phlash46 Loc: Westchester County, New York

John,

KEH:

Used Nikon 80-400 vr af-s - excellent condition, 1 year warranty available until 12/31/18.

Used Nikon 16-35 vr af-s - $879, same warranty

Used Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art - $698, same warranty

Roberts Camera:
New Nikon D750 + 24-120 lens - $1,897.

Total $4,773, plus memory cards and spare battery. Covers everything you want.

Hip Coyote

Hey John, I am an Oly shooter (and former Canon guy) mostly because I hike (backpack) and often need to carry very little weight. They system is great but it has limits. IMO, it requires very good glass to get very sharp pictures. I usually deploy one of their pro lenses if weight is not a factor and sharpness is. The 12-100 lens is as heavy as most DSLR lenses. The M4/3 has limitations on ISO and is not nearly as good in low light conditions. Being a mirrorless, it also is a battery hog. That being said, I do like the system. But, if weight were not an issue, meaning I travel by car, use a tripod, make the wife carry my equipment, etc. then I would go FF without a doubt. In fact, when grand kids come along and we start shooting inside a lot w/o flash, I will have a FF camera. I can say that I have come to love the abilities of mirrorless. The ability to see what you are going to get in the view finder is an extraordinary thing. I do that, expose to the right and get very very good results. The other thing about Oly is the in body stabilization is downright magic. When hiking I can handhold shooting my wife by a stream or waterfall for a second + and get sharp results. So, what would I recommend? You are a serious photography amateur. You know your style (I shoot people and places...not too into the landscapes really). If you are a landscape shooter, not a lot of animals, not carrying a camera up some mountain, I'd do the FF. I would strongly look at the Sony FF systems.

RolandDieter

Another point besides bulk and weight: Price. For the price of an average full frame lens you can get a top of the line micro4/3. At the same price you will get better results from the micro 4/3. The bigger the glass, the higher the price. Equal quality glass in full frame is bigger and costs more. Also, since micro 4/3 has a 2x crop factor, the full frame zooms have to move their insides twice as far which has a bad effect on quality. Example: full frame 24-120 has to move 96 millimeters; in 4/3 the 12 -60 equivalent only has to move 48 millimeters. Optical advantage? 4/3. Note that this is not the sole comparison you should use, but it should probably be considered.

kmpankopf Loc: Mid-Michigan; SW Pennsylvania

John,

My cent cent. Like you, retirement is approaching quickly for me and want to get the equipment while the cash flow is still good. I moved up from a D90 to D7200 two years ago. Very easy transition, especially with virtually the same menu system. I recently picked up a D500, mostly due to the recent sales blitz. Again, easy transition due to the same menu and control layout. I shoot mostly landscape, nature and air shows like you. I plan to stay with the smaller crop sensor. My $$$s will go to FF lens and higher quality filters. I found my best results come from f/6 to f/11.
As a hobbyist, and I have to keep reminding myself that I am a hobbyist, the newer sensors are pretty good and I'm not going to print or display huge images so the smaller sensors are OK by me. But I do want the best possible image I can get and so I'm going with better lenses.
Good luck. It seems you have a realistic budget so you should do well.

Rxm1941

Just today, in a moment of boredom, I was comparing the Canon EOS 1D with the Ef 24-105 L series lens to my Canon EOS Rebel T5 with the newest EF-S 18-55 IS STM lens. The 1D with lens weighs around 2400 grams, the T5 with its lens around 800 grams. Case closed. My lens is just as sharp as the fancy cinder block. I don't have weather sealing and I lack a few pixels, but I remember Weegee's dictum, "f8 and be there". I also find it comforting to have fewer buttons to not do many things I would never think of doing. Did I say the 1D with lens costs close to $8000. I put out $500. I also recommend a Canon EOS Rebel 2000 perhaps with the EF 50mm f1.8 and a 35mm scanner.

fstoprookie Loc: Central Valley of California

Well, welcome to the I don't want to watch Soap's with my wife club. I have a D810, D500, & D5. I love the way the D810 can produce excellent landscape pictures and the D500 gets Birds in Flight (BIF) pictures. Don't get me wrong - I Love my D5 for sports and action photography. I think if I were you I'd look really hard at a D850 FF camera. Yep, it has a large sensor, but you can also select what part (size ) of the sensor you want to utilize. From DX all the way up to its max FF size. Additionally, it has so many great features and the price (especially this time of year - BLACK Friday and all), I don't see how you could go wrong. It also has reasonably good frame rate selections for your Air Show and Wild Life pictures. And it will leave you enough room to purchase one or two new lens. I'm not all butt hugged up about Mirror-less camera's yet - If you start reading about the Sony, Canon, and Nikon Mirror-Less they still need to mature. Kinda like the D1, and D50 did. Good luck and hope you get the camera you REALLY want. Good hunting

suntouched Loc: Sierra Vista AZ

Before you decide you should go to Photography Life online and look at their review of the Nikon Z7. Take a look at the pros and cons and then the marvelous images taken with that camera.

Bipod

Thanks, John, for taking the time to provide detailed background info and for
making your question open-ended. You've already received some great
suggestions for cameras.

There are lots of threads on the pros and cons of mirrorless, so I'll skip it--
except to say (1) battery drain is higher than on a DSLR; (2) prices are likely
to come down and EVF performance is likely to improve if you wait; and
(3) you probably won't be happy using your existing lenses with an adapter
unless the adapter fits perfectly.

If you are going to make 10" x 8" or larger prints of a typical landscape subject
in a realistic style, and you'll be using a high quality printer, then you'll need a
full frame camera and a sharp, contrasty lens. You won't need this for a photo
of a fog bank, or if you're style is impreesionistic or pictorial (in fact, you may
want an unsharp lens for those styles).

If you need full frame, then that's a good reason to upgrade. Another good reason
is to get a newer, lower noise sensor. But beyond that, the new camera will mostly
add features--which your may or may not find useful.

In general shooting, the camera rarely limits what you can shoot. The limitation
is more likely to be the other gear you have (or don't have) with you: lenses, tripod,
speedlite, reflectors, etc. What gear you need obviously depends on distance and lighting
conditions, but it also depends on the subject and how you intend to display your prints.

It's good to think ahead about what lenses you may need, since lenses are very
expensive (particularly zoom lenses). And sometimes you can save money by
buying a body + lens bundle.

If you plan to shoot moving cars or aircraft on the ground, you will need a zoom for sure.
If not, then the zoom is mainly a convenience.

I don't think you'll encounter many low-light situations at air shows or car shows
(unless you shoot inside a cabin-class aircraft). And landscape photographers
typically shoot on a tripod, so in low-light situations, they can make long exposures.

So I'd suggest you buy the slower zoom, and use the savings to buy a fast prime lens
for landscape work, in either 50 mm or 35 mm length (whichever you prefer, 50 mm
is more common) f/2.8 is fast for a zoom, but not fast for a 50mm prime: even the
midrange ones from Canon and Nikon are f/1.4.

Most high quality prime lenses are sharpest at one stop narrower than their widest aperture.
For a a few very fast ones, or slighly less corrected ones, it may be two stops slower.
To be sure, you cat make some test shots of a lens test target or a brick wall at diffrerent
aperatures (with a tripod and mirror lock-up).

But the truth is that even the cheapest prime lenses from Nikon, Canon and Pentax, etc.
are sharp at their sharpest aperature--and very contrasty. These days, very few photos
are unsharp due to lenses--but many shots are unsharp due to other causes: subminiature
format, diffraction (e.g. f/22), camera shake, autofocus error, subject motion, lossy
compression (e.g. JPEG) or lossy digital filters during processing. People won't be aware
of these losses unless they either make largish prints or crop and magnify.

Midrange and "Pro" grade lenses may have a slightly better coating and slightly better
correction, but the main difference is wider maximum aperature.

A fast lens is the best solution to a low-light situation. Cranking up the ISO increases
noise--which may be OK in small image or print, but usually will show in a full-screen
image or 8 x 10" or larger print. Noise is worse in color. Processing can hide some of
the noise, but can't eliminate it (since by definition, noise is random).

With zoom lenses, the sharpest aperture can change depending on the
focal length. Exactly how depends on the lens design. Zoom lenses are
very complex to design, with a lot of tradeoffs. The best ones are very
good, but also very expensive, and never as well-corrected as an
equivalent quality prime lens. (I'm going to start a thread on lenses soon,
so I won't go into the designs here.)

Zoom lenses are never contrasty, because of internal flare. Generally, the more you
pay for a zoom lens, the less contrasty it is! That's because more expensive zooms
are better corrected, which means more groups = more surfaces = more flare.
Improved coatings can help reduce, but not eliminate flare. A 15 group = 30 surface
zoom lens is going to have flare, period. You won't see the flare, but you will
see the reduction in contrast.

Zooms are a lot shaper than they used to be, and coatings have improved--but not
enough to compensate for all the additional surfaces. Using one of these zooms is
like screwing 15 glass filters to the front of your lens (don't worry: they're
mulit-coated!).

I wish someone made a less-corrected (fewer groups and surfaces) but advanced coated
modern zoom lens. But most lens reviews concentrate on resolution and ignore
contrast, and lens manufactures design accordingly (even to the insane degree of
flattening the field of focus to match a test chart!).

Zoom lenses are only required for action, sports and some wildlife photography,
and photojournalism. Yet despite low contrast and high cost, zoom lenses are used
for probably 90% of shots taken on interchangable-lens cameras today. Why?

I think there two approaches to photography: "do everything" and "do what you do best".
Famous photographers tend to fall into the latter category.

Some (including some still working) shoot primarily or entirely with a single,
prime-focus lens: Cartier-Bresson (50 mm), Bill Cunningham (35 mm), Annie
Leibovitz (35 mm), Terry Richardson (35 mm), and Herb Ritts (100 mm).
Obviously, this limits what they can shoot--but that's not relevant: they do
what they do best.

Anyway, perhaps the best approach for you to to keep your D90 and its "utility"
zoom for casual shooting, and use your new camera (and whatever lenses and gear
you need) for serious work. That way you can "do everything" and also "do what
you do best". And ff your D90 gets broken or lost, you can easily and cheaply
replace it with another used D90 (or similar camera).

ecurb1105

I envy your quandry, I would love to have your choices. As a long time Nikon user I would go with a Z6, a 35mm f1.8 and a FTZ adapter.

rohrerpix

After looking at Mary Ellen Mark’s photos try a Leica. Maybe your local camera store will let you demo it.

flyingnone

I 'retired' from full-frame Nikon about 3 years ago. Currently have the old OMD-1 ands the Mark 10 ll. Love them both. The size, convenience, and weight are all easy to maintain at my elderly age of 88 years. I just bought the 12-100mm f4.0 Lens - $1200.00. I can't figure out why I need anything else (ff equiv 24-200mm). There is also a doubler built into the camera which gives me a 200mm f:4.0 or a 400mm equiv. Be happy to furnish any more info.
Check out the followingfile: www.E-M1%20Video%20Overview%20Training%20Tutorial%20-%20YouTube.webarchive