RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

He very clearly mentioned d810, not 8x10.

JennT Loc: South Central PA

My 810 interacts with my fx lenses in the most amazing way-- I am most comfortable with it--also use a d7100 as a carry around camera with a 18-200 lens--always wish I had used the d810

Cropping out most of the image to capture details of--say a spider-- works a treat!

All depends upon what you want your camera to do for your, but i do recommend it!!

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

I think so. Starting at the end product - it produces nicer images when the lighting conditions are rough - and captures greater detail all the time. I haven't shot with a D610, but I did spend a few hours with a D600. There are a number of other reasons to consider it, but rather than repeat what has already been written that you can find using google, I'll just give you this executive summary. The D810 is a very good pro-level camera, the D610 is a very good enthusiast's camera.

edazz Loc: Florida via New York

Go to classifieds section. brand new nikon, never used, for sale.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Kindly read IBM's post again. That is the one we are referencig. It specified making an 8x10 print from a 3.8 MP camera and not getting anything better from a 16 MP camera. Clearly a skill level difference, not to be projected on others or on the cameras.

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

I suppose I agree in concept, but only when you have total control over your subject - like in a studio.

If you are shooting birds and wildlife, you use a long lens and you still crop to get a nicer composition or to eliminate distracting elements from the image.
If you are shooting landscapes with a wider lens, and you place the horizon low (or high) in the frame, you correct the keystone effect and this involves cropping.
If you are shooting architectural exteriors or interiors without the benefit of a perspective control lens, you crop.
If you shoot a panorama sequence, after you stitch the image you crop for the best composition
If you shoot action sports - you spray and pray, shoot a little looser composition, pick the best shots and you crop.
If you shoot weddings, and someone is in the corner of a frame but the rest of the composition is fine, you crop.

I can think of another 1000 reasons why cropping is necessary, but I'll stop here.

Cropping is a valuable tool, and using it doesn't mean you are a less skilled photographer, or a sloppy photographer who can't get it right in the viewfinder, as I get the sense you are implying. Thinking that you can solve all compositional matters in the viewfinder and this will minimize cropping is either delusionally ill-informed or evidence that you limit your photography to just a certain type of subject.

FWIW, when I do portraits (which is seldom) I almost never crop.

Jim Bob

Well if he sees no difference, that may be a comment about his eyesight but it does not necessarily implicate his level of skill. That is your interpretation and not the only reasonable one that one might come away with. Your arrogance and inability to comprehend are on display again. As one poster pointed out, the OP did not mention 8 x 10.

Jim Bob

Guys, I don't know about you, but I posit one can learn a lot from Gene. But only if you are willing.

alfengael

This isn't in reply to anyone in particular, just a last comment. I think everyone has different needs, different goals and intentions, different budgets and so on. I can only state what applies to me—the pursuit of perfection, the sharpest photos and the largest prints. A D810. There's no doubt that an 18MP Canon T4i is more than adequate for posting photos on websites or making small 4x6 in. prints or even 16x20 in. prints—and even 8MP will do just fine. As for composition, shooting with a DSLR one doesn't always have time to compose a frame, as when a fast moving hawk is passing overhead. Having the additional resolution and frame size helps when it comes to cropping later. Otherwise, like shooting 4x5 in. film on a tripod, you can take your time and compose a photo. But the other thing, that some have touched on here, is knowing how to use whatever camera one has. The more you know the more flexibility you have, the more tools for creativity. However, just knowing the basics is often enough to make great photos. The problem with digital is the overwhelming complexity of the process.

With 35mm film most cameras served a rather limited function, mainly shutter speed and metering and later automatic exposure and eventually autofocus. But, one camera was pretty much like many others and what really made a difference was not the camera but the lens and the film. Back in the day I owned Nikons for 35mm, an F2AS, FE2 and an FM. Shooting with one or another didn't make any difference when it came to quality, sharpness, grain, etc. It was all in the film and the lens, and of course one's skill in using those on the camera of choice. Nowadays, every camera may have different characteristics depending mostly on the sensor and the combination of body and lens. The same lens on two different bodies can be completely different when it comes to sharpness, light transmission and so on. That wasn't the case with film. I could put any one of my lenses on any one of my Nikon bodies and the result would be the same.

The innumerable user settings of our modern DSLRs are almost a joke. Only Ken Rockwell really knows how to use all of them, and he doesn't. Even he ignores many of the features. If there's anything a really good photographer doesn't need, its most of those features beyond shutter speed, aperture, and ISO setting. And really everything else can be adjusted or changed in post editing.

Some of you may not have been around for the first advent of APS (Advanced Photographic System) format. For film, and it was a complete joke. No one took it seriously. So now we have APS-C and I have to wonder why. Why not just make full-frame cameras? Who really needs a smaller sensor? And why? It doesn't necessarily make the camera that much smaller and lighter. In any case, it's not for me. Like I said, I am in the pursuit of perfection. Period.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

I was too hasty. When Jim Bob said “poster,” I was thinking of the OP. Time for another snort of Old Stump Blower!

Leon S Loc: Minnesota

For me the only reason I would upgrade from my D810 to the D850 would be because the D850 is supposed to have a flip out screen. I now have trouble bending because of back surgery. It would be nice to have a fold out screen to shoot from lower angles without getting down on the ground to do so. 47mp would allow me to crop even tighter than I do now, but it would also require me to use a high end tripod to take advantage of the higher MP. I can now do almost everything I need to do with the use of just a mono pod. Prior to the D810 I used a D700 and did very good work, but with the D810 I had to use better glass. For me, I'm not getting into the GAS game again and upgrading anything more than what does better work than I can take advantage of for the present.

rfcoakley Loc: Auburn, NH

I just purchased a refurbished D810 from Adorama last week. However, for me, the decision was more about whether to jump to full frame from DX sensor vs getting upgraded DX setup (D500 , etc). Since you already are shooting full frame, you might consider waiting longer for a camera upgrade. I'm sure, as others have pointed out, that you could find a better deal by waiting till later this year. I can say that I'm very happy with the Adorama deal that I got. In my case, the shutter count was a litter over 8000. I also opted for the 3 year extended "New Leaf" warranty for another $49.

RSQRD Loc: SW Florida

I am interested in your comment on the new Sigma 100-400 mm lens. How does it compare with the latest Nikon 70-300 mm for sharpness, weight is my interest although I also own a Sigma 150-600 mm lens which is my upper limit using a monopod.

alfengael

***BEWARE*** THE NEW NIKON AF-P 70-300 IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH ALL NIKON BODIES.

I'm sorry I have no experience with it. I considered buying it instead of the Sigma, but I discovered that it is not fully compatible with my D810— I discovered this fine print on Nikon's site, and it is really important to be aware of:

The number of cameras compatible with this lens is limited. Even for compatible cameras, a firmware update may be required. Fully compatible models: D7500, D5600, D3400, D500.

Fully compatible models (without limitations) after available firmware update: D5, D750, D610, D600, D5500, D5300, D3300. Download firmware updates at: http://downloadcenter.nikonimglib.com/en/index.html

Regardless of firmware update, these models will still have some limitations*: D4, D4S, D3, D3X, D3S, D810, D810A, D800, D800E, Df, D700, D300, D300S, D7200, D7100, D7000, D5200.

*Because these models reset focus when reverting from standby status (timer off), pre-focus shooting is not available.

Incompatible models: D2 series, D1 series, D200, D100, D90, D80, D70 series, D60, D50, D40 series, D5100, D5000, D3200, D3100, D3000, film SLR cameras.

advocate1982

I know you were being facetious in your response. But actually 6MP is all you need for just about most photographic needs. I've printed murals that are 16 feet high by 90 feet long from a file that is only 3000 pixels wide. And no they don't have grain the size of volleyballs, and hold fine detail. And high ISO - that isn't a real necessity. Look at all the great work that was done from the days when 64 ISO was considered high speed. Frame rate - same thing. It's more a crutch for poor timing than it is a necessity for learning to time your shots.