Camera Geeks Needed - Recommendation?

[jyl]

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.

[Super_Dave_D]

I have a Nikon d610 and really wand the new d750

[pcardude]

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.

[jhc]

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.

[jyl]

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

[jyl]

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

[TimT]

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

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..

[mjohnson]

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...

[jyl]

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 :-)

[nostatic]

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.

[sc_rufctr]

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.

[jyl]

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.

[bleucamaro]

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?

[pcardude]

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

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by jyl

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.

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...

[rusnak]

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!

[Z-man]

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.

[rusnak]

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.

[jyl]

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.

[nostatic]

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."