nikon d610: I currently have a Nikon d5200. I was thinking about upgrading to a d610. is the quality worth the expense?

jim lumento Loc: Shelton, Ct

I currently have a Nikon d5200. I was thinking about upgrading to a d610. is the quality worth the expense?

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

You have to decided that for yourself, the D610 cost almost twice as much as the D5200, that should give you a tip off that the D610 is a better camera.

amehta Loc: Boston

jim lumento wrote:

I currently have a Nikon d5200. I was thinking about upgrading to a d610. is the quality worth the expense?

Is it better? Absolutely. Is it worth it? That is a much tougher question.

What are your photography goals?

There is also the question of lenses. Which do you currently have and use?

HEART Loc: God's Country - COLORADO

Snapsort comparison: http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D5200-vs-Nikon-D610

May be helpful in deciding.

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

What FX lenses do you have? People who have the D600 or D610 love them. Good luck.

jim lumento wrote:

I currently have a Nikon d5200. I was thinking about upgrading to a d610. is the quality worth the expense?

Chris Knight Loc: Ayden, nc

jim lumento wrote:

I currently have a Nikon d5200. I was thinking about upgrading to a d610. is the quality worth the expense?

I had the D5000 and bought the D610. I love the low light capabilities of the D610. I kept the D5000 for a backup as it served me well. The quality was worth the expense to me.

jim lumento Loc: Shelton, Ct

18-200 35mm 40mm micro 55-300 18-55

jim lumento Loc: Shelton, Ct

none at this time. which lens will be the best. for portrait and sports

amehta Loc: Boston

jim lumento wrote:

none at this time. which lens will be the best. for portrait and sports

The best for portraits and sports is the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II, for $2400. There are very good options for about $1500 (Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8, Nikon 70-200mm f/4, Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR I, Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8).

Then you'll want at least one other lens, maybe the Nikon 24-120mm f/4, $1300. Or get the D610 with the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G for $2400.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

jim lumento wrote:

I currently have a Nikon d5200. I was thinking about upgrading to a d610. is the quality worth the expense?

I have the D610, and I love it. here's a comparison of the features of those two cameras.

http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D5200-vs-Nikon-D610

Whatever you get, consider a refurbished camera.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

jim lumento wrote:

I currently have a Nikon d5200. I was thinking about upgrading to a d610. is the quality worth the expense?

Yes, but add to that "GOOD" quality FX lenses, and faster computer with bigger hard drives. If you are going to get cheap and not-so-cheap one-size-fits-all do everything superzoom lenses, save your money and stay with DX. In particular, stay away from the 28-300. This lens has its fans, but it will never return the quality that the D610 is capable of. There are other lenses that are similarly average, the 18-35, 24-85, and the 70-300, (soft beyond 150mm). Nikon has other much better lenses, but they are more costly.

deneke

If you have any Nikon lenses left from your 35mm film days, they are useable on a Nikon 610 which is the same format--FX. Your present cam is a DX format. Any new lenses in a FX format will cost considerably more than one in the DX format.

Deneke~

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

jim lumento wrote:

I currently have a Nikon d5200. I was thinking about upgrading to a d610. is the quality worth the expense?

You might want to look at

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html

for some non-technical subjective reviews for Nikon lenses. My experience so far has been, aside from the inconvenience of not having autofocus and aperture control, some of the older film lenses can be pretty good or not. A few are absolutely spectacular. But given the electronic advancements and changes in lens design necessitated by light needing to hit a photosite after going through low pass and bayer filters as opposed to simply landing on the surface of a piece of film. Also, film was not reflective, and modern lenses engineered for digital have coated rear elements specifically intended to reduce mirror box reflections. Lastly, older lenses were often simply coated, and do not have the contrast-enhancing multicoating and nano coating common to current lenses.

Now, in their defense, older lenses were made to tighter mechanical tolerances, out of metal, and, with proper routine maintenance, will likely last longer than their modern-day counterparts. Replacing broken parts will be an issue.

shutterbob Loc: Tucson

Gene51 wrote:

Yes, but add to that "GOOD" quality FX l... (show quote)

I disagree about the 28-300.If you are on a budget like most of us, it is a great all purpose lens. I have a 610, and do most of my shooting with the Nikon 24-70 attached. I also have the 70-200 and 16-35. But there are times when I don't want (or am able) to pack all of my gear around so the 28-300 comes with me. It can give you some pretty good shots until you can afford more lenses, and you can find great used ones for well under $1,000.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

shutterbob wrote:

I disagree about the 28-300.If you are on a budget like most of us, it is a great all purpose lens. I have a 610, and do most of my shooting with the Nikon 24-70 attached. I also have the 70-200 and 16-35. But there are times when I don't want (or am able) to pack all of my gear around so the 28-300 comes with me. It can give you some pretty good shots until you can afford more lenses, and you can find great used ones for well under $1,000.

There is a reason it's not on the list of lenses for the D800, and I have personally used four different copies and found borders and edges unacceptably soft except at the longer focal lengths, but the center sharpness is never more than just ok. It is not one of the better Nikkor lenses.

a better choice might be the 24-120 F4. Faster, smaller, better image quality where it is damned sharp at the wide end, especially at F5.6, up to about 100mm, where it gets a little soft, but it is still better than the 28-300 at the same focal lengths. For an extra $200 you get an F4 lens, significantly better IQ at the shorter focal lengths, 24mm as opposed to 28mm at the wide end, and comparable IQ at 120mm. It is clearly a better lens that will show off the qualities of a high mp sensor. Can't say the same about that 28-300. And trust me, I was looking for that solution to work in the worst way. Which is why I looked at 4 of them, two of which were in Nikon's NPS inventory. They hit a home run with the 18-200 for DX, but were not able to repeat it for FX. Too bad.