The D610 has focus assist.(little green dot) focusing at 1.2 is almost impossible for anyone without that.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Given my budget, which is better for low light?
- Thread starter Iphone4sinwhite
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What more could you get in terms of versatility.
I feel the three cover pretty much everything off.
Having started with a Nikon D3200, then to a D7100, and now to a D610, and having shot with a wide selection of lenses - zooms & primes - I think the best combination for you would be a D7100 + Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8.
I haven't shot with the D3300 but the reason I recommend the D7100 over the D3300 is because of its autofocusing (the D7100 outperforms the D610 in this area) and its more advanced features, such as quick access to settings and bracketing shots. It wasn't very long after I had gotten my D3200 that I realized that I had quickly outgrown that camera and was ready for the semi-pro features of the D7100. I would still be shooting with the D7100 if my job didn't require full-frame.
The D7100, paired with the unrivaled versatility of Sigma's 18-35, is a no brainer for me and would put you at $1,900. If you're just getting into this hobby you'll soon learn that aside from a body and lens you'll also need to buy a camera bag, memory cards, tripod (maybe), processing software, camera strap... it's a downward spiral.
Good luck! Let us know what you end up getting.
I haven't shot with the D3300 but the reason I recommend the D7100 over the D3300 is because of its autofocusing (the D7100 outperforms the D610 in this area) and its more advanced features, such as quick access to settings and bracketing shots. It wasn't very long after I had gotten my D3200 that I realized that I had quickly outgrown that camera and was ready for the semi-pro features of the D7100. I would still be shooting with the D7100 if my job didn't require full-frame.
The D7100, paired with the unrivaled versatility of Sigma's 18-35, is a no brainer for me and would put you at $1,900. If you're just getting into this hobby you'll soon learn that aside from a body and lens you'll also need to buy a camera bag, memory cards, tripod (maybe), processing software, camera strap... it's a downward spiral.
Good luck! Let us know what you end up getting.
Depends what you shoot. For people shooters its fine. For wildlife, sports, concerts, etc. I'd want at least a 200 mm in there.
----------
Having started with a Nikon D3200, then to a D7100, and now to a D610, and having shot with a wide selection of lenses - zooms & primes - I think the best combination for you would be a D7100 + Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8.
I haven't shot with the D3300 but the reason I recommend the D7100 over the D3300 is because of its autofocusing (the D7100 outperforms the D610 in this area) and its more advanced features, such as quick access to settings and bracketing shots. It wasn't very long after I had gotten my D3200 that I realized that I had quickly outgrown that camera and was ready for the semi-pro features of the D7100. I would still be shooting with the D7100 if my job didn't require full-frame.
The D7100, paired with the unrivaled versatility of Sigma's 18-35, is a no brainer for me and would put you at $1,900. If you're just getting into this hobby you'll soon learn that aside from a body and lens you'll also need to buy a camera bag, memory cards, tripod (maybe), processing software, camera strap... it's a downward spiral.
Good luck! Let us know what you end up getting.
Lol. I started with the D3200 and then moved on to the D7100 after about 10 months. I've been looking at a D600/D610 as my next body. It's like I'm your photography equipment stalker!
I think they mean that the D610, with its motor, will focus older Nikon lenses that don't have a built-in motor. For some people that would be a big plus. For example, I have an old 85 mm f/1.4 Nikon D that won't autofocus without a motor in the body, so that would be important to me.
I think the point he was getting at is that ever lens you can put on a 6d without the use of an adapter will autofocus so it shouldn't be a 'win' for the d610 but a draw.
Ah but that's not versatility but instead just a different choice of shooting surely?
But they mark that as a plus point against the 6d which doesn't need such a motor. For Nikon that's a plus, but as it's not required for canon I don't see the need for comparison
No, it's not. You couldn't pay me to own a Canon. Anyone with good eyesight can see the problems with Canon APS-C. Deny it all you want, but the photos and measurements don't lie.
Just depends on what you are shooting I guess. I wasn't suggesting that these 3 lens will cover everything just trying to demonstrate that for $2k you could get a lot of low light capability. If the OP goes Nikon and needs 200mm or more for low light then he's going to need a lot more than $2k.
If I was going Nikon and wanted versatility for around $2k then I'd probably go with the 7100 and the 18-300.
If I wanted the best low light and sharpest lens I could get for around $2k then I'd probably go with the 7100 and 1 or more of the 3 I mentioned. Any of those 3 is not a bad place to start you "fast" Nikon lens collection.
Strange, we've had someone on the form try and spot differences between Canon and Nikon images before. Turned out the 'bad' Canon images were taken on a Nikon. So that sort of turns your 'anyone' argument on its head.
I think you need to provide evidence of problems with APS-C before you're accused of being a fanboy.
Nikon owner here. Think both the Cannon and Nikon have there merits. I knew I could buy quality second hand glass from work, so it was an easy choice for me. Plus I do find the layout of the controls on the Nikon more natural (to me anyhow).
But in terms of IQ I could not tell the difference.
Like I've always said. Once the photo is printed, the camera used is irrelevant.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but I'm curious. I agree that the plus/minus points are a little weird, for the reason you give.
Let's say you have a modern Canon body that takes the EF lenses. Are those then the only Canon lenses you can mount on your body (never mind 3rd party ones)? What happens if you have older full-frame Canon lenses and want to use them -- do you use the adapter that acarchie mentioned? Or is it simply impossible?
And I'll hijack this thread to ask a Nikon question in case somebody knows the answer -- I remember being told back in my D200/D300 days that it wasn't a good idea to mount a 60s vintage non-AI Nikon lens on a newer digital body, because the mount can interfere with or even damage the connectors on a new body. I have a 55 mm micro-nikkor (and extention tube) that I'd like to mount on my D800 but without a definitive answer I'm not going to do it.
The older manual focus canon FD lenses needed an adapter to use on the Eos system (though not all worked!), so older lenses can be used. Nikon have the advantage of never changing their mount, but only their af initially was driven by an in body motor, later lenses had motors in. So the in essence all Canon EF lenses work on all Eos bodies, and all Nikon af lenses work on bodies with motors in. So for maximum compatibility for Nikon you need a body with a motor, but for canon any Eos body will autofocus.
Want to know something I find very entertaining? A guilty pleasure of mine, if you will.
It's reading 'expert photographers' opinions on internet forums. I love it. Can't get enough of it. I'm particularly fond of pixel peepers.
Now, with your quoted comment in mind. I assume you'll be posting a link to your absolutely stunning, perfectly exposed and exceptionally colour graded portfolio?
I'd love to see it, because at the moment? I'm guessing you couldn't take a decent photo to save your life.
True - but I thought the OP might want some details on the gear he actually asked about.
I've read that autofocus on the 6D sucks. Not Ideal if you're working in low light.
No it doesn't. In fact it beats most cameras out there in low light situations when you use the center focus point.
There was a poster here a few months ago who would swear by the superior colors rendition of Nikon cameras compared to Canon cameras, so I posted a few images and asked him to tell me which photos were taken with a Canon camera, and which ones with a Nikon camera. He picked some as being taken with Nikon cameras, at which point I replied telling him that all the photos were taken with a Canon 7D.
I do think there is a difference between camera manufacturers. I prefer the colors (especially the skin tones) of my Fuji X100s to my Nikon. But I don't think this is necessarily a sign that Fuji has »better image quality«. I think it's more a matter of taste, and not necessarily that one has a better sensor than the other.
This only applies to jpegs. You can adjust the color in raw as you like it.
If you look at lab results the Nikons and Sonys get obvious superior IQ.
Nevertheless I find it questionable if this better IQ is noticable for the human eye.
All the suggested cameras are considered excellent.
Just go the store and get whatever feels best for you
No, I exclusively shoot RAW and I was only talking about my RAW conversions (with Apple's RAW converter): the skin tones in particular look better out of the box. I should have mentioned that, though. I would be hard pressed to put my subjective preference into something which is objectively measurable, though (which is odd if you know me, I'm a scientist by trade and vocation).
I was quite specific in my post that I was not talking about lab tests, and instead that my completely subjective preference of »Fuji's better skin tones« does not necessarily imply better image quality. And given that I own a Nikon dslr (a D7000 to be precise), I don't think that the superiority in image quality is obvious. In my experience, the X100s has better high ISO behavior because its sensor is of a newer generation, but in practice the biggest advantage of my dslr is the autofocus system. At normal ISO (ISO 100~800) there is practically no difference, because modern APS-C-sized sensors are just so good that in my experience it doesn't matter.
Profile your sensor under the lighting conditions you shoot in with a color chart and you'll end up with the delta being what the senor can record rather than some converter's idea of what the colors are.
Personally, I like the X-Rite Color Checker Passport.
FWIW, skin tones are a horrible metric-- none of the camera manufacturers consistently get good results for the wide range of colors people come in.
Paul