 |
| Nikon D7100 + Nikkor 28-105 3.5-4.5D. |
Here are the cameras I considered:
Nikon D7000. Known for having incredible shadow recovery capabilities. Even though its high ISO is not as good as that of the D7100, it still has one of the best high ISO capabilities among APS-C cameras. Now available used for $600+ or sometimes less. Even the Nikon refurbished one is only $750. Possible concerns: some have complained about the autofocus. Some have also complained about having dust or oil spots on the sensor.
Nikon D5100. Same incredible sensor as that of the D7000 but adds a tilting LCD screen, which I want for unusual shooting angles. Available refurbished for a very reasonable $400. I have a long list of concerns: this would be the first entry level Nikon for me, and it lacks many of the features I have gotten used to such as having two command dials and having a built-in commander. Most importantly, it doesn't have AF fine tuning. It also doesn't have an autofocus motor and I have some lenses that don't have built-in AF motors (Tokina 10-17, Tokina 11-16, Nikon 28-105 and who knows what else in the future).
Nikon D700. For the longest time I had wanted a D700 but I ended up getting a D3 because of the high prices for a used D700. Prices have now come down since then, and I've seen it a few times in the $1200+ range, although more typically it is a little higher. Great high ISO performance and shadow recovery. Good AF system. Doesn't have video but I can live without that. "Only" 12mp but that's still more than what I need. My concern is that because it's full frame, I will have to change some of my lenses. But some of the choices will be easier. For example I could use the Sigma 35 1.4 on the D600 and Nikon 85 1.8G or Tamron 70-300 VC on the D700.
Olympus OM-D E-M5. My coauthor MShafik loves his. See here. The biggest attraction for me is the fast and accurate autofocus. I would also like the tilting LCD. I also wonder whether the small size would change my shooting style (perhaps I might try shooting candid street photos). My concerns are that I would have to change some of my lenses, and might have to buy an m4/3 flash. I am also a little bit concerned about reselling it in the future because there are fewer m4/3 shooters than Nikon shooters.
Fuji X-E1. I have heard very good things about the image quality (which are in part due to the excellent lenses in Fuji's X system) and the autofocus. It also looks very stylish (I can't believe I'm saying that! But at least I do know my wife would love to use it). Just like the OM-D I would have to replace some of my lenses, and the X system has fewer lenses to choose from (and no fast telephoto lenses yet). Obviously resale is a big concern. Also, no one knows if the X system will still be around down the road.
Nikon D600. I would love to have a second one but obviously it costs too much. The funny thing is I saw a used one advertised on craigslist for just $1350! But when I read the details -- supposedly "shipped to me by Adorama" but "was given as a gift" and therefore has no box, etc. etc. It was obvious there was something fishy going on.
In my next post, you'll see which one I chose.
I am also a little bit concerned about reselling it in the future because there are fewer m4/3 shooters than Nikon shooters.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, the number of m4/3 shooters is probably growing and the number of Nikon shooters stagnating. Then again, I just moved from a t2i to one, and, as everyone says, it is much easier to carry around. I doubt that most people could tell, based on side-by-side pictures, which came from a crop camera and which from m4/3.
That being said, the small sensor size makes me want to use primes at f 2 for many shots, particularly of people, and the only good, fast standard zoom (the Panasonic 12 – 35) is $1100.
I love the LCD tap-to-shoot feature much more than I thought I would (the feature seemed gimmicky to me); weird angles are much easier.
Hi Jake! Good to hear from you! Yes it does seem like there are many more m4/3 now than ever before.
DeleteAs for the fast standard zoom, you're right, although I don't plan to use this body for that focal length, for which I would rely on the D600 for shallow dof. Actually one of the things I like about m4/3 is that I can get a stabilized 70-200 2.8 equivalent (Panasonic 35-100) that is very compact, although when I read Roger Cicala's review I was a little disappointed.
Yes the OM-D's tap-to-shoot is a great feature. Much faster than sluggishly moving the AF point in live view mode on the D600 or D7100.
Best regards,
Mic
Actually one of the things I like about m4/3 is that I can get a stabilized 70-200 2.8 equivalent (Panasonic 35-100) that is very compact, although when I read Roger Cicala's review I was a little disappointed.
DeleteAh. Gotcha. I was going to ask about the X100S as a second camera, but if you want a 70 – 200mm equivalent, it's obviously a non-starter. For the kinds of things I do, if I had the money for FF and a second camera, I'd probably prefer the X100S over the OM-D—but I don't have the cash or need for both.
I haven't had time to do more than mess around with the OM-D so far, but the most recent six photos in my flickr stream came out of it. None really show off the camera.
But I will say that it has a strong "fun factor"—more so than any DSLR or point and shoot I've used. That's probably been the biggest surprise to me, and the feature least captured by most professional reviews.
Hmm. I find it interesting that you would prefer the X100S over the OM-D but yeah the X100S is not the camera for me because I already have 35mm covered with the Sigma.
DeleteI agree that subjective experience when we shoot with a particular camera is indeed a very important factor, and it's not something that's often written about. Thanks Jake!
Best regards,
Mic
Sad to see the D7100 go, I hope you didn't lose money.
ReplyDeleteIf you're buying a new camera anyway, it would make sense, financial-wise, to stick to a Nikon camera, I am with the D7000 choice, a crop sensor which would give you different uses for your lenses.
But if you want to give the other systems a go and try them out, why not rent them for a couple of days before you buy something?
One more thing I forgot, a fixed focal length camera is not why you'd want a second camera in the first place, correct?
DeleteHi Mohammad. Fortunately I didn't lose money because I was within the return period, and that's why I had to act quickly. I almost got hit with a 15% restocking fee, but when I demonstrated the banding issue to the store manager he accepted the return without any charge.
DeleteBest regards,
Mic
Yes you're right. I'm not interested in fixed focal length cameras right now. So cameras like the X100S or Sigma Merrills are not on my radar. But who knows, maybe in the future they might be!
DeleteBest regards,
Mic
I currently have D7000..my next move in my mind was go FF, but i didn't like the D600 (felt handicapped IMHO coming from D7000) and D800 is out my reach so i went with upgrading my lenses route. I've replaced my 18-105 /70-300VR combo with 17-55 f/2.8 (bought used $850 mint) and 70-200 VR2 (bought brand new with Nikon rebates) love love love them! I also already have the legendary Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 and a 50mm 1.4G, so i think this would be great stop gap for me as I wait for the next Nikon offering. I'm still waiting for the verdict on the D7100.
ReplyDeleteThat's interesting that you find the D600 to be handicapped vs. the D7000. Having used the D600 for about 7 months now, I have not felt so limited by the sync speed (1/200 vs. 1/250 is just a 1/3 stop difference), the max shutter speed (D600 tops out at 1/4000 but can go to ISO 100), and the AF coverage (both 39 points but it's a smaller part of the frame than on the D7000 -- but even the other FX cameras have smaller AF coverage compared to the D7000).
DeleteAwesome new lenses!! Looks like you have everything from ultrawide to moderate telephoto covered with excellent lenses.
As for the D7100, the only issue is the banding. If you saw how the rawtherapee worked and that works for your kind of photos, then the D7100 is excellent (high ISO performance, sharpness, AF coverage, pro-level features).
Best regards,
Mic
The thing I didn't like with D600 was they used D7000 as the baseline wish they built off D700. I would have been fine had they kept everything on D7000 and slapped a full frame sensor in it. I felt Nikon had to somewhat limit it's features (hence my term handicaped) so it won't hurt D800 sales. So when I was going over D600 specs I'm actually drawn to D800 but the price is just not in my budget for now.So with that I decided stay with DX with my D7000 and went to upgrade my lenses route. D600 for sure I know is a very good camera but not willing to pay for something i know already is available but was left out and have to learn to go around those compromises. But had the base price started at $1500 then that might be a diff story..
DeleteHi Xeriz. I understand where you are coming from. For some those compromises will matter and for other folks like me they wont. Btw nikon sometimes offers refurb d600 for $1599. Thanks!
DeleteBest regards,
Mic
Really interested in hearing your thoughts on the subject. I only recently found this blog, but really like the articles and opinions of both of you.
ReplyDeleteI'm an amateur photog, having no real interest in making money of it, but nevertheless becoming the official photographer of smaller family events.
I currently have a D5000 and some DX lenses (35 1.8, 55-300, 10-24 and a tamrom 90 macro) which fills most of my needs, but I want something with lower high ISO noise.
Being thinking about the D7100 which seems like a great camera, especially because I could keep all the lenses.
But the smaller formats are increasingly appealing, as I don't take the DSLR everywhere (because of the bulk and also safety, as here in Brasil it's not everywhere take you can take out a big camera).
Should I sell all my DSLR gear and invest in a smaller format or maybe get the D7100 and something like a rx100 to carry around? Big doubts...
Hi Bruno. I can only say that the D7100 has spectacular high ISO performance (identical to the D700/D3 when viewed at the same size). It sounds like you have the some of the same concerns as my coauthor Mohammad. The mirrorless systems might be a good fit for you.
DeleteBest regards,
Mic
Having a D600 for your 2nd camera will mean you don't have to change mental gears when shifting from one body to the other on a busy shoot. This is a very important. Plus, as you know, the image quality will trump everything else in your list. Just sayin'...
ReplyDeleteThanks! Very valid points there. For me photography is just a hobby so i cant justify the cost of a second d600 body (the 1350 one is obviously a scam). But for pros yes that would be ideal!
DeleteBest regards,
Mic
I have Nikon D5000 (Fro 2011, It's my Best Buddy) and now am looking for Mid/High End Camera. Found D7000 for $739 @ cameta, 7100 is no where less than $1000. Worth investing more in 7100 over 7000?
ReplyDeleteI like Swivel LCD(A most attracting factor for me to Choose D5000). None of the New Mid/High end models in Market has Swivel LCD. D5100, D5200 are still Entry Level.
Any new model is going to be release with Swivel?
I have Tamron 70-300mm. Will it work on 7000/7100?
Hi venkatx5. I think $739 for a D7000 is not such an amazing deal. I have seen it for less than that. You may want to look some more. But you are right that the D7100 is still over $1000. Whether the price difference is worth it differs for everyone. Basically the issue is whether you want to pay ~$300 to get slightly better high ISO performance at very high ISOs (6400 and above), better AF, slightly better controls. For a pro, for example, I can see that being justifiable. For an amateur with not a lot of disposable income, maybe not. I will do a post about the D7000 eventually, with an eye to comparing it against the D7100.
DeleteYou're right about the lack of a swivel LCD on mid and high end models. That is why I use the Aputure Gigtube (wired version) with the D7000. See my review here http://betterfamilyphotos.blogspot.com/2013/05/add-tilting-lcd-to-your-dslr-aputure.html
It ought to work with the D7000 and D7100 but I can't guarantee because I've never tried the non-VC version. I only have the Tamron 70-300 VC, which does work.
Best regards,
Mic
It's a myth that the D600 has so much better IQ than Oly 5-axis IBIS 4/3 or D7100, except on dxo charts for armchair shooters who have never owned or used any of the 3, at base-ISO up to 1600. I sent back the D600 and kept the OMD and D7100. The IQ for prints up to 16" wide or smaller (let alone web use) is identical between the 3, but the weight and cost of lenses is a far different story.
ReplyDeleteThe sharpness of older cheaper DX lenses on D7100 renders equal sharp prints as more expensive lenses on D600, unless you're lucky enough to find a 28-105D or 60D Nikkor for a FF body. If printing at 30" or more on the wide side, then the D600 is superior to D7100, but ONLY then.
Hi! Thanks for dropping by the blog! I've never tried the OMD so I can't comment about that, though my coauthor MShafik loves his and it does look like it has great image quality. The D7100 also has awesome image quality and I agree with you that at lower ISOs the D7100 can match the D600 for sharpness and noise.
DeleteHowever I have owned and used a D7100 and D600 and for high ISO, the difference is clear. An even bigger difference between them is shadow recovery -- the D7100 just cannot handle a lot of it. I rely on shadow recovery a lot so that's one reason I prefer the D600 over the D7100. That said, not everyone needs such shadow recovery.
As for the 28-105 3.5-4.5 AF-D yes I like that lens. Quite sharp and very inexpensive. The only drawbacks for me are the vulnerability to flare and the chromatic aberration. (And the somewhat slow aperture.)
Regarding small prints, I think for sharpness again I would agree. But I'm still a sucker for shallow DOF which is one reason I like using a full frame camera like the D600.
Best regards,
Mic