[Closed] Help me upgrade from my stolen Nikon body and Kit-lens

If I had a grand to spend on a camera it'd be an Olympus OM-D 🙂

I have the D7000 and it's excellent. A good step up from the D90 (I went from the D80).

After than it gets expensive and once you get to FX bodies the prices jump esp the lenses.

it'd be an Olympus OM-D

As I say, I already have a Nikon lens, and like the layout of Nikon.
There are other makes besides Nikon and Canon? 😉

I'd get a full frame camera. 😀

I'd get a full frame camera

Can you elaborate on the reasons why though? Part of what keeps me in DX is the actual physical size is a bit smaller, and better for lugging about on the bike..

Can you elaborate on the reasons why though? Part of what keeps me in DX is the actual physical size is a bit smaller, and better for lugging about on the bike..

Yep, I have FX and DX and the FX is too heavy / expensive to shove in a Camelbak and ride all day, so I use the DX for that.

Can you elaborate on the reasons why though? Part of what keeps me in DX is the actual physical size is a bit smaller, and better for lugging about on the bike..

If a compact system is what you're after I wouldn't look at a dslr. Molgrips suggestion is interesting, but you'll spend much more on lenses than you would with a nikon FF to get equivalent results.

Yep, I have FX and DX and the FX is too heavy / expensive to shove in a Camelbak and ride all day, so I use the DX for that.

If you're staying with Nikon then just get whatever you can afford. There's not much else to say... The D7100 seems so often to be lauded as the 'best' amateur DSLR around (including price as a factor) and I doubt you'll find yourself feeling short-changed.

I use a D7000 and a D600, by the way. If you have any specific questions, I'll be glad to try and answer them.

I had a very brief idea that I'd go full-frame and looked at the D600, which has a lot of good points but also seems to fall a bit flat in some reviews.

Forget the 'reviews'; the D600 is a fantastic camera. The larger sensor means much better low-light capability. As for physical size; the D600 is barely bigger than the D7100, as both share very similar bodies. If you want a small DSLR, get a D3200 or a Canon 100D.

Full frame will cost you a lot more though. There's a good reason for that; it's better.

Nikon does a cheap full frame I'd find it an irresistible option.

But their f2.8 lenses aren't cheap or light, whereas you can smaller, lighter and much cheaper f2.8 DX lenses.

Mate of mine has the Nikon full frame. Can't remember which one. The quality is amazing, but the photo's he took at my wedding range from 9.9Mb to over 15Mb for JPEG!!
For pro use, sure, go for it. But for enthusiast use - the D7000 is a belter and the 7100 is supposed to be a fair amount better than it.

I'd be spending the money on the D7100. Not sure about lens though. Keep looking to upgrade my kit lens but can't decide what I'd go for.

Full frame will cost you a lot more though. There's a good reason for that; it's better.

Do the comparisons. You need faster lenses on aps-c to get the same noise and depth of field. I've found FF lenses are cheaper than the equivalent aps-c lenses.

But their f2.8 lenses aren't cheap or light, whereas you can smaller, lighter and much cheaper f2.8 DX lenses.

Or you could get the same results on ff with a small, cheap f4 lens.

I've found FF lenses are cheaper than the equivalent aps-c lenses.

I'm using my old Nikkors, so for me at least, FF has actually been a lot cheaper. 😉

I'm talking about the bodies; the D7100 is about £800 if you shop around, whilst the D600 more like £1400. That's a big difference. Worth it though.

Molgrips suggestion is interesting, but you'll spend much more on lenses than you would with a nikon FF to get equivalent results

It depends on what kind of results you are after. If you want to pixel peep, then this is not far off. But if you want to take a weather sealed camera out on your bike, I struggle to see any advantage of the 7100. IQ of both is similar, the cost similar money and the OM-D is much smaller.

EDIT Actually, if you look on [url= http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusem5/19 ]dpreview's studio scene comparison[/url] the OM-D seems to be quite a lot better than the D7100 even at ISO 12800. That surprises me actually!

My preferred Camelbak photo kit is a D7000 and an f2.8 17-50 if it's cloudy and the Nikon 18-200 f3.5-f5.6 if it's sunny. Can happily ride all day with that and it's pretty compact / robust.

It depends on what kind of results you are after. If you want to pixel peep, then this is not far off. But if you want to take a weather sealed camera out on your bike, I struggle to see any advantage of the 7100. IQ of both is similar, the cost similar money and the OM-D is much smaller.

EDIT Actually, if you look on dpreview's studio scene comparison the OM-D seems to be quite a lot better than the D7100 even at ISO 12800. That surprises me actually!

Unless you're going pro or using it in a non-bike capacity (as it not lugging it about in a hydration pack), I really would stick with a DX.

I recently bought a second-hand D300 which I've used alongside my D90 (how pro am I?) It is definitely a nicer camera, but I wouldn't want to go any bigger to lug around. As it is, if I take an SLR on the bike (I normally don't) I'd probably grab the D90.

As it is I've lost touch a little with DSLR world, so can't comment on the 7000 or its competitors. 🙁

kayak23 - Member

I have another Nikon lens and I am very familiar with the system so [b]am looking to stay with Nikon.[/b]

molgrips - Member
If I had a grand to spend on a camera it'd be [b]an Olympus OM-D[/b]

kayak23 - Member

As I say, [b]I already have a Nikon lens, and like the layout of Nikon.[/b]

molgrips - Member

But if you want to take a weather sealed camera out on your bike, I struggle to see any advantage of the 7100. IQ of both is similar, the cost similar money and the OM-D is much smaller.

Is it just me, or.......?! 🙄

He's an evangelist! 😉

You probably want to compare actual iso with claimed. Olympus was overstating by a factor of 2 previously.

As opposed to about 1.5 for Nikon. But there's no way that'd be enough to persuade me to carry almost twice the weight around.

He's an evangelist!

I'm a fanboi, there's a difference 🙂 I just feel sorry for companies who produce great kit but get overlooked. The OP only has one Nikon lens, so he's hardly tied in.

As opposed to about 1.5 for Nikon.

Of course, there's the new EM-1 too.. *drool* Costly tho.

D7000 is a nice camer to use. Prefered it to the D90 and overall I think it was better than the D300.
If it wasn't for the DX chip I'd prefer it to the D800 as the frame reate is higher. Apart from the 800 having better low light performance and being sharper when used above 3200iso for the money the 7000 is better value for money.
As for camera's the D90 is one of the few I've actaully destroyed!

Lenses is a question on how much you or the bos is prepared to spend.
Never like the mega zooms 6-500mm type things that start at F11 and go up to god know what.
Iid kee the range short, even go for a prime 35mm lens. It'll be sharper then save up for a used 80-200 which will be much sharper. Forget the bit in the middle, just take a step forward or back.

The OP only has one Nikon lens, so he's hardly tied in.

Well, I 'Liked' Nikon on Facebook too so, you know.... pretty tied in there.. 😉

I think that full frame may just be prohibitively expensive for me just now and perhaps not ideal for where I carry it. As of yet, I've not actually done anything much with my photos beyond viewing them on my computer and photo books so maybe a massive degree of detail isn't so crucial?

Plus, the 35mm prime I have won't work with the full frame will it? I love that lens too.

I'm quite liking the sound of the d7100, but I guess it's more the lens I'm unsure of.

I suggested the 35mm as is its not as expensive as a 20 28 or 24mm lens. Don't forget a 50mm isn't a 50 on a dx camera. 28 to 35 is more like a standard on a dx chip. It'll be sharper than a sharp thing too.
Try a few and see which you like.

If I had a chance to upgrade my D90 (I love my d90 btw) I would seriously look at the D600 with a 50mm f 1.4 a 70-300vr and the 28mm f2.8

Plus maybe a Tamron 90mm macro

OP - do you have to go for new? As a D700 at a nice price would leave you more to spend on lenses?

D7000/D7100 have the auto focus drive screw for the older Nikon lenses which opens up your options a bit.

I would seriously consider a mirrorless camera of any kind rather than a DSLR if you are just going to be viewing on the computer or printing out at less than A2 or so. My wife just sold her first poster 20x30in, looked fine, customer was chuffed, it was taken on a compact.

D7000/D7100 have the auto focus drive screw for the older Nikon lenses which opens up your options a bit.

Pretty much every model since the D40 has had this.....

D7000/D7100 have the auto focus drive screw for the older Nikon lenses which opens up your options a bit.

Perhaps you mean that the AF drive is in the camera body, rather than relying on the lens having AF motors?

molgrips - Member
I would seriously consider a mirrorless camera of any kind rather than a DSLR

Not considering a compact but thanks. I had a Nikon d40 for years and loved it. When it broke I got the d90. I liked it but strangely the colour rendering never seemed as good as the d40.
Now the d90 has gone, I want another dslr. I think you have much more creative scope with them.

mikey-simmo - Member
I suggested the 35mm as is its not as expensive as a 20 28 or 24mm lens. Don't forget a 50mm isn't a 50 on a dx camera. 28 to 35 is more like a standard on a dx chip.

ski - Member
If I had a chance to upgrade my D90 (I love my d90 btw) I would seriously look at the D600 with a 50mm f 1.4 a 70-300vr and the 28mm f2.8

Plus maybe a Tamron 90mm macro

A full frame AND four lenses? Kerching!

OP - do you have to go for new? As a D700 at a nice price would leave you more to spend on lenses?

Yup, as I mentioned, it has to be on credit as I don't have the cash.

95% of image quality these days on like for like DSLR's is down to the photographer and their knowledge of the equipment they use, 4% the lens and 1% the actual camera.

To say a FF is a stop better than a APS-C isn't necessarily true either - check DXO labs for full sensor specifications etc and you will see that.

Bear in mind an APS-C camera is generally better for portraiture, telephoto etc due to the 'crop' factor of the sensor (bit misleading but using common parlance), tend to be cheaper and the images are a more manageable size.

If you are sticking with Nikon go the D7100 route and put the money you save over an FF on decent glass.

My tuppence worth...

Cheers

Danny B

Thanks Danny B, makes sense. What glass would you recommend?

My wife just sold her first poster 20x30in, looked fine, customer was chuffed, it was taken on a compact.

You do realise that most of the quality of a photo is down to the photographer and not the camera. You can take great photos on an iPhone, but it doesn't mean everyone should only use iPhones as cameras.....

Probably the largest print I've had used commercially was taken with an £80 IXUS, ended up on an Oakley trade stand at a show in Germany. I still prefer using a decent DSLR over a compact any day.

To say a FF is a stop better than a APS-C isn't necessarily true either - check DXO labs for full sensor specifications etc and you will see that.

Bear in mind an APS-C camera is generally better for portraiture, telephoto etc due to the 'crop' factor of the sensor (bit misleading but using common parlance), tend to be cheaper and the images are a more manageable size.

I've no idea what your rationale for better portraits from apsc might be. Having less depth of field control is not a good thing, and portraits would be a prime area where control is desirable.

Telephoto is debatable. That assumes a change in pixel density rather than format and demands higher quality lenses to make the most of the extra density.

Images of a manageable size is only an issue if you have an obsolete pc.

Footflaps, my point was that stressing over IQ at pixel level is not as important as people seem to think.

I think you have much more creative scope with them.

DSLR vs compact, yes. DSLR vs mirrorless, there is far less in it, if anything. Mirrorless are just SLRs without the mirror.

Portraiture on APS-C is generally easier and cheaper as you do not need such a long lens. Depth of Field control on modern APS-C sensors is absolutely fine for such things.

Sure, if you're a pro with a studio setup go FF but I imagine the OP isn't and therefore I stand by my comments.

Kayak - with regards to lenses - apologies I am not a Nikon shooter but didn't feel it worth trying to convert you to Sony!

The best you can afford is all I can suggest and don't dismiss lenses from Sigma and Tamron (Tamron's 90mm macro lens is held in very high regard).

Find a good independent camera shop and see what they suggest.

If you do want converting to Sony let me know and I will happily preach from the Gospel!!

Cheers

Danny B

Yes I know OP said Nikon. However it seems a large group of people never look outside of Nikon/Canon. Probably partly because of their [relatively] huge marketing presence.

So here's my hornet inducing snippet 😆 :

The Pentax K-5 at its current price a relative steal. 400-550 quid. It'll blow anything in that price range out of the water.

Any lens you fit is stabilised on the Pentax DSLRs. Weather resistance and magnesium body on the K-5 - its built like a tank:

For those that get bogged down with numbers its very strong (technology isn't the only part of a good picture though):

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Reviews/DxOMark-review-for-the-Pentax-K5

The best APS-C in all tested fields
No need for suspense: this new 16.3 MP sensor is simply the best APS-C we have tested so far, sometimes able to compete even with very high-end full-frame cameras.
The overall score of the K5 puts it in the lead with 82 points — more than 9 points better than the D90 or the Alpha 55, and 16 points ahead of the Canon 7D or 60D. The K5 is literally the best APS-C performer for each segment, even in low ISO.

Portraiture on APS-C is generally easier and cheaper as you do not need such a long lens. Depth of Field control on modern APS-C sensors is absolutely fine for such things

Depth of field has nothing to do with whether a sensor is modern or not, it's purely a function of distance to subject, aperture, field of view and format.

Asp-c may well be completely adequate for portraiture, but to suggest it's superior to ff is just wrong.

Get a blue one with knobs on. Choice made.

Depth of field has nothing to do with whether a sensor is modern or not, it's purely a function of distance to subject, aperture, field of view and format.

You are both right - but I think Danny's point might be that the modern sensors in some cases allow you to crank up the ISO (to some extent). Therefore allowing you to use a smaller aperture (which will affect DoF) and higher ISO and still get usable results.

A lot of people stick to base-to-800 ISO. Some people can produce clean images right up to 3200, depending on setup.

You are both right - but I think Danny's point might be that the modern sensors in some cases allow you to crank up the ISO (to some extent). Therefore allowing you to use a smaller aperture (which will affect DoF) and higher ISO and still get usable results.

Discussing 'modern' sensors is meaningless. If you're comparing ff to apsc you'll be comparing sensors of the same generation. If you want to compare old ff sensors with newer apsc sensors then they may well be a match for or even superior is all aspects, except for depth of field control. Hence my continued bewilderment that anyone would suggest apsc is a superior choice for portraits.

Not sure any of this is really relevant. My sensor is smaller than aps-c and even with 35mm f3.5 I don't even get a person's whole face in focus. How shallow DoF do you want?

Need Danny to clarify his views. But for a lot of people FF is overkill, both £££ and the size/weight etc.

Danny is probably saying a modern crop sensor is good enough for a lot of peoples needs. But we need him to clarify 🙂

A sweet spot for a lens to obtain best IQ is not necessarily wide-open though.

The internet has lots of low DoF images. For instance at f1.4. This makes some people furious. I don't care much myself - as humans do all sorts of things and disagree over all sorts - it really grates with some though.

Can of worms

How the camera handles from its weight (with lens) plus its button placements.

What annoys me about the D7000 is the placement of the WB and ISO buttons which isn't fixed in the D7100 other than that everything falls easily to hand. I've also got an OM-D which with the additional grip handles quite well apart from the odd placement of the power button.

The Nikon has the superior focusing for moving objects, the Olympus is quicker focusing for static items. The Nikon is easier to get DoF the Olympus is harder not to get everything in focus you can shoot wide open most of the time.

The Olympus has in built image stabilisation (like Pentax) which means with a suitable adapter you can use just about any lense. It's also a lot lighter than the Nikon but the battery charge lasts a fraction of the time of the Nikon.

Picture there's nothing really in it, I just use what is suitable at the time or what is to hand or charged.

Go for what you feel comfy with and enjoy oh and don't forget Tokina for a lens choice too, I'm mulling over the 11-16mm and as my D7000 has the internal auto focus motor to drive the older lenses that lack an internal autofocus motor I should be able to save a few quid.

The point is with aps c is that a 50mm lens gives the equivalent field if view as an 80-85mm lens on an ff camera, a 130ish equiv from a 90mm lens etc so for the average photographer who wants versatility ff can be complete overkill.

The three manufacturers I have had experience of (Canon, Nikon, Sony) all do a budget 50mm f1.8 lens (all around £90) and that on an aps c body is perfect to get in to portraiture.

A pro in a studio of course will want ff or even medium format but the expense / weight outweighs the benefit a hobby shooter is likely to get from such a set up compared to a good aps c body and excellent glass.

I had the option to go ff when I upgraded my camera but stuck to aps c. The sensors now are excellent, low light performance very good and the cost manageable. DoF is plenty good enough and controllable enough for most situations.

Plus, it is so important to remember that give an aps c camera to a pro and he / she will take better photos than a hobbyist with the worlds best ff set up.

Cheers

Danny B

the Olympus is harder not to get everything in focus you can shoot wide open most of the time.

With the Oly lenses there isn't much penalty in using max aperture. Plus it's not hard to get the background blurred really, even with the kit lens. But then again I've never tried FF 🙂

Just don't discount anything by looking at stats and theories, that's all I'm saying.

Just aside from the raging debate, my D600 is smaller and MUCH lighter than my other full frame Nikons. Almost feels like a toy in comparison.

In your position (OP) I'd be going FF every time. The 35mm lens you have is very well reviewed but the full frame 35mm f2 lens is cheap, readily available and also pretty good.

Glass-wise, if you're sticking it in a rucksack on rides, stick with a prime or sacrifice quality and compactness and get a 3rd party superzoom.

If you're looking to be shooting action stuff in gloomy woods, you will love the high ISO capabilities of full frame.

Just read that the D600 is 6mm longer and just 85g heavier than the D7100. So size really isn't an issue here.

One very important consideration is image file size. The D600 can produce RAW files of 45Mb+. And the file format might not be compatible with older OS's and software. And if you want to work extensively with RAW files, you'll need a fairly powerful computer with a decent amount of memory (8Gb+).

even with 35mm f3.5 I don't even get a person's whole face in focus. How shallow DoF do you want?

When you can't even get a person's eyelashes and eyeball in equal focus. 😉

I'd take a 600 over my 800 and if its anything like as good in the dark you'd live it. Just not the cost.

Yeah I think it's a lot to do with the cost of going full frame that's putting me off. Popped into London camera exchange today and had a quick play with a D7100 fitted with the 16-85 Nikkor.
Really nice. Not much different to my D90.
The lens seems pretty small, so good for whipping out of a backpack but still a very useable range with apparently very good image quality.

Thanks for the advice so far all, really appreciate the tips.