NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Camera Talk => Topic started by: Anirban Halder on August 03, 2015, 13:30:52
-
Question for experts/seniors. I’m an amateur photographer. I occasionally take pictures. Mostly I shoot when I travel on a vacation (yearly once/twice). I currently have Nikon D200 + 18-200mm VR II + 50mm f1.8.
I’ve decided to upgrade my gear and here are the options I’ve come up with.
Option#1: D610 + Sigma 14mm f2.8 (Used) + Nikkor 24-120mm F4.
Option#2: D750 + Sigma 14mm f2.8 (Used) + Nikkor 24-120mm F4
Option#2: D7200 + Nikkor 10-24mm/Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 + Nikkor 24-120mm F4
Notes:
- Why do I want to upgrade? - to take larger prints of my photos, faster AF, better wide-angle options for landscape, low light photography, less tripod usage.
- I mostly take landscape shots and I observed that focal length of all my fav compositions are within 18-120mm.
- I’m not into wildlife photography and I’m not looking for long end tele lens like 300mm.
- I like to travel light and I would like to minimize number of time I will have to switch lenses.
Question, for an amateur photographer will D750 make any difference over D610? I do take some shots in low light. For landscape/wide angle - should I even consider DX like D7200/D7100?
Is Nikkor 28-300mm a better option over 24-120mm F4 for travel/landscape? Does it provide similar results as 24-120mm F4?
Any other thoughts/suggestions most welcome. If this topic has been already discussed, please let me know the link. I will close this thread.
-
Hi Anirban, please note that your favourite 18-120mm range on DX translates to 27-180mm on FX, so the 24-120mm would be too short on a D610 or D750.
As a prime shooter I know bupkis about mentioned zoomlenses but others should be more knowledgable about these lenses.
Welcome to NG btw :)
-
It's always problematic to give advice to others about gear. Firstly, because some might believe this a a 'firm' advice to be followed to the letter, secondly because one doesn't question the conditions and alternatives specified.
I understand you like travelling light and with little gear. So far so good. One way of doing this is having a single camera and a single lens, and that lens is not a big zoom, but a fast prime instead. You will be surprised how this changes your perception of the photo opportunities and possibilities, and how it can be beneficial to your photography and the insights it'll provide of the manner you envision your subjects. A recommendation always to be tried if you feel your photography stagnates.
I would also like to challenge your preference of using (very) wide lenses for landscapes. In my mind this simply means the photographer does not decide on what details are important so convey 'everything' into the final image and let the spectator decide instead. Try using a longer lens and let it force you to be more selective.
-
The D750 is a very good choice. If you are on a budget consider a used D600 too; It will leave you another 1000 Euros for lenses.
Nikon replaces the shutter of any D600 even if it is not spilling oil on the sensor. A great camera. A real bargain currently.
Concerning lenses the 14/2.8D was never a great stunnig lens. High price slightly more than average performance.
I would consider the 20/1.8G for landscapes. Impressive lens. Can be had new for the price difference between the D750
and a used D600 in very good condition.
Then a light must have lens. The 1.8/50G. There is not more bang for the buck in Nikons lineup.
the 24-120/4.0G VR what will you use it for? Add weight?
-
It's always problematic to give advice to others about gear. Firstly, because some might believe this a a 'firm' advice to be followed to the letter, secondly because one doesn't question the conditions and alternatives specified.
I understand you like travelling light and with little gear. So far so good. One way of doing this is having a single camera and a single lens, and that lens is not a big zoom, but a fast prime instead. You will be surprised how this changes your perception of the photo opportunities and possibilities, and how it can be beneficial to your photography and the insights it'll provide of the manner you envision your subjects. A recommendation always to be tried if you feel your photography stagnates.
I would also like to challenge your preference of using (very) wide lenses for landscapes. In my mind this simply means the photographer does not decide on what details are important so convey 'everything' into the final image and let the spectator decide instead. Try using a longer lens and let it force you to be more selective.
Thank you Bjørn sir. I never thought about both the points you mentioned. Now that I think of it, it so much makes sense. I’m totally going to think it over the lens choices that I would want to carry. These are exactly the kind of suggestions I was expecting in this forum. Thank you Nikongear and thanks again Bjørn.
-
Hi Anirban, please note that your favourite 18-120mm range on DX translates to 27-180mm on FX, so the 24-120mm would be too short on a D610 or D750.
As a prime shooter I know bupkis about mentioned zoomlenses but others should be more knowledgable about these lenses.
Welcome to NG btw :)
Thanks Jan. Good point to keep in mind!
-
The D750 is a very good choice. If you are on a budget consider a used D600 too; It will leave you another 1000 Euros for lenses.
Nikon replaces the shutter of any D600 even if it is not spilling oil on the sensor. A great camera. A real bargain currently.
Concerning lenses the 14/2.8D was never a great stunnig lens. High price slightly more than average performance.
I would consider the 20/1.8G for landscapes. Impressive lens. Can be had new for the price difference between the D750
and a used D600 in very good condition.
Then a light must have lens. The 1.8/50G. There is not more bang for the buck in Nikons lineup.
the 24-120/4.0G VR what will you use it for? Add weight?
Thanks much, Frank. Great suggestions. I'm seriously considering D610. Nikon service center has real bad reputation in our city, so I don't want to take any chances with D600. And, D600 isn't easily available anyway.
20/1.8G - I will certainly consider. I already have the 1.8/50D AF, which is also a gem.
the 24-120/4.0G VR what will you use it for? Add weight?
I'm used to shooting with an 18-200mm VR II. Hence I was thinking replacing it with a 24-120mm will be a smoother transition on a FX body. Although I totally get your point.
-
The 20/1.8 should also be put on the 'gem' list.
-
I'm used to shooting with an 18-200mm VR II. Hence I was thinking replacing it with a 24-120mm will be a smoother transition on a FX body.
And there's nothing wrong with that, some favour the freedom of having a zoom range for practicality reasons where others favour creative freedom in the wider aperture range only fast prime lenses provide :)
In the end only the results count and only you can decide what works for you.
But talking about prime lenses, I mainly use a 14/2.8, 35/1.4, 50/1.2 and a 125/2.5 on a full frame camera.
As you mentioned wanting a 14/2.8, here's a topic about the excellent and cheap as dirt Samyang 14/2.8:
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?topic=3.0 (http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?topic=3.0)
-
Cool. Thanks Jan! The Samyang 14mm results are awesome. Extremely impressive.
-
I had the 1.4/50AI, the 1.8/50D, The 1.4/50G and the 1.8/50G. I also shot a direct comparsion with the
legendary 2.0/50AI. Of all of these the 1.8/50G is the best. It offers a crazy dreamy rendering fully open
and is very good from 2.8 til 8.0. It is not only the best but also the cheapest in this field. 130 Euro is nothing
for such a performance even on hi res bodies.
The D610 is the same as the D600. Where do you live? Maybe sending the D600 to service elsewhere is a good idea?
-
I have the 24-120 f4 on the Nikon Df and I love the combo. From my way of thinking, I would like smaller/lighter for travel. So much so I been looking at Fuji Xt-1, although I'm not sure it is THAT much smaller than a Df.
As mentioned above, for travel you might think about two primes and not the zoom? For my tastes, the 24-120 gets heavy after a few hours.
-
The D610 is the same as the D600. Where do you live? Maybe sending the D600 to service elsewhere is a good idea?
Thanks Frank for 50mm comparison.
Regarding D600 - I personally don't want to buy a camera which Nikon themselves agreed that it has oil & dust issues. Yes, Nikon will fix it for free and may be chances are low that my sample will have problems; but why would I even take that chance and all the headache associated. For eg: I go on month long vacations. I can't/don't want to send it for servicing in the middle of vacations etc etc. In fact, we are discussing about service center even before buying the camera - that's the kind of camera is D600, I feel. Just for sheer peace of mind and better resale value, I would go for D610 which is couple hundred bucks extra. Again, this is entirely my personal opinion.
-
I have the 24-120 f4 on the Nikon Df and I love the combo.
Thanks Rob. If you please share little more of the results you are getting from 24-120, that would be very nice. Do you have a link where shots are already uploaded?
-
I had a D700 and switched to a D750 not too long ago. I'm quite impressed with the D750.
-
If you buy new go for the D750. It features a really fast an reliable AF system which is said to outperform the
D4s even. The D610 is in no respect better than a serviced D600. So you could buy a D600 that already had the
shutter replaced which means no service ahead.
Sorry to be so insiting but I use the D600 every day for work and leisure and it is a great camera.
The PR problems Nikon caused with the unprofessional handling of the issue only affecting 25% of cameras does
not make the D600 a bad camera. BUT. As a buyer you can profit from the bad reputation and save money.
plus: do not think about selling digital bodies. It is not as it was in the olden days where a used Nikon Film body
could cash in about the same amount third hand you paid for it second hand.
My D3 is worth a bit more than 1000Euros today and I paid 4000Euros for it new in 2008. Also the prices for the lesser
models are in bad shape.
So get new current glass and one or two used bodies for a bargain price. Both parts will be relatively stable in resale.
Frank
-
I second Frank's suggestion to go with a D600/D610 instead of D750 for your use case. Pick up a used D600 which has already been serviced to save yourself the trouble. Unless money is of no concern, you can invest the savings in either another nice lens, a nice travel tripod you will gladly take out, or a nice set of filters (NDs and polarizer). I know that you wrote that you want to leverage the large sensor advantage to minimize tripod usage, but in my experience this doesn't quite work out. In order to take advantage of the large dynamic range in interesting light (which is mostly not in the middle of the day), you will want to shoot at base ISO, requiring a tripod despite the larger sensor. I would definitely keep the 50/1.8 for candid low light shots and maybe add a 28/1.8, 35/1.8 or 85/1.8 depending on which focal length suits you better.
-
I've been pretty much satisfied with 50mm on FX or 35mm on DX for most of everything since the film days.
I've also found difficulty in achieving corner to corner sharpness with 50/1.8G with D610 even stopping down to f5.6. On the other hand, I need to stop down 35/1.8ED to f4.0 or even just to f2.8 to get the averall sharp images on D7000.
Considering that FX has about 1 stop advantage in terms of noise performance, DX body and 35mm lens combo seems to be very handy, unless you go for Df and 50/1.8G.
In addition, thanks to today's advanced stitching ability of photo editors like Photomerge in Photoshop CC, you can capture pretty wide landscapes with a 35/1.8 lens on DX, which help me keep my equipment lightweight.
-
Akira. If that is so visit service. Either the 1.8/50G is decentered or you have some issue with the bayonet or sensor.
At 2.8 you should see sharpness over the whole frame.
-
Akira. If that is so visit service. Either the 1.8/50G is decentered or you have some issue with the bayonet or sensor.
Frank, I bought both D610 and 50/1.8G new, and the lens found difficulty in rendering sharp image in the right 1/5 area when focused at near-infinity.
Over the years, I have been experiencing factory defect Nikon lenses bought new, and Nikon failed to repair. I'm fairly skeptical about the QC. The most terrible one was 17-55/2.8 bought new which was both decentered and defocused. Nikon couldn't fix the problem. I returned the lens and never looked back. I was reluctant to send my 50/1.8G to repair.
My current 35/1.8ED seems to be a proper sample, though.
-
So get new current glass and one or two used bodies for a bargain price. Both parts will be relatively stable in resale.
Frank
Frank - You really made me think about D600. I'm checking if I can get any used one in my city. Otherwise I might go for D610 (used). Thanks so much for your valuable inputs.
... In order to take advantage of the large dynamic range in interesting light (which is mostly not in the middle of the day), you will want to shoot at base ISO, requiring a tripod despite the larger sensor. I would definitely keep the 50/1.8 for candid low light shots and maybe add a 28/1.8, 35/1.8 or 85/1.8 depending on which focal length suits you better.
Simone - thank you too for the suggestions.
-
Akira. If that is so visit service. Either the 1.8/50G is decentered or you have some issue with the bayonet or sensor.
Frank, I bought both D610 and 50/1.8G new, and the lens found difficulty in rendering sharp image in the right 1/5 area when focused at near-infinity. Over the years, I have been experiencing factory defect Nikon lenses bought new, and Nikon failed to repair. I'm fairly skeptical about the QC. The most terrible one was 17-55/2.8 bought new which was both decentered and defocused. Nikon couldn't fix the problem. I returned the lens and never looked back. I was reluctant to send my 50/1.8G to repair.
Sorry to hear about your trouble. It sounds like a decentering issue. I once had such trouble and hat the bajonets replaced on two lenses and one camera. So it can also be this. In my case trouble was gone afterwards.
Did you try diferent copies of the 1.8/50G?
-
Did you try diferent copies of the 1.8/50G?
No, I just decided to stay with DX and use the "sweet spot" of FX lenses. As Ilkka pointed out elsewhere, there is a potential flare issue due to too large an image circle, but that can be manageable.
Now you have 50/1.8G, how far do you have to stop it down to achieve sharpe image corner to corner, when focused at distance (meaning, DOF is not the issue) or at fairly flat objects like buildings?
-
I have the 24-120 f4 on the Nikon Df and I love the combo.
Thanks Rob. If you please share little more of the results you are getting from 24-120, that would be very nice. Do you have a link where shots are already uploaded?
I have a family holiday album that is mostly 24-120 f4. The pool shots are not, they are 70-300. The sparkler light drawing are 50 1.8G. I think everything else is. http://photo.robertokeefe.com/p319763150
Ironically I recently turned off my galleries from showing EXIF, if you are interested I can turn it back on, its a simple setting in Zenfolio.
-
Now you have 50/1.8G, how far do you have to stop it down to achieve sharpe image corner to corner, when focused at distance (meaning, DOF is not the issue) or at fairly flat objects like buildings?
The 50/1.8G, when properly aligned, should be very sharp on 24mp FX sensors already at moderately closed apertures (f/4 and such), also at a distance. At larger apertures there definitely is some residual spherical aberration (although I guess that the aspherical design greatly reduces those over, say, the 50/1.4G). I don't have any systematic tests, but I think at distance mine is even slightly sharper in the corners than my 60/2.8G. But I would question the wisdom of shooting distant buildings at large apertures :). If you want to be picky, it's hard (if not impossible) to find a lens that is equally sharp center to corner on 24mp FX, even at small apertures, and especially at such a low price as the 50/1.8G. You're right that using DX can give you the general advantage of more homogeneity of sharpness over the image frame. On DX you will find a host of FX lenses that are sharp enough such that you cannot reliably distinguish the DX corners from the center (also with regards to distortion). With FX, this is seen in only a few lenses (think Zeiss Otus, 135 Apo, 200/2G and other super-teles).
-
A full frame camera and travelling light never go together in my view. Whatever the lense, by taking a FF body with you, you are effectively putting a brick into your bag.
If all I needed to shoot was landscapes and street or urban shots, I would have taken Ricoh GR. You can put it in your pocket, even your shirt pocket, it has a very strong magnesium alloy body (I dropped it twice on the pavement, not even a scratch) , an excellent 18 mm lense, all controls of a good DSLR, and it will give you a wonderful image quality.
Once you realise how good this little camera is and how much freedom of shooting it gives you, you will be laughing all you journey.
-
Now you have 50/1.8G, how far do you have to stop it down to achieve sharpe image corner to corner, when focused at distance (meaning, DOF is not the issue) or at fairly flat objects like buildings?
I will check and show ASAP
-
Strangely, some find handling a bigger and/or heavier camera easier and better... So the recipe of small/light is beautiful is not universally applicable.
What *is* important, however, is pre-planning and pre-visualising any trip to find the minimum gear set required. People tending to bring everything is what I all too often observe on my workshops.
-
The 50/1.8G, when properly aligned, should be very sharp on 24mp FX sensors already at moderately closed apertures (f/4 and such), also at a distance. At larger apertures there definitely is some residual spherical aberration (although I guess that the aspherical design greatly reduces those over, say, the 50/1.4G). I don't have any systematic tests, but I think at distance mine is even slightly sharper in the corners than my 60/2.8G. But I would question the wisdom of shooting distant buildings at large apertures :). If you want to be picky, it's hard (if not impossible) to find a lens that is equally sharp center to corner on 24mp FX, even at small apertures, and especially at such a low price as the 50/1.8G. You're right that using DX can give you the general advantage of more homogeneity of sharpness over the image frame. On DX you will find a host of FX lenses that are sharp enough such that you cannot reliably distinguish the DX corners from the center (also with regards to distortion). With FX, this is seen in only a few lenses (think Zeiss Otus, 135 Apo, 200/2G and other super-teles).
Simone, thanks for you imput. I needed corner-to-corner sharpness focused at distance without stopping down too much when I shot nightscapes with the moon in the sky. When the shutter speed is to slow, the moon is blurred. (yes, the moon travels unexpectedly fast!) I didn't want to raise ISO too much either because of the noise.
As for the decentering, I had sad experiences with 40/2.8 micro "twice". I shot a landscape fro the test in which there were objects in similar distances spreading along the entire width of the frame. Both 40/2.8 (each of them was bought with about one year of interval, so they are very likely to be from different lots) suffered from smearing images in the right 1/5 portion of the framne. The cameras used was different D7000 bodies. I took each to Nikon service right after the test shooting with the troubled image in USB memories. The result was the same each time: the rep said the lens was built within Nikon's tolerance.
All these happened with pretty simple and apparently easy to built lenses (50/1.8 and 40/2.8) as well as a pro-grade DX zoom (17-55/2.8). So, very unfortunately, I'm quite skeptical about the QC of Nikon. I've had similar experience with canon (again, the simple 40/2.8, although I didn't take it to Canon service). Oh, well.
-
Now you have 50/1.8G, how far do you have to stop it down to achieve sharpe image corner to corner, when focused at distance (meaning, DOF is not the issue) or at fairly flat objects like buildings?
I will check and show ASAP
Frank, much appreciated!
-
Strangely, some find handling a bigger and/or heavier camera easier and better... So the recipe of small/light is beautiful is not universally applicable.
What *is* important, however, is pre-planning and pre-visualising any trip to find the minimum gear set required. People tending to bring everything is what I all too often observe on my workshops.
Yes , it is very personal indeed. I have slim wrists and find large FF bodies uncomfortable to carry around and shoot with for a long period of time. Then again, there is a huge difference in shooting landscapes where you have all time in the world compared to street, where you literally often have a split second. I think ultimately one can get used to any camera. But I would choose a smaller/lighter one on any day, never mind travelling. Back to my good old little Ricoh GR. I only had a second to shoot this one. The first image is obviously an ultra heavy crop of the large one below :
-
Simone, thanks for you imput. I needed corner-to-corner sharpness focused at distance without stopping down too much when I shot nightscapes with the moon in the sky. When the shutter speed is to slow, the moon is blurred. (yes, the moon travels unexpectedly fast!) I didn't want to raise ISO too much either because of the noise.
You could do two exposures to achieve that. In order to get details in the moon (not sure you want that, but you can easily blow them if not), you need fairly fast shutter speeds (after all, the sunlit surface of the moon is almost as bright as a sunlit rock on earth). You can combine that with a longer exposure for the cityscape. I've never tried to do such a shot with a 50, only with longer lenses (like 180 or so, which needs more stopping down to get both moon and landscape in focus, or two exposures as above, but with an additional refocus inbetween). I'm curious how the 50/1.8G would pull it off.
I understand your frustration with QC and tolerances which are too big, I too hope these aspects will improve over time.
-
This is one of the nightscapes I took with 50/1.8G and D610. ISO100, f5.6, 6sec. The top and bottom was trimmed. In this particular image, the entire image is pretty sharp. The moon is rendered oval due to its movement.
-
I have a family holiday album that is mostly 24-120 f4…
Thanks for sharing Rob. Great shots. Lively colours.
A full frame camera and traveling light never go together in my view. Whatever the lense, by taking a FF body with you, you are effectively putting a brick into your bag.
Thanks for your inputs Sash. Ricoh GR looks like a great camera and then there are mirrors options. Somewhere I need to make up my mind. And, I’ve done that - I want to go for a FX. Like Bjørn mentioned, weight and size are personal choices too. For me anything heavier than D200 and 18-200mm combo is “heavy”. So based on that D750 should suit me well I hope unless I put a 70-200mm f2.8 in it.
I very much agree with you about the difference between street and landscape.
Mostly I travel with family (with a little kid). So, I usually don’t get lot of dedicated time to compose or change gear. Hence, personally having a street zoom helps me a lot for candid shots. For e.g. below ones - if I had to change gear, I would have missed few of them. Sometime they are not super-sharp images, but cool memories!
-
I'm not sure what memory you are capturing in the last one!!! LOL - kidding!
-
Oh, that's the true memory of vacation, Rob! LOL!
-
Santorini?
-
Yes Bjørn, Santorini. All four of them.
-
This is one of the nightscapes I took with 50/1.8G and D610. ISO100, f5.6, 6sec. The top and bottom was trimmed. In this particular image, the entire image is pretty sharp. The moon is rendered oval due to its movement.
This does not look too bad. Now it is already hard for me to see the ovalness of the moon, at least at this size. I suspect that going to ISO 400 and 1.5sec would have made it almost imperceptible. Noise should not be a problem at ISO400, and you can maintain f5.6 to achieve excellent sharpness.
-
This does not look too bad. Now it is already hard for me to see the ovalness of the moon, at least at this size. I suspect that going to ISO 400 and 1.5sec would have made it almost imperceptible. Noise should not be a problem at ISO400, and you can maintain f5.6 to achieve excellent sharpness.
Strange to say, I think you are right. I remembered this image as an example of the smeared image in the 1/5 of the frame, but the distant buildings seems to be fairly sharp across the entire width. The image is not trimmed sideways. I would have to review the images taken with the same combo.
-
It is still possible that you had a misaligned copy, or that the bajonet of the camera was misaligned. It is not the easiest shot to pull off also because of coma. I once tried a similar one with the 35/2 ZF lens at f/2. In the corners, the performance on point light sources is not satisfactory. I ended up taking two shots and stitching them, avoiding the corners altogether. Also your shot could be accomplished as a panorama of vertical shots with a long focal length, maybe 180mm or so. You would have hundreds of megapixels to downsample from, yielding a very good image quality.
-
It is still possible that you had a misaligned copy, or that the bajonet of the camera was misaligned. It is not the easiest shot to pull off also because of coma. I once tried a similar one with the 35/2 ZF lens at f/2. In the corners, the performance on point light sources is not satisfactory. I ended up taking two shots and stitching them, avoiding the corners altogether. Also your shot could be accomplished as a panorama of vertical shots with a long focal length, maybe 180mm or so. You would have hundreds of megapixels to downsample from, yielding a very good image quality.
A DX body and FX lens combo eliminates the coma problem efficiently. That's partially why I ended up with my current combo. Also, you are spot on by mentioning pano, because that's exactly what I enjoy doing that, thanks to the improvement of Photomerge in Adobe CC.
-
I think the biggest advantage of the D750 over the D600/610 is the AF, which is one of your stated objectives for upgrading, although I don't think that your stated usage should be very demanding of fast AF...
I recently acquired the D750 (upgrading from D7000) and 24-120 f4. I think this lens is very good, but it is quite bulky and heavy. It is bigger and heavier than three or four of the short primes from the film era. But for my usage for this lens, the ability to zoom more rapidly than I can walk is quite valuable.
-
Thanks for the feedback. I've been looking for an used D610 at a reasonable price. Been unsuccessful so far.
-
Call me names.. but I finally purchased a Fuji X-T10. I will certainly buy a D750 (or similar body) in future but for various reasons (budget and Fuji glass quality are key among them) I went ahead with Fuji for the time-being.
-
Anirban, no one will blame you for going for non-Nikon camras here (although I know you are joking). Hope you enjoy whatever you liked and chose!
Recently I went for Olymus (well, m4/3 more properly). The portability and the budget are some of the main reasons.
-
Be sure to tell us your experiences and impressions.... many in the Nikon camp hear the calling of Fuji!!!
-
I did a somewhat similar move: from D700 to X-T1 mostly with my MF nikkors.
Yesterday I picked up the D700 for the first time in 5 months and couldn't believe how heavy it was!
Still struggling on the RAF conversions though.