This post is a follow-up to my previous post where I discussed alternatives to the Nikon D7100. Here, I'll talk about which one I chose, and why.
All of the alternatives I presented were genuinely attractive to me, so I had to use a process of elimination. Please note much of my reasoning is particular to my situation, and everyone has unique circumstances so the best choice would likely be different for each of us.
Fuji X-E1. I love the image quality (including the quality of the Fuji X system lenses). I also really like the Fuji colors (especially skin tones). However, I have two significant concerns: first, the lens selection is too limited. I want to use a telephoto with my 2nd body and there aren't any fast telephoto lenses (yet) for the X-E1. I also want to use ultrawides and the widest Fuji lens right now is only 21mm equivalent, with no fisheyes available. Although it does have good primes, I already have those focal lengths covered with the D600. Second, its flash system is also a weak point for me -- Fuji's wireless flash system is a lot simpler than those of Canon, Nikon, Olympus and Sony (for example, no wireless TTL), and its sync speed is a sluggish 1/180 (and since my settings are in 1/3 stops, then I actually have to use 1/160). I might consider this system in the future if I wanted to shoot more simply and they have prime lenses in a 28 or 35mm equivalent and an 85mm equivalent.
Nikon D5100. I could have saved a lot by choosing this camera, and it has a very good sensor plus the tilt screen that I want. But I was concerned that I might run into some of its limitations in the future, such as not having a built-in focus motor, or a built-in flash commander. The biggest concern I had was the absence of AF fine tuning. When I had a D90, I found it performed very well but my 24-70 was backfocusing on it, therefore images were always out of focus. It annoyed me enough so that I sold the D90 and replaced it with a D300S. With the D5100, I didn't want to end up with the same problem. However, if I had only a few lenses and could buy the D5100 from a local store that would allow me to test the body with my lenses and exchange bodies if necessary, this might have been a viable choice.
Olympus OM-D E-M5. I was really tempted by the fast and accurate autofocus, and the tilting touch screen, both of which I think could greatly increase my chance of capturing candid shots, which is what I shoot most of the time. I am only slightly concerned about the depth of field which is deeper than an APS-C camera. Because I'm using my 2nd body for wide angles (where I usually want a deep DOF) or for telephoto (where the DOF is deep enough even with m4/3, and in fact has a more usable DOF than a full frame) it's not a significant disadvantage for me. The problem for me was the cost of changing my lenses. I'm already too invested in the Nikon system. If I didn't have any lenses yet or if I wanted to shoot with just a couple of primes, this would have been my first or second choice.
Nikon D700. There is very little to complain about the D700, which is a great camera from pretty much everything relevant to me including dynamic range, high ISO performance, and autofocus. One concern was the cost of having to changing my DX lenses to FX equivalents. That is balanced out by the strengths of the FX alternatives (for example, the Nikon 70-200 f4 VR and Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC both seem better than the Sigma 50-150 non-OS). Ultimately I did not get the D700 because I could not find one that I felt was reasonably priced, and the only ones I saw were more than double the cost of the camera I chose. In the future, when D700 prices drop sufficiently, I may trade up to a D700.
And the camera I chose, somewhat predictably, is the
Nikon D7000. When the D7000 first came out I was very impressed with its specs. I was even more impressed when I found out about how well its sensor performed (for high ISO and for dynamic range). I wanted one for a long time but was put off by the high prices (even for used ones). This year, with the release of the D7100, D7000 prices have come down to more reasonable levels. Most importantly for me, it has no significant weaknesses. I do have a little concern about the autofocus (some have complained about it) but I'm hoping it will be acceptable.
Meanwhile, I found a used one that was reasonably priced and was described as in very good condition from Adorama. Note: Adorama and B&H have very stringent ratings for their used cameras. When Adorama or B&H says the camera is in 'very good' condition, I interpret that as another seller's 'excellent' condition. On top of that, the camera had a 6-month warranty. Indeed, the camera was in great condition with no scratches or dings (it was missing the manuals though). Its shutter count was only 3003! So, in the next coming weeks I will be testing the D7000 out and will post about how it compares to the D600 and the D7100.
There is actually one more reason I chose the D7000 (a reason that applies equally to the D700): I can add a tilting LCD to it! Specifically, the D7000 uses an older analog audio/video output (not the HDMI port of current models) which is compatible with the Aputure Gigtube, a compact external live view monitor and remote shutter with a tilting LCD screen. (The Gigtube is available for several Canon and Nikon cameras.)
The Gigtube can be mounted to the camera and function as a tilting LCD screen. I will be posting about how well the Gigtube works in practice.
a waist-level finder for the D7000! |
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion you decided for the right one.
Just a comment to the d5100 as I'm on Nikon too.
The auto-focus system of the d5100 would also not make you that happy.
I figured out that when using fast lenses and your subject is near to the lens (e.g. head and should with a 35mm) you can’t simply focus directly on the eyeball. The focus will be off most of the time. At least in my tests (my d5100 does not have a back- or front focus problem). You need to focus on the eyelash to have this autofocus system focusing more reliable. Well this is not realistic in my case. My main subjects are my kids. Maybe when the sleep it would work…-;)
This is the main reason why the d5100 does not work for me as the one and only camera. Too bad. I really like the pixel quality of this little handy camera. Well I still have it with me, but only when I use slow lenses where the focus plane is not paper thin.
My next one will be the d7100 which also has the Mult-Cam 3500DX which I really love from my old d300.
Best regards, Erol
Thanks Erol. I appreciate you letting me know about your perspective as a D5100 owner. I have not had a D5100 but I have had the D90, which has similar AF system, and I can say that the D300 and D7100 has much better AF indeed.
DeleteBest regards,
Mic
I'm a newcomer to your blog, and am so happy to have found it -- I have two young kids and am the family photographer for our larger family get-togethers, so your posts are particularly helpful to me.
ReplyDeleteRelated to the topic on hand, if you were to remove your current Nikon lenses from the equation do you think you'd come to the same conclusion regarding your camera purchase? What if this were your primary camera (with a similar budget), would you make the same decision? Just curious to know. (My motivation for asking is that I'm looking to replace my D80, and, while I have some okay Nikon lenses, the only one that would hurt to leave behind is the 50mm f/1.4).
Hi DJ! Glad you find the blog helpful! Please have a look at the index on the top right corner to see articles that you may be interested in.
DeleteAbout your question, it used to be that I would only recommend Canon or Nikon because 3rd party support for the other makers was too weak.
Now m4/3 is a viable system with plenty of users. In addition, the contrast-detection based autofocus system of m4/3 cameras I tried used to be too slow but in newer cameras has advanced to the point where it is actually faster and more accurate than Canon and Nikon's phase detection for its DSLRs. So, if I were to start all over again the answer would be a lot more complicated.
I started thinking about it and there are a number of variables that need to be considered. My short answer is that for me, because I like shallow DOF, I want a full frame system. But if shallow DOF was not as important (or the m4/3 DOF is shallow enough) and m4/3 has the kinds of lenses that I'm interested in (they do), then I might consider m4/3 instead for the AF reliability and for the portability. But before I would do that I'd like to try out the OM-D first.
Best regards,
Mic
I've started to peruse the articles, thanks so much for posting such a nice and thorough collection -- I'm getting more and more motivated to improve my game.
DeleteIf I look through the most mesmerizing photos I've taken -- the ones I can lose myself in (e.g. http://www.flickr.com/photos/djandzoya/8654084056/in/photostream) -- they almost all have just the right DOF (at least for my beginner/novice taste). Of course though, who knows how many great shots I've missed because I didn't want to lug my D80 (which isn't a particularly large or heavy DSLR) to the park/farmer's market/etc. If you could look into my future and let me know if I'll get more/better shots because of the portability of a camera versus the versatility of a camera, that would great :-)
DJ
Really liked your detailed review of D600.
ReplyDeleteI am trying to buy a camera for indoor portrait photography of my toddlers with available light ...I have a D5000...Trying to figure out which would be a better upgrade D600 Vs D7100.
This is a big challenge for my D5000...moving subjects in low light...
I have a 35mm f1.8 but I don't like to shoot too wide open since the DOF is too shallow...
It appears like D600 has better High ISO but D7100 has better AF coverage....
Which one would you recommend for my needs?
Hi Cb. Thanks for your feedback!
DeleteAbout your question, I think you honed in on two of the biggest factors. I would say that neither the D600 nor D7100 are exceptional when catching subjects like kids who move unpredictably. TBH, when my kids are moving fast and I'm using a wide aperture, I'm just rolling the dice and it is hard to get critical focus with either the D600 or D7100 in that kind of situation. Therefore to improve my chances of an acceptable shot, I have to use a narrower aperture when I'm trying to catch them while moving. Plus, if they are moving quickly, I usually have to use a higher shutter speed for sharpness. Both of those factors usually mean that I need to push the ISO higher (or use flash). So I would give the edge to the D600 (I estimate 1.5 stops advantage vs the D7100). But the D7100 is no slouch -- its high ISO performance just as good as the D700/D3 when resized to 12mp. I hope that helps!
Best regards,
Mic
I have D7000 and have 2 kids as well..I looked at D600 and D7100 for possible upgrade and to track my kids better (swimming and basketball) I decided to keep my D7000 and get 70-200VR2 instead. Awesome awesome sharp versatile lens for sports and portraits too. Weight and bulk is not an issue especially when used with a blackrapid strap (RS-7). The 70-200 compliments my 17-55 f/2.8, Tokina 11-16 and my 50 1.4g.
ReplyDeleteWise choice putting your money on the lens. The 70-200 is indeed great as long as you dont mind the size, weight and price. Nicely complements your other lenses. Congrats!
DeleteBest regards,
Mic