ecblackiii Loc: Maryland

I bought a Nikon D7100 a couple of years ago and have been pretty pleased with its results. However, I have been wondering about upgrading to a full frame, possibly a D750 or D810. The D810, particularly, advertises "Brilliantly precise autofocus and significantly reduced internal vibration make it easier to capture pinpoint-sharp images." I currently shoot with Nikon AF-S 50 mm, 1:1.4G; AF-S 18-105 mm, 1:3.5-5.6G; and AF-S 55-300 mm, 1:4.5-5.6G lenses. If you have experience with these cameras, could you tell me your opinion about whether the quality of images produced by the D750 or D810 would be noticeably improved over those produced by the D7100?

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

owned and shot everything but the 18-105.
moving to a 610 or 750 would be a nice improvement in quality.
Save the 810 for when you're ready to buy some glass.

ecblackiii Loc: Maryland

Thanks for your thoughts oldtigger. Is there a particular lens (or lenses) that you have in mind for an 810?

Gobuster Loc: South Florida

Your question is a complex one as there are many considerations. For one both the 18-105 and 55-300mm lenses are DX lenses, and, whilst they will work on the 750 or 810, you would not be taking advantage of the full sensor since those lenses are set to cover a DX sensor and will vignette on full frame. The 50mm is an FX lens and will work well. The full frame cameras offer several advantages in that, in general, they perform better in low light, will be better suited to making large prints, and have greater dynamic range. If you don't have a need for those features, you will best be served by sticking to DX format, maybe upgrading to a D7200. Remember, you will have to buy FX zoom lenses to take advantage of he FX body, so you are looking at substantial cost to upgrade if you want to realize the full potential of FX. In my experience, most folks never print much beyond 11x17 and typically look at their images on screen, you will see very little difference between FX & DX shots. If operated correctly,a D7100 is capable of producing stunning images, so, unless you need those big prints and low light performance, you might be better off first investing in some top tier FX lenses, they work great on DX bodies and you can always upgrade to an FX body later should you have the need. As to the auto-focus, the D7100 already has a 51 focus point system with 15 cross focus points and F8 auto focus capability, a very powerful system!

Anyway, just my $0.02, YMMV as, I'm sure the opinions of others on the forum, will too!

MtnMan Loc: ID

It depends on what you shoot the most. For telephoto shots you get better image quality with the D7100 because it has 24MP on the DX area whereas you only get about 16MP with the D810 and 10 with the D750.

For full frame landscape images the D810 will be better. The D750 will give better low noise performance.

If you shoot a mixture of images in your case your money might be better spent on lenses. You can get a Nikon 10-24 AND one of the new 150-600 (Sigma C or Tamron) for less than either new camera. Or, if you are considering an FX in the future then get the 16-35 instead of the 10-24. (The 150-600s are FX.) Still cheaper total if you get them on sale next March.

Your 50mm is good. But your others, while good lenses, do not compare well to the ones I suggest. Check them out on DXOMark.

ecblackiii Loc: Maryland

Thanks Gobuster. I had not thought through the lens side of the equation yet, but should have. Do you have some advice on particular len(s) if I do decide to go FX?

ecblackiii Loc: Maryland

Thanks Mtnman, especially for your comments on lens upgrade. I assume you find the other two brands as comparable to Nikon quality.

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

tokina 16-28/2.8, tokina 100/2.8 macro, Zeiss 50/1.4 and tamron 24-70 play very well.
Nikon 105/2.8 macro good and nikon 70-200/2.8 a little soft but usable.

ecblackiii Loc: Maryland

Thank you again. I appreciate your recommendations.

MtnMan Loc: ID

I have the Sigma 150-500 for my D800 and a new Sigma 17-50 for my D5300. I believe the Sigma quality is equivalent to Nikon on these so suspect it to be so on the Sigma 150-600 C (note there are two versions of this lens. The Sport is more expensive and heavier, and I don't know if it is any better on image quality.)

Nikon does make even better lenses at significantly greater cost.

I have not used the Tamron but there are many rave reports on it on UHH. I'd check DXOMark on it as well before making a final choice.

Both Sigma and Tamron have had checkered reputations in the past. Both seem to have improved drastically in recent years.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

The Nikon 70-200 2.8 is "usable"?

ecblackiii Loc: Maryland

Any opinion on the AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR that is offered as a D810 package?

Gobuster Loc: South Florida

Please share your budget and typical type of photos you like to shoot. In my case, shooting the D610 FX body, I've been well served by the 16-35 VR, 24-85 VR and 28-300 VR. Collectively, that trio costs about $2,500 new. With just the 16-35 and 28-300 for travel, I get wide range and very good results.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

Indeed. "soft but usable" has to be referring to a different lens, as the 70~200 is right up there with nearly any lens ever made.

ecblackiii Loc: Maryland

Could go up to $4K or so, but would look for sale prices. Interests are mainly (1) landscapes and (2) portraits, with some less frequent (3) still life and (4) kids sports photography