2nd Camera Strategy

[Stagecoach]

I have some reservations about posting this one as I'm sure there will be some 'here we go again, it's all been covered before' thoughts so I will try to define things clearly

For some time now I have been considering purchasing a 'second' camera to complement my Nikon D300 for the following reasons;

a) The D300 is 8 years old, corroded in the left rear buttons area and with moisture/fungus behind the rear LCD, but works perfectly. If it fails suddenly I would not be surprised or disappointed, but it may not.
b) Redundancy should this fail and I need a camera of at least equivalent performance.
c) The ability to shoot with two cameras fitted with two different lenses (long/short) at certain events.

Note, I am not considering the purchase specifically as an 'upgrade' as I'm happy with what the D300 can do.

As I'm presently in the UK for a while yet I can take the opportunity to purchase at good prices without having to import into Fiji with 15% duty, courier delivery and insurance with VAT bunged on top as well as the delays/risks. The only Nikon models available off the shelf in Fiji are the latest D7000, and entry level models.

My plan up until a few days ago was to get a D7200 which I almost ordered but then started to consider FF as well. Reasoning for this diversion of plan is as follows;

1) A D7200 is not going to give me anything other than more megapixels and slightly better noise performance although this has never been a concern.
2) A FF is going to give me an advantage with my land/seascape work.
3) A FF can be used in its 1.5 mode to give that additional reach (macro/birding/sport) when advantageous.
4) A FF would become my 'best' camera, leaving the D300 for general use in adverse conditions.

So looking at FF options I'm leaning towards the D610, robust, weather resistant and not much more than a D7200. If and when the D300 dies I could then replace that with a mid range DX model.

Ok, tell me my strategy is wrong

Grahame

[george013]

I have some reservations about posting this one as I'm sure there will be some 'here we go again, it's all been covered before' thoughts so I will try to define things clearly

For some time now I have been considering purchasing a 'second' camera to complement my Nikon D300 for the following reasons;

a) The D300 is 8 years old, corroded in the left rear buttons area and with moisture/fungus behind the rear LCD, but works perfectly. If it fails suddenly I would not be surprised or disappointed, but it may not.
b) Redundancy should this fail and I need a camera of at least equivalent performance.
c) The ability to shoot with two cameras fitted with two different lenses (long/short) at certain events.

Note, I am not considering the purchase specifically as an 'upgrade' as I'm happy with what the D300 can do.

As I'm presently in the UK for a while yet I can take the opportunity to purchase at good prices without having to import into Fiji with 15% duty, courier delivery and insurance with VAT bunged on top as well as the delays/risks. The only Nikon models available off the shelf in Fiji are the latest D7000, and entry level models.

My plan up until a few days ago was to get a D7200 which I almost ordered but then started to consider FF as well. Reasoning for this diversion of plan is as follows;

1) A D7200 is not going to give me anything other than more megapixels and slightly better noise performance although this has never been a concern.
2) A FF is going to give me an advantage with my land/seascape work.
3) A FF can be used in its 1.5 mode to give that additional reach (macro/birding/sport) when advantageous.
4) A FF would become my 'best' camera, leaving the D300 for general use in adverse conditions.

So looking at FF options I'm leaning towards the D610, robust, weather resistant and not much more than a D7200. If and when the D300 dies I could then replace that with a mid range DX model.

Ok, tell me my strategy is wrong

Grahame

I had a D300 and a D700. They where stolen last week. I've been looking for another D700 immediatly. And the same lens. Both old, D700 and a 28-70 2.8 af-s. I just bought them both. Since I had the D700 I never touched the D300.


George

[Polar01]

Good thinking, I think a better deal than the D7200 is the D7100 as you do not get that much more for the money with the D7200 over the D7100. The D610 is an excellent camera, I personally think that the D750 is the best Nikon camera for the money, I use to own a D7000 (stolen) and a D600.
Now this may sound stupid how are you getting home I know that you are flying, but which way east or west, if you were going west would you have a layover in the US for a day, arrange to purchase there then next day fly out home. Just a thought.

Cheers: Allan

[marlunn]

funny that I just got a 2nd hand D7100 today to compliment my D5200 - the 7100 will have the 150mm macro on it and the 5200 will have the 70-300 on it

question around the choice to go FF - do your lens's fit one - or are you going to have to step up on the lens as well ?

[pnodrog]

The D610 is a great landscape and low light camera and you would be delighted in having one. I have a D800 and would have gone for the D600 apart from the it's slightly slower flash sync and the problem it initially had with sensor contamination. Can't remember the last time I used the DX mode as all my lenses are FX and I like the cropping options available by leaving it in FX and cropping in PP. This is an approach totally disapproved of by SOOC addicts but I am unrepentant. Why not retain the option of a different crop in PP rather than taking extra shots with different compositions?

Go for the D610 before you change your mind.

[Shadowman]

As you are not looking for better features, I would also add as a consideration a camera that uses the same battery. Cuts down on extra charger needed and provides an additional battery when only one camera is needed.

[dje]

Grahame I have the D610 and have been very happy with it. I believe it is very good value fo money. I haven't had any problems with shutter dirt like the D600. I can't see that the D750 offers much extra for it's significantly higher price (unless 51 AF points over 39 AF points matters to you).

Looks like I agree with my Kiwi friend.

Dave

[Stagecoach]

Since I had the D700 I never touched the D300.

George

Not sure that's really relevant to my position George.

[xpatUSA]

I had a D300 and a D700. They were stolen last week

George

Sorry to hear that, George.

OT but, before I went all-Sigma, I always fancied a D700.

[Stagecoach]

Goof thinking, I think a better deal than the D7200 is the D7100 as you do not get that much more for the money with the D7200 over the D7100.

There's certainly been a big drop in price of the D7100 Allan and the only advantage of the 7200 I could see for me would be the buffer when RAW shooting that I might possibly find useful with BIF. For sports I have been predominately shooting Jpeg now so buffer would not be a problem on the very rare occasions I spray and pray.

The D610 is an excellent camera, I personally think that the D750 is the best Nikon camera for the money, I use to own a D7000 (stolen) and a D600.

I have looked at the D750 carefully and what puts me off a bit is the articulated screen with its metal brackets, metal screws in a humid, damp and sea atmosphere location.

Now this may sound stupid how are you getting home I know that you are flying, but which way east or west, if you were going west would you have a layover in the US for a day, arrange to purchase there then next day fly out home. Just a thought.

I'm flying east but would be wary of relying on a stopover in US to possibly save a bit as I also want to get my 'extras' whilst it's easy such as remote's, spare battery, battery grip..............

Cheers: Allan[/QUOTE]

[Stagecoach]

question around the choice to go FF - do your lens's fit one - or are you going to have to step up on the lens as well ?

Mark, my Nikon 80-400mm, Nikon 28-105mm, Tamron 28-75 and 105mm macro are all ok with FF, the Sigma 10-20 is not compatible but could be used in the crop mode.

[DanK]

I don't shoot nikon, but I do have both crop and FF. The key is pixel density.

If pixel density is the same, then cropping a FF is obviously the same as a crop sensor. In many cases, the crop sensor has a higher density. that is certainly true of my cameras (Canon 5D3, 7D I). I find the higher density to be better for 1:1 macro (more pixels on the subject) and when I need reach (more pixels on the subject for a given length of lens). I also prefer the smaller size and lighter weight. In other respects, the FF is superior. I use the FF for landscapes, night photography, and candids of people. I also generally use it for flower macros, which are often less than 1:1. I use the crop for macros of bugs and if I need reach, e.g., my rare shots of birds.

[Stagecoach]

The D610 is a great landscape and low light camera and you would be delighted in having one. I have a D800 and would have gone for the D600 apart from the it's slightly slower flash sync and the problem it initially had with sensor contamination.

I had not considered flash sync speed Paul, the D300 is 1/320s but not sure a lower one would really bother me. I'll give it some thought.

Can't remember the last time I used the DX mode as all my lenses are FX and I like the cropping options available by leaving it in FX and cropping in PP. This is an approach totally disapproved of by SOOC addicts but I am unrepentant. Why not retain the option of a different crop in PP rather than taking extra shots with different compositions?

Luckily I'm not a SOOC addict

Go for the D610 before you change your mind.

I love advice like that !!

[Stagecoach]

As you are not looking for better features, I would also add as a consideration a camera that uses the same battery. Cuts down on extra charger needed and provides an additional battery when only one camera is needed.

Not sure the old D300 battery is going to be compatible with more modern cameras John, but for the cost of batteries I do not think battery compatibility would sway me.

[Stagecoach]

Grahame I have the D610 and have been very happy with it. I believe it is very good value fo money. I haven't had any problems with shutter dirt like the D600. I can't see that the D750 offers much extra for it's significantly higher price (unless 51 AF points over 39 AF points matters to you).

Looks like I agree with my Kiwi friend.

Dave

Dave, I think I have 51 AF points now on the D300 but I can't remember the last time I used more than 9

Seems 610s are popular our side of the world

[IzzieK]

Grahame...you also have to think of wall charger so that when you are doing studio work you do not have to worry about draining your battery. I do not know about the battery thingie but my D810 uses a different kind of battery than the D300s which is the same as yours. I just bought a wall charger for my FF today.

[William W]

Hi Grahame,

I don't now use Nikon, but as you probably know, I do use a Dual Format (Canon) Kit - but my uses are different to yours.

In your situation I would opt for the D610 without hesitation.

The main rationale for that opinion is the 4 points that you made in your OP and also Dan Kortez's point about Pixel Density.

I think that the main criterion for any new purchase is always to purchase useful features - all those five points describe abundantly more ‘useful features’ if you buy a D610 than if you buy a D7xxx.

'Useful features' vary between users.

I think that also another useful feature is that when your D300 dies, you do have a 'replacement' immediately at hand, that's also 'a useful feature' - that's similar to, but what I mean is quite different to redundancy for your kit.

Also, I think that another useful feature in buying a D610 is that it puts you in a position of being able to choose at any time to make the D610 your main and 'only' camera and you resign the D300 to be for other uses - that might be as a spare, or what I use as my "car camera" i.e. always in the boot or glove box of the car, or for some other use.


***

On another subject:

I refer to your previous thread about Heads for Monopods.

I am sorry, I intended to comment on that Monopod thread earlier, but time got away and then I simply forgot until I saw your ‘like’ on one of my comments this morning.

I shall address the Monopod thread here as my opinion was always going to be predicted on this point:

The ability to shoot with two cameras fitted with two different lenses (long/short) at certain events.

From memory you typically use a Monopod with a zoom lens (80 to 300?), and for Cricket, Football and Birds

I use a Monopod often, but rarely with any Head.

My Monopod use is mainly for Field Sport and usually it supports a 400 Prime. This Prime Lens has a Tripod Collar and I fix that Collar direct to the Monopod. I have at least one other camera on my person and at least three cameras in total.

For Field Sport, I am either running the sideline; at ground level stationary; or in a stand, stationary - this would be the same for you for Cricket and Football.

At ground level I have no need to have an Head to tilt the camera/lens. Even for Swimming Events, there is only one shot where the Monopod has an ever so slight backwards tilt and that is the shot of the blocks, before a start, from close to water line level. The Monopod is very stable even at this very slight backwards tilt because the Monopod is at its shortest extension and I am knelling on one knee.

Shooting from the Stands, I have no difficulty in tilting the Monopod forward whilst packing the ball (foot) of the Monopod into the arch of my right foot for stability. No Grandstand has ever been too steep such that the static rig of a Monopod and 400 Prime was tilted at too great an angle that it was unstable for me.

Also I do carry the monopod/lens/camera rig over my shoulder: it is very strong screw and the screw is well and truly tight into the lens’s tripod collar. I however would NOT perform this carriage if the Monopod had an Head on it and the lens had a Quick Release Plate on it.

So in summary, I rarely use any Head on a Monopod, but I think this is mainly because my whole Monopod rig is very solid and stable as its own self-contained unit and it is constructed for a singular purpose: I always carry another camera (usually with a 70 to 200) and sometimes a third camera (usually with a 24 to 70).

But as I recall one of your needs was to easily release the lens that you would carry on the Monopod, either to use it handheld and / or to use the camera with a different lens.

These points are linked to your intended purchase of a second camera, if you buy the D610 then you might reconsider how you might use your Monopod at Sporting Events.

Can’t comment much on Birding Pictures, because they are out of my territory of speciality.

WW

[Black Pearl]

I'm going to throw a few spanners in the works....

The D610 isn't particularly robust, nor is it particularly weather sealed, the AF covers a smaller area of the viewfinder than other bodies, the AF is poor in low light, it lacks a 1/8000s shutter and a fast sync speed, it also lacks the 15 pin connector and it doesn't have an AF-ON button. I'm not a fan of the mode dial either - but I get that most bodies have them instead of the pro layout with buttons.

If it were me it go with a used D800 - try Greys of Westminster

[george013]

I'm going to throw a few spanners in the works....

The D610 isn't particularly robust, nor is it particularly weather sealed, the AF covers a smaller area of the viewfinder than other bodies, the AF is poor in low light, it lacks a 1/8000s shutter and a fast sync speed, it also lacks the 15 pin connector and it doesn't have an AF-ON button. I'm not a fan of the mode dial either - but I get that most bodies have them instead of the pro layout with buttons.

If it were me it go with a used D800 - try Greys of Westminster

Or for less then half the price a D700. Same batteries and same memorycards as the D300.
I understood the D800 is more a studiocamera.

George

[pnodrog]

Two quotes from Ken Rockwell.

While insecure rich guys will always buy D4s and D800s just because they can even if they aren't going to use any of the features, today the D610 does everything I need it to."

"Durability

With 35mm SLRs, we paid more for the "pro" cameras like the Nikon F5 because they were built as tough as an axle so we could pound on them for years. Once purchased, a pro 35mm SLR was the top camera for about the next ten years, and with something like an F5, you can pound the heck out of it for a decade or more and it will just keep shooting. With digital, most of us trash our DSLRs every few years long before they actually wear out. Durability isn't needed because technology renders our cameras obsolete long before they wear out.
The D610 has a one-year unlimited mileage warranty. If you wear it out, Nikon will probably fix it for free. If you can kill it after a year, Nikon rarely charges more than a few hundred dollars to repair anything you might break, and most of the time, you're not going to have a problem.
I shot the heck out of my far cheaper Nikon D40 for about three years as my main camera, and after over 50,000 shots, my 2006 Nikon D40 still works great today"

A quote from DPreview review of the D610 "Solid build quality and weather sealing"

There will always be a better camera available and a secondhand D800 may be worth considering. However I would be a bit hesitant in buying a secondhand camera unless it was a factory or certified refurbished camera with a good international guarantee. Especially as you will have little service support in Fiji.