You already have a DSLR. Why not go mirrorless?
Which Nikon DSLR?
- Thread starter CarbonSteel
- Start date
- Status
Ive been lightly into Photography for decades, more or less, if there is anyone in my family circle for photos, they know I am the one to take them.
Ive been VERY pleased with the Nikon 3400 for the last 2 years.
The 2 kit lens has been great and for super quality photos such as grandchild close up I use a Nikon 35 MM single focal lens.
The reason I choose the 3400 was size over the larger DSLRs besides good reviews on the Nikon over the other similiar size DDLR brands, if you dont mind a larger camera then your world opens up (as well as price) more but for what I do, Im very happy.
Ive been VERY pleased with the Nikon 3400 for the last 2 years.
The 2 kit lens has been great and for super quality photos such as grandchild close up I use a Nikon 35 MM single focal lens.
The reason I choose the 3400 was size over the larger DSLRs besides good reviews on the Nikon over the other similiar size DDLR brands, if you dont mind a larger camera then your world opens up (as well as price) more but for what I do, Im very happy.
Originally Posted by Wolf359
Well if you can wait, go on over to slickdeals.net and set up an alert for Nikon and see what pops up. I think the D7500 now is $899 as a refurb. You could also go full frame if you're really into it. Anyway, I also suggest going over to dpreview.com for more detailed info.
The D40 is still a decent camera, used one for years. Finally ended up giving it away to some kids. For web purposes, a 21 megapixel camera is kinda overkill.
Megapixels aren't everything; the image processing and post-processing software/firmware gets better with every generation. I may have to buy a new body every decade or so. It sucks seeing cell phone pics with better processing (but worse optics) and wishing my camera were innately capable (vs shooting RAW and taking all sorts of steps later.)
Ultimately I take pictures to make myself happy. Going from my D50 to D3200 added some "wow" I wasn't expecting.
This pic is from a D3200, F/4, 1 second, braced-handheld. Has the dynamic range to include a porch light but was able to pick up the full moon sky as well. Never used to be able to pull this off.
Well if you can wait, go on over to slickdeals.net and set up an alert for Nikon and see what pops up. I think the D7500 now is $899 as a refurb. You could also go full frame if you're really into it. Anyway, I also suggest going over to dpreview.com for more detailed info.
The D40 is still a decent camera, used one for years. Finally ended up giving it away to some kids. For web purposes, a 21 megapixel camera is kinda overkill.
Megapixels aren't everything; the image processing and post-processing software/firmware gets better with every generation. I may have to buy a new body every decade or so. It sucks seeing cell phone pics with better processing (but worse optics) and wishing my camera were innately capable (vs shooting RAW and taking all sorts of steps later.)
Ultimately I take pictures to make myself happy. Going from my D50 to D3200 added some "wow" I wasn't expecting.
This pic is from a D3200, F/4, 1 second, braced-handheld. Has the dynamic range to include a porch light but was able to pick up the full moon sky as well. Never used to be able to pull this off.
Low light shooting has more to do with the size of the lens than megapixels or processing.
Cell phones still suck at it because the lens is so tiny.
Cell phones still suck at it because the lens is so tiny.
Originally Posted by camrydriver111
Low light shooting has more to do with the size of the lens than megapixels or processing.
Cell phones still suck at it because the lens is so tiny.
Current DX and FX CMOS sensors have amazingly good high ISO capabilities.
I'll take my D800 up to ISO 6400 without even thinking about it, and I can print a beautiful 8x10 from it. The backlit sensor in the D850 is probably a stop better, and the sensor used in the D4/Df is still freakishly good. A Df at 25,600 is probably as good as my D800 at 6400.
The only real reason to use fast lenses these days is for shallow DOF. Cameras like the D800 have made me realize just how little DOF an f/1.4 lens has wide open, and also how difficult it is to actually focus them correctly in low light(something that you won't notice on Tri-X or your typical 400 ASA color print film). Between being able to use ISO 6400 without too much worry and VR(as long as I don't need to stop action) I can usually get away with a fixed f/4 zoom, or-horror of horrors-a variable aperture zoom that hovers around f/4. Even when I need to stop action, I rarely want to go past f/2.8 for DOF and focus accuracy reasons.
And yes, I have Nikkors as fast as f/1.2(although I don't have a Noct) and plenty of both AF and MF primes in the f/1.4-f/2 range
I'd also argue that the real issue with cell phone cameras is the physical size of the sensor. The optic actually are quite amazing given what they're able to resolve onto such a tiny, dense sensor-they're a lot more demanding of good optics than even something like a 24mp DX-sized sensor.
Low light shooting has more to do with the size of the lens than megapixels or processing.
Cell phones still suck at it because the lens is so tiny.
Current DX and FX CMOS sensors have amazingly good high ISO capabilities.
I'll take my D800 up to ISO 6400 without even thinking about it, and I can print a beautiful 8x10 from it. The backlit sensor in the D850 is probably a stop better, and the sensor used in the D4/Df is still freakishly good. A Df at 25,600 is probably as good as my D800 at 6400.
The only real reason to use fast lenses these days is for shallow DOF. Cameras like the D800 have made me realize just how little DOF an f/1.4 lens has wide open, and also how difficult it is to actually focus them correctly in low light(something that you won't notice on Tri-X or your typical 400 ASA color print film). Between being able to use ISO 6400 without too much worry and VR(as long as I don't need to stop action) I can usually get away with a fixed f/4 zoom, or-horror of horrors-a variable aperture zoom that hovers around f/4. Even when I need to stop action, I rarely want to go past f/2.8 for DOF and focus accuracy reasons.
And yes, I have Nikkors as fast as f/1.2(although I don't have a Noct) and plenty of both AF and MF primes in the f/1.4-f/2 range
I'd also argue that the real issue with cell phone cameras is the physical size of the sensor. The optic actually are quite amazing given what they're able to resolve onto such a tiny, dense sensor-they're a lot more demanding of good optics than even something like a 24mp DX-sized sensor.
Last edited:
Remember, light bounces off at stuff. It's aimed at me and it's aimed an inch to the right of me.
If I have a lens and sensor big enough to catch a square inch of an object's "essence", it's going to get more photons than a pea-sized cell phone camera.
There's no replacement for displacement, and there isn't one for camera optics either.
If I have a lens and sensor big enough to catch a square inch of an object's "essence", it's going to get more photons than a pea-sized cell phone camera.
There's no replacement for displacement, and there isn't one for camera optics either.
- Status
