I like to put a buffalo carcass on my front lawn, too. Right here in suburban Philadelphia - then I wait for the lions. I did this about 5 years ago. Still waiting. But at least the neighbors stay off my lawn now. :)
It's like a close horse race - each company comes out with new advances all the time. Nobody has ever settled the 'which is better' question. And it's not just the cameras, it's the lenses too. This is what I would do if I was in your position:
1. Ask what are the three types of photography I will do most (portrait, landscape, street, etc...) Write it down. Make a spread sheet. If there's only one type, make it a shorter list. Or make it longer if you love all.
2. Research with experts in that type of photography - what body and lens do they prefer and why. I have to build in pricing because I'm not a Trump.
3. Rent, borrow or steal the cameras and lenses that come to the top of the list and see if Nikon/Canon and the lenses feel better or different. Take notes.
4. Reevaluate what is important after doing the research. Have your assumptions changed?
5. Now make the decision. If it comes up Kodak or Brownie, start over.
Good luck. Have fun.
Hi Apaflo: Nobody was suggesting that he downgrade to a D90. Sorry if my admiration of the outstanding low light Auto Focus of the ancient D90 caused you consternation. It's one of the (several) reasons why I still have not given up that wonderful body, even though I do own supposedly superior D800 and a D5500 bodies. I do horrible things to that body. Things you wouldn't approve of. Weird science. Nasty experiments. Don't ask - I've already told you too much.
That's very nice Apaflow, and it's true that the IMAGE CAPTURE works that way - hence the 'low light hunter' statement, but I shoot a lot of low light and I have found the d90 is much better at ACQUIRING A SUBJECT at low light - in the real world. Specs just get you so far. Low light shooting requires a lot of moving parts to work. Do a web search and you will see others have had the same experience as me.
SX2002: That's not fair. Using a D90 should be illegal for this test. As old at is is, it's an amazing low light hunter. Beats my D800 hands-down! I love shooting low light and you can't imagine my frustration when I learned this.
To the OP: My recommendation for low light is drop your zoom requirement go with a fast prime lens in the range that you most often find yourself shooting in low light. I love low light expression. Photography would not be nearly as much fun without it. If you shoot low light a lot, you will thank me.
Yes. It works with an impressionistic feel. You might even apply a bunch of plugins and filters to it and see what comes up. Art can be imprecise.
Hi Scott,
I think the Oly and Panasonic m4/3 format allows them to make lenses are that smaller than the Sony's that you are talking about. The Sony's larger, full frame format makes it necessary to use larger glass.
Best,
- Steve
I held and shot with a M1 mark ii (prototype) on Saturday. I own a D5500 and shoot with it as the core of my travel kit. I can tell you that I am strongly considering replacing all of my Nikon glass and bodies for Olympus now because of it because:
1. It's lighter and more compact for travel and everyday all day use.
2. Carrying an extra battery is no big deal, I always do that anyway.
Concerns that I overcame:
1. I love low light shooting and Oly's chip isn't as sensitive as the chip on the d5500, but they match up in body VR with lens VR and you can get sharp images at very long hand held times in the 2-5 second range.
2. The 4/3 image quality is much better than I had worried.
3. They are finally claiming to be long lens capable (for wildlife and indoor sports.)
But:
The body is about as expensive as the awesome Nikon D810.
Retooling lenses to the equivalent of the Nikon holy trinity will be a fortune.
I didn't see a longer macro solution. (maybe I just didn't look hard enough.)
Well now, watching you guys fight like Clinton and Trump makes me think I better clarify my statement before I am dragged into the mud, as well. This should piss you both off.
But my comment is to OP who is just trying to figure out what camera is best for their needs.
I think the D810, by pixel count, can be looked at *almost* as a medium format camera in some ways. It is a very demanding beast to tame for a photographer who is not 'very experienced' (professional?) or shoots a lot and is comfortable with the quirks of a few cameras. It is a different animal that a 750 or a 610 and I wouldn't recommend it to a 'casual photographer'. (How's that for not name calling?)
Now, my best ever photos have come from my 800, but I still get more bad shots with my 800 than I do with my awesome D90 or my so-so D5500 or my 'better than my ex wife' Fuji X100s. That's on me, yes, but I'm not recommending the camera to someone who isn't OK with a higher failure rate than they would get with a 610 or 750 unless they are experienced enough to either reduce that rate or be OK with it.
If you feel like you want the best FX camera on the market and are willing to take on the weight and complexity of running it, I can't wait to see your photos. I bet they'll be awesome, and I know you will love the learning process going from the D90 to D810.
Don't forget you may need more hard disk to store all of your great photos.
Best of luck!!!
I agree with SteveR, Ken Rockwell would be a great source for this question. Rockwell's recommendation was why I bought the lens I use.
From my experience; I have the 85 F/1.8D. It is my favorite portrait lens on full frame or dx bodies. I have shot portraits extensively with Nikon 50mm, 105mm DC, and Tamron 70-200mm F/2.8. It'll be a great lens for your D7200. The G model is fine from what I hear, but he D model is so good that I've never seriously considered switching.
I own the D800. It is an unforgiving pixel eater - meaning that if your focus isn't perfect, you have 36 megapixels of glaring proof. That being said, I think that it is an awesome camera - especially for the studio, on a tripod, and anywhere you have the time to ensure PERFECT focus. I'd probably go with the D750 if I wanted a FX 'do everything' camera, which is why I have a second, DX body. I want a lighter travel kit.
Nice details in those wing feathers! Love the moderate back lighting of the first one.
I was at a photo event in Bethlehem PA this weekend and did some test shooting with the yet-to-be released Olympus OMD M1 ii. And it blew me away. I was stunned by everything about this camera. Even how good micro 4/3 images are on that tiny chip.
Now I'm currently a Nikon and Fuji shooter and I love them, but I have to run 3 camera to get all the features I need. (light weight, low light sensitive, good vibration reduction, wide through long, video capable, blah blah...)
I have to do more research, but I am currently mulling dropping everything and going to this system after 1. It's released, and 2.) the first bugs are worked out.) Have a look at the specs and get your hands on one when when it comes out. You might be surprised. I sure was.
I also need to blow up some prints from 4/3. I'm still not sure if I trust the format.
What do you want to do with this camera?
I have a d5500 as a third body right now. My requirement for third body is light enough to carry with wide through zoom and not feel overburdened - and a high enough pixel count to do anything I desire with shots - print, post or sell.
Currently, I have a D90 as a second body (The requirement is that it can drive my old DX art lenses that don't have motors in them.) But I wish to upgrade the d90 to either a 7200 or d500, because it just isn't able to handle low light shooting.
My primary camera is FX. It's the one that I use for serious project, but I hate lugging it around on vacation and day trips.
Soooo..... The answer depends on shooting style, budget, weight sensitivity, light sensitivity, what kind of flash you might or might not shoot with, and whether or not you ever shoot manual.
No single source on the web pulls all of this together. It's best if you make your own list of your priorities and see what cameras fill this in.
Finally, if you want to hit Jim Bob over the head with it, I'd recommend a beefy full frame camera with a rather long and heavy lens.