Entry Level Fx Camera

[Ben Ang]

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.

 

[tecnica]

you definitely need a tripod for landscape, unless you only shoot in good light.

VR helps, but it cannot stabilise your shot for 30s.

 

[Cheesecake]

If u've the dough, straight away start off at FX format.

It is the way 35mm format should be. DX format is around as technology bk then wasn't as mature as it is nw.

A pity there isn't an FX entry level dslr. The closest is D700, which is around 3k brand new?

Since u're into landscapes, u shud get a tripod n a gd set of filters.

U shud get a gd solid wide lens.

And maybe a couple of prime lens for portraitures, such as 85mm n dare i say it, 35mm.

A gd close up lens to go with ur product shooting, maybe a used 60mm micro.

U shud b looking at arnd 8k.

 

[pinholecam]

Portraits/Landscapes/Product/Travel all don't need very shallow DOF (not that often anyway)

When you do need shallow DOF, a fast lens would do well even on APS-C.

Weddings, D7K/60D/K5, all have good enough low light performance coupled with fast lenses.
In fact nowadays most cameras can do well enough at ISO1600/3200 (even a m4/3 panasonic G3 will do the job with fast lenses)
Usually, you'd need a flash too.


Mounting a super-zoom on a high end camera. IMO, waste of the time/effort/money/cam-body. Been there done that (mainly on film though).
The distortion, vignetting, less sharpness may not bite you instantly, but once you have grown more aware, then it rears its ugly head when you review your past photos.
Instead, spend a bit more money and get some good lenses. They need not be expensive too.
Sigma/Tamron 18-50/2.8 for example are very good for the money.
There are Canon/Nikon ones of course depending on budget.

 

[s1221ljc]

Your dad has the D7000 & that dont seem to satisfy you. With your budget you can get a D700 + 24-70 f2.8 (both brand new) & this would be a superb combination for a start in FX. Alternatively, get a D800 & a used condition 10 copy of the 28-300 (cost around $1100 in B&S). If VR is important to you, can consider the 24-120 f4 which has fixed aperture too (cost around $ 1400 used in B&S). Only if weight is a big problem for you, then I would suggest the DX format. Once you get into FX, you will never look back

 

[theRBK]

my recommendation would be D7000, 16-35f4VR, 24-120f4VR... which should make it under $6k... with those two great lenses, even if you move to FX later on, they would still serve you well, and while in DX, they would also cover a useful range for what you are interested in shooting... YMMV

 

[eloitay]

Well it seems there is plenty of school of thoughts. Yes I been using D7000 from my Dad for a while. Granted that I am not considered a expert, I do feel that it is lacking. Primarily when the lighting is less than perfect like in the evening using dim street light, it just do not cut it hand held. I always hoping that FX will solve that problem then i saw the demo on 5D mark 3 which seems awesome with low light compared to the last gen 5D mark 2 and that is when I realize D800 is well supposed to be its competitor so I rope it in for comparison, indeed in term of low light and color I love the D800 but it is mentioned that the DR is not that great, cost slightly more and the auto focus seems a tad slower. So I am kind of lost from there on, then come people who thinks that training I should get DX then FX, some say it is ok to do FX lens Dx body but I also read that doing that often get problem with sharpness and colour.
Obviously if I have money one set of each will be awesome but nope, I am not there yet and not soon enough to even consider so I trying to find a balance between upgrade path cost and ease. Granted that lens do retain value but trying to sell it is not that easy either.
I am just not sure why is there a need to learn at DX level before going to FX or the reason for that is to be able to appreciate the strength and weakness of FX and DX at the same time?

Disclaimer my next statement, please do not view it as a brand war, I just stating what I observe and if it is wrong please correct me without turning this into a flame war.
D800 vs 5D Mark 3 --> This is not so obvious, since each is a good camera for their own purpose but my gut feel make me think that D800 = specialized solid performer that can rival medium format while 5D is like jack of all trade, decent for everything but not stellar in any given area. Just static picture, I am not interested in the video stuff.
D7000 vs 60D --> this combination seems to be a mismatch since D7000 seems to be king easily but I might be wrong of comparing with the wrong model then again it might be age different

Another thing to clarify, I know that canon can take nikon lens with an adapter but does it affects its performance?

 

[tecnica]

There is not a need to start with DX then upgrade to FX. The main issue here is due to budget constraint. If you have 15k to spend, people here won't even consider DX already.

D800 + 14-24 + 24-70 + 85 1.4G/70-200 VR + 105 micro + SB910, still have lots left for accessories. More than enough for landscape, product, portrait and street use.

 

[eloitay]

Then would it be an issue if I start off with a general lens and start buying the rest of the lens over 1 or 2 years. Would that be sound plan?
Like Year 1 Body + General Lens
Year 2 portrait and Landscape
Year 3 Macro Lens
Year 4 consider body upgrade
Or something alone that line

Quite a few people seems to suggest
Year 1 Body + everything I need
Year x Rebuild kit in FX if necessary

I am not sure, maybe general lens is so terrible that I should never consider it, since my dad only have a 50mm and a 28 to 105mm which I doubt are of good zoom and prime lens but I do recognize that prime is really good compared to zoom, everything seem clearer and sharper. But my stance is my level of photography love had not reached the level where I will lug around 4 prime lens for a travel trip. Probably more of I will bring 1 zoom lens for most part and change to portrait when the moment arrive that is it level.

 

[ShaneKua]

Then would it be an issue if I start off with a general lens and start buying the rest of the lens over 1 or 2 years. Would that be sound plan?
Like Year 1 Body + General Lens
Year 2 portrait and Landscape
Year 3 Macro Lens
Year 4 consider body upgrade
Or something alone that line

Quite a few people seems to suggest
Year 1 Body + everything I need
Year x Rebuild kit in FX if necessary

I am not sure, maybe general lens is so terrible that I should never consider it, since my dad only have a 50mm and a 28 to 105mm which I doubt are of good zoom and prime lens but I do recognize that prime is really good compared to zoom, everything seem clearer and sharper. But my stance is my level of photography love had not reached the level where I will lug around 4 prime lens for a travel trip. Probably more of I will bring 1 zoom lens for most part and change to portrait when the moment arrive that is it level.

With regards to the “Crop/DX now, FF/FX later” debate, I love to post this article:
The Online Photographer: Letter to George

 

[tecnica]

Then would it be an issue if I start off with a general lens and start buying the rest of the lens over 1 or 2 years. Would that be sound plan?
Like Year 1 Body + General Lens
Year 2 portrait and Landscape
Year 3 Macro Lens
Year 4 consider body upgrade
Or something alone that line

Quite a few people seems to suggest
Year 1 Body + everything I need
Year x Rebuild kit in FX if necessary

I am not sure, maybe general lens is so terrible that I should never consider it, since my dad only have a 50mm and a 28 to 105mm which I doubt are of good zoom and prime lens but I do recognize that prime is really good compared to zoom, everything seem clearer and sharper. But my stance is my level of photography love had not reached the level where I will lug around 4 prime lens for a travel trip. Probably more of I will bring 1 zoom lens for most part and change to portrait when the moment arrive that is it level.

Truth is, you can never forecast what type of lens you will buy few years down the road. It depends on your exposure to different types of photography.

Last time when I first started out, I thought street shooting was interesting. But I realised that I derived greater satisfaction from dramatic landscape photos. YMMV, of cause.

Sure, you can first get a general full frame lens for your full frame camera, whichever you may choose. The only such general lenses I will consider are the 24-70s, 24-105L, 24-120 VR. These lenses covers the focal length of what a person may normally use.

Forget about the super zooms if you want qualities in all aspects of your photos. Specialised lenses are made for these purposes.

From here, you can either add on an ultra-wide, should you feel 24mm is too narrow. Or a tele lens, if you think 70/105/120mm does not give enough reach. If you like macro, then get macro lens. And the non-exhaustive list goes on.

The whole point is, just go with the flow and have fun.

 

[shelomoh]

Your dad has D7000 but doesnt invest in lens.
Why cant u use his D7000 and u invest in lens with the 6K like buy 14-24, 85 1.4, 70-200.

 

[lenslust]

Another thing to clarify, I know that canon can take nikon lens with an adapter but does it affects its performance?

No focusing.

 

[asdfg]

I realize D800 is well supposed to be its competitor so I rope it in for comparison, indeed in term of low light and color I love the D800 but it is mentioned that the DR is not that great, cost slightly more and the auto focus seems a tad slower. So I am kind of lost from there on, then come people who thinks that training I should get DX then FX, some say it is ok to do FX lens Dx body but I also read that doing that often get problem with sharpness and colour.

D800 has the best DR below iso400, and it's very comparable with the 5dmarkIII throughout the iso range (not a huge diff past 3200 tbh).
I think you need to hold your horses. Don't plunge in right away. If you can borrow your dad's 28-105, and 50, you'd only need a nice zoom like 24-70mm or a telezoom like 70-200 and you're good to go. It'll take a while for you to figure out your ideal kit, everyone can make suggestions and you can say hey i want to do protrait, the landscape etc etc year 1 year 2 but things will change. Maybe halfway you'll say portraiture isn't for me, i'd rather do macro, then switch to something else. I took 5 years to figure my kit and settle with what i have, though in terms of photography "genres" i've been doing street and wildlife/macro for a while but i'm leaning towards shooting with wider glass and learning more about wideangle photography. I don't want to sound preachy but this is what i've learnt and i buy lenses one at a go so you can understand the dof (esp fast primes) and FOV that come with them, and you'll learn to better compose and be a better photographer. I would think the same applies to other gear. It's easy to set aside $6000, or $10000 to buy a great set of gear but you'll be spoilt for choice. If you do event photography and weddings then it's easier to see how the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 can be used at one go, but to segment photography into "landscaping", "macro", "street", etc and while not really having a true idea of what you like to shoot may make it harder to build a kit. I'm not saying you need to buy specific lenses for each specific use, i mean you could use a 70-200 to do landscapes, a fisheye to do street photography etc. Sorry if i'm muddled up.

 

[eloitay]

Well generally camera is a personal thing, so I would rather not share since i had made up my mind to dive into it. Just that since i still get to use, I am not so hurried to pick one and I can just look and ask around first before making the final decision of what to get. yes true enough I can just borrow from him but that will make me lock myself into Nikon right away without even understanding why I chose nikon over canon. I strongly believe if you going to choose either camp, you must first believe in it not because your dad uses it so should you kind of thing although it make logical sense if my dad is a die hard fan of nikon and have a whole series of lens already then I would not had made such topic which invite brand war.
For me I would love to start clean sheet like I earlier mentioned that I am not a nikon user even if I used it before. If you ask me if I ever touch a canon before, yes familiar with it no. I fiddle with my friend's one a bit to check the color such and I am convince i use my dad nikon I am convinced that DSLR is the way to go not mirrorless which was what I wanted initially because it is portable. It is the deeper I go I realize that big machine does have certain advantage that with given skill and technique you can over come some like getting proper lighting for low light or tripod but there is still a physical limit on the sensor once you hit a certain point.
So by then yes I am truly convince I want a DSLR, Nikon or Canon I know both will make me happy, a DSLR is a DSLR it is there and it can help you capture the fantastic picture with the right glass. Right now it is more of do i really want to go drop the bomb and get FX right away or DX. Do I rather have the color from Canon or do it post processing and get a Nikon instead. Lots of decision, lots of view.

But in summary, I would like to thank everyone for providing me with many views and insight and thankfully this did not get flame down to brand war like what always happen in other forum. Thanks for helping a newbie see deeper into budget planning.

 

[lenslust]

Well generally camera is a personal thing, so I would rather not share since i had made up my mind to dive into it. Just that since i still get to use, I am not so hurried to pick one and I can just look and ask around first before making the final decision of what to get. yes true enough I can just borrow from him but that will make me lock myself into Nikon right away without even understanding why I chose nikon over canon. I strongly believe if you going to choose either camp, you must first believe in it not because your dad uses it so should you kind of thing although it make logical sense if my dad is a die hard fan of nikon and have a whole series of lens already then I would not had made such topic which invite brand war.
For me I would love to start clean sheet like I earlier mentioned that I am not a nikon user even if I used it before. If you ask me if I ever touch a canon before, yes familiar with it no. I fiddle with my friend's one a bit to check the color such and I am convince i use my dad nikon I am convinced that DSLR is the way to go not mirrorless which was what I wanted initially because it is portable. It is the deeper I go I realize that big machine does have certain advantage that with given skill and technique you can over come some like getting proper lighting for low light or tripod but there is still a physical limit on the sensor once you hit a certain point.
So by then yes I am truly convince I want a DSLR, Nikon or Canon I know both will make me happy, a DSLR is a DSLR it is there and it can help you capture the fantastic picture with the right glass. Right now it is more of do i really want to go drop the bomb and get FX right away or DX. Do I rather have the color from Canon or do it post processing and get a Nikon instead. Lots of decision, lots of view.

But in summary, I would like to thank everyone for providing me with many views and insight and thankfully this did not get flame down to brand war like what always happen in other forum. Thanks for helping a newbie see deeper into budget planning.

Colour wise, it's up to individual preference, can't help you on that. If you feel Canon's colours re nicer, go for it. However, in photography, it's not just about colours.

As per your decision to go FX or DX, my suggestion is.

Body: DX
Lenses: FX

FX has no entry level for now, it won't be cheap also for a long while, but we have seen from the Canon 1DS - 14K, dropping now to 12K and Nikon's D3/D4 has been below 10K. 5D MKIII and D800 are also hoovering about $4.5K now.

It will be a matter of time before FX becomes really manageable and cheaper.

If you have not shot much before, DX should suffice for a good learning curve.

 

[asdfg]

you know what? what the is the point of buying a nikon and doing PP just to get canon colours? Just go for canon. FX or DX, let your budget do the talking. If it permits, by all means buy the 5d mark3, 24-105mm IS and 50mm (fsomething). Or work something out with your budget. But like everyone else suggests, i'd channel the extra 2-3k which would go into an fx body to lenses.

I also don't understand why you make it seem like once you're tied down to nikon, you're tied down forever. I wouldn't even go so far as to say "tied down". (well you said locked in)The easiest way to see how which of 2 comparable systems suit you is to have a feel of the bodies and lenses. Go with your heart. You said it yourself, you can't go wrong with either. Except if you go against what you really want.

 

[eloitay]

Well maybe I use a way too strong wording. It is definitely a hassle to sell but I do grow sentiment value over it and cannot bear to sell them off, so I used the word tied down. Yeah for some it is like whichever make a better product they can just sell off everything and get a full set of another just because it is good enough to worth the hassle, for me it is a no go for that situation that is why I used tied down. Perhaps you are right, I should just go with the heart and make the best out of it after all there is no right or wrong in art just a matter of different expression.

 

[brapodam]

My view still is,

getting crop body with better lenses > getting FF body with crap lens. All the advantages you listed for FX are trumped over by DX setup because it is cheaper and you can afford better lenses if you go for DX.

-Dynamic range (ok this one FF wins hands down, but how much DR do you need? Alternatives are HDR and black card technique, flash etc)
-Shallow DOF (with DX setup, you can afford more large aperture lenses, gaining even shallower DOF than your FX setup can give you)
-Low light performance (same thing, with DX you can get large aperture zooms or primes, with FX you can't, due to your budget)

Also, doesn't mean that you have to use your dad's D7000 if you don't want to share. You can afford your own with $6000. Unfortunately you can't afford a full FX setup for what you are doing, so that's why some of us are advising you to go DX.

 

[Miao]

Fx with a few prime is definately better than dx .. afd 24 f
2.8, afs 50 f1.8, afs 85 f1.8 ,it doesnt cost a arm or leg to shoot fx. I suppose it only cost $1500 for the len i mention.

Shooting photo doesnt mean u need to get the whole set of lens to cover all focal len.