensor format any longer.

Going with a wider lens type(eg. 24mm type lens) for shooting portraits has it's drawbacks. Distortion! .. shorter focal length also limits the ability for subject separation.
A 35mm lens of a set aperture value(eg. f/1.8) will always render a more blurred background if the framing is kept similarly with that of a 24mm lens of equal aperture value(again, at f/1.8).
The 24mm lens needs to be faster to render as much bokeh as the longer lens. This comes at a cost.
The other aspect to consider too tho is that as focal length shortens, bokeh is rendered less smooth. Not blurrier as in shallower DOF .. but it's a common phenonmenon with wider angle lenses that the bokeh is rendered less nicely.

So the obvious choice for LS's purposes is to update the camera to a larger sensor type.

D610 seems to be a good deal. Shop around for them too tho. I've noticed some retailers(web based) have them for the low $1600's which is about the maximum price this camera should be selling for.(I've always held the belief that Nikon's pricing has been selfserving for far too long .. and .. ah well never mind).

D750 would be nice, but would you really use the really obvious features such as wifi and tilting screen? D750 will focus better, more accurately and with the group focusing feature it has, more consistently than the D610 .. but again would it really make all that much difference?
One way to determine this is to work out if focusing with the current gear has caused many problems. If only a few, then I'd say the D610 would work well enough for you.
If you've been plagued with consistent focusing issues with what you currently use .. then maybe the D750 would be the wiser overall option*

(wiser overall option = get the gear with the greater ability now! .. rather than something that may not work as well, requiring another purchase in the short term future).

MissionMan mentions the fact that the 35/1.8 Dx lens automatically sets an Fx camera to crop mode. This is true, but from what I've seen with this lens, you can turn auto crop mode in camera to off(easily done, and should be done too!) .. and the lens is still very usable in a portrait shooting environment(ie. close range).
At infinity or longer focused distances, it shows obvious vignetting but this is a very small amount, and in some situations could be an advantage anyhow!
But if you had to crop out any vignetting, it's a minimal few millimeters at the very edge.
I'd recommend that the 35/1.8 would be fine to use until you can allocate more money towards another lens in the future.

Personally I'd recommend the D750 for it's better focusing(ie. longer term usage before any gear related issues surface)
But, based on the price allowance, and my understanding of what you already have and have used .. I'd say the D610 would be more than OK for now .. even a refurbished D600(much cheaper initial outlay!) and this still gives you some headroom to also consider another lens as well.

I wouldn't pay too much more than about $1600 for a D610, and not more than $1K for a refurb D600. This gives you plenty of room for more lenses.

[MissionMan]

From what I can make of the OP's dilemma, the switch to Fx is about the best way forward .. even tho it's only one way in which the process could be achieved.

LS seems to want a wider FOV, either of which are achieved by using a shorter focal length(ie. new lens) or a larger sensor.

Image quality dissatisfaction shouldn't be a primary reason for choosing a larger sensor format any longer.

Going with a wider lens type(eg. 24mm type lens) for shooting portraits has it's drawbacks. Distortion! .. shorter focal length also limits the ability for subject separation.
A 35mm lens of a set aperture value(eg. f/1.8) will always render a more blurred background if the framing is kept similarly with that of a 24mm lens of equal aperture value(again, at f/1.8).
The 24mm lens needs to be faster to render as much bokeh as the longer lens. This comes at a cost.
The other aspect to consider too tho is that as focal length shortens, bokeh is rendered less smooth. Not blurrier as in shallower DOF .. but it's a common phenonmenon with wider angle lenses that the bokeh is rendered less nicely.

So the obvious choice for LS's purposes is to update the camera to a larger sensor type.

D610 seems to be a good deal. Shop around for them too tho. I've noticed some retailers(web based) have them for the low $1600's which is about the maximum price this camera should be selling for.(I've always held the belief that Nikon's pricing has been selfserving for far too long .. and .. ah well never mind).

D750 would be nice, but would you really use the really obvious features such as wifi and tilting screen? D750 will focus better, more accurately and with the group focusing feature it has, more consistently than the D610 .. but again would it really make all that much difference?
One way to determine this is to work out if focusing with the current gear has caused many problems. If only a few, then I'd say the D610 would work well enough for you.
If you've been plagued with consistent focusing issues with what you currently use .. then maybe the D750 would be the wiser overall option*

(wiser overall option = get the gear with the greater ability now! .. rather than something that may not work as well, requiring another purchase in the short term future).

MissionMan mentions the fact that the 35/1.8 Dx lens automatically sets an Fx camera to crop mode. This is true, but from what I've seen with this lens, you can turn auto crop mode in camera to off(easily done, and should be done too!) .. and the lens is still very usable in a portrait shooting environment(ie. close range).
At infinity or longer focused distances, it shows obvious vignetting but this is a very small amount, and in some situations could be an advantage anyhow!
But if you had to crop out any vignetting, it's a minimal few millimeters at the very edge.
I'd recommend that the 35/1.8 would be fine to use until you can allocate more money towards another lens in the future.

Personally I'd recommend the D750 for it's better focusing(ie. longer term usage before any gear related issues surface)
But, based on the price allowance, and my understanding of what you already have and have used .. I'd say the D610 would be more than OK for now .. even a refurbished D600(much cheaper initial outlay!) and this still gives you some headroom to also consider another lens as well.

I wouldn't pay too much more than about $1600 for a D610, and not more than $1K for a refurb D600. This gives you plenty of room for more lenses.

Not sure I would agree.

A D3300 with 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 would give the person far more flexibility than a D750 with a 35mm DX lens. At 24mm, the 24-70 has some distortion but on pro glass this is normally fairly limited and would be easily fixed in lightroom. The flexibility of having both lenses would however give them far more opportunity with glass which is far better quality than the 35mm DX lens and they would have one of the best portrait lenses (70-200 f/2.8) to expand their options. They also specify outdoor photography and this is really where the 70-200 really excels because you can afford to stay back and let kids be kids while still having the benefit of really nice candid photos with far better DOF and Bokeh than you would ever get on a 35mm DX lens.

The focus speed on the 24-70 and 70-200 would also be well ahead of the 35mm DX lens, plus they still have the option to use the 35mm DX indoors if they need the f/1.4.

If I look at how much time I spend on each lens with my kids, the 70-200 is about 70%, the 24-70 is about 20% and the 50mm f/1.4 (same as the 35mm on a DX camera) is about 10% because the largest limitation with the shorter focal length is kids don't let you get close enough for extended periods to really take advantage of it.

The D3300 was only released at the beginning of last year, so it's no slouch from a camera perspective.

[Arcom]

If your budget is under $2000 and you want full frame maybe the D610 is worth a look. I picked one up for $1800 new a few months ago. Just recently paired it with a Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 and I've found it to give outstanding results for portraits.

[I @ M]

I'd like to stick with Nikon, my budget is around $1500 - $2000. Something that is good in low light situations. Can anyone help?

Stick with the body you have until you have totally mastered it, spend $1500.00 on lenses that will give you real benefits and then in a year or so think about a new body. :)

[arthurking83]

...... It's great for up close portraits, but I hate having to back up a lot to get more in the frame. .....


Not sure I would agree.

A D3300 with 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 would give the person far more flexibility than a D750 with a 35mm DX lens. At 24mm, the 24-70 has some distortion but on pro glass this is normally fairly limited and would be easily fixed in lightroom. ......

Normally I'm in agreement with both yourself MM and Andrew(I@M).
But based on the OP's stated issue .. of using the 35/1.8 99% of the time and hating the need to back up more .. plus the rendering quality of a fast wide angle and fast aperture .. I'm not sure the 24mm at f/2.8 is as obvious choice as it may initially seem.
Remember, irrespective of format size, bokeh rendering is going to be the same for a given point of view .. with the smaller format you just see less of it in the final image.

Whereas, going to 24mm (to begin with) instantly changes the background blur, and being limited(relatively speaking) to f/2.8(where f/1.8 was previously an option!) .. final analysis is that the rendering won't quite be the same as previously.

If this member's predicament were mine, and funds were limited, my choice would be a cheapish newish Fx body and a 50/1.8, whilst still using the 35/1.8 Dx for now too.

side note: I've been thinking of acquiring a 35/1.8 Dx lens to use as a pseudo wide angle for a bit, to see if it's something I'd use .. for my D800!

If funds were available, personally, I'd be opting for a D750 + Tammy 24-70/2.8 VC for sure in this instance.


PS: the use of the term distortion, I actually meant perspective distortion, not barrel. Barrel can be 'fixed' in PP .. perspective is harder to do, if not impossible to do with respect to extension re-rendering.

PPS: You may notice over time that as your kids get older(and hence you do as well), that shooting from a distance in a more candid manner doesn't work. The kids seem to have eyes all round their heads, and notice any attempt to photograph them at any time. The problem with being at candid distances, is that they have a head start over you for when they run off into the bushes to get away from the crazy haired camera mad parent! :D Staying closer therefore allows one to chain themselves to the children in question until the parent's need for more images has been satisfied!

[ameerat42]

Well, back to it: I still think the move to FF is not the solution. Closest to my opinion is I @ M's advice above.
All that people have said about what/why FF solution is OK, just that I don't think it's relevant to (my perception of)
the OP's predicament.

Note to gunners: take aim, and I'll duck and weave:D

[MissionMan]

Normally I'm in agreement with both yourself MM and Andrew(I@M).
But based on the OP's stated issue .. of using the 35/1.8 99% of the time and hating the need to back up more .. plus the rendering quality of a fast wide angle and fast aperture .. I'm not sure the 24mm at f/2.8 is as obvious choice as it may initially seem.
Remember, irrespective of format size, bokeh rendering is going to be the same for a given point of view .. with the smaller format you just see less of it in the final image.

Whereas, going to 24mm (to begin with) instantly changes the background blur, and being limited(relatively speaking) to f/2.8(where f/1.8 was previously an option!) .. final analysis is that the rendering won't quite be the same as previously.

If this member's predicament were mine, and funds were limited, my choice would be a cheapish newish Fx body and a 50/1.8, whilst still using the 35/1.8 Dx for now too.

side note: I've been thinking of acquiring a 35/1.8 Dx lens to use as a pseudo wide angle for a bit, to see if it's something I'd use .. for my D800!

If funds were available, personally, I'd be opting for a D750 + Tammy 24-70/2.8 VC for sure in this instance.


PS: the use of the term distortion, I actually meant perspective distortion, not barrel. Barrel can be 'fixed' in PP .. perspective is harder to do, if not impossible to do with respect to extension re-rendering.

PPS: You may notice over time that as your kids get older(and hence you do as well), that shooting from a distance in a more candid manner doesn't work. The kids seem to have eyes all round their heads, and notice any attempt to photograph them at any time. The problem with being at candid distances, is that they have a head start over you for when they run off into the bushes to get away from the crazy haired camera mad parent! :D Staying closer therefore allows one to chain themselves to the children in question until the parent's need for more images has been satisfied!

The reason she is shooting at 35mm is because it's the best quality lens she has. If there was more flexibility without losing quality, she may be inclined to use other focal lenses but my guess is she is doing the best she can given the constraints. If I had what she had, the majority of my photos would also be at 35mm.

If it was me for example, and I hard a hard budget of $1500, I'd be looking at a 24-70 / 85 1.8 combo which would give the best combination of dreamy bokeh and focal length options. If the hard stop was $2k, I'd be getting a 24-70/70-200 (non VR) and if I could raise a tad over $2k, I'd swap the 70-200 for the VR version.


Well, back to it: I still think the move to FF is not the solution. Closest to my opinion is I @ M's advice above.
All that people have said about what/why FF solution is OK, just that I don't think it's relevant to (my perception of)
the OP's predicament.

Note to gunners: take aim, and I'll duck and weave:D

Hey, I said buy glass as well! Don't steal my thunder! I worked hard for it :p

[ameerat42]

No, I wasn't. Sorry I didn't specify, MM.

[jim]

If this member's predicament were mine, and funds were limited, my choice would be a cheapish newish Fx body and a 50/1.8, whilst still using the 35/1.8 Dx for now too.



Have we established that LittleSparrow's 35 f1.8 is indeed the DX version? (I admit it seems like a reasonable guess.)

[I @ M]

Have we established that LittleSparrow's 35 f1.8 is indeed the DX version? (I admit it seems like a reasonable guess.)

Almost a shoe in seeing that Nikon have really only ever made one 35mm F/1.8 (http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html#35) that will mount and operate on digital bodies -----

[jim]

Is this not available then?

http://Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S ED Nikkor Lens for DSLR Cameras - U.S.A. Warranty

[swifty]

Hi LittleSparrow,
I think you could go both ways and there are some sound arguments made for investment in lens as well as going FF.
On the one hand, staying with DX and investing in lens nets you a wider scope of focal lengths to explore whilst going FF targets specifically what you want to achieve, which is to shoot wider and still maintain good isolation with shallow dof.
I won't go into the bokeh quality issues but another lens option you could explore would be a Sigma 18-35 f1.8. Unfortunately this won't make the migration should you eventually go FF but its more or less what you want to do and at a lower cost (more than a stop faster than f2.8 zoom options).
Going FF early is more costly initially (although prices are really getting quite good) but may save you dollars in the long run.
Btw I used to own the 35/1.8G DX and it works fine on FX cameras in FX mode. Saves me adding vignetting in post haha. Quite a lot of barrel distortion on that lens though.

Also Ryan Brenizer's name was mentioned above. And if you don't mind a little PP, you could try out the Brenizer method for static, posed subjects. This method effectively is like shooting with a much larger sensor but in small sections and merged together in post.

[I @ M]

Is this not available then?

http://Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S ED Nikkor Lens for DSLR Cameras - U.S.A. Warranty

:Doh:Errr, yep, I forgot about that one totally.
I haven't seen or heard much about it since the release so it slipped my tiny mind.
I really need to stop getting out and photographing and start studying gear on the net more closely. :D

[LittleSparrow]

FYI it's a AF-S DX 35mm f1.8 :)

Thanks to all who commented. I definitely have some research to do and a lot to think about before I start spending. My $1500 isn't hard though, i'm happy to keep saving if needed.

I am starting to lean towards getting a couple of new lenses before going straight to the new fx body. I'm just worried about investing in new lenses that won't work well with a fx camera when/if I buy one down the track.

[arthurking83]

..... My $1500 isn't hard though, i'm happy to keep saving if needed.

.....


AH! so how much do you reckon you could 'justify'?

If you claim can afford to spend more, then you may get inundated with $10K recommendations of D810's, Nikon 24-70/2.8 and 200/2VR or something silly like that.

if you can push the finances just beyond the $2.5K region .. D610 + Tamron 24-70/2.8VC.
Or if you can justify that lil bit more to say $3K, D750 + Tammy lens.

ps. I recommend the Tamron 24-70 because it's a good lens .. not just because it has image stabilisation(VC). It is a bit large tho(in diameter), but once used to it it feels normal.

This way you do get that wide to moderate zoom ability on Fx .. plus the ability to isolate subjects more as the Fx sensor allows you top.
You can still use the 35mm Dx lens for as long as you need too(just remember it's limitations .. Swifty also mentioned them).

Then once you have a really good grip of what it is you want from your camera gear, then further down the track you could also add a few more decent lenses as well.
Decent lenses include(but not limited too) 85/1.8(or if you can afford it 85/1.4) Sigma 35/1.4 Art(exceptional lens for just under $1K) Sigma 50/1.4 Art(same as 35/1.4 Art) .. etc.

As for investing in lenses that won't work on Fx cameras .. think of it in this manner.(and why I recommended a camera for your situation, and not a lens).

In your situation, if you opt for a camera first and you're not totally pleased with the choice, you literally have lost nothing. You have spent money needlessly in a manner of speaking, but in reality your new camera can still operate as your old camera did/does.

But if you spend this money on a lens instead, and you aren't pleased with the differences it gives you then you can't use this lens as you previously did (as you can with the camera upgrade).

That is, as an example: a 24-70/2.8 will never render an image in the way a 35/1.8 can(ie. with the 35/1.8 at f/1.8!), but a larger format camera can be cropped to render the same as you got with your cropped camera previously.

In effect a new camera can be seen as a forward step in your photography path. It may not have been what you expected, but it's certainly neither a sideways nor backward step.
The new lens can be either a forward, sideways or backward step. You won't know until you try it for a while. If it's sidewards or backwards step, it's basically wasted money.
It may work as well as you hoped (say) on a larger format size, but again without spending more money, you won't know.

[LittleSparrow]

Probably not talking in the $10ks just yet lol (I got 4 kids to feed!). Im thinking more like maybe saving another $1500 at this stage. So, the $3000 mark :)

Now im swayed back towards new body lol. Im going to go to JB and have a hold of the D750 just go get a feel of it in my hands. Im thinking i'll save some more and get an FX body with a new fx lens.

[arthurking83]

Probably not talking in the $10ks just yet lol (I got 4 kids to feed!). ......

......

aHa! .. so you have double the investment in human resources that I do.
Which means that you potentially have double the return in that investment, if you were to consider reallocation of human resources for beneficial hardware acquisition :p

(I've tried on numerous occasions, but my investment in HR wasn't to expectations :D)


Seriously tho: if you have this idea now in mind that you want an upgrade, I think it's best to do both camera and lens together.
It seems that the more you have to spend in one hit, the more persuasive your buying capability becomes. Even if this spending of $3k only saves you $100 in a bargaining exchange, it's $100 you get to keep!

[MissionMan]

Agree with Arthur's comments about getting them together if you can. One important aspect is the relationship impact.

As an example, a single $3K purchase is better than 6 $500 purchases because people only look at the amount of time you're spending money, not the actual amount. As an example, if your hubby spends $20K on a new jetski and you spend $5K on 3 occasions on camera gear, the perception is you're being greedy because you've bought expensive gear 3 times. This works much the same as the credit system for buying flowers. Giving your wife 12 red roses on 3 separate occasions has more impact than giving your wife 36 roses on one occasion, or better yet, buying one red rose every week for 36 weeks works the best. An anomaly with this theory is the spend offset theory which allows you get to something they want at the same time as getting yourself something you want which essentially offsets the spend completely. I.e. if your hubby wants a new iPad, waiting until you can afford to buy the camera, lens and iPad will essentially mean he is so focussed on playing with his new iPad that he forgets you spent money on the camera and lens.

Disclaimer - babes, if you're reading this, someone hacked my account, I don't know anything about this post

:lol:

[ROA44]

Well just had a quick look/comparison between the D610 and the D750, and disregarding price I'm not sure which one I would choose myself, but then still way to much to learn.

[MissionMan]

Yeah, there isn't that much difference. The D750 is supposed to have a brand new sensor.

From what I can gather there are not a whole lot of differences: wifi, 0.5fps faster, new AFS system with -3EV detection instead of -1, native ISO12800 instead of 6400, 51AF points vs 39, AF has 11 points at f/8 instead of 7, higher resolution LCD which tilts, better battery life. When you go through the comparison, I guess the question is whether any of these actually really impact you. For most people, probably not

[cupic]

Sorry If Ive deviated from the original post.
With the current crop of FF bodies .ie D610 D750 and the D800 series where would the D3X sit in this Nikon group
I know the light light its the best or high ISO noise is below average.
Feel free to add Lance as yours and other opinion value to me


cheers

[MissionMan]

I think for what you are paying for a D3X (or would be second hand for a low shutter count), the D810 would probably be a better bet. Other than the full size body, the D810 is a newer camera, newer sensor, etc so it's probably better in almost every respect. It's not that the D3X is bad, just the D810 is two generations of camera better and two generations is camera land is a lot. The other issue is the warranty. A new D810 would have a new 2 year warranty where a D3X is unlikely to have one so if you have problems, it will be expensive.

[arthurking83]

D3x is a strange beast of a camera. Back in the days when it was (more) relevant, it had a very high resolution count(Mp) in Nikon terms.
Of course that really meant nothing as Sony used the same sensor in two far cheaper camera bodies concurrently.
But in Nikon terms .. it had far more relevance back then. Price was astronimical, even compared to the D3/D3s.

Now tho, I'm not sure why Nikon even bother to continue it in their lineup.

24Mp isn't the advantage that it used to be over the lower res sibling in the Pro lineup. 24Mp doesn't seem to have the same advantage over 16Mp(D4) that it used to have over 12Mp(D3).
I'm assuming that due to the ludicrous high price($10K when new) Nikon has a huge old inventory of stock .. and hence why it's still in the Pro lineup.

It must also be remembered that this camera was announced back in late '08, which in digital camera terms is Jurassic!

But this camera has one key point over other any other Nikon camera.
It still has a high res sensor but also contained in an extremely rugged pro type body.

I guess until Nikon create a 20 or more D4 sucessor(eg. a D5 with 20 or more Mp) then this camera still must have some relevance to some professional Nikon user somewhere in the world.


It's major flaw is when used in 14bit raw capture mode(as with the D300/D300s) and any other cameras using the Sony sensors of the time.
Setting the camera to 14bit depth in raw mode would paralyze the sensors ability to pass its data to the cameras other electronics to create an image.

in 12 bit raw capture, you would achieve a decent frame rate(as specified by Nikon). eg. the D300 would do 6fps, the D3x could do 5fps.
Not blazing, but acceptable for even some pro sport use.
Set them to 14bit tho, and the camera ground to a halt! 1 or 1.5fps was your top speed. You think to yourself well that's ok for something like landscape shooting, but I tell 'ya(from experience with the D300) it's not! It's painful if you're trying to do something like HDR or just normal bracketing.
One of the reasons you get a DSLR is that it gives you advantages you can't get with more consumer oriented cameras. One of those advantages is not only raw, but higher bit depth raw.
This was a major flaw with these two particular sensors(D300 and D3x .. both from Sony).

Also, high ISO noise wasn't a D3x strong point. It wasn't bad, but it's not great. D3 and D3s as well as the D700 were way ahead of it, and even they're still competitive vs some of the current crop of cameras, in terms of high ISO noise performance.

[LittleSparrow]

Well considering that within the past few days I have added around $10k worth of gear to my wish list i'm definitely going to have to add a new laptop for hubby to the list so that he doesn't notice all of the small, yet expensive gear i'll be buying too. Might tell him to take the kids to look at the TV's or something so that he doesn't hear the total value at checkout! :eek: haha

[ROA44]

Of course you know he will need a Jackson Big Tuna 2 seater Kayak, so that when he goes fishing you can go a long to take the Photos. :tog: :umm:

[cupic]

Probably not talking in the $10ks just yet lol (I got 4 kids to feed!). Im thinking more like maybe saving another $1500 at this stage. So, the $3000 mark :)

Now im swayed back towards new body lol. Im going to go to JB and have a hold of the D750 just go get a feel of it in my hands. Im thinking i'll save some more and get an FX body with a new fx lens.


Jb hands down can do D750 for under 2K.
With or without 15%. AS for me well Im hoping for the real D700 replacement this year
that or Xmas 15 dill be D750 under the tree or earlier depends on my weakness ....:eek:

cheers

[glennb]

Im another for investing in a 24-70 lens (I recommend the tammy 24-70 2.8) You won't be blown away with your images moving from cropped to full frame, I wasn't going from 5100 to D610. not sure if your doing what I did and googling too much on crop vs full frame, but the main thing I like was the easier/quicker controls for ISO shutter aperture etc.... (though there are crops that do this too) Im pretty sure the 3100 has the same sensor to my 5100 which is the same sensor as the D7000 which is a great sensor. Ive seen amazing picture on flickr using these cameras. I actually prefer my D5100 for macro work as it has more DOF and also prefer it as a walk around lens with my Tam 24-70 2.8 cos of the good range you get with the crop (36-105mm on crop lens) though it will be heavier than your 35mm.
food for thought :confused013

[sanger]

I also have a D3100 and 18-55 kit lens which is more than ok for now but, I'm also poking around and absorbing as much info on lenses as possible.
From reading this post have I got it correct. If I were to buy the two mentioned Tamron's 24-70 and 70-200 then they would work on my 3100 even though they are for full frame ?
While at this stage I have no intention have upgrading you never know what the future holds.
So is it generally better to buy FF lenses or stick with the DX lenses.

[MissionMan]

I also have a D3100 and 18-55 kit lens which is more than ok for now but, I'm also poking around and absorbing as much info on lenses as possible.
From reading this post have I got it correct. If I were to buy the two mentioned Tamron's 24-70 and 70-200 then they would work on my 3100 even though they are for full frame ?
While at this stage I have no intention have upgrading you never know what the future holds.
So is it generally better to buy FF lenses or stick with the DX lenses.

It's always best to go with full frame lenses if you can afford them (they are generally more expensive) because you are future proofing your lens collection for a move to full frame at a later stage. Even if you don't switch, they will always work perfectly on a DX body.

In short, a full frame lens will work on a DX body, but a DX lens on a full frame body will be cropped (by default) and won't have great quality on the edges if you disable the crop.

From a Nikon perspective, the crop is 1.5x so a 24mm will appear like a 36mm lens on a DX body.

This has pros and cons. For longer lenses, it can give you extra reach if you need it. I.e. a 200mm looks like a 300mm so for birding or other sports that require a long reach, this may not be bad because a 200 f/2.8 on a DX body is a lot cheaper than buying a 300 f/2.8 on a full frame body.

It's also not to say you can't have both. For example, some photographers may carry a DX body and a full frame body so they can pick and choose as required. I think Thom Hogan was one of those people although it could have been size related prior to the arrival of the smaller full frame cameras.

[sanger]

Thanks MM

[shaneando]

Interesting conundrum - additional lenses or new body?

I don't think there is a right or wrong answer, but with some thought you could work out what each would bring (and cost!).

After about five years of using DX bodies - D5000, then D7000, then D7100 - I finally went to a full frame body (D750) a few months ago. I had two specific reasons related to the type of shooting I do (mainly landscape and wildlife) - (1) lack of wide angle primes for DX bodies, (2) better high ISO performance for wildlife. Then it was a matter of choosing bodies. The D610 wasn't really what I was after. Having shot the D7000 and D7100 back to back I much prefer the D7100, and the D610 is more like the D7000 - lower spec AF system, a number of minor features lacking that individually weren't showstoppers but collectively were. I couldn't justify the price (and size of the D800/810 (I do a lot of hiking/backpacking with my gear), and in my analysis the only things it offered over the D750 were extra pixels and different control layout. The D750 seemed to meet all my needs so now I have the D7100 and D750 combo. The other factor here was that these two bodies are almost identical in terms of control layout, functions, AF system, batteries etc so I can switch between the two with minimal effort.

Obviously my style of shooting is different to yours but I related my experience to show that by looking carefully at equipment capabilities and your shooting style you can make some logical choices.

If you were going to stick with DX bodies/lenses for the foreseeable future and just wanted lenses, I have a few recommendations. The main issue with this course, in my opinion, is that Nikon has not produced many high quality lenses specifically for DX bodies, so you may have to look at third party options. Firstly, I'd recommend the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8. This is a nice lens, gets you f/2.8 aperture with a good zoom range either side of your 35mm focal length, very good optically, and can be obtained for less than $600 brand new. Second would be to consider the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8. I haven't held or used this lens, but a lot of people have reported very good results, and it allows you to maintain the f/1.8 aperture. Some caveats with these options - they are DX only so won't work satisfactorily on FX bodies; also Sigma reverse engineers the mount/communications (as opposed to using Nikon specs under license) so there have been some minor compatibility problems with older lenses on newer Nikon bodies. You could easily get both of these for well less than $1500 and greatly expand on the capabilities you currently have with the 35mm/1.8. BTW that was my first prime and it's an excellent little lens which I still have and use occasionally!

For longer focal length portraiture I would suggest either the 70-200 f/4, the 70-200 f/2.8 (version 1), or one of the various 85mm primes. These are all FX compatible lenses so you are future proofed there but they work very well on DX bodies also. I have the 70-200 f/4 and the 85mm f/1.4D (the older version).

There are also some nice primes Nikon have released recently that could be considered - 20mm, 28mm, 35mm (FX version), 50mm (not a recent lens but still not bad), 85mm - all f/1.8 aperture and very good optically. There is also rumoured to be a 24mm f/1.8 coming out soon. These can all be used on DX or FX bodies, and all are under $1000.

As for full frame bodies, if we exclude the professional D4S, there are three to choose from - D610, D750, D810. If you are less price-sensitive, the D810 is arguably the best all-round DSLR available at the moment. However I believe the D750 hits the sweet spot at the moment. It's only about $400 more than D610 with a better AF system, a more robust body, and a number of small control and function capabilities that are better. The D810 is over $1000 more than D750 and offers an extra 12MP, a different control layout, and not much else. Also the D810 uses both CF and SD cards which means having both types of card.

If your budget was hard at $1500 and you wanted some better options right now, I'd say go with the two Sigma zooms, or if you don't mind using primes (and want future FX compatibility) then a few of the f/1.8 primes. For a step up in image quality you could for $1500 get a used version of the 70-200 f/2.8 or perhaps a used 85mm f/1.4G, although from what you've written it sounds like you are after the wider focal lengths, bearing in mind that on a DX body these will give a narrower field of view.

If your budget was $3000 I'd say get the D750 and one or two of the primes, perhaps the 50mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8 (not forgetting that the 35mm you currently have will work on an FX body, giving a wider field of view than your D3100, with a slight amount of vignetting which can be managed easily in post processing). Then you could work on building your lens collection.

Cheers

Shane

[danny]

If it was me…. D750 + Tamron 24-70 (or 70-200 for that mater, depending on what I needed) for a smudge over $3K from a local supplier. I'd probably stretch it and get a 50mm for a couple hundred more while I was there also ;)

[GourmetSaint]

D810 and Tamron 24-70 f2.8

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

[ricktas]

D810 and Tamron 24-70 f2.8

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

If you are going to post a recommendation, please explain why. Just posting a camera and lens does not recommend it in any way.

[GourmetSaint]

They're good.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

[GourmetSaint]

And I have the equivalent as my standard setup. So recommendation from experience.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[jim]

They're good.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

He's right you know, they are. Though it may be a moot point given that the OP hasn't posted anything since September last year.

[GourmetSaint]

New here. Reading for first time and giving input as requested

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[Cage]

New here. Reading for first time and giving input as requested

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

With all due respect GS I think this dilemma may have been sorted as the OP's last post was January 9 2015, twenty months ago.