DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Is Nikon D610 a smart purchase
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 14 of 14, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 10/31/2013 05:21:29 PM · #1
Ok the saga of what camera I'm going to buy next continues. I'm coming from Sony Nex 7 system so I can go either Nikon or Canon.

I was going to purchase the Nikon D7100 because along with tabletop, and landscapes I want to do birds in flight. With 51 AF points numerous cross AF points and 6 FPS it will work. The buffer is slow but I'd probably shoot BIF in JPEG instead of RAW.

However I'm being pulled strongly to full frame. I don't want to spend a fortune nor lug around a beast of a camera. The Canon 6D is my first choice but at 4.5 fps and only 11 AF points with just one being cross type it's just not going to cut it for BIF pics.

So now I'm leaning heavy towards the Nikon D610. My question is two fold. 1) Do you think we're finally past the oil spot issues. I speak to distributors and they won't even acknowledge that it was even a problem with the D600. 2) With DSLR sales declining rapidly there have even been some articles on the internet that suggest Nikon may not be around in 5 years but because of the breadth of products that Canon manufactures (not limited to camera's), they should be around for the long haul.

Can someone please convince me that the D610 is a smart choice and that the oil smearing problem (probably from the shutter but I don't know) is most likely gone.

All your comments would be greatly appreciated whether you own this camera or not. Thanks everyone!
 10/31/2013 05:48:52 PM · #2
Why not upgrade to the Sony A7 or A7R?

Why are you unhappy with the NEX-7?

The D7100 has a better autofocus system than the D600/610. If you don't need the best high ISO performance, it might be a better camera for birds etc. Also, it has more reach...not only 1.5x the lens, but you can also use a 1.3 mode on top of that.

I haven't heard of oil problems (yet) with the D7100.
10/31/2013 05:57:47 PM · #3
One red flag... you say you don't want a lot of weight. No matter the choice in body, lenses for FF are going to be heavier, period. Neil also points out something important, namely that the pixel density of APS-C cameras is higher, and you will therefore end up with more pixels on the subject, given the same lens. Whether the pixel-level detail is there is another question, of course.
It would seem that APS-C is a better choice for your chosen subject matter. BIF photography is a challenge that lends itself to APS-C quite well. Not that it isn't possible to do it really well with FF, just expensive (very) and heavy (really).
 10/31/2013 06:13:44 PM · #4
A couple of things.

With camera (not just DSLR) sales declining, the big guys will likely survive, but some of the smaller guys won't. I wouldn't worry about Canon or Nikon.

If you want to shoot birds, you will not be happy with FF. Same thing if you're weight sensitive.

I don't know what Canon has out there, but in the Nikon lineup, if I wanted to shoot birds, I'd sell my D800 and get a D7100. Other than the buffer size issue, it seems like a really nice camera for birds and wildlife.

Edit: Actually Thom Hogan's latest article is very relevant to this discussion.

Message edited by author 2013-10-31 18:17:47.
 10/31/2013 08:54:19 PM · #5
Hi guys & thanks for all your replies.

The new Sony FF A7 seems like an awesome camera but I don't think the speed/second and buffer rate is fast enough for BIF. In addition when you look at the lens tests from DXOmark Sony's best lenses don't seem to come close in sharpness to Nikon's best lenses. I'm tired of medicore sharpness. My next sytems needs to produce sharp images and I'm willing to buy good glass particularly for closeup table top work where I could use the Nikon 105mm.

I found Mr. Hogan's article interesting although a tad contradictory when at the end he admits to using full frame for his more important work.

I do agree with the comment that the D7100 would be better for bird shots than the FF. It's 51 pnt. focusing system and 1.5 then 1.2 crop brings a lot to the table. RAW shots will fill the card after 5-6 shots then it will slow down considerably due to a slow buffer. I would probably just shoot birds in High Jpeg where I think you can take 32 shots before it slows down.

What I fear is that I ultimately end up hating bird photography and back to table top and landscapes for me. So if I do get the D7100 I hope it's an upgrade in IQ from the Sony Nex 7. I believe with the right lenses it will be.

Lastly DX lenses would be lighter and more compact than FF lenses. I'm afraid to purchase the DX lenses because I think the world is going towards FF. So I'm thinking I should be all FF lenses for this D7100 that way my lenses are still usuable when and if I buy FF some day. In addition those lenses will use the center portion, the sharpest portion, on a DX body. I know they are heavier but you can't have everything.

Does any of my thinking make sense?

Message edited by author 2013-10-31 21:05:21.
 11/01/2013 12:42:09 AM · #6
I think you're doing a good job of thinking things through. Sticking with FF lenses is a good plan except for at the wide end, where you're going to have to go with a DX lens to get wide enough. The good news though is that there are plenty of very good DX lenses available in the used market. If you shop carefully, when you eventually go with FF, you can sell the DX lenses for about what you paid.

As much as I love the image quality I get from the D800, I don't love the weight of the lenses. When I went from DX to FX, it's like all of my lenses went up a size. If the D7100 had been available when I bought the D800, I would have gotten that instead. The camera would have been cheaper and I could have kept more of the lenses from my D300. Besides the cost, the problem I'm having is that, in order to save weight, I tend to either only bring one lens, or leave the entire bag at home.

I actually went in completely the opposite direction and got a Sony RX100 II last week. I don't for a minute think that it's a replacement for a DSLR, but I can carry it everywhere, so I've already gotten some shots that I wouldn't have otherwise, and 17x22 prints look great. A great sensor and lens on that little thing...

The 17x40 cityscape panorama I'm working on right now required the D800, of course. But I'm not really selling much right now, and I only have enough wall space to hang one...
 11/01/2013 12:54:28 AM · #7
Originally posted by Trotterjay:
Hi guys & thanks for all your replies.

The new Sony FF A7 seems like an awesome camera but I don't think the speed/second and buffer rate is fast enough for BIF. In addition when you look at the lens tests from DXOmark Sony's best lenses don't seem to come close in sharpness to Nikon's best lenses. I'm tired of medicore sharpness. My next sytems needs to produce sharp images and I'm willing to buy good glass particularly for closeup table top work where I could use the Nikon 105mm.

I found Mr. Hogan's article interesting although a tad contradictory when at the end he admits to using full frame for his more important work.

I do agree with the comment that the D7100 would be better for bird shots than the FF. It's 51 pnt. focusing system and 1.5 then 1.2 crop brings a lot to the table. RAW shots will fill the card after 5-6 shots then it will slow down considerably due to a slow buffer. I would probably just shoot birds in High Jpeg where I think you can take 32 shots before it slows down.

What I fear is that I ultimately end up hating bird photography and back to table top and landscapes for me. So if I do get the D7100 I hope it's an upgrade in IQ from the Sony Nex 7. I believe with the right lenses it will be.

Lastly DX lenses would be lighter and more compact than FF lenses. I'm afraid to purchase the DX lenses because I think the world is going towards FF. So I'm thinking I should be all FF lenses for this D7100 that way my lenses are still usuable when and if I buy FF some day. In addition those lenses will use the center portion, the sharpest portion, on a DX body. I know they are heavier but you can't have everything.

Does any of my thinking make sense?


With regard to lenses, if you don't mind manual focus, the Sony's can use any SLR lens with an adapter. If you don't mind spending the money, look at the Carl Zeiss branded lenses from Sony. Zeiss makes excellent lenses.

You also have Micro-four-thirds to consider. If you can live with 16MPixel files, why not look at the Oly Em5 and Em1 too? I have the Panny 100-300 which is a 200-600 effective lens for M43 with OIS. It's so light when I first got it I walked the bike path with it and my G5 and no strap. Just held the lens in my hand and took a walk. I think as long as you are below ISO 3200, you won't notice any difference in the sensors. And the Oly's have a better buffer I believe.

Not to mention some other very nice primes, all in a compact system.

Not that the 7100 is a bad choice for you...on the contrary. It's just that you are still going to end up with a pretty heavy Nikon 100-400mm lens for birding.

Message edited by author 2013-11-01 01:01:21.
 11/01/2013 01:01:27 AM · #8
hey trotter, donno if you've considered it but apparently a canon 6d can be found refurb for about 1250
 11/01/2013 01:10:06 AM · #9
Originally posted by Trotterjay:
The Canon 6D is my first choice but at 4.5 fps and only 11 AF points with just one being cross type it's just not going to cut it for BIF pics.



A very impressive just one cross type but I agree though that the 6D is not for birds in flight.

Message edited by author 2013-11-01 01:10:54.
 11/01/2013 01:13:40 AM · #10
Originally posted by Tiberius:
Originally posted by Trotterjay:
The Canon 6D is my first choice but at 4.5 fps and only 11 AF points with just one being cross type it's just not going to cut it for BIF pics.



A very impressive just one cross type but I agree though that the 6D is not for birds in flight.


Funny thing that... You know, I've found that the lens makes WAY more difference than the AF sensors. The 300mm f/2.8 is brutally quick and accurate, even on an older crop-body like the 50D. Stick the 75-300mm on a 1Dx and it still won't focus worth a damn on BIF..

Message edited by author 2013-11-01 01:13:51.
 11/01/2013 01:22:26 AM · #11
i think my 60d and 85mm 1.8 did an impressive tracking job back in the day. i m not bird photographer tho.

edit thanks tiberius.

Message edited by author 2013-11-01 01:23:10.
 11/01/2013 02:02:12 AM · #12
Why not consider a Canon 70D? The very high pixel count will allow for extra leeway in cropping without degradation of IQ and for getting in close. It may also allow for carrying a lens whose FL is a bit shorter than you'd normally carry for BIF, saving a little weight and bulk. Its got a new sensor based AF so better make sure it's up to snuff with the lens you plan on using for BIF before you purchase.

Thom Hogan points out that there may not be such major gaps in image quality between FF and a smaller sensor that you may even be hard pressed to tell the difference at times. IMO, CAF may be more important.

If you are serious about BIF then go out and make your first major acquisition a high quality FF lens that will be able to meet your BIF goals. One lens that you are willing to carry around, one that will outlast the bodies you buy now or in the future. You're buying into a system.

Message edited by author 2013-11-01 02:03:56.
 11/01/2013 02:29:55 AM · #13
I'd evaluate your greater system. Consider the birding lens you plan to use. Will you be planning a 400 or 500mm if you use FF? Compare that to a 300 F4 for a crop sensor setup. Birding, and especially BIF, is a particularly demanding segment (similar to shooting sports), so I agree with Olyuzi that you should determine your lens first. If you are hesitant about carrying heavy loads, I question if bird photography is ultimately going to work for you in the first place, it being the land of huge telephotos.
 11/01/2013 02:28:30 PM · #14
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
I'd evaluate your greater system. Consider the birding lens you plan to use. Will you be planning a 400 or 500mm if you use FF? Compare that to a 300 F4 for a crop sensor setup. Birding, and especially BIF, is a particularly demanding segment (similar to shooting sports), so I agree with Olyuzi that you should determine your lens first. If you are hesitant about carrying heavy loads, I question if bird photography is ultimately going to work for you in the first place, it being the land of huge telephotos.


Well said.

If you're shooting BIF on anything like a reasonable budget with Nikon, you can get a 300 f/4 (approx $1000 used), and a TC14e-II ($350 used), and a D7100 ($1150 new), and get very good quality 600mm effective for $2500. Or you can get a used 70-200 f/2.8 + TC20e-III, and have 600mm f/5.6 effective in a more flexible package for nearly the same price. To go longer, you can use a 300 f/4 with TC20e-III, and get 900mm f/8 effective. Harder to manage, but it does work. With good technique the images are great, and it focuses surprisingly fast in decent light (I have this combo).

You can use the same lenses on FF, buy you'll only get 400mm f/5.6, which is long enough for bigger wildlife, but isn't really long enough for birds, or 600mm f/8. Which works, but is slower than you'll probably want. To get to bird friendly focal lengths and apertures on FF, you'll need to get into the multi-thousand dollar exotic lenses.

I only know Nikon. Canon has similar selection and pricing, and in some ways is somewhat better for BIF, so definitely check out your selection there, too.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/06/2025 03:55:51 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/06/2025 03:55:51 PM EDT.