Hey everybody

I did a search on the topic (specifically "d5600") but didn't get very far so I'm straight-up asking.

My wife and I recently had a kid, our first, and she's in picture mode. She wants to take a lot of candid snaps so she can have prints and small canvases made up but only has her phone. I'm sure many of you understand. She likes what I do with my D850 and Sunday night said "maybe you can teach me to use your camera because I don't like my phone as much." I think that's great, but yesterday afternoon I introduced her to the concept of aperture and ISO. I figure going from that level to a D850 is like getting your permit at 15 and having your behind-the-wheel training with a Corvette on a track. And she's a little clumsy....

I looked around at Nikon's APS-C cameras and like the D5600 and D7200 specs. I looked at each of them in-hand last night, I like the simpler menus, I like how each feels in-hand (5600 for the light, compact feel like a mirrorless, the 7200 because it's like a small D850), and I like that each has fewer buttons. She'll like that too because she says just looking at my D850 makes her anxious with all the controls.


So, specifically, how does each fare for entry-level users? I want her to have some creative ability - she'll grow in to either I'm sure - but for now I am looking at pleasantness and ease of use, ease of growing in to the next level, and obvious limitations. I am NOT looking at how many dials each has or how many card slots; that stuff doesn't matter to someone who just learned yesterday what aperture is. How does each handle low-light noise? Which one would you pick for someone interested in portrait and candids, and basic wildlife (like the squirrel in the tree or ducks on the dock next to the boat, not birds in flight).

TIA

Beware the man who shoots only one gun, for he knows it well.

That said, I'm pretty new/ amateur with my D850. I would have argued for at least a low intermediate when I had my entry-level cam but whatever :) My lens plan is a Sigma 14 f1.8 prime for shooting stars (my main complaint with my T5i was noise while shooting long exposures at 3am), Nikkor 24-70 for walk-around, 70-200 for mid-range stuff like going to the zoo or the park, and Sigma S 150-600 for wildlife. I have a 50 1.8 because everyone should and a 105 macro for my other main hobby. That's my list of aspiration. If I add something else on there, it might be a fisheye, but that's kind of unlikely.

I shot a T5i for a while and got some great snaps with it. The only real reason I sold it was for better noise handling with astro shooting - if you have decent light available the T5i should be a good camera for you. I really enjoyed mine.

I was also going to suggest the nifty 50 f1.8 - new it's only 125.

I upgraded when I realized my camera couldn't do what I wanted it to (T5i and low-light noise handling). I sold it a few years ago and put the funds in the house IOU fund. The upgrade came this year, finally, with both a birthday in August and our first-born arriving sometime in January. My bride said "if you're going to get a camera, at least get a good one" so we splurged and took home a D850 instead of the 5DmIV I'd had my eye on for the years since selling. I would have stuck with the Canon line had someone not stolen my macro lens sometime in the last couple years.

I can only hope to come close to the capabilities of that camera.

I'm in process of building a photo-specific PC but it's going to run a 512GB SSD for software with a pair of 6TB storage drives in RAID 1. Finished JPEGs or TIFF files will be on an external 1TB. There's also online storage - I am working out what I want to do there yet.

1. I don't like the vignetting of the second. The first draws my eye across the entire image and pulls the viewer in to the scene vs tunnel vision, so to speak.

Very nice. I love moving water and fall colors, particularly when combined.

An excellent write-up.

And drat, now I need another program.

I recently got married (well, sorta) and was dismayed that my photographer didn't dress up. I didn't expect full formalwear but a nice pair of jeans, clean shirt, simple dress shoes and a dark coat 1 size too big (for movement) would have been perfect. Kind of a semi-casual but still dressy look, IMHO, is a good all-purpose look for both men and women.

As to the comment about the photog sticking out, unless all the guests have those big white or black cans stuck to their face, the photographer is going to stick out. No other guests are crouching, running around during the ceremony, etc.

I did, and thanks for following up. The 14mm f/1.8 isn't on there but I did the work and found it calculates out to just under 2500. That's pretty far up the list. The 50 f/1.8 is only a 906 (row 40). A 14mm f/2.8 lens is 1032 (row 35).

Thanks for the links, they'll give me some good reading to do as well as being a resource for future searches.




Because I'm stubborn ;) I probably will take the lens recommendation. I don't like doing anything uninformed (you should have seen the look I gave the shop guys when they made me defend why I wanted a 5DmIV and then suggested the D850 - I spent 20 minutes on my phone and Google) and I admittedly know nothing of third-party lenses except for brand names.



Thanks, and THAT is EXAAAACTLY the reason I sold my T5i. During the day it was great but in the dark? Bleh.

I recently joined up to UHH after getting a D850 (still slightly overwhelmed with learning). Almost all my shooting is landscapes, macro, and stars. I have the Nikkor 50mm 1.8 and 105mm Macro for now, since those will cover the bulk of my shooting. By next summer I'll throw a Sigma 150-600 S in there and a lens for the stars. This is where I'm starting to question things. I had my eyes set to Sigma's 14mm 1.8 but you guys/ gals' sticky'd favorites for star-shooting are starting to make me second-guess that.

How do Sigma lenses in general, and my selection of the 14mm f/1.8 in particular, compare to Nikon and Canon and Samyang/ Rokinon for aberrations? Not distortion, but coma/ astigmatism. I'm looking at https://www.lonelyspeck.com/lenses-for-milky-way-photography/ at the section titled "Lens Aberrations" about 3/4 down the page. I'm a big fan of ultra-wide angle lenses so I'd like to stick to that direction. I know my 50 will do fine, but I'd like a bigger angle - to get the entire bay or the lot's shoreline in the foreground, etc.

I hope this isn't going to turn out to be a dumb question. I was totally and 100% a Canon lens guy til my last lens was stolen and I was able to move to a Nikon platform so I've never looked (nor needed to) at Sigma, Tamron, or other third party makes before. Still learning. Open to suggestions and more links/ threads to read through as well.

Attached: Rookie snap from the summer of 2015 (T5i, 50mm at f/1.8, 1600 ISO, 8 seconds exposure). I like where it was going but am also really disappointed with a lot of it so please don't rub salt in the wound.

(Download)

Magnificent!!!

I ordered one for my birthday a few weeks ago and brought it home last Monday with a couple 'pods and lenses. The bill will be coming due, and um, ouch.