Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Check out Wedding Photography section of our forum.
Main Photography Discussion
I am going to buy one, but which one?
Page <<first <prev 7 of 9 next> last>>
Mar 31, 2014 18:59:34   #
amehta Loc: Boston
 
Dexter56 wrote:
Now that is interesting. Was the move to the 700 everything you expected it to be? Which was the bigger jump in your opinion, the jump from the 200 to 700 or from the 700 to the 800?

Both were huge, and both needed a lens upgrade to go with it:
* D200, 18-55mm, 55-200mm consumer lenses
* D700, 70-200mm f/2.8, 17-35mm f/2.8 pro zooms (now a generation old)
* D800, 85mm f/1.4, 300mm f/2.8, 24mm f/1.4, 200mm f/4 micro

The D200 combo to the D700 combo gave me a 3-4 stop improvement for indoor volleyball. The D700 to D800 combo gave me amazing sharpness and clarity for portraits and general shooting. I didn't use the D200 for 6 months after getting the D700, and gave it away (it's still in use). I used the D700 only once since getting the D800, so that may not stay with me much longer either. Each jump was so big I couldn't see why I'd still use the older camera or lenses. The 70-200mm f/2.8 VRI is the only lens I still have from the D700 days, and it also only got used once by me (loaned to a friend for a few months, though).

Reply
Mar 31, 2014 19:12:58   #
Dexter56 Loc: Ohio
 
amehta wrote:
Both were huge, and both needed a lens upgrade to go with it:
* D200, 18-55mm, 55-200mm consumer lenses
* D700, 70-200mm f/2.8, 17-35mm f/2.8 pro zooms (now a generation old)
* D800, 85mm f/1.4, 300mm f/2.8, 24mm f/1.4, 200mm f/4 micro

The D200 combo to the D700 combo gave me a 3-4 stop improvement for indoor volleyball. The D700 to D800 combo gave me amazing sharpness and clarity for portraits and general shooting. I didn't use the D200 for 6 months after getting the D700, and gave it away (it's still in use). I used the D700 only once since getting the D800, so that may not stay with me much longer either. Each jump was so big I couldn't see why I'd still use the older camera or lenses. The 70-200mm f/2.8 VRI is the only lens I still have from the D700 days, and it also only got used once by me (loaned to a friend for a few months, though).
Both were huge, and both needed a lens upgrade to ... (show quote)


Here I was all ready to run out and buy a 610 and you got me thinking about a 800. Maybe the wife was right. Sounds like you are plenty happy with the 800.

Reply
Mar 31, 2014 19:18:02   #
amehta Loc: Boston
 
Dexter56 wrote:
Here I was all ready to run out and buy a 610 and you got me thinking about a 800. Maybe the wife was right. Sounds like you are plenty happy with the 800.

Two years, closing in on 100k shots. Yes, it's been great.

Reply
Check out The Pampered Pets Corner section of our forum.
Mar 31, 2014 20:04:56   #
Peekayoh Loc: UK
 
Gene51 wrote:
... And Peekayoh missed something as well. Using a tele extender enlarges the image on the sensor, so you have the same number of pixels and same amount of detail (assuming a good match between the lens and the extender) but a smaller angle of view, as opposed to cropping. which will degrade the image by discarding information as you pointed out for the cropping. ....
How is what I said incorrect? ... the 1.4x tele crops the image before it reaches the Sensor and then spreads it out. The result is the same, you lose a stop of ISO. ...

At the time we were discussing how the crop mode affected ISO rather than the relative merits of using crop mode versus a tele converter. BTW, I use a 1.4x tele and I know why I use and the pluses and minuses.

Just sayin!

Reply
Mar 31, 2014 20:11:13   #
Peekayoh Loc: UK
 
amehta wrote:
The D7100 and D610 are both 24mp, but the FX sensor is 2.25x the area. If you shoot the D610 in DX mode, the sensor area being used is the same as the D7100, and you get a 11mp image, about 3900x2600 pixels, vs 6000x4000 for the D7100. If you're making an 8x12 print at 300dpi, you need 3600x2400, so the 11mp image is perfectly adequate, and at 200dpi, the D610-DX still lets you easily make an 11x14" print. Meanwhile, the larger D610 pixels give you less noise and better color because each pixel captures more light. With the D7100 image, the pixels need to be digitally averaged to get some of the same benefit. Of course, when you don't need to crop, it's no contest.
The D7100 and D610 are both 24mp, but the FX senso... (show quote)
I'm not altogether certain but I think you're making a case for the D610 in crop mode so I have to disagree. I'm not going to argue about what makes an acceptable print because that's a distraction from the main point asked by Dexter56 and hardly relevant.

First thing to point out is that the bigger pixels don't give you any advantage once you use the camera in DX Crop Mode; you lose a stop and a quarter of usable ISO and that puts you right back in crop sensor territory.

The D610 crop mode gives you 3936px x 2624px but the D7100 gives you 6036px x 4020px with roughly the same noise levels and similar DR because DR is closely linked to noise levels.

Guess which is the winner?

I use Sony not Nikon gear and for Aircraft Photography I use an A77 (crop camera), an A99 (FF Camera) and a 300/2.8 because it's the longest that I can hand hold, oh and a 1.4x tele. When I need to get closer I do not use crop mode on the FF camera, I switch bodies. It's no contest, the A77 does a better job.

Reply
Mar 31, 2014 20:47:15   #
photon56 Loc: North America
 
Dexter56 wrote:
Hello everyone. I have been following this site for quite a while, but this is my first posting. I am hoping to get some advice from someone that has both a D600/610 and a D7100. I currently own a D200 and it has been a great camera for me. Love the layout and the feel of the semi-pro body. As long as I do not have to push the ISO too high, it performs great. My main interest in photography is high school sports. The D200 works great as long as there is plenty of light, but for night games under the lousy stadium lights, or inside a gym I am only good up to about ISO 800 before things get too grainy and too much loss of detail. So the question is, a D7100 or D610? Advantages of 7100; better focus system, more reach, slightly faster FPS and of course price. Advantages of 600, better high ISO image quality, which is very important. All my lenses are FX, including my main sports lens, the old but trusty 80-200 AF-S 2.8 By the way, I only shoot sports in JPEG so the buffer is not an issue, and I do crop most of my photos in PP. Thanks for any advice you can give me.
Hello everyone. I have been following this site f... (show quote)


Go for the D7100. It's a great camera for the price.

Reply
Mar 31, 2014 20:49:04   #
foxhal Loc: Boynton Beach FL
 
I'm handling RAW files (48mb) from my D800 on a SONY laptop running Windows 7 64 bit with a dual core 2.2ghz processor. It was very slow with some functions using 4gb of SDRAM but upgrading to 8gb made it workable. The horror stories about handling big files aren't as bad as described. Resolution, even after cropping to Dx is still hugely better than the D7000 since you're using just the sweet spot of the Fx lens and noise is barely noticeable at ISO 3200. I'm very pleased with my move to Fx (but I started with Fx Nikons in 1965)

Reply
 
 
Mar 31, 2014 21:21:15   #
PhotoGenesis131 Loc: Michigan
 
Dexter56 wrote:
Hello everyone. I have been following this site for quite a while, but this is my first posting. I am hoping to get some advice from someone that has both a D600/610 and a D7100. I currently own a D200 and it has been a great camera for me. Love the layout and the feel of the semi-pro body. As long as I do not have to push the ISO too high, it performs great. My main interest in photography is high school sports. The D200 works great as long as there is plenty of light, but for night games under the lousy stadium lights, or inside a gym I am only good up to about ISO 800 before things get too grainy and too much loss of detail. So the question is, a D7100 or D610? Advantages of 7100; better focus system, more reach, slightly faster FPS and of course price. Advantages of 600, better high ISO image quality, which is very important. All my lenses are FX, including my main sports lens, the old but trusty 80-200 AF-S 2.8 By the way, I only shoot sports in JPEG so the buffer is not an issue, and I do crop most of my photos in PP. Thanks for any advice you can give me.
Hello everyone. I have been following this site f... (show quote)


I would go for the D610. I have the D600. All of your lenses are FX. I do put my 600 in Dx crop to extend the range. Though I often shoot in Manual and manipulate things, it is nice to just hand the camera over to somebody,swing it to AUTO so I can be in a picture occasionally. I didn't want the bigger raw files sizes with the 800 and if I remember right the 800 did not have The AUTO setting on a dial- maybe menu embedded?, and it the 800 didn't seem like a much better for the money- except the strdier case and file size. I hike, camp and mine could take a beating or go off a cliff. I went with the 600 and got the new shutter service. I would still get the 600/610 over the 800. But I would go FX, it sure seemed like an improvement. Now you can probably get a refurbished 600 at a bargain price.

Reply
Apr 1, 2014 13:17:38   #
Bram boy Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada
 
bjprovo wrote:
I understand what you are saying and don't disagree with your premise. However, when I shoot a baseball game and try to get the bat striking the pitch it very rarely works out on burst shooting. It is even more pronounced when shooting a golfer during his swing, I have never been able to capture the club hitting the ball during a burst, there really is a lot going on in between each frame. I just decided to work on capturing the moment instead.


try a good video camera . you can get what your after on one frame . then
make a copy of that one frame . lots of work but ! ??

Reply
Apr 1, 2014 14:13:33   #
bjprovo Loc: Northeast CT
 
I suppose, but that kind of takes the fun and challenge out of it.
Bram boy wrote:
try a good video camera . you can get what your after on one frame . then
make a copy of that one frame . lots of work but ! ??

Reply
Apr 1, 2014 21:39:14   #
Bram boy Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada
 
Dexter56 wrote:
You guys are getting a little over my head here, but I am trying to follow you. I have always thought that there is a bit of difference between a crop camera, say a 7100 and a full frame camera, say a 600. Both have the same pixel count, but with the sensor on the 7100 being smaller the pixel density is higher therefore the image quality is better than taking a picture from the 600 and cropping it down to the same size. I don't know if that makes sense to you, but that is always how I looked at it. I might be all wet here.
You guys are getting a little over my head here, b... (show quote)


higher pixel is not always better if the space there going to is two small you get them crowding in and causing two many in one area . like two much paint
on the picture with to heavy a brush .

Reply
Check out Landscape Photography section of our forum.
Apr 2, 2014 04:21:01   #
Peekayoh Loc: UK
 
Bram boy wrote:
higher pixel is not always better if the space there going to is two small you get them crowding in and causing two many in one area . like two much paint
on the picture with to heavy a brush .
So, just to get things straight. You're saying that a printer cannot paint a dot smaller than 3.9µm?

Reply
Apr 2, 2014 17:11:03   #
Bram boy Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada
 
Peekayoh wrote:
So, just to get things straight. You're saying that a printer cannot paint a dot smaller than 3.9µm?


no I'm just stating what the so called experts say . there is such a thing as having to many pixels .and they have proven that

Reply
Apr 2, 2014 18:02:13   #
Peekayoh Loc: UK
 
Which Experts and what proof.
I can see there's no point in taking a high res image of a low res painting. Maybe that's what you're saying

Reply
Apr 2, 2014 19:46:23   #
Dexter56 Loc: Ohio
 
Peekayoh wrote:
Which Experts and what proof.
I can see there's no point in taking a high res image of a low res painting. Maybe that's what you're saying


Never mind all of that. I still need to figure out what camera to buy. Actually, all this discussion has made up my mind that I need to go FX. I have to take advantage of the better high ISO I can get with full frame. Last night I was taking pics of my son's lacrosse game with the old D200. Everything was going great till the sun went down and had to rely on the stadium lights. I needed something that could look good at 3200 to keep the shutter up fast enough. So, it is full frame for me. Really now the only the only problem is I have heard so many good arguments about the D800, I am starting to think about that. You guys are going to have all of my money spent if I keep reading these.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 7 of 9 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Video for DSLR and Point and Shoot Cameras section of our forum.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.