Camera Geeks Needed - Recommendation?
 

I'm in the market for a DSLR. The requirements are:

Must haves:
- Full frame (35mm) sensor
- Accepts Nikon MF lenses, as old as AIS
- Viewfinder brightness, focusing screen, focus confirmation light, all suitable for manual focus
- Easy to use in manual exposure mode, don't want to peck through menus to change shutter speed
- Decent low light performance, taking about the sensor

Nice to haves:
- Light and compact, relatively anyway
- Video capable

Don't much care
- Latest and best AF capability
- Latest and best AE
- Big picture files


Nikon has introduced a plethora of models since I last checked, so I'm confused. One of my friends uses a Sony mirrorless with an affair for Nikon and Leica lenses and loves it. I'm not at all averse to an older or used model.

I have a Nikon d610 and really wand the new d750

I'd say d610 or d750 both are light weight traditional full frame dslr body's . If you really want high megapixels I'd go for a used d800. Any of those will accept your older glass. And all of those shoot video. If you are at all serious about video the d750 is the best of the lot.

I used to shoot professionally back in the film and manual focus days. I have been a digital enthusiast since the first affordable dslr ($3000) Canon D30. I still have a D800 and lenses from 14-24 to 70-200. If you don't care about size or weight or bulk then I would still recommend a full frame Nikon (df, d750, d8xx) dslr or even Canon can take adapted Nikon mount lenses. These days I have been traveling with Sony A7/r and the three Zeiss FE zooms 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 all of which takes up less room and bulk than one Nikon body and two zooms. The image quality is just as good (Sony makes most camera sensors) and if you get used to the quirks they are easy to use. Some aspects are actually better such as focus peaking for manual focus lenses and live view is much better than the D800. Right now used Nikon and Canon FF dslrs are cheap because they are being dumped in favor of mirrorless and the Sony's are cheap because they just released or announced new replacement models.

Hmm, where do you guys get your used digital cameras?

Dang, I like the look of the Nikon DF. Seems spendy, is there a retro premium built into the price?

KEH Cameras

I am in the Pentax camp having a number of lenses from the film days, I have bought and sold through KEH and followed the wave of not having the latest and greatest, but some pretty good bodies at good prices, of course you could probably do better in a private sale..

Df is pretty cool but if you just want a camera, go with the D610. I bought a D610 a week ago to supplement my old D700. Seems nice and the two "U" positions on the top dial are super useful. It's also 8 ounces lighter and a bit smaller than the D700 (or the new D750) - most lenses feel really front-heavy, even the Sigma 35/1.4.

The D750 is better than the D610 in every way if that really matters but if you're price-conscious consider a used D700 - it's still very well regarded even if it's 5 or 6 years old...

I'm going to add "reasonably quiet" to my must have list.

I got told off tonight for making camera noise at a dance performance. Not an ethereal ballet recital, but a lively modern dance performance with what I thought was pretty loud music. I switched cameras and wasn't told off again. The offending camera was a Nikon F with motordrive. I guess the old tank is pretty noisy. And that I really need a camera upgrade :-)

Your first part describes the Df, but quiet isn't what comes to mind compared to some other choices:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcXG3AH0lf8

Do you really need to use the legacy glass? Often times it isn't as good as you remember. At this point, Sony is making serious strides and Canikon should be nervous. The new A7r2 is pretty ridiculous. And you can adapt your old Nikon lenses.

Many still pro shooters are increasingly shooting video so you might want that to be a more important criterion.

The dSLR is increasingly losing relevance for all but niche shooters.

And now for something completely different.

The Leica Q, full frame. ($4,500 USD) Just released and it's getting rave reviews. It's about the same size as the Leica film M cameras.
Fixed 28mm lens (35mmm and 50mm cropping) so it's not what you're looking at but this underlines what Nostatic posted above.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1434347909.jpg

I have a fair bit of "legacy glass" that is perfect for what I seem to find myself needing. Very fast and very shallow DOF. Tonight I was using a 55mm f1.2 and an 85mm f1.4. No way I could afford current day lenses like that. I realize that with a DSLR, you can simply crank up the ISO, and I imagine there is some digital magic way to simulate a shallow DOF.

How video capable do you need?

I enjoy my D4, but I got a screaming deal on it. The D700, D750, D610, D3(s) would all fit your bill. The D800 series I think would have file sizes too large, since thats a concern.

Also, any of these allow you to shoot .jpeg along side a raw file, so you could have a quick proof available out of the camera, and a native file to tweak in photochop.

What sort of shooting are you looking to do? still life, architecture, landscapes?

I regret buying into Nikon glass so bad. If I were starting over today it would be Sony.

It really depends on what/how you shoot. For instance, with the A7r2, you have iso 100,000 (400K+ with the A7s). So fast glass for low light becomes a non issue. Now DOF is something else, but with full frame and shooting f1.2, your area of focus is pretty razor-thin and frankly not particularly useful other than for effect.

If these are MF lenses then you'll want focus peaking to help with focus as well as zooming (which is easy with an EVF). Frankly optical viewfinders are pretty much dead as well - the new Leica EVF is 3.6 million dot resolution.

The bottom line is that the SLR has little future. Only ones that really need it are sports shooters (it still has a slightly quicker AF) but frankly they can shoot 4K video with a mirrorless and do a frame grab that will be plenty good for most publication. Mirrorless is only going to get better. So do you invest in something that is near the EOL, or something that is on the development curve?

Right now it is hard to beat Sony body and Zeiss glass. The new Batis lenses are spectacular. While you invest in the glass, there are sea changes that can alter the landscape. Mirrorless has been knocking on the door for some time, seems like someone finally answered the knock. If you really love the way your legacy glass renders you can adapt it. Or you can sell the glass to someone who still is keeping that flame and move to current generation AF, etc.

Two years ago I had a different view. But the tech has changed the game again...

I have been using a Leica V-Lux 3 for years and love it. Not a DSLR, but for my needs, it's just fine.

And a funny nod to film days - you can choose which noise it makes to mimic shutter sound, or just shut it off completely, haha!

What is the purpose of the new camera? Family / vacation pictures, or professional photography?

Based on your post, it seems like you are familiar with photography - probably cut your teeth on 35mm SLR's.

Lightweight body typically means plastic - but that's hard to find on a full-frame sensor. Why the need for a full-frame sensor? You can save a ton of $$ by going with a consumer-level DSLR like a Nikon D3300 or D5200 and still have the ability to manipulate the camera settings to your liking.

In my opinion, unless you are a pro photographer, there really is no need to go with pro-sumer or pro-grade cameras. A good photographer - even a hobby photographer can take beautiful picutures using any of the DSLR or mirrorless consumer-grade cameras out there. Save some money and weight! :)

-Z-man, pleasantly happy with my Nikon D3200.

I'm going to say check out the Leica V-Lux, or it's less expensive twin, from Panasonic Lumix.

Some say (I'm one of them) that the slight tweaks to the software and light metering from Leica, and the cool red dot and logo are perhaps worth the extra dough. And the neck strap is better, much better.

Lots of knowledgeable folks here, thank you.

Okay, most of my shooting is of two types:
- Available light, often poorly lit situations, range 5 to 40 feet, subject is people. Think dance performances, amateur theatre, music clubs, soirees. Usually, in the film world, I'm using a fast film, pushed, fast lens, f1.2 to f2.0, slowish shutter speed. I know the exposure, typically use an external light meter, so it can set it and forget it. Usually the subjects are slow moving, they kind of have to be at 1/30 to 1/125. Yesterday, for instance, I set both bodies at 1/60 f1.4 or 1/125 f1.2 and never changed exposure, just tried to anticipate focus and push the shutter release just before the moment, only had 36 chances per body. Usually use primes 35 mm, 50-55 mm, 85 mm. That's with film. With digital I could use faster shutter speeds, fast AF, fire a burst of shots, zoom around, might be nice!
- Still life, landscape, architectural detail stuff. This is usually small aperture, longer exposure, slower film, trying for detail. Most any camera will do. Usually using primes, 24 mm to 180 mm, maybe on tripod.
- All my shooting, on film, is black and white because I like the darkroom manipulation. With digital, I'd likely shoot some color.
- I only enlarge to 8 x 10. Purely a hobby.
- I don't know nothing about Photoshop. I've used Adobe Photoshop Elements. I guess I will have to learn.

I'm not needing a "small" camera. Right now I'm carrying Nikon F/motor drive or F3/motor, before that I hauled around a Hasselblad, so almost anything is going to feel nice and light! For casual snaps I use my iPhone. Or an old film rangefinder.

The mirrorless cameras are intriguing. I need to look hard at those. Which Sony model should I look at?. How about Olympus OM-D?. I loved my OM-1 back in the day. Leica is probably too spendy and I'd cover up the red dot anyway!

I'm quite sure I don't need video. I want to get into to videotaping my son's theatre and dance productions, and the low end camcorder I have is terrible in low light, but will buy a decent camcorder for that. I'd prefer that to a DSLR wired to an external microphone. For casual video I, yup, use my iPhone.

A year or three ago I would have agreed with you about video. Now? Sorry - buying a dedicated camcorder is a waste of money.

It really depends on your budget. The recently announced Sony A7r2 will be $3200 and will be crazy good. The current A7-2 is about $1700 and does everything you need except the silent shutter (it is quieter than most dSLRs, but not silent - the A7r2 is). If you really want crazy low light shooting, then the A7s will get you that as well as silent shutter. Downside is less file resolution (12 MP) but if your'e not printing large that is a total non-issue except to pixel peepers. With any of the Sonys you can adapt your Nikon lenses or get some of the native FE mount stuff. The 55/1.8 is a stellar lens and the new Batis stuff is ridiculous (24mm and 85mm).

I shot the Oly for a year or so. The sensor is much smaller than full frame - u4/3. APS-C is in-between u4/3 and FF. Oly makes some great glass though - the 75mm/1.8 is flat out amazing, and is a 150mm equivalent as the u4/3 has a 2x crop factor.

If you want to get more background info, I think these forums are the best. Not so many wankers or trolls - getDPI | Photography at its best

You will need to learn Lightroom or Photoshop. These apps are the equivalent of today's darkroom. Just like with film, part of the process was getting the shot, the other part was developing. These apps are how you "develop."

Okay dokey - feel free to ignore my post above... ;)

Yes that's true. You get 29 min on most of them and you have to start recording again.

The GH4 will do non stop video.

Anyone know about the Sony's ?

I just got the D750 only 10 days ago or so. Immediately I realized it's the best camera I've ever used, by a stretch, and I have or used to have some very nice ones including a D3 I still use for racing stuff.

Well if you want quiet don't go with the first generation Sony A7 series, they are loud as are most dslrs (mirror slap). You might want to check out the Fuji X series, they have electronic shutter option (silent) and if you are still using film cameras their controls are similar, you can start using with no learning curve. They can take Nikon lenses with adapter and have focus peaking for manual focus, but they do have a 1.5x crop factor (you can get a pricey adapter that will allow you to shoot with no crop factor. They have both rangefinder and slr type bodies to fit your shooting style. One thing nice about the Fujis are that they consistently offer free firmware upgrades that improve functionality of the cameras and lenses: https://luminous-landscape.com/rantatorial/fuji-keeps-giving-me-a-new-camera/
See Fred Miranda for used equipment: Buy & Sell Photo-Gear - FM Forums

I played with a Fujifilm XT1 last night at the darkroom, while waiting for my negs to dry. It belonged to the person running the darkroom. She also had a Nikon FM and the two cameras were almost the same size and weight, with a very similar control layout. I really liked the Fujifilm! Two issues: she said that above ISO 800 the images are noisy (not something I'm reading in reviews), and there isn't an obvious focusing aid in the viewfinder (hard to believe I didn't simply miss it)

I also learned that there are third party split-image focusing screens for the Nikon Df, which would address one issue I have with that camera.

The df doesn't do video if that's a concern. I had one for a while, it was way overpriced and in the end I traded it for the Xt1. It has a manual focus assist button and you can use it for focus peaking, digital split image and magnification, works great. Here is photo taken on the Ganges river at ISO 6400 with the Xt1, I have enlarged it to 17 x 22 with great results:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1434464166.jpg

Thanks for the info and the cool image! I see that the XT1 can use Nikkor lenses with a simple adapter, hmm.

NEX series.

You may miss having an optical view-finder. The EVF's are a lot better than they used to be, but still lagging, compared to straight optics.

The a6000 is popular as a backup/2nd cam with some guys who also shoot larger format. Very quick AF and will shoot silent. The original A7 and A7r don't have silent shutters (and the A7r is downright loud - A7 has an electronic front curtain that is quieter). A7s will shoot silent as will the upcoming A7r2. A7-2 isn't that loud but isn't silent. There is a rumored a7000 that should be out soon with a slightly higher spec than the a6000 - probably higher res EVF and 300+ AF points.

The Fujis are a love/hate thing. They have a very traditional ergonomic setup with actual dials. I found the files difficult to push around but ymmv.

I switched from Canon late last year, as technology was changing fast, and it allowed me to change the way I wanted to shoot.

If you want low-light capable, I can't speak any higher about the Sony A7S I bought. It doesn't shoot in low light, rather impossible light. It is truly remarkable in that regard. Fast AF might not be important, but being able to hit AF in ultra-low light is quite nice.

Just a data point here. I don't have a solution for you, but I saw the "reasonably quiet" comments and thought I would ring in. I was shooting hummingbirds on my patio last weekend ('cause they're so tasty :D) and the shutter noise on my Nikon D-610 was making them nervous, so I switched to silent shutter. The results were disastrous.
The only difference in the camera between these two shots is that the first one was taken with the mirror down and the second with it locked up. I have no idea why this occurs.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1434479010.jpg



http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1434479031.jpg

I think it might be because the auto focus uses reflections off the mirror in order to work but could be wrong. [Nice hummer pic btw.]

When I wanted to use my legacy glass I got a used NEX-7 and a bunch of adapters. It's been a lot of fun using old glass and getting pictures with character because of it.
I shoot a D7000 w/18-200 VR 1 when the picture absolutely has to come out. So far it hasn't let me down. I have the 'wants' for a D750, Sony A7ii, or a D7200, not necessarily in that order. The need for a full frame isn't that great these days. The only desire is to shoot the legacy at their native focal lengths.
I'll be keeping an eye on this thread, with interest, to see which way you decide to go.

I really appreciate the ideas and thoughts here!

It is hard for a film fogie to figure this stuff out.

My Nikon 20mm f1.8 lens on the D610. It's my new favorite lens, it stays on the camera. It wasn't toooo expensive and its light so it doesn't kill me to carry it around.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1434507539.jpg

Just to define my needs and wants a little more, these are some typical shots that I struggle with, using my current old school film camera. These were taken last weekend at my son's dance class performance, quickly printed tonight, and scanned at 600 dpi on my home multi-function printer. i think the scanning has reduced some of the shadow detail.

First shot. Film, HP5+, pushed 2 stops to 1600 ISO, 1/60 sec, f1.4, 85 mm lens. Scene is dark, figures are moving. I struggle with manual focusing, fast enough shutter speed (1/60 doesn't work great for dancers in motion), and noise (someone got shirty about my shutter/drive). My next digital camera needs to autofocus on the face of the dancer in the background, instead of on the foreground dancer; if I have to tell it what to do, it has to be something I can do very fast, this shot existed for a fraction of a second. It doesn't need high resolution, but needs to handle shadows well. Its lens needs to have big aperture for shallow DOF, the only way this shot works is because the foreground danger is out of focus.

http://i800.photobucket.com/albums/y...psjn10epgs.jpg

Here is another picture from the performance. That's my son by the way. Same ISO and shutter speed as the first shot, but using a 55 mm lens at, I think, f1.8. Also a dark scene. Here I my focus wasn't so great, and the shot doesn't need shallow DOF. I did want a slow shutter speed (not that I had any choice given the lighting) because I was hoping for faces sharp and arms blurred by motion, didn't really get that because timing was off. So my future digital camera needs to be able to focus very accurately on the face, to have the ISO flexibility to allow a smaller aperture (like f5.6) and a slower shutter speed (like 1/30). I could print this shot to get more shadow detail if i wanted to, the digital camera should allow that too.

http://i800.photobucket.com/albums/y...pssobmp8sg.jpg

A third shot from the performance. 1600 ISO, 1/60, f1.4, 55 mm. I figure most any digital camera should handle this easily. The dancers were briefly stationary.

http://i800.photobucket.com/albums/y...psvz7rpo9f.jpg

Go to a local camera store and check out a Sony A7s.

Here is another one, this was taken about 10 years ago, a friend during a midnight walk on Halloween. Can't recall exact details but was likely HP5+ pushed to ISO 1600, 1/30 sec (edit maybe 1/15 sec), 55mm, f1.2. Was very dark, we were on the sidewalk and the only light was a porch light on a nearby house. My friend's DSLR (a Nikon something) wouldn't function at all, not enough light, the AF just hunted constantly. I was using a Nikon F.

http://i800.photobucket.com/albums/y...pswf1pqtx6.jpg

I'm not showing these pictures to imply that all I ever shoot is low light stuff. But that is the situation where I have the hardest time with my film cameras and where I need my future $3000 digital camera to really work and work really well. Taking pictures of stuff in the daylight, landscapes, etc - I don't feel that those situations are going to stress any good digital camera.

I would shoot in color with a low flash and then edit with Photoshop.

Flash absolutely verboten in a dance performance. Available light only.

I wonder if you could use an infrared pinlight and a tripod