EPZ Exclusive: 20% off ALL fotoVUE books (use code EPZ at checkout)!

Camera upgrades


I have a D7000 and my old D80 as backup. I shoot weddings, portraits and just family functions as well. I am wanting to upgrade to a newer camera. I thought about keeping my 7000 as my backup and upgrading the D80 to something newer. In your opinion what models should I look at? Also what lenses is a must in your camera bag?

Thanks

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

LenShepherd 10 3.8k United Kingdom
12 Jun 2018 8:15PM
You have not said what lenses you own or what budget you have in mind.
Your bodies are DX.
If your lenses are also DX the logical upgrade, assuming you buy new is a D7200 or maybe a D500, as you do not need to replace any DX lenses straight away.
If most of your lenses are FX you can consider an FX body, keeping the D7000 for when you need extra reach with the lenses you have.
Anybody can make numerous suggestions but ideally we need to know what lenses you have and your budget to comment in more detail.
Chris_L Plus
4 4.9k United Kingdom
13 Jun 2018 11:40AM
A must for me is a 35mm prime, fast as possible (widest aperture possible) for street shooting and general outdoors including group shots. Nikon mount would be this sort of thing, depending on budget.

For portraits I have an 85mm f1.8 prime - love the results from that. I have a half-decent 70 to 200 f4 zoom with image stabilisation, essential for when I can't be bothered to walk that far, swim out to sea etc, want to use compression to emphasise something Smile

The above are my essentials I also have 25 and 55 primes but I am thinking of getting rid of the 55 to lighten the load and possibly replace the 25 with something wider.

Good glass is so important. Camera bodies come and go. Buy the best lenses you can afford - unlike bodies, they hold their value nicely.

On a budget? If you are good with manual focus you can get a very decent 85mm f1.8 for 85 like this

Want 85 f1.4 without breaking the bank? Look at this - All those reviews praising it are accurate, have achieved stunning portraits with that very lens.
thewilliam2 1 996
13 Jun 2018 11:59AM
I'd urge you to sit down and write a list of the features of your present kit that dissatisfy you. Against each, write what you would really like to have. You've just written the spec for your new camera.

To find your ideal focal-length of prime, take a look at the metadata of your most successful shots. What focal-length was used or what setting was used on a zoom. Then see what aperture was used. If you shoot everything at f8 or f11, there's no point in getting the f1.4 version of the lens. With good manufacturers, the modest aperture versions are still good performers and in some cases they're better than the wider brethren.

My working lenses are the Nikon "holy trinity" plus fisheye but they're only f2.8. It's useful to have an f1.4 50mm in the bag for those occasions when you have to shoot in the dark.
17 Jun 2018 6:49AM
Hi,

My first Nikon digital is a D50 (still in my drawers), I bought it in 2006 for my Japan trip. At that time I used my old F90 lenses then started buying DX lenses.

I bought a D90 in 2010 before my trip to North America (USA and Canada), I bought more DX lenses and a SB600 in the US. Back home, I bought a Tamron Macro AF 90mm f/2.8..

In March this year I ordered a D500 and collected it at a BIC Camera store in Sapporo, I brought lenses from home to photo during Cherry blossom season in Japan.

Long story short. Just getting a brochure from my local Camera shop which shows a Nikkor AFS 40mm 2.8 DX very cheap. My question is: it is a good idea to replace the Tamron with this lens, they are both give 1:1 and the Nikkor is much lighter. Does anyone have a comparison between the two. I may only use it on the D90 as a backup camera.

My hobby is to take flowers and closeup works.

Regards.
LenShepherd 10 3.8k United Kingdom
17 Jun 2018 9:29AM

Quote:
Just getting a brochure from my local Camera shop which shows a Nikkor AFS 40mm 2.8 DX very cheap. My question is: it is a good idea to replace the Tamron with this lens, they are both give 1:1 and the Nikkor is much lighter. Does anyone have a comparison between the two. I may only use it on the D90 as a backup camera.


I have no direct comparison.
Both will be optically good.
A major difference with the 40mm macro at 1:1 is the front element of the lens will be must closer to the subject than with the longer lens - maybe about half.
Whether this is an issue I suggest depends partly on whether you photograph flowers indoors or outdoors.
Unfortunately lens makers rarely quote "working distance" (front element to subject distance at minimum focus) which ideally you need to know.
Another difference is the 40mm has a wider angle of view and thus includes a "wider" background area.
thewilliam2 1 996
17 Jun 2018 10:21AM
I'd wager that the Nikon will hold its value better.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.