I find that most camera/lens reviews dwell on the latest technological breakthroughs, but not much on whether the average photographer will in fact get better results from a high end camera. Here's one professional photographer/reviewer who doesn't mind saying "you may get better pictures by keeping what you've already got." He's reviewing the Nikon D800e, but at the end of the article he makes some recommendations.

http://blog.mingthein.com/2012...800e-midterm-report/

Since I find his reviewing approach much more useable than most, especially when it comes to actually recommending what he thinks is the best purchase depending on your use, here's another review about the different 85mm Nikon lenses.

http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/11/23/nikon-85-18g/

If only all equipment reviewers could be this straightforward. Bottom line, I'll be keeping my D7000 and my D700 for some time to come (although a 14MP D400, if it ever comes out, might replace my D7000 if the D400 comes with a higher fps rate).

Some of you have commented favorably on photographs I have posted on Namibia and animals from Kenyan national parks. All those were taken with either a Nikon D60 (10MP) or a D90 (12MP)with either the 18-105mm kit lens or the 18-200mm lens attached. It is a myth that buying the most expensive cameras and lenses produces better photographs for web posting or average sized prints. If you are not shooting on a tripod, with excellent lighting (whether outdoors or in a studio)and using very expensive lenses, then buying something like a 36 MP Nikon D800E is probably not going to get you anything better. In fact, your "good picture" ratio may even fall.

I have found that learning how to take pictures, and learning how to get the most out of post-processing software, will be far more rewarding than buying an expensive new camera. We all practice hours learning how to shoot our rifles accurately, as well as working up reloads for accuracy in our rifles, learning the anatomy of game to make shots count, etc. Spend some time doing the same thing with your photography.

Wink

Thanks for this post. I bumped up to a D300 from a D200 because I didn't like the picture out of the D200. I'm happy with that decision.

I was thinking about a FF D800 but I just don't use the camera as much as I used to.

Rich

quote:

Originally posted by richj:
Wink

Thanks for this post. I bumped up to a D300 from a D200 because I didn't like the picture out of the D200. I'm happy with that decision.

I was thinking about a FF D800 but I just don't use the camera as much as I used to.

Rich

If you do decide to go FX, and coming from a D300, then a used D700 might be the exactly right camera. If you can find a low actuation number, excellent condition D700 for around $1,400 you can use the same battery pack, same charger, same batteries, similar control buttons, etc. Buy a 28-300mm to go with it and enjoy. If you've got any old manual focus Nikon lenses (I love the term "legacy lenses") then you will have the best digital camera ever made for manual focus as well. I've got an old 20mm and 500mm mirror lens that I love to pull out once in awhile and they work just great.

I have only 2 manual Nikon lenses from my FE days and an 80-200 Vivitar and 35-70mm Tamron.

I may look around for a D700

quote:

learning how to get the most out of post-processing software, will be far more rewarding than buying an expensive new camera.

This the best I have heard :-) fore a long time

No photo is finish before the Photoshop job is don. :-)
Save your § and € and bye a Photoshop ore a Photoshop Element.Learn use to is in basic and you do not neat a new camera because there is a new model on the marked.

Hunt Safe
wisent

In the old days I used an Nikon F5 and then graduated to an F6 at the same time as the D1x. I used to take the film to the service Bureau and have it developed and converted to digital images on a CD. That was expensive but much more practical than the 2.25 inch (60 mm) slides which though our spectacular for sales presentations is required a lot more equipment than a digital projector.

I even paid to have the D1X buffer upgrade which took it to about five megapixels. That was a pretty good camera and shared the ergonomics of the F series cameras that I had used.

When the D3 was introduced, the price fell on the D2x, which is a 12 megapixel camera. For what I do, 12 megapixels is more than adequate. If I were to upgrade now it would be to the D3s a 12 megapixel camera, which is the upgrade path for me rather than the 24 megapixel D3 variant. The D3s has not fallen in price and also is a different format (24 X 36) which would cause them to lose the format on the high quality short lenses that I bought for the D1x.

Right now, the D2x is the optimal camera for me. Prices have also fallen on the used autofocus Hasselblad (H3ii-), but they still are well in excess of 5K dollars on the used market. I really don't have an application for a 50 megapixel image. Most of the time even with the 12 megapixel image, I and up reducing it for Internet, printing or projection.

I also have a couple of Nikon point-and-shoot but while they are great cameras they don't have the benefit of the TTL configuration which in bright sun makes composition a lot easier. I use them for photography when I don't want to carry a camera.

There is a lot to be said about the small Nikon TTL cameras, but it seems that the D2's and their brothers have all of buttons in the right place and for the 70 mm filter size lenses have very good balance. For example I particularly like the 28 mm F1.4 which makes a very elegant normal lens for that system, equivalent to a 52 mm lens for the D2.

One interesting side benefit of a pro-level camera I found by accident at Disney World. When the princesses on the float saw the camera they smiled and waved at me or perhaps at the camera. That is saying something when one assumes they get their picture taken on average hundred times a minute. This in itself can't be all bad.

There's an almost new D700 at auction on eBay (only 1900 actuations):

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-...&hash=item33860ca9cb

Since Amazon is selling new ones for around $3,300, whatever it finally sells for will probably be a very good deal.

quote:

Originally posted by Wink:
I find that most camera/lens reviews dwell on the latest technological breakthroughs, but not much on whether the average photographer will in fact get better results from a high end camera. Here's one professional photographer/reviewer who doesn't mind saying "you may get better pictures by keeping what you've already got." He's reviewing the Nikon D800e, but at the end of the article he makes some recommendations.

http://blog.mingthein.com/2012...800e-midterm-report/

Since I find his reviewing approach much more useable than most, especially when it comes to actually recommending what he thinks is the best purchase depending on your use, here's another review about the different 85mm Nikon lenses.

http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/11/23/nikon-85-18g/

If only all equipment reviewers could be this straightforward. Bottom line, I'll be keeping my D7000 and my D700 for some time to come (although a 14MP D400, if it ever comes out, might replace my D7000 if the D400 comes with a higher fps rate).

Some of you have commented favorably on photographs I have posted on Namibia and animals from Kenyan national parks. All those were taken with either a Nikon D60 (10MP) or a D90 (12MP)with either the 18-105mm kit lens or the 18-200mm lens attached. It is a myth that buying the most expensive cameras and lenses produces better photographs for web posting or average sized prints. If you are not shooting on a tripod, with excellent lighting (whether outdoors or in a studio)and using very expensive lenses, then buying something like a 36 MP Nikon D800E is probably not going to get you anything better. In fact, your "good picture" ratio may even fall.

I have found that learning how to take pictures, and learning how to get the most out of post-processing software, will be far more rewarding than buying an expensive new camera. We all practice hours learning how to shoot our rifles accurately, as well as working up reloads for accuracy in our rifles, learning the anatomy of game to make shots count, etc. Spend some time doing the same thing with your photography.

I certainly agree with your views.

That said, the whole things depends on how useful a new technology is to the person. For example, lets say that I take photos in places where flashes are not allowed, and in places of low-light situations. I am using a Canon 7D (for example). If I make my living taking photos in such places, I could very well use the low-light capabilities of a Canon 6D over the 7D. In this case the new technology (sensor) allows me to take photos only dreamed of without the use of flash.

Technical advances certainly do exist, I'm not denying that. And for some photographers the advances may allow them to immediately get better results.

My main point is that many amateur photographers are led to believe that with more megapixels or more "scene" modes they will automatically have better pictures than they took with "older" technology. I think that is a fallacy and that in many instances it is the opposite that is true.

The most expensive and most recent Nikon camera made today, destined to be used primarily by professional photographers since the body-only price is over $6,000, is the Nikon D4. But wait, it only has a 16MP sensor! It replaced the Nikon D3s, which only had 12MP. On the other hand, even the cheapest entry level Nikon DSLR now has 24MP. People have been convinced to believe that megapixel count is what matters and "upgrade" to get them.

quote:

Originally posted by Wink:
Technical advances certainly do exist, I'm not denying that. And for some photographers the advances may allow them to immediately get better results.

My main point is that many amateur photographers are led to believe that with more megapixels or more "scene" modes they will automatically have better pictures than they took with "older" technology. I think that is a fallacy and that in many instances it is the opposite that is true.

The most expensive and most recent Nikon camera made today, destined to be used primarily by professional photographers since the body-only price is over $6,000, is the Nikon D4. But wait, it only has a 16MP sensor! It replaced the Nikon D3s, which only had 12MP. On the other hand, even the cheapest entry level Nikon DSLR now has 24MP. People have been convinced to believe that megapixel count is what matters and "upgrade" to get them.

I tend to agree 100% with you on this topic. In fact I agree with Rolls-Royce that sufficient is enough. It doesn't make sense to put a 17,000 hp V 16 in their car.

It's similar in a camera. My new target is to find a decent Nikon D3S at a substantial discount. There have been improvements in sensor technology and other features that excludes monstrous megapixel numbers. However, for now I will stay with the D2X which stays with the 1.5 multiplier which allows me to continue to use my existing lenses with the multiplier. I believe that the key is not a sensor, but the quality of lenses which guide the fidelity of credible images. That currently is a real benefit to using professional level Nikon digital cameras.

Nicely done, Wink!

PS: the reasonably priced Hassey H3 market has dried up. But even at 5K dollars I was not willing to buy one. I put the money into CANON digital video instead (Canon?).

quote:

Originally posted by DMCI*:

It's similar in a camera. My new target is to find a decent Nikon D3S at a substantial discount.

For the time being you'll need some luck in finding one at a substantial discount. There are a couple of New-In-Box D3s around, at $7,000!! Most of the used but in good condition bodies are going for around $4,000 at present. With a D4 at $6,000, I'd probably get a D4, it's faster, with a little higher resolution and some other nice amenities. Now, if a really good low actuation D3s could be had for under $3,000, that would be tempting.

A D3s at $3,600 including an L-bracket.

http://www.nikonians.org/forum..._id=113181&mode=full

Nikon decided to come out with a "less is more" camera, the Nikon Df. Less features, but more money. It's going to cost around $2,750 (body only) for a 16 megapixel full-frame sensor (same as the sensor on the D4) but with a lot of on-the-body controls like on the old 35mm cameras. Aside from the price point, it could be interesting.

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nik...s/1526/Nikon-Df.html

If it cost a $1,000 less, had a High Eyepoint viewfinder like my F3HP and split screen for manual focusing, I would buy it.