|
Yeah that's pretty solid, I read some people who bought grey import stuff and the company has gone on to deal with it OK when/if it developed a fault. It's a risk but when you're saving such a chunk it's worth a stab at least once really.
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 06:55 |
|
|
I'm a camera noob with a really noobish camera question. In short, I've been shooting with a D3100 for way, way too long. I'll be buying a new camera once the Boxing Day sales arrive. I'm debating between a D7100 and D7200 right now. Obviously either of them is a decent upgrade from my D3100, but is the D7200 enough of an upgrade from the D7100 to warrant an extra few hundred dollars? Is the lens that comes with each of their kits worth the cost of purchasing the body and lens together? Right now I only own the lens that came with the D3100 kit and a cheap 50mm f/1.8D one. I do a lot of portrait type photography, and some video. I'd like to get into more sports/actiony type photography once I get the gear. I know this is super subjective, and also really basic entry-level stuff, but I welcome any thoughts you might have!
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
a life less posted:I'm a camera noob with a really noobish camera question. You provided the one line of information that made this an easy answer, imo. quote:I do a lot of portrait type photography, and some video. I'd like to get into more sports/actiony type photography once I get the gear. Get the D7200. The D7100 has major buffer issues that pissed people off from day one. It doesn't matter about the rest of the differences between the body (for the most part it's just tweaks around the place, and a slight bump in quality), but the buffer on the D7200 is completely resolved. You hold down the trigger on a D7100 and you're going to start losing FPS very, very, quickly. Not a problem for landscapes, a major issue in sport. Get the D7200. As for the lenses, the kit lenses are fun and decent general lenses. You will take nice pictures on them and the ranges they cover are generally nice. I won't sell my 18-55 VR1 kit lens because it's not worth it for me even though my other lenses officially trounce it. Good glass is expensive, the kit lenses always seem like a decent deal when you pick up the camera, so why not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:Get the D7200. The D7100 has major buffer issues that pissed people off from day one. It doesn't matter about the rest of the differences between the body (for the most part it's just tweaks around the place, and a slight bump in quality), but the buffer on the D7200 is completely resolved. You hold down the trigger on a D7100 and you're going to start losing FPS very, very, quickly. Not a problem for landscapes, a major issue in sport. Get the D7200. Agreed. I switched from Canon to a Nikon D7100 because it was a refurb and a great deal, and when I decided Nikon was going to be a thing for me, I upgraded to a new D7200 and it was worth the extra couple hundred to me. It feels faster, and the built in Wifi is nice to have as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
Thanks guys! I think you helped me solidify my interest in the D7200. Appreciate it!
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
Kenderama posted:It feels faster, and the built in Wifi is nice to have as well. The wifi is fun to post stuff to social media quickly no doubt, if you're at an event it's nice to get the heads up and put something better on Instagram or whatever than anyone else can. But it feels half arsed, there's just so little you can do with the inbuilt software. I've not bothered trying any of the unofficial camera apps, they don't look wonderfully designed, but maybe they're better. I wish, given it's a flagship model, it had the GPS built in. It's just nice to have all your photos geotagged without messing about with adapters or syncing to lists you've done on your phone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
It's true: D400 will never exist. The D500 however... http://www.dpreview.com/news/8529664044/here-at-last-nikon-announces-d500
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:It's true: D400 will never exist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:It's true: D400 will never exist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Moon Potato posted:Hot drat. If the high ISO performance and AF point coverage is good enough, this is probably gonna be my next camera. The AF point coverage will be pretty much the entire frame L-R , but not T-B.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
I had planned on waiting on the D750 upgrade and figuring out whether that is worthwhile, but this looks so tempting. Then again the D750 replacement probably will also get the AF system and the 10fps + huge buffer. E: Oh and it has max shutter speed of 1/8000th, don't all the other Nikon's only have 1/4000th? Ika fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Jan 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:The AF point coverage will be pretty much the entire frame L-R , but not T-B.  Ika posted:E: Oh and it has max shutter speed of 1/8000th, don't all the other Nikon's only have 1/4000th? Moon Potato fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Jan 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Moon Potato posted:Nice. Yeah, that's the best you can do without a lens mount that has a ridiculous long flange distance (submirror to send light down to the AF sensor has to be much shorter than the main mirror with how close it is now)
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
As a d7200 owner I'm absolutely not in the market for a new body, but drat am I happy that there's been a successor to the d300. Now it feels like I have a true upgrade path in the future, rather than just buying a 7600 or whatever will exist by then. All my good lenses are DX so going to FF isn't really in my interests right now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Maaan, that looks fabulous. Really curious to see what the bitrates look like on the 4k video. If everything looks good I might wind up switching to a FF / APSC combo instead of the D750/D800 pair I have now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
Apparently only 55 of the points (I assume the big squares - 35 of them are cross points) are user selectable - the little dots in between are assist points. So rather than having AF points overlapping each other in reality , with a spot mode to narrow them down, they just have assist points in between them all. Has automatic AFMA though, which is pretty loving awesome (D5 & D500 both do)
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Apparently only 55 of the points (I assume the big squares - 35 of them are cross points) are user selectable - the little dots in between are assist points. That seems like a good way to do it. There's basically no reason to have that many user selectable points.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
They have now cornered themselves when it comes to naming for the DXXX line of cameras as well! Kind of surprised about the D500 at this point but it is nice to see. Kind of surprised by the "action" camera, I am not sure what the price is but I have a hard time seeing it compete against gopro at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 07:07
|
|
|
D500s mk3 mod 2
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 08:12
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Any news about European prices? I can find the official Danish MSRPs of 54,700 DKK ($7330 / $7900) for the D5 and 18,300 DKK ($2450 / $2640). Both seem high, even accounting for the usual euro taxes/VAT/etc., but the D500 price is almost silly. I'd be curious to know British or German prices.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
NFX posted:Any news about European prices? I can find the official Danish MSRPs of 54,700 DKK ($7330 / $7900) for the D5 and 18,300 DKK ($2450 / $2640). Both seem high, even accounting for the usual euro taxes/VAT/etc., but the D500 price is almost silly. I'd be curious to know British or German prices. I saw something that Nikon prices are set to increase by up to 30% in Europe... http://nikonrumors.com/2016/01/02/reminder-up-to-30-price-increase-on-nikon-lenses-in-europe.aspx/
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Yeah, but that's just a reaction to devaluation of the EUR compared to the yen, I think. Prices are usually around 20-25% higher in the EU than in the US, but 30% (as with the Danish price of the D500) seems a tad much. Apparently it's going listed at around £1729 in the UK now, which brings it in at 25% above the US price.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:They have now cornered themselves when it comes to naming for the DXXX line of cameras as well! Kind of surprised about the D500 at this point but it is nice to see. Kind of surprised by the "action" camera, I am not sure what the price is but I have a hard time seeing it compete against gopro at this point. Seems weird to have a DX and FX body so similar in name. I figured they'd leave the 4X series DX and 3X series FX.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:Seems weird to have a DX and FX body so similar in name. I figured they'd leave the 4X series DX and 3X series FX. I've hated/been amused by the Nikon naming conventions for years, especaily after they "re-set" the low end DSLRs into the four digit ranges, which solved nothing, just bought them a few more numbers before they ran out. Their refusal to do marks/versions/releases has doomed them from the start, and I'm going to really enjoy the coming numerical apocalypse. BUT, this most recent release actually perfectly mirrors their co-release, years ago, of the D3 and D300 at the same time. Those were heady days for Nikon, the D3 was their first full-frame DSLR and the D300 was a worldbeater in its category. They rather deliberately were trying to tie the D3 to the D300 as the pro and prosumer offerings. The only problem is that now their product line is so cluttered with additional models that the dualism is lost.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Nikon D5 is real.  Looks like they pulled out all the stops:quote:New 20.8MP FX-format CMOS image sensor and EXPEED 5 image processing 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
The D5 goes to 3,280,000 ISO and the D500 goes to 1,640,000 ISO . I mean, I don't know how meaningful the expanded range ISOs are since the noise probably makes them unusable, but still, those are some big numbers. I'll probably end up buying the D500 once used prices hit the ~1k mark. This is the first time since I bought a D300 that I've actually been tempted to upgrade, I forgot what this feels like. I really hope the Snapbridge stuff works reasonably well, too, since the ability to send photos to people right away means I will actually share the photos I take rather than letting them rot on my computer forever. Holy crap, the ISO button is on the right side now, too. ShadeofBlue fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Jan 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
I never understood why the burst on my camera was limited to such few images with memory being so ridiculously cheap, and now they finally stuck in a buffer and can cache 200 frames. Instead of just mentioning ISO levels, does anyone release S/N figures for the different chips, or light sensitivity, or anything actually meaningful?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
Ika posted:I never understood why the burst on my camera was limited to such few images with memory being so ridiculously cheap, and now they finally stuck in a buffer and can cache 200 frames. DXO will after release
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
I'm not really going to be happy until we reach 8-10 digit ISOs
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:I'm not really going to be happy until we reach 8-10 digit ISOs At that point you're probably counting single photons 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 11:28
|
|
|
blowfish posted:At that point you're probably counting single photons
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 12:11
|
|
|
Purchasing advice needed. So, used D750s and D800s are both going for about the same amount ($1500-$1800) here in Canada. I'm looking to upgrade my body to a full frame and I shoot mainly landscapes and wildlife photography. I really would like better low light performance and AF so I'm leaning towards a D750. The main thing pushing me away from the d800 is the worse performance at highish ISO. I'm not concerned about the file sizes. I'm not interested in the D7200. What would you guys recommend?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
I currently own both and would be hard pressed to choose which one I like best. The D750 feels better in hand and would probably be my choice for wildlife thanks to the faster frame rate and AF. The flippy screen is also nice if you ever shoot at weird angles. I honestly don't notice much difference in the high ISO performance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
If you were choosing between the D810 and the D750 I'd tell you to go for the D810, but you should get the D750.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
ShadeofBlue posted:D500 goes to 1,640,000 ISO http://www.chip.de/news/Nikon-D500-ausprobiert-Semiprofi-DSLR-mit-Ultra-HD-und-ISO-3.280.000_87812330.html This is an example of the EVP of marketing selling a better story than the EVP of engineering during a meeting a year ago.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:http://www.chip.de/news/Nikon-D500-ausprobiert-Semiprofi-DSLR-mit-Ultra-HD-und-ISO-3.280.000_87812330.html  I don't know if I'd go that far...
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 04:40
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:What would you guys recommend?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
Moon Potato posted:Do you shoot landscapes or wildlife more often? I've been shooting wildlife with the D800 and I would rather have the higher frame rate and improved AF system on the D750. Probably wildlife. And I don't blow up my landscapes to put up on the sides of buildings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 07:24
|
|
|
As a D800 user it is great for landscapes but I have noticed my wildlife photography has dropped off after getting it. File quality is great but the AF and frame rate leave some things to be desired when it comes wildlife.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 08:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 06:55 |
|
|
Yeah, I leave my D800 on single point focus most of the time. All this talk of hundreds of focus points means nothing to me!
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 05:17
|
|
