Suggestion requested for Camera Body + Lens for travel/landscape photography

[Frank Fremerey]

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

[simsurace]

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.

[Akira]

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.

[Frank Fremerey]

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]

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.

[Anirban Halder]

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.

[Frank Fremerey]

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?

[Akira]

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?

[RobOK]

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.

[simsurace]

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).

[Sash]

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.

[Frank Fremerey]

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

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[Akira]

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. as well as a pro-grade DX zoom (17-55/2..  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.

[Akira]

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!