Portrait is more like out door on the move, something like wedding photography and since tons of wedding photographer uses Canon, I am leaning towards that but when it comes to landscape Nikon seems good. So I am kind of back to square 1. I not sure why but canon shoot a better skin tone out of box without post processing, my nikon peers are telling me that post processing will let you achieve similar to what canon give you. Yes both is competent system or else I would not even bother to compare but which is more suitable for me is a big question mark. Any one know of a shop that already have the d5 mk3 for rental? How much would the rental be.
mm.. not to rain on your parade, but from where you re coming from, i'd really recommend investing in a DX system and allowing yourself to grow into it. use the $ for better glass and don't be afraid to buy DX glass either. once you've out-grown the DX system in a couple years then you ll be able to put down money on a FX camera and know that you re getting the best for your needs and money.
i say this just cos it seems that you re a really new shooter and have at least a couple of years before getting the most out of even a d7k. its by no means a bad thing and i dont mean it as an insult. everyone has to start somewhere, and i think its always best to start small so you can get a feel of the ground and put your money where it can be best used. the D7k is by no means a lousy camera and a number of pros i know use it as a back up body, or second body. its got fantastic dynamic range for landscapes(where you wont need the DOF anyway) and lenses like the 85 1.4 AFd and tamron 60/2 macro and 55 1.2 AI will have you covered for shallow dof applications. you can put together a v v decent kit for a low low price, and then use that as a learning tool to know where you re gonna put your money in the next step. heres a kit that should get you started without breaking the bank, and give you good image quality
UWA for landscapes: sigma 8-16 or tokina 11-16 2.8 or tokina 12-24 4
normal zoom range: Tamron 17-50 2.8, nikkor 16-85 vr
normal prime: sigma 30 1.4 or nikkor 35 1.8
quality zoom: sigma 50-150 or tokina 50-135 f/2.8
portrait: tamron 60/2, nikkor 85 1.4D, nikkor 55 1.2 AI or voitglander 58/1.4
buying second hand will cut the prices by about 10-20%
in all honesty, the 18-200 might probably disappoint you.. its slow and image quality will leave you wanting after you start using some quality glass. its not wide enough for dramatic lanscapes, and abit slow on the long end for action in anything but perfect light. its a tad low in contrast and somewhat smudgy compared to say the 35 1.8. im not saying its useless, but do take this into account and remember that the large zoom range doesnt come for free. in fact.. zoom in general doesnt come for free and there're very very few zoom lenses that will beat primes for overall image quality.
another thing.. imo, vr is abit overrated.. i ve not owned a lens with vr in my 6 years of shooting it doenst hold me back in any way. in fact, if you re looking for pure image quality, it can be more of a nuisance (tamron 17-50 2.8 VC vs non-VC) and usually comes at a much higher price point for equivalent IQ (70-200 VRii vs 80-200 af-s).. if you ve a specific application you re thinking off, then go ahead, but dont think its a 'must have' in anyway.
also, making the switch from dx to fx gear is abit tedious, but you don't lose much at all if you've taken care of your gear, and perhaps dont lose anything at all if you bought second hand so dont let that put you off so much. this is the same for switching systems btw. usually v minimal cost associated with it.
Last edited: