Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Do I get a D610 0r just get a D7100

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

scootphoto

Hi just wondering what you all think as i'm not sure what to go for Sad

I've been looking at getting a Nikon D7100 for a few weeks, reading reviews etc religiously, was going to skip the kit lenses and get maybe a sigma or Tamron 17-50mm as my main lens. However I've just spotted that the full frame Nikon D610 is a nice piece of kit too, obviously more expensive but the fact that you can use some of Nikon's older lenses which are nice and sharp, and I'd save a bit of money on those if I just went for the primes. What would you all recommend as since I'd pretty much made my mind up until I spotted the D610.

Anyone have a thoughts on the older prime lenses which Nikon has produced which will be compatible on the Nikon D610

I currently have no camera or lenses so it's not a matter of stick to what lenses I have etc.

Next question what will I be shooting, well I'd like to think a bit of everything bust mostly land/seascape imagery but also thinking about getting into real estate photography, so that's why I'm thinking the full frame could be a good shout.

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
7 Nov 2013 - 7:04 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

bwlchmawr
bwlchmawr  2 England1 Constructive Critique Points
7 Nov 2013 - 8:33 PM

I know nothing of Nikon cameras but one thing you may like to consider is what you're going to do with the final images. If you'regoing to make big enlargements then full-frame may be beneficial. If you're going to be carting camera body and lenses over the praries then the lighter D7100 with APSC lenses might be best. The crop factor of the latter also means they're highly suited to tele-photo lenses. It's worth checking on how much more expensive Fx lenses are than Dx. I know there is some backwards compatability with old manual focus Nikon fit lenses but they're not like Pentax K mount lenses which all fit and work on modern bodies.

Now there's a thought... the Pentax K3, as you're not already tied to a system. Most modern DSLRs are capable of producing excellent photographs. I urge you to get your hands on one in the flesh, so to speak as "feel" is very important.

scootphoto

Hmm I've now reverted back to the D7100 but I'm going to have a look at the Pentax, is it a dark horse? not read an awful lot about them so I will have to do some investigation. Thanks

Andy_Cundell
8 Nov 2013 - 8:01 AM

I currently have a D90 and was wondering the same. I am going to get the D7100 because of one major reason...................to really use the bigger sensor to its full potential, you need FX lenses and I only have DX ones! This would mean a much bigger lay out on new lenses or having to use the crop feature on the D600 series with my DX lenses......a waste of time really!

Andy

Leif
Leif  9722 forum posts
8 Nov 2013 - 9:58 AM

What about a D600? 1100.

scootphoto

Yeah thats what I was thinking with regards to lenses, FX lenses are pricey but then you pay for great quality. I guess that's why I was thinking about using older nikon lenses, but which are still great quality. This silly or am I being a cheapskate? Wink

I was put off the D600 as I heard about the oil on sensor malarky, anyone know if its as bad as the many reviews say?

thewilliam
8 Nov 2013 - 8:40 PM

I'm not convinced that FX lenses are any better than the DX equivalents but they do tend to be more expensive. She-who-must-be-obeyed used to cover weddings with just two zooms, 17-55mm and 70-200, plus a fisheye.

Although I use FX, I'm not sure that there's any advantage these days.

LenShepherd
LenShepherd e2 Member 62505 forum postsLenShepherd vcard United Kingdom
8 Nov 2013 - 9:21 PM

With the D7100 body currently around 730 after Nikon 100 cash back and the D610 around double the price difference is a huge difference.
There is also Nikon cash back on several DX and FX lenses.
As a regular user of the D7100 and D800 unless I want to print A2 or shoot much higher than 1600 ISO in a 24 inch wide print I find there is no practical difference between my 2 cameras.
The rendition of dof and lens focal length differ between the formats, but you are likely to know this.
The old non AI lenses the just announced Df body can take are mainly 35 year and older optical designs and, in view of their age, rarely in mint condition.
AI was 1977, AIS was 1982 and AF in Nikon started over 25 years ago in 1986.
Most modern optics have higher contrast, more resolution and better flare handling ability, but a different "look" to the images they produce compared to the manual focus lens era. Some portrait workers prefer the rendition of the old 105 mm f2.5. With the coming of Df the prices of the best of the old MF lenses could rise quickly.
Real estate does not really come into the format debate as there are appropriate wide able lenses for either format.

Leif
Leif  9722 forum posts
9 Nov 2013 - 12:11 AM


Quote: Yeah thats what I was thinking with regards to lenses, FX lenses are pricey but then you pay for great quality. I guess that's why I was thinking about using older nikon lenses, but which are still great quality. This silly or am I being a cheapskate? Wink

I was put off the D600 as I heard about the oil on sensor malarky, anyone know if its as bad as the many reviews say?

I did a mini survey and numerous recent buyers said it was fine. I bought one two weeks ago and after ~1,000 shots it is fine. A significant proportion of early ones were dicky, some later ones too, but we do not know the proportion.

As said earlier, older lenses are older designs with older coatings. Modern zooms in particular have improved a lot, albeit that is a generalisation and exceptions exist.

scootphoto
10 Nov 2013 - 4:11 AM

Ahh never thought about the D600 due to that oil problem but I guess if I find a newer one hopefully the problem will have been sorted out, this camera buying malarkey is harder than I thought as It's been over 10 years since I had to update my camera. So much more available these days than there was when I bought my Canon 20 D back in the day. As I'm in Canada the prices are slightly cheaper than in the UK, only marginally though. One question if you know, anyone use the 10-20mm Sigma and if so do you have the f3.5 or f4.5, I hear the f3.5 is slightly sharper at 10mm and the f4.5 is better at the wider end, much difference between them sharp wise?

Thanks again folks

Leif
Leif  9722 forum posts
10 Nov 2013 - 8:00 AM

Sorry, I missed you were outside the UK. Do be aware of sample variation in lenses so don't buy based on one review. My Nikon 12-24mm DX lens was unusable at 12-14mm due to smeared corners at any aperture, clearly an extreme or faulty sample.

scootphoto
11 Nov 2013 - 2:08 AM

Ohh really, that's not great I'll possibly just be getting the D7100 and hoping for that to be tomorrow if I can get out of the country and into the city for a change. thanks for that heads up though, a pretty major fault, did you send it back?

Leif
Leif  9722 forum posts
11 Nov 2013 - 10:09 AM


Quote: Ohh really, that's not great I'll possibly just be getting the D7100 and hoping for that to be tomorrow if I can get out of the country and into the city for a change. thanks for that heads up though, a pretty major fault, did you send it back?

Sadly it was bought used, so I sold it on via ebay. Such faults are in my experience rare, but minor variation is commonplace.

LenShepherd
LenShepherd e2 Member 62505 forum postsLenShepherd vcard United Kingdom
12 Nov 2013 - 10:11 AM


Quote:
Sadly it was bought used, so I sold it on via ebay. Such faults are in my experience rare, but minor variation is commonplace.

As Nikon still seem to say they test every Nikon 1 lens and body before it leaves the factory, it is unlikely they do not also check every DSLR lens, especially at this price point.
It seems close to impossible for a lens to leave the factory with an obvious defect, though events do sometimes happen before a lens reaches the end user.
As to variations Nikon publish MTF for every current lens at www.imaging.nikon.com If a new lens does not meet that standard, in the UK, you are entitled to your money back from the retailer.
I have carefully tested every new lens (over 100) I have owned over about the last 30 years - and have never encountered an Olympus or Nikon that did not perform to a high standard and (if Nikon) in line with the Nikon MTF.
I do see some reports to the contrary, but not with images showing testing to a high standard.
Many lenses have a history, and it is regrettable some are sold on e-bay which are no longer in good optical condition.
I expect to have to get about one out of my collection repaired about every 2 years (mainly air transit damage) and to renew the lens mount on my most used lenses every 3-4 years to keep performance high.
Car manufacturers recommend an annual car service. Nikon recommend a 2 years service for lenses and bodies, or more frequently if heavy used. Very few have their cameras and lenses serviced to ensure continuing top performance.

Leif
Leif  9722 forum posts
12 Nov 2013 - 11:52 AM


Quote: Sadly it was bought used, so I sold it on via ebay. Such faults are in my experience rare, but minor variation is commonplace.
As Nikon still seem to say they test every Nikon 1 lens and body before it leaves the factory, it is unlikely they do not also check every DSLR lens, especially at this price point.
It seems close to impossible for a lens to leave the factory with an obvious defect, though events do sometimes happen before a lens reaches the end user.
As to variations Nikon publish MTF for every current lens at www.imaging.nikon.com If a new lens does not meet that standard, in the UK, you are entitled to your money back from the retailer.
I have carefully tested every new lens (over 100) I have owned over about the last 30 years - and have never encountered an Olympus or Nikon that did not perform to a high standard and (if Nikon) in line with the Nikon MTF.
I do see some reports to the contrary, but not with images showing testing to a high standard.
Many lenses have a history, and it is regrettable some are sold on e-bay which are no longer in good optical condition.
I expect to have to get about one out of my collection repaired about every 2 years (mainly air transit damage) and to renew the lens mount on my most used lenses every 3-4 years to keep performance high.
Car manufacturers recommend an annual car service. Nikon recommend a 2 years service for lenses and bodies, or more frequently if heavy used. Very few have their cameras and lenses serviced to ensure continuing top performance.

The extreme softness in my 12-24mm zoom was not what you would see even in a heavily used lens, it was indicative of a production fault. The casing was in mint condition, suggesting no abuse, and it was bought from a shop.

I do not have evidence, and I suspect you don't, but I do not believe that Nikon tests every single lens. Generally companies sample check, testing 1 in 10 for example. Bjorn Rorslett in his review of a Nikon zoom, either the 17-35mm F2.8 or the 14-24mm F2.8, noted that he examined multiple copies and found a significant and unacceptable variation in performance. He communicated with Nikon, and was informed that they had improved QC, a statement which he thought was true based on later samples he examined. Also there is a well known test of two 28mm F2 AIS lenses, which show a significant variation in performance. Here it is:

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/28mm_2.html

Note that this is a 'simple' prime, not a complex zoom with multiple moving lens elements/groups.

Many years ago, I knew, indirectly, a semi-professional photography who would test a selection of lenses and buy the best one. He had the facilities and skill to test lenses. I know you like to think that Nikon are near perfect, but I'm afraid sample variation is a fact. By all accounts the big names such as Nikon and Canon have better quality control than Sigma, Tamron and others. You also see noticeable sample variation with high end binoculars and spotting scopes, but that is another issue.

I also do not believe Nikon will refund money if a lens does not perform according to the theoretical MTF plot. Do you have a source for that statement?

Last Modified By Leif at 12 Nov 2013 - 11:54 AM

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.