Which Full Frame Nikon Would You Suggest?

[realdereal]

I am Shooting with a D7100 now and as I was looking to get some new portrait lenses I figured that now might be a good time to get a full-frame camera. I am not opposed to go Canon or Sony but have been shooting with a Nikon D5200 and D7100.

I want to stay at around $3,000 for the body if possible and was looking at the D610, D750, and D810.
Nikon was listing the D610 and D750 as "Enthusiast" and the D810 as more of a pro camera but honestly the 36 megapixels in the D810 seemed like an overkill on storage that I'm not sure when, if ever, I will need. However if it does make portraits that much more beautiful I guess I could pretend I'm shooting film and try to only shoot one "roll" per portrait session : )

Any suggestions?

I normally shoot with available light and do have some fast 64G SD cards and a decent computer and portable hard drives for storage but I am still leery about the D810 files.

[PhotomanJohn]

Kristen - This is a hard question for someone else to answer for you. All three of the Nikons you mention will produce excellent images as will your D7100. If your main reason for the change is better image quality, I would suggest you start by buying a couple top quality, FF lenses and give then a try on your current camera. You will need them anyway if you make the jump to FF. The lenses that you list are not capable of taking full advantage of the D7100's sensor. I believe you will see a noticeable jump in image quality in your photos.

If you still want to make the change to FF, then I would spend some time at a shop or possibly rent the cameras and see how they feel and fully explore the differences in the controls between the models. If if was me, i would be comparing the D750 and the D810 if I wanted to make the jump. The D810 has some very worthwhile features that come at a significant price and additional weight. The D810 coupled with a f/2.8 lens is a lot to carry around. The D750 is a very interesting camera that definitely deserves serious consideration.

John

[AB26]

Kristen,

The D610 will do what you want it to do but the D750 is just that little better.
With a D810 you are stuck to using only the best of Nikkor lenses.

[realdereal]

Kristen,

The D610 will do what you want it to do but the D750 is just that little better.
With a D810 you are stuck to using only the best of Nikkor lenses.

Will the 50mm 1.8, and the 85mm 1.8 get there or not quite? : )
{Was planning on purchasing the 85mm 1.8 as one of my primary portrait lenses}

Thanks so much by the way

[AlwaysOnAuto]

I would like to suggest you read this review of the D750. It might help you make a decision.

http://petapixel.com/2014/10/14/niko...eated-monster/

[JR1]

For the money you are rather limited unless you look at pre owned.

You get what you pay for.

I shoot D4s for sports and D810 for Weddings, portrait, Landscape and sports.

There is more to a "Pro" camera than just Mps or the D4s would have 50 not 16

The D810 is a full metal body, and has the better weather sealing to name just two of many points.

End result wise unless you are in a lab NO ONE and I don't care what people say NO ONE would be able to tell and A3+ print between a 750, 600 or 810

[JR1]

Kristen,

The D610 will do what you want it to do but the D750 is just that little better.
With a D810 you are stuck to using only the best of Nikkor lenses.

Ha, stuck using the best lenses, I consider it a pleasure and I think many many many npeople who do use the "best" as you call them would also say again they are an investment in longevity and quality

Take the Nano 80-400 Nikkor, the results on the D4s are almost 3D as compared to cheaper lenses.

Also the lens is probably THE one most important piece of gear, possibly before the body.

[JR1]

The f1.8 is a good lens but why are you looking at primes.

I have only one, a fisheye, they are so limiting

[PhotomanJohn]

With a D810 you are stuck to using only the best of Nikkor lenses.

This is not a correct statement. All of these cameras have enough resolution to make use of the best glass out there. Obviously, any lens can be used on the D810 and it will yield at least as good an image as the other cameras. The camera that places the most demand on the lens is the D7100 that you have now because of its very small pixel pitch.

John

[JR1]

This is not a correct statement. All of these cameras have enough resolution to make use of the best glass out there. Obviously, any lens can be used on the D810 and it will yield at least as good an image as the others. The camera that places the most demand on the lens is the D7100 that you have now because of its very small pixel pitch.

John

This is totally 100% wrong in oh so many ways

certain lenses are better than others and in fact many Canon and Nikon lenses are designed to work better and optimised for cameras.

Put a Nikon 70-200 f4 on a D810/D4s/D7100 and put the better F2.8 70-200 and "see" the difference, which is why people like me buy the higher price lenses.

From your statement a cheap £60 kit zoom would be as good as my 14-24 at £1000+, er.... no

The Nikkor 80-400 for example can not compare to the Nikkor 80-400 NANO at twice the price.

The Nikkor 14-24 is a PRO lens and cheaper Nikkors will not render as good results, the pixel cound has nothing to do with lens results.

In fact AB26 is 100% correct but stated it a little incorrectly.

To get the best from high end Nikons (any camera in fact) you really need the best lenses, especially the NANO COATED ones which have an "N" on the barrel.


Nano Crystal Coat
Nano Crystal Coat is an antireflective coating that originated in the development of NSR-series (Nikon Step and Repeat) semiconductor manufacturing devices. It virtually eliminates internal lens element reflections across a wide range of wavelengths, and is particularly effective in reducing ghost and flare peculiar to ultra-wideangle lenses. Nano Crystal Coat employs multiple layers of Nikon's outstanding extra-low refractive index coating, which features ultra-fine crystallized particles of nano size (one nanometer equals one millionth of a mm). Nikon now proudly marks a world first by applying this coating technology to a wide range of lenses for use in consumer optical products.

[wtlwdwgn]

Good lenses always trump a DSLR body. Glass lasts forever and today's DSLR will be replaced sometime soon. The number of megapickles has an effect on print size so if you plan to print wall size murals you'll want as many as you can get otherwise it won't matter that much. If your work is mostly indoors then the body construction won't matter either. If you shoot outdoors in all conditions then dust and moisture sealing is a must. I don't shoot Nikon but if it were me I'd look very hard at the D750. It has features and improvements that the D810 doesn't have and is better made than the D610. This is especially true if you don't plan to replace it anytime soon. Just my $0.02.

[JR1]

Good lenses always trump a DSLR body. Glass lasts forever and today's DSLR will be replaced sometime soon. The number of megapickles has an effect on print size so if you plan to print wall size murals you'll want as many as you can get otherwise it won't matter that much. If your work is mostly indoors then the body construction won't matter either. If you shoot outdoors in all conditions then dust and moisture sealing is a must. I don't shoot Nikon but if it were me I'd look very hard at the D750. It has features and improvements that the D810 doesn't have and is better made than the D610. This is especially true if you don't plan to replace it anytime soon. Just my $0.02.

+1

What does it have that the D810 doesn't because I can list things the 750 doesn't compete on such as

full and better weather sealing
high MP count
Full metal body no plastic
NO AA filter
Almost silent shutter
Higher flash sync
SD cards not CF (faster)
Higher top shutter speed
and a few more

[Polar01]

Kristen I am going to comment on something you said, in your thread that I think no one else has picked up on. "However if it does make portraits that much more beautiful " your reference to the D810. No upgrading of cameras will make your portraits more beautiful it is only you that can do that. I feel you think that if I had a better camera I could take better pictures, not true at all. I think that the only way you can take better pictures, is through hard work, practice, and knowledge they are not easy to come by. If you were shooting with say a D70 which is still a fine camera than I would suggest you upgrade, but a D7100 come on.
A better lens I think would be the way to go, along with a lot more practice and learning, of how to push yourself to get the most out of your equipment would be the best course of action. A lot of people if my memory serves me correct have suggest the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8, remember in portraits it is not all about being in close it is filling the frame correctly. Distance to subject, distance of subject to background (very important), deep of field are all important in portraits and until you master all of them without thinking, I would not step up to another camera.

Cheers: Allan

[PhotomanJohn]

This is totally 100% wrong in oh so many ways

Jeremy - Did you actually read my post? I responded to Andre's comment that one was "stuck" with using top lenses. That means to me that he was saying lesser lenses would give inferior performance on a D810 than the other cameras which is not true. My comment that any lens used on a D810 will yield at least as good of an image as that lens on any of the other cameras is totally true.

I don't understand the need for the rest of your post since we are in total agreement in that glass is very important.

John

[JR1]

K A lot of people if my memory serves me correct have suggest the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8,

Cheers: Allan

Nikkor f2.8 70-200

[PhotoByTrace]

Hi Kristen,

I don't think you can go wrong with any of those three cameras. I have compared all three quite closely but I'm looking for landscape attributes rather than portrait so my preferences are likely to be different to your own needs.

Though I also tend to agree with what Allan and Steve have said above. The quality of your existing body is very good, quality lenses will give you excellent results on it too. I took the step of improving my lenses before I moved to full-frame, and that itself made a huge difference to the apparent sharpness and contrast in my images.

The key difference in moving to a full-frame from my own experience was the change in the depth of field when filling my frame with the subject. That took a little while to get accustomed to, but is wonderful to have, and I think for portraiture may be the key advantage of going to a full-frame body. Perhaps something to also consider will be ensuring you factor in things such as the cost of a battery grip; assuming you predominately shoot hand-held.

Hope you enjoy your new gear whichever direction you head in...

[inkista]

Any suggestions?

This is gonna sound flippant, but blow a hundred or so on a basic one-light Strobist setup (you already have the most expensive bit--the SB-700; you just need triggers, a lightstand, umbrella and swivel), and take your SB-700 off-camera.

That's liable to do far more for your "mostly available-light" portrait photography than switching to a full-frame body will. Especially switching from a current crop sensor 24MP camera to a current 24MP full frame camera. You can't get a higher-resolution camera without going to the D800 series. You're only going to get about a stop better high iso noise performance, and about one stop more DoF control.

Just me, but rent a full frame before contemplating purchasing one. It's one thing to read about all your lenses getting 1.5x shorter and the beauty of full frame. It's another to experience it first hand. Most of us who shoot full frame know that there are differences, but they're smaller and more subtle than those who haven't shot full frame tend to think it is. And good off-camera lighting can even make a cheap 1/2.3" format P&S sensor look good.

Just thought I'd put it out there.

[realdereal]

Thank you for your time in responding. My favorite camera store was having an expo today and I had the opportunity to try out the D610, D750, and D810 together, and I must say that I really enjoyed shooting with the D810 very much above the other two. It will be a tough decision and I will also of course weigh in on if I really need to go full frame or not. I tend to believe that (along with of course, continuing to improve my photography skills) if moving to full-frame would make a difference in the outcome of my product for my clients than I would feel going to full-frame as worthwhile.

[Tom47]

You might want to take a look at the Nikon Df. I have been very impress with the results that I have gotten with the Df.

[Loose Canon]

This is gonna sound flippant, but blow a hundred or so on a basic one-light Strobist setup (you already have the most expensive bit--the SB-700; you just need triggers, a lightstand, umbrella and swivel), and take your SB-700 off-camera.

That's liable to do far more for your "mostly available-light" portrait photography than switching to a full-frame body will. Especially switching from a current crop sensor 24MP camera to a current 24MP full frame camera. You can't get a higher-resolution camera without going to the D800 series. You're only going to get about a stop better high iso noise performance, and about one stop more DoF control.

Just me, but rent a full frame before contemplating purchasing one. It's one thing to read about all your lenses getting 1.5x shorter and the beauty of full frame. It's another to experience it first hand. Most of us who shoot full frame know that there are differences, but they're smaller and more subtle than those who haven't shot full frame tend to think it is. And good off-camera lighting can even make a cheap 1/2.3" format P&S sensor look good.

Just thought I'd put it out there.

Flippant or no in this case this post makes more sense to me than most if not all of the others.

"I shoot with available light" sets off alarms for me. Alarms that no camera body can cure.