Nikon Advice...D5600, D7500, D750 or D500?

[Haldir]

Nikon F4

A camera I was very tempted to buy on release, I went with two F90's instead, plus a whole load of other gear. It was great for work, but I still had my F3 and FM with prime lenses, which I
always felt more at home using. Frightening how much gear I had when I think back and it doesn't seem that long ago. I just get a little baffled by today's digital cameras, I even used the D90
on manual most of the time

 

[redhed17]

When I bought my D600, the camera I had planned to buy was a D800/810. Which offered a lot more bells and whistles. But when I really thought about what I actually needed, rather than getting carried away by the marketing hype, it was clear that the D600 more than suited my needs.

For the OP I think the D850 may have been the camera to scratch the FF itch and have virtually a D500 inside in the DX mode, with similar AF coverage and Fps which would have benefited with wildlife and the long lenses planned, but first that would have been beyond the budget mentioned. Secondly I didn't get why from what the OP initially wrote that FF was needed, so that is why I put forward DX cameras and is why I didn't put it out there as an option. Haldir has decided that FF is important and decided on a camera. Like yourself I hope he finds it the perfect camera, or if not is at least satisfied with the choice. In this situation, it may not have been my choice, but then I am not laying down the cash. And I think this is the point, we all have different needs, or there would just be one camera.



But wouldn't be a D600.

 

[snerkler]

Like yourself I hope he finds it the perfect camera, or if not is at least satisfied with the choice. In this situation, it may not have been my choice, but then I am not laying down the cash. And I think this is the point, we all have different needs, or there would just be one camera.



But wouldn't be a D600.

No such thing

 

[AZ6]

With things like AF systems it will obviously depend on what you shoot, so if you only shoot landscapes then an AF system doesn't really matter. If you shoots sports, wildlife, your kids running around etc etc then AF systems matter more. Likewise AF point spread, not an issue with landscape but with other genres it could mean having to crop quite a bit due to having to get (part of) your subject within the AF point area and therefore leaving a lot of 'empty' space at the edges.

At what point though, does the camera technology take over from the skill of the photographer? I say this, because you see a lot more perfectly exposed, perfectly focussed 'snapshot's of people's kids etc, but quite frankly, in most cases, it's the camera doing the work. As someone who came from the old 'use something really basic and learn how to actually take photographs' school, I'm not that impressed with a lot of stuff I see now, because there's no real 'skill' involved.

 

[AZ6]

But wouldn't be a D600

How d'you know that though? I've managed perfectly well with mine, for the last 7 years. Had a fair amount of stuff published, that's been shot on it. Shot everything from wildlife to sports to portraits to landscapes to macro to music events to snapshots of kids running about. I'll continue to use it until it dies, I reckon. I find it a more than capable tool for all sorts of photographic uses.

Like yourself I hope he finds it the perfect camera

No such thing.

For the OP I think the D850 may have been the camera to scratch the FF itch

Only a few quid over budget, but still...

 

[AZ6]

A camera I was very tempted to buy on release, I went with two F90's instead, plus a whole load of other gear. It was great for work, but I still had my F3 and FM with prime lenses, which I
always felt more at home using. Frightening how much gear I had when I think back and it doesn't seem that long ago. I just get a little baffled by today's digital cameras, I even used the D90
on manual most of the time

I bought an F4 last year, just because it had always been my 'dream' camera. Haven't really had chance to use it much yet, for shame. TBH I think the F801s I did by, was more than adequate, and served me very well, alongside my battered old FM2. I only owned one AF lens, a Sigma 28-70mm zoom. So everything else was in manual focus, manual exposure. Been looking through some old pics and found this one. Shot on the FM2, with the 24mm MF lens. The rider is travelling at over 30mph. AF? Who needs it?

 

[redhed17]

How d'you know that though? I've managed perfectly well with mine, for the last 7 years. Had a fair amount of stuff published, that's been shot on it. Shot everything from wildlife to sports to portraits to landscapes to macro to music events to snapshots of kids running about. I'll continue to use it until it dies, I reckon. I find it a more than capable tool for all sorts of photographic uses.

Whoosh! I have had images published from the D300S, so who needs FF.

I would say that the mid camera in a range would appeal to most people if a three camera range were reduced to one, and that would be the D7**. The Goldilocks effect.

No such thing.

I have the perfect camera, so that proves that wrong.

Only a few quid over budget, but still...

Just a bit. But it can be seen as the best FF DSLR with almost a D500 inside.

 

[redhed17]

At what point though, does the camera technology take over from the skill of the photographer? I say this, because you see a lot more perfectly exposed, perfectly focussed 'snapshot's of people's kids etc, but quite frankly, in most cases, it's the camera doing the work. As someone who came from the old 'use something really basic and learn how to actually take photographs' school, I'm not that impressed with a lot of stuff I see now, because there's no real 'skill' involved.

Technology makes more aspects of photography easier, and good thing too. There is still skill needed to make the images not 'snapshot's', and don't forget the 'decisive moment'. I'm not of the mind it gas to be hard or it has no value.

 

[snerkler]

At what point though, does the camera technology take over from the skill of the photographer? I say this, because you see a lot more perfectly exposed, perfectly focussed 'snapshot's of people's kids etc, but quite frankly, in most cases, it's the camera doing the work. As someone who came from the old 'use something really basic and learn how to actually take photographs' school, I'm not that impressed with a lot of stuff I see now, because there's no real 'skill' involved.

There's far more to photography than 'just the skill of focussing'

TBH I rarely think how a photo was captured (unless it's something I want to try for myself), if I like the image that's all that matters. I couldn't give a hoots if it's a snapshot from an iphone, or an image shot on large format that took 3 hours to set up

 

[snerkler]

Technology makes more aspects of photography easier, and good thing too. There is still skill needed to make the images not 'snapshot's', and don't forget the 'decisive moment'. I'm not of the mind it gas to be hard or it has no value.

This as well, try nailing focus of a dog running towards you manually focussing using something like an 85mm f1.8, it's not easy in the slightest. Now you could pre-focus but does this require more skill? I'd say not, I say it's less skill. You have your camera in one position and then fire like crazy when the dog comes close to the plane of focus hoping that one of the shots gets the eyes in focus, and the dog has a nice expression on its face.

 

[ancient_mariner]

At what point though, does the camera technology take over from the skill of the photographer?

When you can describe what kind of picture you want and the camera goes away and takes it for you. Until then, the camera technology is always secondary to the ability of the person to create the image they want.

Out of interest, have you posted any pictures on here yet? I'd be fascinated to see what kind of work your D600 manages.

 

[AZ6]

I have the perfect camera, so that proves that wrong.

Don't be so silly.

Just a bit. But it can be seen as the best FF DSLR with almost a D500 inside.

I did consider this, when I bought my Z6, to spend a bit (quite a lot) more and get the Z7 . Cos you can shoot 1.5x crop at 19.5Mpix, so near enough around the D500 as you say. But then the Z6 is a little better in low light, which is more important to me. Obvs having both would be ideal, but I can't justify spending that kind of money when I have a perfectly useable F mount camera and several lenses. And having handled a D800, I wouldn't want anything that big tbh.

 

[snerkler]

Don't be so silly.




I did consider this, when I bought my Z6, to spend a bit (quite a lot) more and get the Z7 . Cos you can shoot 1.5x crop at 19.5Mpix, so near enough around the D500 as you say. But then the Z6 is a little better in low light, which is more important to me. Obvs having both would be ideal, but I can't justify spending that kind of money when I have a perfectly useable F mount camera and several lenses. And having handled a D800, I wouldn't want anything that big tbh.

If I could roll back time I'd have had the Z6 instead of the Z7.

 

[AZ6]

Now you could pre-focus but does this require more skill? I'd say not, I say it's less skill

See my pic of the cyclist above? I chose how I wanted to frame the image. I prefocussed on the numbered mark on the ground. I used the hyperfocal distance focussing method; selecting an aperture that would afford sharp focus and a large depth of field (not that difficult really with a 24mm tbh). I selected a shutter speed that would freeze the action. I took one shot; no motordrive on the FM2. Less skill? What, than pressing a button and letting the camera do the work for you? Right. Tell you what; go and try replicating that shot yourself. Then come back to me and we'll talk about 'skill'.

In your own words:

There's far more to photography than 'just the skill of focussing'

Quite.

TBH I rarely think how a photo was captured (unless it's something I want to try for myself), if I like the image that's all that matters. I couldn't give a hoots if it's a snapshot from an iphone, or an image shot on large format that took 3 hours to set up

I appreciate the skill as well. Many fantastic photos shot on 'phones. But plenty of great photos shot on all manner of equipment; the art is in knowing how to to use the medium to create the image you want. Go and look at say a Rembrandt. Then look closely; see how he used the brush strokes, how he built up layers of paint, to create the illusion of light and depth, on a 2D surface. That's skill. Anyone can pick up a paintbrush; not many can achieve what Rembrandt did...

Out of interest, have you posted any pictures on here yet?

Yeah a few, dotted around. Old stuff shot on film. One up there frinstance ^. Have a look through my posts.

If I could roll back time I'd have had the Z6 instead of the Z7.

Really? Interested in your thoughts on that.

 

[snerkler]

See my pic of the cyclist above? I chose how I wanted to frame the image. I prefocussed on the numbered mark on the ground. I used the hyperfocal distance focussing method; selecting an aperture that would afford sharp focus and a large depth of field (not that difficult really with a 24mm tbh). I selected a shutter speed that would freeze the action. I took one shot; no motordrive on the FM2. Less skill? What, than pressing a button and letting the camera do the work for you? Right. Tell you what; go and try replicating that shot yourself. Then come back to me and we'll talk about 'skill'.

I'm not going to critique your shot or your skill, although I'm not sure we're on the same page when we're talking about skill? Initially you were talking about the reliance on AF not lending itself to being skilful, but as you say yourself it's not difficult to pre-focus using a 24mm with large DOF and get a shot. It's more about knowledge imo

As for asking me to replicate your shot have you looked at my photostream and/or website? I've taken many shots like this

http://www.tobygunneephotography.com/gallery-index#/sports

Without cheating and looking on Flickr can you see which of these are manual focus and which are autofocus? And does it really matter?

I appreciate the skill as well. Many fantastic photos shot on 'phones. But plenty of great photos shot on all manner of equipment; the art is in knowing how to to use the medium to create the image you want. Go and look at say a Rembrandt. Then look closely; see how he used the brush strokes, how he built up layers of paint, to create the illusion of light and depth, on a 2D surface. That's skill. Anyone can pick up a paintbrush; not many can achieve what Rembrandt did...

This I completely agree with, although whilst I appreciate the skill of Rembrandt I'm not a fan of his work tbh. So for me to like something I have to like the end result, whilst I can appreciate skill in things I don't particularly like.

But back to skill and AF systems, to understand and use the right AF mode, apply this to a specific situation, track a fast object keeping it in the correct composition at the same time trying to get the best light to fall on it etc etc, all whilst doing this with minimal DOF takes quite a lot of skill in my book, far more than prefocussing with a large DOF having already composed the shot. YMMV but all I can comment on is my own experience having used both methods extensively.

Really? Interested in your thoughts on that.

I had the D850 previously as I wanted a large MP camera to allow me to crop for wildlife, so when swapping to the Z series I replicated the D850 the best I could, ie the Z7. However, due to health issues I swapped my wildlife (and motorsports) equipment to m4/3 to save weight and as a result the need to crop on FF wasn't needed anymore. In that regard the Z6 would have been more than sufficient and was a lot cheaper.

 

[AZ6]

Initially you were talking about the reliance on AF not lending itself to being skilful, but as you say yourself it's not difficult to pre-focus using a 24mm with large DOF and get a shot. It's more about knowledge imo

It's about knowing how to use the technology to get the shot you want. If modern AF systems, enable shots that weren't possible with MF, that's great. But my point is about that 'knowledge' you mention; it's knowing how and when to apply the tech, that really counts. I didn't need AF, auto exposure or a motordrive to take that shot. That's why I've used it to illustrate the point. Someone without the skill/knowledge of how to set up and execute such a shot, wouldn't be able to without technological assistance.

As for asking me to replicate your shot have you looked at my photostream and/or website? I've taken many shots like this

On film, with a knackered old FM2? Manual everything?

Without cheating and looking on Flickr can you see which of these are manual focus and which are autofocus? And does it really matter?

No, it doesn't, if you get the shot you want. I'm sure there are loads of older photographers who could only have dreamed about the sophistication and accuracy of modern AF systems. I totally appreciate the technology; I LOVE my Z6's eye AF, it's a game changer! Current tech makes possible the kind of photos we just didn't see until fairly recently. Fact. I'm no Luddite!

But back to skill and AF systems, to understand and use the right AF mode, apply this to a specific situation, track a fast object keeping it in the correct composition at the same time trying to get the best light to fall on it etc etc, all whilst doing this with minimal DOF takes quite a lot of skill in my book, far more than prefocussing with a large DOF having already composed the shot. YMMV but all I can comment on is my own experience having used both methods extensively.

I totally get that. Your pics are spot on, technically. Very 'professional'. And as you say, possible BECAUSE of the tech. But my point is about not having to rely on the tech; to have the skill to get a good photo without it. But I'm not a 'commercial' photographer; I'm not so bothered about pleasing a 'client'. People get me to take photos; they get what I want to take, and be happy with it or to hell with them. So far, so good. I am happy to be able to work free of commercial constraints. But if I did have to, I'd definitively be looking to get the equipment that enabled me to fulfill demanding commercial requirements. So I'm not saying DON'T have the good tech; i'm saying learn how to take good photos without it. Don't use tech as a crutch. And I'm sorry, but a lot of people seem to do.

whilst I appreciate the skill of Rembrandt I'm not a fan of his work tbh

Phillistine.

 

[snerkler]

Someone without the skill/knowledge of how to set up and execute such a shot, wouldn't be able to without technological assistance.

I'd argue they couldn't get it even with technological assistance

On film, with a knackered old FM2? Manual everything?

not so, see below

I totally get that. Your pics are spot on, technically. Very 'professional'. And as you say, possible BECAUSE of the tech. But my point is about not having to rely on the tech; to have the skill to get a good photo without it. But I'm not a 'commercial' photographer; I'm not so bothered about pleasing a 'client'. People get me to take photos; they get what I want to take, and be happy with it or to hell with them. So far, so good. I am happy to be able to work free of commercial constraints. But if I did have to, I'd definitively be looking to get the equipment that enabled me to fulfill demanding commercial requirements. So I'm not saying DON'T have the good tech; i'm saying learn how to take good photos without it. Don't use tech as a crutch. And I'm sorry, but a lot of people seem to do.

Thanks very much, but that's my point, photos such as this were manually focussed and could have just as easily been taking with a film camera, albeit one with burst shooting definitely helps. I have took the same kind of shot using AF, but the technique is in the panning not the focus

P6302247-Edit-Edit by TDG-77, on Flickr

Phillistine.

 

[ancient_mariner]

See my pic of the cyclist above? I chose how I wanted to frame the image. I prefocussed on the numbered mark on the ground. I used the hyperfocal distance focussing method; selecting an aperture that would afford sharp focus and a large depth of field (not that difficult really with a 24mm tbh). I selected a shutter speed that would freeze the action. I took one shot; no motordrive on the FM2. Less skill? What, than pressing a button and letting the camera do the work for you? Right. Tell you what; go and try replicating that shot yourself. Then come back to me and we'll talk about 'skill'.

Not belittling your work, but pre-focussing was stock in trade for anyone wanting to take a picture of something moving when all that was available was manual focus, and using a 24mm lens and hyperfocal distance takes all the skill of timing + shallow depth of field out of it. Nothing wrong with the composition, but I'd have expected any reasonable photographer with access to the trackside & similar kit to get a similar shot. The FM2 is a nice camera: better quality than the Pentax I had and easier to manage than the Bronica ETR I used for professional work.

If all you have is manual focus then that's what you'll use: Pic below shot with Samyang 85 f1.4 manual lens on a D610 set to manual exposure because of the large amount of sky in the image - IIRC this was in slow continuous (3FPS) drive, but could easily have been single - pre-focussed to where he was going to be in the air and stopped down enough to make sure he was going to be sharpish if he deviated a bit either side of the path. It's not a great photo, but just another example of routine use of kit.

Andy wakeboarding-2538 by Toni Ertl, on Flickr


But regarding seeing your work, I was more interested in what you were doing with a D600.

It's about knowing how to use the technology to get the shot you want. If modern AF systems, enable shots that weren't possible with MF, that's great. But my point is about that 'knowledge' you mention; it's knowing how and when to apply the tech, that really counts. I didn't need AF, auto exposure or a motordrive to take that shot. That's why I've used it to illustrate the point. Someone without the skill/knowledge of how to set up and execute such a shot, wouldn't be able to without technological assistance.

It's really good to know how and why everything functions as it does in a modern camera so that one can choose to use it as needed, but one should be able to forget all that too, and just get on with creating the image. Photography isn't about the technology at the end of the day, but instead about creating images that mean something. Now if you're someone (and there are a few) for whom the pleasure is in going out and doing everything painstakingly manually then that's great, but if your images aren't any better to look at than those created by someone whose real interest is in the final image then you shouldn't really be looking down on the person who takes a different path.

I LOVE my Z6's eye AF, it's a game changer! Current tech makes possible the kind of photos we just didn't see until fairly recently. Fact. I'm no Luddite!

So should people have to deserve their modern kit?

 

[Haldir]

Sadly the camera is on hold at the moment. I had a small pension which was payable from the 3rd, it was a little over £3400.00 so I was taking it in a lump sum.
I was going to catch up with a few bills and treat myself to a camera. I called the pension company on the 24th March to arrange payment, all they had to do was
a put a form in the post for me to sign and return. The form arrived on the 2nd, and just over £700.00 had been wiped of it's value. When I called, they said it was
down to a poor investment. This poor investment must had been made during the five minute phone call on the 24th, the same date as the letter! I've put a complaint
in, not sure how long it will take to resolve if at all...

 

[AZ6]

But regarding seeing your work, I was more interested in what you were doing with a D600.

Why? What's the camera got to do with anything? I don't need to prove how good the D600 is; I know it already. I may post up pics taken with it in other threads on here, from time to time, but unlikely I'll bother to mention what cam they were taken on, as that's irrelevant to me.

Not belittling your work

But then you did...

pre-focussing was stock in trade for anyone wanting to take a picture of something moving when all that was available was manual focus, and using a 24mm lens and hyperfocal distance takes all the skill of timing + shallow depth of field out of it. Nothing wrong with the composition, but I'd have expected any reasonable photographer with access to the trackside & similar kit to get a similar shot.

Knowing what lens to use, what shutter speed/aperture, how to use hyperfocal distance, how to anticipate a shot; these are all aspects of the skill. Whether you consider that or not. My point is; that to achieve such a shot on film with a fully manual set up, requires some skill. To achieve it with a modern camera, with all the sophisticated AF and exposure systems, takes less skill. Fact. I'm not touting myself as a great photographer here, just pointing out how technology helps those without such skills, to overcome them, as well as aiding those with skills, to perhaps get even better pictures. In the context of this thread, it's about having a camera that will do a good job, and learning how to use it properly, and not be worrying about x, y or z camera being 'better'. That's the advice the OP is after.

 

[AZ6]

Sadly the camera is on hold at the moment. I had a small pension which was payable from the 3rd, it was a little over £3400.00 so I was taking it in a lump sum.
I was going to catch up with a few bills and treat myself to a camera. I called the pension company on the 24th March to arrange payment, all they had to do was
a put a form in the post for me to sign and return. The form arrived on the 2nd, and just over £700.00 had been wiped of it's value. When I called, they said it was
down to a poor investment. This poor investment must had been made during the five minute phone call on the 24th, the same date as the letter! I've put a complaint
in, not sure how long it will take to resolve if at all...

Shame. Hope that works out for you.

 

[Haldir]

Shame. Hope that works out for you.

It'd be nice if you could get kits at this price over here! https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1515120-REG/nikon_13550_d610_body_with_50mm.html

 

[snerkler]

Knowing what lens to use, what shutter speed/aperture, how to use hyperfocal distance, how to anticipate a shot; these are all aspects of the skill. Whether you consider that or not. My point is; that to achieve such a shot on film with a fully manual set up, requires some skill. To achieve it with a modern camera, with all the sophisticated AF and exposure systems, takes less skill. Fact. .

I'm sorry but I disagree, it's NOT fact. It might be your opinion, but not fact and I for one disagree. Shooting with maximum DOF at a pre-composed position doesn't take a great deal of 'skill' imo. It takes understanding of exposure, focal length and composition, but then to take a good photo with modern equipment requires the same knowledge, at least if you want to do it consistently and not 'fluke' it. If this comes under your umbrella of skill then that's fine, but don't be under the illusion that photographers with modern equipment don't also have this knowledge. I'd argue that the knowledge base has to be greater. For example light meters are far more sophisticated so you now not only just have to understand a 'global' light meter, you have to understand one that's global, centre weighted, spot weighted etc. You can of course still apply the sunny 16 rule if you so wish. As for anticipating the shot, it's a shot of a solo rider on a predictable path, I'm not sure how much anticipation that takes, you know they're coming and pretty much where they're going to be?

I'm not touting myself as a great photographer here, just pointing out how technology helps those without such skills, to overcome them, as well as aiding those with skills, to perhaps get even better pictures. In the context of this thread, it's about having a camera that will do a good job, and learning how to use it properly, and not be worrying about x, y or z camera being 'better'. That's the advice the OP is after

Is it? In that case why are you not suggesting going back to the D90 they had previously that'll still do a mighty fine job and save them a fortune? The OP wanted advice on some cameras, and as such I'm sure wants to know which camera people think is best and why. The reasons why will come down to specs and tech as just about any DSLR/mirrorless camera can get great results, the difference is some have marginally better IQ than others, and some have features that are better to varying degrees.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Sadly the camera is on hold at the moment. I had a small pension which was payable from the 3rd, it was a little over £3400.00 so I was taking it in a lump sum.
I was going to catch up with a few bills and treat myself to a camera. I called the pension company on the 24th March to arrange payment, all they had to do was
a put a form in the post for me to sign and return. The form arrived on the 2nd, and just over £700.00 had been wiped of it's value. When I called, they said it was
down to a poor investment. This poor investment must had been made during the five minute phone call on the 24th, the same date as the letter! I've put a complaint
in, not sure how long it will take to resolve if at all...

I hope you get this resolved in your favour - that's a miserable thing to do to you!

 

[ancient_mariner]

Since we're still talking D600/610s here, I've just been back and edited some pictures taken in 2016 with my D610. That camera sensor was an absolute dirt-magnet, and I had forgotten until I came to clean up the dust bunnies in some of the skies. After a year with my A7III I've only had to use the blower a few times to clean the sensor, but the D610 needed continual care and wet cleaning a few times a year. Maybe it's having a big mirror flap around, stirring the air behind the lens, and SLT/mirrorless have less of a problem because they don't do this.

 

[snerkler]

Since we're still talking D600/610s here, I've just been back and edited some pictures taken in 2016 with my D610. That camera sensor was an absolute dirt-magnet, and I had forgotten until I came to clean up the dust bunnies in some of the skies. After a year with my A7III I've only had to use the blower a few times to clean the sensor, but the D610 needed continual care and wet cleaning a few times a year. Maybe it's having a big mirror flap around, stirring the air behind the lens, and SLT/mirrorless have less of a problem because they don't do this.

Tbh my D750 needed cleaning quite regularly too, but the D850 didn’t seem quite as bad. The best I’ve had in the regard was the EM1 and EM1-II.

 

[Haldir]

I hope you get this resolved in your favour - that's a miserable thing to do to you!

It's an absolute rip off Toni, but I shouldn't have been surprised! I'll know a bit more on Wednesday, hopefully it was a genuine mistake...