Changing to Nikon...

Sparkles33

Sparkles33

Messages
5,226
Name
Nattelie
Edit My Images
Yes
I've decided....it's time... I want to upgrade anyway and I need something that will handle dark situations, unlike the sony.

So, I think I'm going to get a Nikon D5200.

Anyway... I've been pondering more on lenses TBH. I think I'll get the two lens kit but I also want a prime. I'm thinking that I can't go wrong with a nifty 50, any thoughts?
 
Really depends on what you want the prime for but loads of people opt for the 35mm 1.8 over the 50mm 1.8. Just a question of preferred focal length as there is little else to separate them. Just remember that if you want auto focus, make sure you go for the 50mm AF-S either 1.4 or 1.8. The 35mm 1.8 is only available as AF-s so you're safe there.
 
According to this the D5200 will be quite an improvement in the low light department and at a similar price to your current camera so looks like a sensible choice!

I'd forget any kit lenses and just get the 50mm 1.8 first. Being a fast lens it will add nicely to your low light ability :)
 
Oooh, you're local :) I reconise those views, hehe.

I think tbh, it's mostly portraits I'll be wanting. It will probably be the lens that I use most (I love primes ♥) and most of the photos that I take are portraits anyway. I do the odd bit of landscape (usually down the quay, but I'll not be doing many now) and occasional macro, but it's almost exclusively portraits. I find people interesting. ;)
 
your A380 won't handle low light because it uses a CCD sensor.
Something like an A57 (or it's imminent replacement) will do ISO 6400 acceptably.
At least look at the Sony as well because the EVF will give you a bigger viewfinder image & will let you see at light levels that an OVF won't albeit it will be grainy.
The Pentax K-30 also looks very capable & a D7000 won't cost you much more than a D5200 either.
 
Nattelie, it's probably worth considering a body with an in body AF motor - you're considering a 50mm lens anyway so compare the costs of a 5200 + an AF-S 50mm to a 7000 with a non AF-S 50mm, I'm sure it'll be closer than you think. Same goes for other Nikkor primes - the AF-S versions are rather pricier than the older designs and feel less robust. AF-S is marginally faster to AF than screw driven but we're talking ms not minutes and the fractions of a second you may lose aren't as vital in portraiture as they might be in a fast moving sport!
 
Ooh Gman, I'd never seen that site before. Bit confussed over then sensitivity graph but the only thing I dislike is that the nikon doesn't have image stabilisation...though to be fair, I don't use it that much anyway, I always use a fast shutter speed or a tripod, especially with my hands being gammy.
 
I really want to still have AF though. The 7000 is worth investingating further! Nod, does that mean that the AF is in the camera, so it's irrelivent if the lens has AF function? Or am I confuzzled?

Heidfirst, I really want to change to nikon/canon tbh for the lens availability.... I'm still gonna be "one of those weird sony-user types" though, hehe.
 
If it's just portraits then low-light ability shouldn't really be a concern as you can usually just use flash. Same for image stabilisation, you don't need it if using flash.
 
gman, candid portraits too. ;) I don't use flash for a lot of candids, - it's far too distracting. Same with gigs, I can't use flash.... well, I could, but depending on the place I may be escorted out, hehe. It's the candid portraits that have me changing TBH, I want to take pictures without distracting and the sony doesn't have the capability to get low light candid portraits.
 
Ah, so now we are talking gigs! lol
 
MagicMynx said:
Oooh, you're local :) I reconise those views, hehe.

I think tbh, it's mostly portraits I'll be wanting. It will probably be the lens that I use most (I love primes ♥) and most of the photos that I take are portraits anyway. I do the odd bit of landscape (usually down the quay, but I'll not be doing many now) and occasional macro, but it's almost exclusively portraits. I find people interesting. ;)
Click to expand...

Indeed, I live in Heaton so the quayside is my regular stomping ground.

For portraits I guess it's going to really depend on how much room you have to play with. I have a 50mm 1.8 af-s for people shots but indoors it would be tricky for much more than just head and shoulders. It's fine for shooting my daughter but she's only 2 foot tall! Good for cats too. The 35mm gives you more options but when you do have the room, can seem a little short. You can't really win. If you have a lens at the moment that covers 35 and 50mm, play around with it and see what length works for you. I suppose you shouldn't discount the 85mm 1.8 as well as if you're outside or have a bit of working distance to play with, it's stunning.
 
MagicMynx said:
Heidfirst, I really want to change to nikon/canon tbh for the lens availability....
Click to expand...
OK, what lens in particular? Apart from things like T/S & an MPE-65 equiv. there generally are good options available for A-mount.
If you are sticking with APS-C then Sony has the 35/1.8 & 50/1.8 DTs which are good & cheap & the 85/2.8 is similar but FF (plus of course Sigmas).
From what you are saying I really think that the EVF may actually be an advantage for your usage.
 
Nattelie, at some point, Nikon decided to make their lower end bodies cheaper to produce and dropped their in-body AF motors which use a screwdriver type arrangement to transfer the AF drive to their older (non AF-S) lenses. Their newer lenses have an AF motor built into them so every time you buy a lens you buy a new AF motor, hence the extra cost per lens. The older bodies (and the current ones) with the in-body AF motor can use the modern AF-S lenses and still AF but the newer lower end bodies cannot AF the older lenses. There's nothing really wrong with any of the entry level bodies, just that it can be a false economy buying a cheaper body only to need to spend more on the lenses to suit it!

The 3rd party manufacturers make suitable lenses for the entry level bodies - Sigma call their system HSM but I'm not sure what the others call theirs. Check with any seller that any lens you buy is suitable for whichever body you end up with. People with D40s etc (ie without the in body motors) have frequently bought unsuitable lenses.
 
Mmm, not keen at all on sigma lenses. My 50mm isn't great and the 70-300 I've only used a few times.

Yes gman, ;) all kinds of portraits. Sorry, I should use the right terminologies. :/ Ultimately though, it's almost all people and animals that I shoot, with the odd bit of landscape.

Heidfirst, I haven't really thought about particular lenses.

Nod...I'm swaying more towards the D7000 now, I think... *pondering* Cause that would mean that I'm not as restricted when buying lenses, wouldn't it?

I suppose 35mm means that I can just crop if needs be, in PP and will also be better for the occasional gig.
 
What kind of animals? If it's dogs running then you'll need a longer lens, much longer - say 200mm. Probably a good idea to ask what your budget is!
 
MagicMynx said:
Ooh Gman, I'd never seen that site before. Bit confussed over then sensitivity graph but the only thing I dislike is that the nikon doesn't have image stabilisation...
Click to expand...

Nikon image stabilisation is built into lenses.. not the bodies. If you want VR you buy a lens that has it.
 
Would strongly recommend the d7000 as its about to be discontinued its currently almost half the price it was when it came out two years ago. The built in af motor opens up many lower priced lens options in the future - I often use mine with an ancient 80-200 2.8 Nikon lens, this lens cost me under 300 I think, the equivalent afs lens that would be required on say a d5200 would be over a 1000 pounds.
 
MagicMynx said:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Ca...brand)/Nikon/(appareil2)/680|0/(brand2)/Nikon

but overall, the D5200 looks to be the better preformer...*pondering more*
Click to expand...

Ah, but if you dig a little deeper.....

Weather sealing could be important if you are at gigs and beer ends up over your camera also the D7000 has two storage slots which can be invaluable if you are shooting a one-off event.

EDIT: I think the D7000 has a significantly better buffer when shooting raw, which could be important.
 
Last edited:
I would go the D7000 route also.

Pickup the 17-55mm f2.8, 12-24mm f4.0 and the 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR to begin with.
Get a battery grip and flash gun.

Just collect the stuff as you progress.

Riz :)
 
Budget for a body (with kit lens(es)), flash (prob just a cheapie) and another lens is roughly around £1000-£1200, so not a great budget to start a collection but not shabby either.

I think ideally, it may work out best getting both bodies in the long term though? I have 2 Sony bodies and inevitably intend on having 2 Nikon bodies, but definately want to have a camera with better iso capacity than the sony A390 (better than my A350). I do tend to build up my kit over time though.

Definately need to be able to cope in low light though... quite a lot of christenings in dark churches I'm going to, in the near future.
 
I wonder if I'm being a noob and falling too much for the numbers and that's what's stopping me from being able to decide.

There's no lenses in particular that I want, but I want to be able to have the option of being able to buy more lenses or hire lenses, should I wish to - but I definately want a prime for portraits.

I think I'm swaying more towards the 35mm.... but not convinced on bodies.... The numbers are better on the D5200 but the D7000 sounds like it's more hardy - meaning it will take a battering from a wifey with gammy hands, children grabbing it, things being spilled and the likes of....and I like the idea of things being backed up on 2 cards.
 
MagicMynx said:
I wonder if I'm being a noob and falling too much for the numbers and that's what's stopping me from being able to decide.

There's no lenses in particular that I want, but I want to be able to have the option of being able to buy more lenses or hire lenses, should I wish to - but I definately want a prime for portraits.

I think I'm swaying more towards the 35mm.... but not convinced on bodies.... The numbers are better on the D5200 but the D7000 sounds like it's more hardy - meaning it will take a battering from a wifey with gammy hands, children grabbing it, things being spilled and the likes of....and I like the idea of things being backed up on 2 cards.
Click to expand...

In terms of controls etc. the D7000 is a lot better than the D5200, perhaps thats something else to bear in mind. You might find it's an easier and more comfortable body to use as your not having to dive into the on screen menu systems as much. Both are good camera's that will have there ups and down sides so you can't really lose no matter which one you decide to run with.
 
MagicMynx said:
but the D7000 sounds like it's more hardy - meaning it will take a battering from a wifey with gammy hands, children grabbing it, things being spilled and the likes of....
Click to expand...

Shame about your budget, I was helping my dad knock down his front wall and the sledgehammer broke so I just picked up the D3 instead.
 
Welcome back Natterz :wave:
 
Hi
I use a 50mm which suits me fine but thats on full frame if I was using a camera with a cropped sensor I think I would opt for the 35mm.
Bob
 
MagicMynx said:
TBH gman, if I was pro, I'd probably want it....but just for my own gratification shots, it's a bit pricey.

Sincerely though, are nikopns quite robust? The animals that I'm shooting will mostly be cats, horses nearby, close pet portraits and the likes of.
Click to expand...
Without wanting to start wars, in my experience I have generally found Nikons to be better built than most other cameras at the same price point. I've already put my flak jacket on ;) but will stress again that is my experience of handling a few dozen camera bodies over the years. It doesn't mean the others are bad or poorly built though. The D7000 is part mag-alloy so is tougher than the D5100/D5200 - the D300 is all mag-alloy so is tougher again than the D7000.

As implied by a previous poster some of the camera bodies (and lenses) can be used as tools of mass destruction! The penalty though is often increased weight and sometimes increased cost.

As for lenses, the 35mm DX f1.8 is a real bargain of a lens, it is very good optically, light and inexpensive. Another thought for a prime is the new Nikkor 28mm f1.8G - an FX lens but looks extremely good in terms of IQ and is a nice length to use on DX bodies, quite a bit more expensive though. If you want longer (and primes) then the 50mm f1.8g is nice and the 85mm f1.8g is really nice.
 
Thanks Paul.

Yes, your opinion of nikons is like mine, hence changing to Nikon, but I didn't know that they were as robust. A new D300 body is a bit out of my league though (I want a new body, not bothered if lenses are used though...) but I think the route I'm going to take is get the D7000 first, then the D5200 in the future. Admittedly I hadn't even thought of 28mm primes. Hmmm, so much to consider....
 
If you want great lowlight capability find an a580. Same sensor as D7000. Buffer is double the size too. :)

The a57 jpgs are actually less noisy than the a580s ones at the same iso but you lose some light with the mirror. If you're vaguely interested in video then the a57 is streets ahead as it does full AF in video. I think Sony are also bringing out an a58 imminently as nikon are bringing out a d7000 replacement. I'd wait and see what they offer as it also means more cheap end of lines with both.

The d5200 would restrict your lens choices so you might find you'd have no more or even fewer than Sony so the d7000 level is the minimum for Nikon really.
 
Agree with srichards, the D5200 will restrict lens choice - by the time you are ready to move from the D7000 its replacement (and maybe the D300 too) will be out and about - that would be a better route imo. The external controls on the D7000 make it a better camera to handle than the D5100/D5200 imo. Even though it is due to be replaced the D7000 is still a fine camera - one advantage is that you should now be able to get some real bargains too! Which will leave more moolah for lenses :)
 
Yep... mind is made up... D7000 it is. Sincerely guys, thank you! Sony is difficult to get lenses for that are compatible, in comparison to Nikon and Canon, so I think it's time to start edging away from sony a little.

Think I'm going to go with a 35mm or a 28mm prime though, not a nifty fifty.
 
MagicMynx said:
Sony is difficult to get lenses for that are compatible, in comparison to Nikon and Canon, so I think it's time to start edging away from sony a little.
Click to expand...
There are certainly fewer (but enough) options but then again all of those options become stabilised ...
But difficult to get compatible - as long as you are willing to buy online (becoming more & more necessary for any brand as there are fewer & fewer decent physical camera shops) I don't agree with that at all :shake:
 
Not my experience either. I just go online and order what I want :)

Wex and Castle Cameras that pretty much have the entire sony range and third party lenses. It's a doddle.

D7000 is definitely a better choice than the lower end Nikons. The older D90 is another possibility actually. That also has the in body motor but it isn't as good at video and I'm not sure it is weather sealed. A friend has had two. First fell in a rock pool. Second is so far alive and well.
 
MagicMynx said:
Yep... mind is made up... D7000 it is. Sincerely guys, thank you! Sony is difficult to get lenses for that are compatible, in comparison to Nikon and Canon, so I think it's time to start edging away from sony a little.

Think I'm going to go with a 35mm or a 28mm prime though, not a nifty fifty.
Click to expand...

good camera. had 2 of them while was summer (for weddings etc.) and had another Fuji S5 Pro as a back up.

you won't regret it.

get 35mm 1.8 to start with and post your photos :):thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top