Digital SLR Recommendations (Nikon)

[Gutshot John]

I've been an amateur photog for a while (did some semi-pro stuff back in the 90s) but have lost track of the latest trends and current thought. Digital SLR technology has kind of passed me by. I'm committed to Nikon due to the lenses some of which I've owned when I got a 35mm slr years ago

I've got a D70 that I inherited from my dad and it's getting a bit long in the tooth and am looking to upgrade the body.

I'd like something comparatively simple, doesn't have to have every whizbang feature in existence. Viewfinder and LCD as well as HD video capable. 12MP+.

Emphasis on durability and value.

Suggestions?

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Sorry I don't speak Nikon. I used to be up on everything, and now I have two kids and they still haven't come out with a replacement for my Canon 5DmkII. When I do want to know what is going on I go to:

http://www.dpreview.com

For gear review. Seems to be the most even handed out there with the laregest number of scientific tests.

For a more artistic and high end view:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/index.shtml

An of course bhvideo.com to buy gear.

[Palmguy]

Short answer: D90, D300/D300s or D7000, depending on your budget.

You will retain functionality with whatever glass you currently have (depending on what it is, the D90 may have a little more difficult time). D90s are available for $550-700 or so. The D300 is available for $700-800 or so. The D300s and D7000 are around the $1k price point.

I don't think the D300 has video, but the other three do. The D7000 will probably be the best implementation but it's still not the best available option (something like the Panasonic GH series would be better).

D300/D300s are a pro level build. The D7000 does have a magnesium chassis and improved sealing over the D90. All should be durable.

All but the D7000 are 12.xMP, D7000 is 16MP. I used my D90 up to ISO 1600 without too much worry, the D7000 is even better at ISO 3200 in my opinion.

D7000 has base ISO of 100 which is nice (the others are at 200). D300/D300s/D7000 have max shutter speed of 1/8000s (D90 is 1/4000). All have good viewfinders for non-full frame cameras.

[PaulL]

I agree with Palmguy. D7000 is probably your best bet. If you're on a budget, look for a D90. You can find some great deals on slightly used stuff. Most people think a camera is spent when it's just getting warmed up.

[Mr. Goodtimes]

I'd get a D7000 if video is important. Honestly, though, I'd forget about the video and go full frame with a D700. DX is a dying format.

[PaulL]

I'd get a D7000 if video is important. Honestly, though, I'd forget about the video and go full frame with a D700. DX is a dying format.

Oh, I don't know about that... I suspect DX will be around for a long time with the new EVIL cameras. I would say that for the average consumer, FX is at least cost-prohibitive, if not knowledge-prohibitive. Until Nikon makes a simple, low-cost FX-format camera, DX will rule the consumer market. Besides, market trends are still showing us that the general public doesn't give a crap about high-ISO quality or fast glass. They want long super-zooms and ultra-high MP count. I have yet to meet a non-enthusiast that knows what the widest aperture is on their lens, but they'll sure tell you how many MP the sensor is. It's exactly the same as the dirt-shooters vs. the M4C.net members. One vastly outnumbers the other and kind of steers the market. I guess that sounds kind of snobby, but it's true.

FWIW, I shoot the D700 a LOT and wouldn't have it any other way. For the OP though, it looks like we're all in agreement on the D7000 given his requirements. I'm personally waiting for a D700s. Best of both worlds. :D

[Hmac]

I'd get a D7000 if video is important. Honestly, though, I'd forget about the video and go full frame with a D700. DX is a dying format.

I'm not sure about the dying format thing. The decreased cost of the cropped sensors is going to keep them around for awhile. The D700 is $1500 more than the D7000..more than twice the cost.

[Mr. Goodtimes]

I'm not sure about the dying format thing. The decreased cost of the cropped sensors is going to keep them around for awhile. The D700 is $1500 more than the D7000..more than twice the cost.

I should have been more specific.. I think that over the next five years you will see crop sensors start to show up in smaller and smaller cameras, like the bridge cameras and compact DSLR's. I think that in the next five years we will see a full frame camera in the $1,800 price range in a body about the size of a D300. Crop sensors will no doubt be around for many years to come.

When I say they are dying, I mean from a professional perspective. Most serious professionals these days shoot FX. I'm a serious amature that wouldn't mind going pro if the opportunity presents it self and I'm really pinching my pennies for a D700 or whatever Nikon comes up with to replace it. For the professional or serious amature, FX is the way to go.

[Hmac]

I should have been more specific.. I think that over the next five years you will see crop sensors start to show up in smaller and smaller cameras, like the bridge cameras and compact DSLR's. I think that in the next five years we will see a full frame camera in the $1,800 price range in a body about the size of a D300. Crop sensors will no doubt be around for many years to come.

When I say they are dying, I mean from a professional perspective. Most serious professionals these days shoot FX. I'm a serious amature that wouldn't mind going pro if the opportunity presents it self and I'm really pinching my pennies for a D700 or whatever Nikon comes up with to replace it. For the professional or serious amature, FX is the way to go.

OK, I agree with all that. I have a D2 and a D3, prefer the D3, but mainly for its dead-on autofocus and its astonishing low light capability.

[Mr. Goodtimes]

OK, I agree with all that. I have a D2 and a D3, prefer the D3, but mainly for its dead-on autofocus and its astonishing low light capability.

I've compared images between my D3100 and a D700 I borrowed. When both cameras shot with a 55mm F2.8 off a tripod (I took the EXACT same picture with both cameras) the difference in "detail" or "image quality" at 100 ISO was nearly identical.

The reasons I would like an FX camera are

-Much better build quality (magnesium vs plastic, more rugged body)
-Better features (such as auto bracketing, more FPS etc...)
-Larger view finder (looking through a DX viewfinder is like looking through a straw compared to FX)
-Lower noise at high ISO
-Better AF

I think that for the money, the D700 is the best camera on the market right now. Nikon better make the D700's replacement really revolutionary for me to be interested.

[Hmac]

I've compared images between my D3100 and a D700 I borrowed. When both cameras shot with a 55mm F2.8 off a tripod (I took the EXACT same picture with both cameras) the difference in "detail" or "image quality" at 100 ISO was nearly identical.






Yes...the D3100 is a very good entry level dSLR. It produces usable images up to fairly high ISO, maybe 3200. Image quality doesn't match the D700, and as you note, the flexibility, features, and AF isn't on par with the upper level cameras, but it's a good camera and a great place for a beginner to start.

[Gutshot John]

I've actually reconsidered the video thing if that changes the calculus. The D7000 is really nice but is slightly more than I wanted to spend.

[Mr. Goodtimes]

Gutshot John, I would hold out on your purchase for a little longer. Nikon is scheduled to make a press release on the 26th and will be releasing atleast two new DSLR's. Most people think it will be a D4 and D400. Pretty much everything these days is going to have video unfortunately :rolleyes:

[Hmac]

Gutshot John, I would hold out on your purchase for a little longer. Nikon is scheduled to make a press release on the 26th and will be releasing atleast two new DSLR's. Most people think it will be a D4 and D400. Pretty much everything these days is going to have video unfortunately :rolleyes:

Assuming the D4 will replace the D3 and the D400 will replace the D300, the D400 will certainly price out higher than the OP's upper price limit too (he says somewhat below the D7000). Anyway, I suspect that Nikon's new dSLRs (if there are only two) will be the D4 and the D800, with the guts and function being the same on a different form factor (like D3/D700). We'll find out shortly, I guess.

As to video, I'm probably too old-school. I don't get video as an adjunct on a dSLR. Between my iPhone, Flip video, Muvi, and Sony camcorders, I'm covered for my needs for video without paying extra for that same feature on a camera that I buy to be optimized for still photography. I suspect it's largely a consumer gimmick and kind of see it as akin to adding a shotgun to my rifle. But, no denying the market trend, and its success as a marketing gimmick.

/

[Palmguy]

I've actually reconsidered the video thing if that changes the calculus. The D7000 is really nice but is slightly more than I wanted to spend.

I'd consider the D300 then...

[Mr. Goodtimes]

Assuming the D4 will replace the D3 and the D400 will replace the D300, the D400 will certainly price out higher than the OP's upper price limit too (he says somewhat below the D7000). Anyway, I suspect that Nikon's new dSLRs (if there are only two) will be the D4 and the D800, with the guts and function being the same on a different form factor (like D3/D700). We'll find out shortly, I guess.

As to video, I'm probably too old-school. I don't get video as an adjunct on a dSLR. Between my iPhone, Flip video, Muvi, and Sony camcorders, I'm covered for my needs for video without paying extra for that same feature on a camera that I buy to be optimized for still photography. I suspect it's largely a consumer gimmick and kind of see it as akin to adding a shotgun to my rifle. But, no denying the market trend, and its success as a marketing gimmick.

/

I'm 22 years old and I feel the same way. I'd rather a camera cost me $500 or so less than have a video function I'll never use. I couldn't care less about video in a DSLR. I'm very eager to see what Nikon gives us. I'd love to see a replacement for the D700 but I don't really see that happening unless they release more than two cameras. Nikon's DX lineup is looking a little confusing. They need an undisputed King of the DX cameras (D400). Both the D90 and D300s are in need of replacement but then again, so it the D700/D3.

Truth is it's all speculation at this point and weel just have to wait till the 26th to find out, but I'm very excited to see what it is nonetheless. I think this next series of cameras will really be great.

[Palmguy]

Gutshot John, I would hold out on your purchase for a little longer. Nikon is scheduled to make a press release on the 26th and will be releasing atleast two new DSLR's. Most people think it will be a D4 and D400. Pretty much everything these days is going to have video unfortunately :rolleyes:

It's not like you have to use video. I've never even gone into video mode on my D7000.

It's just a natural extension of having Live View functionality.


I know that there is a difference between the DX and FX sensor but I'm not sure I can quantify it in terms of what I need. All of my expertise is with film and so it simply seems like a difference between 70mm and 35mm film. I concede that this might be simplistic.

Can someone give me a bit of an easy rundown as to what the choice would actually mean to me in practical terms?

The D7000 is probably doable but really at the upper edge of my price range, it is however ideal as a long-term choice. The D90 is definitely affordable but I'm not sure it's a long-term choice or whether I'd have to update again within a year. The D300 seems ideal but the cost of a new one seems close to the D7000 so why not just take the extra hit unless I buy used.

FX is firmly out of your price range and will be for the foreseeable future so I wouldn't really lose any sleep over it. Practical differences? Automatic pro build, larger viewfinder, wider FOV, better low-light capability, shallower depth of field, more expensive glass generally speaking. You do pay for it though.

If you can get over the Nikon warranty, there are good deals to be had on used bodies. Refurbs are another option. KEH now offers a 6 month warranty on used gear.

[Hmac]

I Nikon's DX lineup is looking a little confusing. They need an undisputed King of the DX cameras (D400).

Good points.

[Gutshot John]

I know that there is a difference between the DX and FX sensor but I'm not sure I can quantify it in terms of what I need. All of my expertise is with film and so it simply seems like a difference between 70mm and 35mm film. I concede that this might be simplistic.

Can someone give me a bit of an easy rundown as to what the choice would actually mean to me in practical terms?

The D7000 is probably doable but really at the upper edge of my price range, it is however ideal as a long-term choice. The D90 is definitely affordable but I'm not sure it's a long-term choice or whether I'd have to update again within a year. The D300 seems ideal but the cost of a new one seems close to the D7000 so why not just take the extra hit unless I buy used.

[Mr. Goodtimes]

I would hold out for just a little longer John and see what Nikon releases over the coming months. In the Nikon DX lineup both the D300s and D90 are ripe for replacement. If I had to have a camera right now and video functionality was important, I would go with a D7000. The D7000 actually outclasses the D300s in many ways.

[Hmac]

I know that there is a difference between the DX and FX sensor but I'm not sure I can quantify it in terms of what I need. All of my expertise is with film and so it simply seems like a difference between 70mm and 35mm film. I concede that this might be simplistic.



The marketing point is pixels. Camera companies traditionally have sold cameras based on megapixels...more = better, they imply. In reality, it's the quality of the megapixels that matters, and that largely translates to the size of the photosites. It's the reason that a 12 megapixel FX camera like the D3/D700 blows away all the DX cameras in terms of image quality, color and ISO....bigger photosites because it's the same number of pixels on a much bigger sensor. The problem is that full-frame sensors are really expensive, and it's just harder to sell pro-level $5000 cameras. DX camera are just cheaper.

Because a lens essentially crops the center out of the DX sensor, that crop factor has to be accounted for. The result is that a 50mm lens on a DX sensor actually performs as if it were a 75mm lens (Nikon uses a 1.5x crop factor), whereas on a full frame dSLR, or a 35mm SLR, a 50mm lens acts like a 50mm lens.

[PaulL]

Can someone give me a bit of an easy rundown as to what the choice would actually mean to me in practical terms?

FX is the same as 35mm film.

Simply put, a 50mm on DX looks like a 75mm on FX. 35mm lens on an FX camera requires a 24mm on DX to get the same field of view. A 300mm on FX looks like a 200mm on DX. So on the long end, you can get a little more reach for your dollar with DX. However, if you like to shoot wide angle, it's a bit harder to do on DX. Nikon's 14-24mm wide zoom isn't near as wide on DX. You'd need something like 9mm to get the same FOV. Something like a 70-300mm is a far-reaching SOB on DX, though.

I hope that makes some sense...

ETA: Ooops...took too long typing on the phone... :D

[Palmguy]

I've had two D3's, a D300 backup and 6 of the Nikkor lenses. I've also had the Canon 1Ds Mark II and 1D Mark III along with the 5D and 30D with a number of L lenses…. then there was the Leica film cameras about 8 years ago.

If I was buying something now just to have around, I'd pick up a D700s, used if I could find it. The D700 would be good too, but the "s" has the HD video feature and better ISO sensitivity.

As for lenses, I'd be happy with the 50mm 1.4 and a good longer lens.

The D90 would be an ok choice as well as it has the video feature, but the body is small compared to the full frame sensor bodies...

Do you mean D300 and D300s? There is no D700s.

[jonconsiglio]

I've had two D3's, a D300 backup and 6 of the Nikkor lenses. I've also had the Canon 1Ds Mark II and 1D Mark III along with the 5D and 30D with a number of L lenses…. then there was the Leica film cameras about 8 years ago.

If I was buying something now just to have around, I'd pick up a D700s, used if I could find it. The D700 would be good too, but the "s" has the HD video feature and better ISO sensitivity.

As for lenses, I'd be happy with the 50mm 1.4 and a good longer lens.

The D90 would be an ok choice as well as it has the video feature, but the body is small compared to the full frame sensor bodies...

[kmrtnsn]

I received a D90 for Christmas (I have the best wife in the world!) I have been very impressed. This thing does stuff I haven't figured out yet.