22 replies to this topic

[BonOlgirl]

Ya'll have changed my mind. I'm definitely leaning towards the D7100. I have the Nikkor 18-55 and the 55-200 that my camera came with, so I can use those with the 7100. Now, I need to decide what new lens I want next. Been doing a lot of portrait type photography, so I'm thinking a 35mm or 50mm prime...

[TBonz]

BonOlgirl,

 

I think the 7100 is an excellent choice from everything I've read about it.  I normally shoot with my D600s but I still have a D7000 and enjoy shooting it from time to time.  I'd also suggest taking a look at the 85 if you are doing a lot of portrait photography. 

[BonOlgirl]

You said that continuous frame rate is one of the big reasons you want to move beyond th D3000. The D800 only shoots 4 fps so is almost as slow as your D3000. The D800 is not built for fast continuous shooting at all. It is intended as a portrait and landscape type camera where you often don't shoot in continuous mode. You would be better off with either a D5300, D7100, or D610.

 

Yes the D800 can do a DX lens, but it severily hampers the image you get. Basically you are shooting only a portion of the image sensor and the camera "turns off" the rest of the sensor. The feature is really meant only for limited use.

 

Is there another reason you feel you want/need to move up to an FX body? There are few really legitimate reasons to move to FX bodies (holding up tomato shield now). The most important thing for your image quality is lenses by far. The D3000 body does have some definite limitations, and not just the frames per second. But most of them can be solved by going to the D5300 or the D7100. You will save a whole ton of money in the process too.

 

So what I would recommend is going with either the D5300 or the D7100. Then the first lens to get is the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens. I reviewed that lens on onewiththecamera.com blog post. It is a stunning lens and is only $500 US. I was shocked at how awesome it is. I recommend that everyone on a budget have that lens in the bag. I recommend it before the 50mm f/1.8 even. Then the next lens you would want to look at is the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 lens. That lens will run you a bit more. It is around $1,500 US. You get another tack sharp lens with a fast continuous aperture again for a fairly reasonable price. I am currently shooting a D5100 and love it. I shot some football with the 28-75mm f/2.8 lens when I rented it and was reviewing it. I don't recommend that lens for football, but for basketball it would be great. Keep in mind I was at the sidelines when I was shooting too. For sports from the stands you definitely will want the 70-200mm.

 

As far as 50mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.4 lenses, save the money if you decide to get a 50 and do the f/1.8 lens. Your depth of field is so shallow already at f/1.8 that many people get a lot of junk pictures from depth of field being too shallow and not having the focus spot on. I did a photo using my old D80 where I was like just under 2 feet away from my daughter. I got the focus point on her nose and her eyes were already out of focus. You have less than 2 inches of DoF when that close.

 

The other thing you will get with either the D5100 and up or the D7000 and up is stunning high ISO. This will revolutionize your ability to shoot lower light. I shoot my D5100 all the way to ISO 6400 with comfort. I have a photo recently that I got an honors rating at our camera club that was shot at ISO 5000 (one of the football shots with the 28-75mm Tamron lens).

 

Bottom line is if you get a D5300 body only ($800), the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 ($500), and the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 ($1,500) you will have the full set for $2,800. So for the same price as the D800 you can have a stunning new body with high ISO and two awesome FX lenses. You get 5 frames per second. You also get a camera shooting 24 megapixels and does not have the optical low pass filter so the images are even sharper.

Anyone else with thoughts about the D5300?? I've been looking at it and I like it...