Thoughts on New Nikon Upgrade

[sanger]

I've been using a D3100, 18-55, 55-200 for the last two years and would like to buy something new.

I mostly do landscapes, sunsets, sunrises, general walking around type stuff, some video and at this stage I'm not into portraits unless they meow.

All just for fun.

I have two ideas,

D7200 with a wide angle lens, eg. 11-16, 12-24 and a general walk around. I don't know if I really need the wider lens but may be a bit of fun or beneficial for the landscapes.

D750 with a 16-35 or similar and another.

Not fixed on anything yet but just after thought's on new set up for above.

[Cage]

D750 ................... :th3: I won't waffle on about how good I think it is because I'm sure you've done your homework.

16-35 ???? The current darling in that range is the Tamron SP 15-30mm F/2.8 Di VC USD Model A012. It's on my wishlist, not only because of it's glowing reviews, but also for the VC which is a huge plus in those situations where you can't use a tripod.

And for something a bit longer, maybe a 70-200mm f2.8. I have the Tamron version and it's a ripper.

Just my two bobs worth. I'm sure there will be differing opinions. :nod:

[sanger]

D750 ................... :th3: I won't waffle on about how good I think it is because I'm sure you've done your homework.

16-35 ???? The current darling in that range is the Tamron SP 15-30mm F/2.8 Di VC USD Model A012. It's on my wishlist, not only because of it's glowing reviews, but also for the VC which is a huge plus in those situations where you can't use a tripod.

And for something a bit longer, maybe a 70-200mm f2.8. I have the Tamron version and it's a ripper.

Just my two bobs worth. I'm sure there will be differing opinions. :nod:

Ah cool I missed the Tamron...the other was Nikon 16-35 AF-S f4, about $200 dearer.

[Cage]

Ah cool I missed the Tamron...the other was Nikon 16-35 AF-S f4, about $200 dearer.

And a stop slower ........

[arthurking83]

.....

I mostly do landscapes, sunsets, sunrises, general walking around type stuff, some video and

....

All just for fun.

.....

While I agree with my mate Kev(D750), but the D7200 is no slouch either .. so you won't really go wrong with either choice.

With your quoted text .. do you prefer to use filters of any type when you do your shoots?
Only because I'm a stickler for filtering before exposure! .. the Nikon 16-35/4 is much easier to live with when it comes to using filters.
Tammy 15-30 is faster, but filtering will be harder and/or more expensive.

If filtering your shoot to get an optimal exposure is something you think about or do .. Nikon 16-35/4 is a 'better option'.
If filtering is not on your mind .. Tammy for sure .. you never know when you need that extra stop.

Also note: technically the Dx system is the better option for doing landscape images, where DOF can be important for a specific field of view.
That is, for a given FOV(eg. 15mm on Fx or 10mm on Dx) the Dx system will require less aperture due to the shorter focal length used for that FOV.
In some situations this can be a bonus as it doesn't force you to use a slower shutter speed as using the larger frame sensor would(that is one stop faster shutter).

You can always bump up ISO, but that's a lower quality solution.
But, if you want/need to go the other way and you want longer exposure times(eg. the usual milky water effect .. and so on) .. you can still do so with Dx using ND filters.

That's just a technical aspect to consider .. and not really one that should sway you one way or another.
After my update to Fx from Dx, I can't think of any specific instance where this technical aspect ever crossed my mind, nor ever caused me to rethink having (mainly) switched to the larger frame format.

[Cage]

As usual, all good info from my mate Artie. :nod:

One point I'd like to make is the consideration of lens for FX sensors versus DX sensors. Generally, the better specced lens are found in FX format (I'm sure there are exceptions) so the Tamron I mentioned becomes a 22.5-45mm lens on a DX camera and the Nikon 16-35mm becomes a 24-52.5mm lens, putting them outside the UWA range. Something to think about for landscapes.

Also I have to say I'm over filters, other than 10 stoppers to slow down motion. I've moved away from ND grads to doing several shots, preferring separate exposures for the lighter and darker parts of the image and blending them in PP.

Once again, just my thoughts.

[MissionMan]

I'm D750 owner and have to say I am fairly happy with the purchase. I've had to send it back for the service advisory (shutter issue on earlier models) but Nikon arranged for a courier to collect it from me.

Dynamic range is mind boggling as the photos below show. It's a horrible pair of photos, its not intended to impress people with my photographic skills but I took it while I was waiting for the sun to rise as an example but it does show how well the camera performs. It may seem irrelevant to recover stops like this, but when you are shooting into the sun, you can often expose for highlights (it has a highlight priority metering option) and know you can recover enough from the shadows to keep a good photo. Granted you don't have to recover 5 stops, but recovering 3 stops is obviously pretty clean.

Plus one for the Tamron 15-30. From what I have heard it's very close to the 14-24 optically and has VR. The 16-35 benefits from a more common filter thread but obviously only f4

This is an original

https://atholhill.smugmug.com/Reviews/Photography/D750-Review/i-vvvLmcs/0/X3/AJH_7845-2-X3.jpg

This is 5 stops up in lightroom

https://atholhill.smugmug.com/Reviews/Photography/D750-Review/i-MsDSf6s/0/X3/AJH_7845-X3.jpg

[Lance B]

I think Arthur has made a very good reply and can't argue with most of his points, or anyone else's who has replied so far.

The only slight disagreement I may have with Arthur is the DOF issue between FX and DX. Whilst DX does have inherently a 1 stop more in DOF for a given aperture and equal Field of View (ie equalised focal length for the given format), you can stop down an extra stop to equalise that, so use f11 on FX instead of f8 on DX, or use f16 on FX over f11 on DX etc. Now, there is a thing called diffraction that comes into play with both formats but the inherent sharpness advantage of FX over DX for a given equalised focal length/aperture will negate the diffraction difference of using f11 on FX over f8 on DX. Diffraction comes into play at certain apertures and at certain Mp's of the sensor being used with a particular format which takes the edge of sharpness. The reason that FX has a sharpness advantage of DX is that you have to enlarge a DX image 1.5x more than the FX image because the physical size of the sensor is 1.5x smaller. So, when you show the DX image on your computer screen, the image needs to be enlarged by that factor of 1.5x. This is why when you look at resolution results of a lens on DX compared to FX, the resolution of the lens on FX is always higher than with FX even when the DX sensor may have more Mp compared to the FX sensor. Anyway, the higher the Mp (resolution of the sensor), the lower the aperture that diffraction comes into play that allows you to take full advantage of that extra resolution afforded by the higher Mp. Diffraction may come into play as low as f5.6 with a D800/D800E/D810 and there is s slight edge taken off at f8 and may be un-noticeable at 10" print and you may have to pixel peep to see any minute difference, but by f16 you may see it if you pixel peep. Anyway, we are talking hair splitting here and I just wanted to make you aware of the fact that diffraction exists and that the differences of FX and DX is not that big a deal to overcome. Other factors regarding diffraction would be how large you are going to view your images, ie: if you only view them on your computer screen or say an 8 x 10" print, then diffraction will not be an issue in either format. It is a very complicated thing to try to explain, but I wouldn't be too concerned with the extra DOF afforded by DX over FX as in real life it actually doesn't matter as you can stop down that extra stop on FX to equalize the DOF.

My point is, if your heart is set on FX and you can afford it and the lenses to go with it, then go FX, the D750 being an excellent choice. However, if you are on a limited budget, then stick to DX, the D7200 being an excellent choice.

Some good info here. If you go to the Diffraction calculator and click on advanced, you can enter all the parameters that I have discussed, like print size, viewing distance, sensor MP, FX or DX, aperture, click calculate and it will advise if it is diffraction limited:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm


As for wide angle lenses for FX, I have both the Nikon 16-35 f4 VR and the Tamron 15-30 f2.8 VC. The Tamron is a very slightly better lens IQ-wise, but the Nikon does take filters, is lighter and smaller.

[arthurking83]

Re the filter points made by myself(and Kev).
I wasn't only referring to the usual grad or whatever filters used for exposure balance, but a CPL is also used for exposure balance.
Me without a polariser of whatever type, is like taking my camera away from me! I fumble, cry, pace up and down, and generally get totally lost without one!

I have the Sigma 12-24mm lens(which is a great lens for the price if you're interested!) and the FOV is 'unbeatable' ** .. but it struggles with filters.
I have concocted a grad filter hold that I'm 99% happy with, but there's no way to fit a polariser on it.
And when you think of polariser, don't just assume 'blue sky' too! There's more to a pol filter than just a blue sky.

.. anyhow. Even tho I have the 12-24(which is great for landscapes) .. I'm still going to get an (as wide) UWA that does take filters and importantly polarisers.

I suppose that was my point there.


.....

My point is, if your heart is set on FX and you can afford it and the lenses to go with it, then go FX, the D750 being an excellent choice. However, if you are on a limited budget, then stick to DX, the D7200 being an excellent choice.

.....

Totally agree, and I think like many of us that have made this step, I think there'll be no regrets about the change.
But on the point of the DOF advantage, wasn't so much just about the DOF, but in some very rare situations you may actually want 'more shutter speed, and that one stop advantage can be helpful.

only because this is one situation I can think of(I've had to work with) is say a fixed landscape(terrestrial) scene against a static sky(eg. starry night or whatever).
If you're stuck shooting at f/11 on Fx and need 30sec - 60sec for that correct exposure, which is roughly equal to f/8 for the same FOV on Dx, that gives you 15-30sec exposures simply because of that DOF situation. That 15-30sec is the difference between a blurry sky and a sharper looking one.

The point is not to get into the specifics of each set of conditions as such, just that sometimes it pays to know what the advantages can be for each different system type.


hope that makes sense anyhow.

And just to be sure, my vote is also for the D750 if it's an option!
It'd make the better all rounder.

[sanger]

Thanks guys and some great posts there to get through.

To Arthur I did have a query re your comment on your thoughts on DX V FX for landscapes but I think Lance has cleared that one up....I think:confused013

[arthurking83]

Thanks guys and some great posts there to get through.

To Arthur I did have a query re your comment on your thoughts on DX V FX for landscapes but I think Lance has cleared that one up....I think:confused013

If it's about diffraction effects .. seriously, I would worry too much about it for landscapes.
For macro! .. yes! .. for sure. It can make an obvious difference. Fine hairs and fine line details don't render as well once diffraction takes hold. You can counter it to a small degree with some careful sharpening, but it's not the same.
But on Landscapes, because the details are actually so small I've never viewed diffraction effects as an issue.

Then again I've never printed a 2 or 3 meter wide print, and have no reason too .. but if you do print your landscapes super enormously, or crop very heavily then diffraction is something to care about.

On my Sigma 12-24, which offers a very deep DOF at the wide end and doesn't really need a small aperture, I regularly shoot in some situations at f/22, which is way past the f/8 aperture where diffraction is noticed.
But that diffraction effect is only noticed when you view those pixel details at 100% zoom view(ie. zoomed in massively, or cropped madly).
When you view the entire image the level of detail in those pixels really make no difference.

[NRandall]

Most everything has been said, though I would reinforce the notion that Nikon's best glass is designed for FX.
I would also consider adding the 24-70 2.8 G to your list. While not an ultra-wide, I find that about 50% of my landscape images are taken with this lens.
Second most used by me is my 16-35, though I often find I wish it was a bit faster.

I still use ND filters, though only the 77mm screw in types these days, so the convenience of the standard pro 77mm front element is still a factor for me.

I would have a hard time choosing between a D7200 - better all around than my D7000; and the D750, much better for working in low light or at night than my D610.
The flip up rear screen and low light capabilities on the D750 would make it a clear winner if you shoot much at night.



Good luck with your decision.

[MissionMan]

Most everything has been said, though I would reinforce the notion that Nikon's best glass is designed for FX.
I would also consider adding the 24-70 2.8 G to your list. While not an ultra-wide, I find that about 50% of my landscape images are taken with this lens.
Second most used by me is my 16-35, though I often find I wish it was a bit faster.

I still use ND filters, though only the 77mm screw in types these days, so the convenience of the standard pro 77mm front element is still a factor for me.

I would have a hard time choosing between a D7200 - better all around than my D7000; and the D750, much better for working in low light or at night than my D610.
The flip up rear screen and low light capabilities on the D750 would make it a clear winner if you shoot much at night.



Good luck with your decision.

I agree. If the person was looking at sports, I would say the FX wouldn't be an issue and the D500 may be a better bet, but given the intention to do landscapes, I think FX makes more sense.

[danny]

+ 1 for the D750. Really enjoy mine. light, small and packs a hell of a punch. I can't comment on ultra-wide lenses, however both the tamron 24-70 and 70-200 are great lenses that will not disappoint.

If you are after FX, the D750 is certainly better than the D610 IMO. If for nothing else than the extra focus points.

To be honest, it is such a hard decision to make, something that I am sure many people on here have gone through. Deciding on glass and FX or DX.

Good Luck!