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

Messages
287
Name
Pete
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello :)...My first post, and I'm looking for advice. I sold my Nikon D90 a few years ago and in a few weeks I'm looking to buy a new outfit. I won't be able to buy everything in one go, body and one good lens to start, aiming at a few landscapes and wildlife...I don't like lightweight cameras and lenses with plastic mounts, and I'm not after the latest high tech equipment. Just something solid and reliable. I haven't seen any of the four cameras mentioned in the flesh, I guess the D5600 might be the odd one out in terms of size/weight and price, and the D750
being FX. Any help/comments would be appreciated :)
 
Last edited:
Landscape and wildlife could need different cameras.
Wildlife almost always needs reach and a crop camera (D500 or D7500) will be best IMO.
Landscape the D750 will be best IMO.
May need compromise.
 
Landscape and wildlife could need different cameras.
Wildlife almost always needs reach and a crop camera (D500 or D7500) will be best IMO.
Landscape the D750 will be best IMO.
May need compromise.

Much appreciated Gramps:) Is that to do with the sensor the different cameras use?
 
Hello :)...My first post, and I'm looking for advice. I sold my Nikon D90 a few years ago and in a few weeks I'm looking to buy a new outfit. I won't be able to buy everything in one go, body and one good lens to start, aiming at a few landscapes and wildlife...I don't like lightweight cameras and lenses with plastic mounts, and I'm not after the latest high tech equipment. Just something solid and reliable. I haven't seen any of the four cameras mentioned in the flesh, I guess the D5600 might be the odd one out in terms of size/weight and price, and the D750
being FX. Any help/comments would be appreciated :)

Would add in the d7200. Decent upgrade from the d90 with much better build and ergonomics than the 5600.
 
Would add in the d7200. Decent upgrade from the d90 with much better build and ergonomics than the 5600.

Appreciated Jonathan. I didn't include the D7200 as I hadn't seen it available new, but looking at Wex, they have mint refurbished ones in at £450.00. That would free up some
cash for lenses.
 
Much appreciated Gramps:) Is that to do with the sensor the different cameras use?
Yes a crop sensor will give you extra reach as there is a 1.5x benefit e.g. a 500mm lens becomes a 750mm lens equivalent (the purists will explain that the focal length doesn't change etc but what you see in the VF and resultant image does).
 
Yes a crop sensor will give you extra reach as there is a 1.5x benefit e.g. a 500mm lens becomes a 750mm lens equivalent (the purists will explain that the focal length doesn't change etc but what you see in the VF and resultant image does).

That makes sense gramps, appreciate the advice.
 
If you do decide to go down the DX route, the D500 offers more future upgrade options to AF performance than the D7500. If you add the battery grip you can use the D5 EN-EL18c battery, although this does not increase FPS it does improve AF acquisition, particularly on fast primes (300mm f/2.8 for example) with the higher mAh overcoming the inertia of moving heavy glass. Don't get me wrong, the D500 is the fastest focusing Nikon south of a D5 (maybe D6?) in standard form and the upgrade isn't cheap, particularly if you don't have the D5 charger already but it does give you options.

GC
 
If you do decide to go down the DX route, the D500 offers more future upgrade options to AF performance than the D7500. If you add the battery grip you can use the D5 EN-EL18c battery, although this does not increase FPS it does improve AF acquisition, particularly on fast primes (300mm f/2.8 for example) with the higher mAh overcoming the inertia of moving heavy glass. Don't get me wrong, the D500 is the fastest focusing Nikon south of a D5 (maybe D6?) in standard form and the upgrade isn't cheap, particularly if you don't have the D5 charger already but it does give you options.

GC

That's very interesting GC. I do have a soft spot for battery grips, since buying my first Nikon FM with an MD12...Sadly I don't think I'll be able to stretch to a 300 F2.8 nowadays.
I was lucky enough to have one in the 90's, but I reckon something like the Nikon 200-500 could be on the wish list.
 
That's very interesting GC. I do have a soft spot for battery grips, since buying my first Nikon FM with an MD12...Sadly I don't think I'll be able to stretch to a 300 F2.8 nowadays.
I was lucky enough to have one in the 90's, but I reckon something like the Nikon 200-500 could be on the wish list.

The 200-500mm f/5.6 is a great lens and works pairs really well on the D500(y)

GC
 
If I had to start all over again knowing what I know now I would go FF. I shoot a mixture and have both FX and DX, the D500 and the 200-500 is a superb combination but after picking up a used D3 I will always choose FF first unless its fast action and I need the focus system and the fps the D500 has.

I'll also throw the D810 into the mix as I picked up one recently and find its a very capable all rounder.
 
Last edited:
I don't shoot wildlife but this was on the D500/200-500mm f/5.6 combo:

43435464661_2c8b375cc8_o.jpg


GC
 
I don't shoot wildlife but this was on the D500/200-500mm f/5.6 combo:

43435464661_2c8b375cc8_o.jpg


GC

Good God, you can see the pilot! For something moving so fast that's incredibly sharp, and crystal clear...
 
If I had to start all over again knowing what I know now I would go FF. I shoot a mixture and have both FX and DX, the D500 and the 200-500 is a superb combination but after picking up a used D3 I will always choose FF first unless its fast action and I need the focus system and the fps the D500 has.

I'll also throw the D810 into the mix as I picked up one recently and find its a very capable all rounder.

I'm getting the feeling there might be advantages in having both, with each system having their strong points. Doesn't help much though doesn't it, it's as though the designers
created a mine field for a bit of fun...
 
I don't shoot wildlife but this was on the D500/200-500mm f/5.6 combo:

43435464661_2c8b375cc8_o.jpg


GC


This is more my speed of movement CG...A bit of a lucky shot really and all down to the camera, an Olympus C5050 compact. The Nudibranch and the Blenny were a few inches apart
when I took the shot, and only saw this after downloading later that day. Terrible shutter lag but I loved the camera to bits, still have it with the underwater housing, not that I dive anymore...

Nudibranch and Blenney.jpg
 
Hello :)...My first post, and I'm looking for advice. I sold my Nikon D90 a few years ago and in a few weeks I'm looking to buy a new outfit. I won't be able to buy everything in one go, body and one good lens to start, aiming at a few landscapes and wildlife...I don't like lightweight cameras and lenses with plastic mounts, and I'm not after the latest high tech equipment. Just something solid and reliable. I haven't seen any of the four cameras mentioned in the flesh, I guess the D5600 might be the odd one out in terms of size/weight and price, and the D750
being FX. Any help/comments would be appreciated :)
I would advise you to try and go somewhere where you can handle the cameras you are interested in, as this seems important to you.

Only you can say what your needs are, FX or DX. Either will fulfil almost all situations, but will have slight benefits over each other in certain areas. Ultimate image quality (whether you can see it is another thing ;)), better low light performance for FX. For DX you get AF coverage over more of the scene, lenses appearing to magnify and get closer to the subject because of the 'cropped' sensor. Frames per second will depend on the camera, as will the buffer depth.

For me, I take pics of different things, and sport has always been part of that. So I always wanted the fastest camera, AF and/or Fps, that I could afford. Having started with DX, and found it more than good enough for me, so I was never drawn to FX, and my Nikon journey has been D70 > D200 > D300 > D300S > D500. Most have been an improvement over the previous camera, otherwise what would have been the point in changing, ;) but the D300S > D500 is the jump that improved on the previous model in almost every way. It is the ultimate crop sensor DSLR, imho, and will probably not be bettered. :( :rolleyes: Not everyone needs all those features of the best AF, highest Fps, virtually unlimited Buffer(with the right card ;)) and arguably the best ergonomics. Drop any features that are not important and there is a DX model that will fill the gap, at much lower price points. If it is DX you go for. ;)

Decide what you definitely need features wise. Decide FX or DX. Try and handle what you are interested in, which may be difficult atm. Apply a budget, if you have one, for camera and lenses if you don't already have lenses, and you should be pretty much at the right model for you.

And don't underestimate handling the cameras, as the only reason I started with the D70 ahead of the technically superior Canon 350D, was that it was too small, my knuckled rubbed on the lens, and the D70 felt like it was moulded for my hand. ;) The Canon was also a bit light and 'plasticy'.

Please let us know what you decide. :)

PS, if you decide to go new, and for the D500, I was talking about it on another Forum recently and noticed that you can the get the D500 + Nikon 16-80mm VR as a grey import for the same price as the D500 alone in the UK. :oops: :$

Though just had a look and the D500 priced has finally started to come down a bit, and is £90 cheaper for D500 only compared to the D500 + Nikon 16-80mm VR. The D500 + Nikon 16-80mm VR in the UK is £705 more expensive as a combination. The lens on its own is £930 :oops: :$ in the UK, so if that is a lens you are interested in, and it is on my camera 80% of the time, then try and get it at the same time as the camera, as savings will be made.

Not to open the 'grey' argument again though, just pointing it out.

So for the long post, but like a lot of people, I am in lock down, and needed a break from the TV. ;) :LOL:
 
The D500 is currently Nikon's finest DX camera but the D7500 is a D500 Lite and no slouch at about half the price.
Depending on your budget you could get a D500 and an FX, or a much cheaper D7500 and a used FX (eg D3 as above). :)
 
I would advise you to try and go somewhere where you can handle the cameras you are interested in, as this seems important to you.

Only you can say what your needs are, FX or DX. Either will fulfil almost all situations, but will have slight benefits over each other in certain areas. Ultimate image quality (whether you can see it is another thing ;)), better low light performance for FX. For DX you get AF coverage over more of the scene, lenses appearing to magnify and get closer to the subject because of the 'cropped' sensor. Frames per second will depend on the camera, as will the buffer depth.

For me, I take pics of different things, and sport has always been part of that. So I always wanted the fastest camera, AF and/or Fps, that I could afford. Having started with DX, and found it more than good enough for me, so I was never drawn to FX, and my Nikon journey has been D70 > D200 > D300 > D300S > D500. Most have been an improvement over the previous camera, otherwise what would have been the point in changing, ;) but the D300S > D500 is the jump that improved on the previous model in almost every way. It is the ultimate crop sensor DSLR, imho, and will probably not be bettered. :( :rolleyes: Not everyone needs all those features of the best AF, highest Fps, virtually unlimited Buffer(with the right card ;)) and arguably the best ergonomics. Drop any features that are not important and there is a DX model that will fill the gap, at much lower price points. If it is DX you go for. ;)

Decide what you definitely need features wise. Decide FX or DX. Try and handle what you are interested in, which may be difficult atm. Apply a budget, if you have one, for camera and lenses if you don't already have lenses, and you should be pretty much at the right model for you.

And don't underestimate handling the cameras, as the only reason I started with the D70 ahead of the technically superior Canon 350D, was that it was too small, my knuckled rubbed on the lens, and the D70 felt like it was moulded for my hand. ;) The Canon was also a bit light and 'plasticy'.

Please let us know what you decide. :)

PS, if you decide to go new, and for the D500, I was talking about it on another Forum recently and noticed that you can the get the D500 + Nikon 16-80mm VR as a grey import for the same price as the D500 alone in the UK. :oops: :$

Though just had a look and the D500 priced has finally started to come down a bit, and is £90 cheaper for D500 only compared to the D500 + Nikon 16-80mm VR. The D500 + Nikon 16-80mm VR in the UK is £705 more expensive as a combination. The lens on its own is £930 :oops: :$ in the UK, so if that is a lens you are interested in, and it is on my camera 80% of the time, then try and get it at the same time as the camera, as savings will be made.

Not to open the 'grey' argument again though, just pointing it out.

So for the long post, but like a lot of people, I am in lock down, and needed a break from the TV. ;) :LOL:

I'm in lock down for three months so long posts are most welcome:giggle: I was hoping to have a look at some of the cameras in WEX a couple of weeks back, my last trip out before the lock down. I had to return a telescope that I bought our lass for her birthday, but that's another story. After asking for some advice I was told that mirrorless cameras where now the way to
go and was shown an Olympus. I was a little pushed for time that day and had planned to go back!

I don't have a problem with Grey Imports, it's a global market nowadays and sadly, rip off Britain remains strong. All the years UK retailers have told us you have a one year warranty, under
UK law it's been two years, and under EU law it was six. That's one thing I do hope we have kept! Sorry, went off topic for a moment there :)
But yes, I had noticed the price of a D500 was a lot less at NextDayCamera and NextDayDeal, not saying they're the cheapest, just the ones I've come cross. Budget, there's not a lot in the pot, saying that a grand is a lot of money but I'm happy stretching that to £1500.00 tops at the moment for body and lens. If I went for the D500 I'd be happy starting off with a 35 mm fixed lens over a cheap/plastic mount zoom, and whilst I appreciate the 16-80 VR would be the best bet as part of a starter kit, a fixed lens would give me a better chance of getting the 200-500.
What I have noticed is how bloody scary the price of the memory card is recommended by NextDayDeal, £280.00. That's twice as much as a 35 mm lens and if that's what you have to buy
to make the most of the camera, I'd pass on the D500 and look more towards the D7500 or a second hand D7200 if I go the DX route...
 
I can recommend the D7200 with the 200-500 and the AFS 70-300 VR. I use it for airshows and wildlife and love the quality.

Appreciated Ted:) I think a secondhand D7200 might be a very good option over buying a new D7500. I could get a D7200 with MB-D15 for £526.00 which frees up funds for a lens.
I haven't really looked at 70-300, do they have metal mounts?
 
Mirrorless is the future, but you seemed to be asking about DSLR's. ;) That said, mirrorless is not my future as I prefer the DSLR and am extremely happy with the D500. :) I don't think they could improve it in any significant way to tempt me to upgrade. That, added to the move to mirrorless, probably means that it won't be bettered.

The 16-80mm VR is a great lens, and the best combination of range, quality, size, weight and price imho, but I understand some prefer prime lenses, and although good value, it is a lot of money that could be put towards a larger telephoto lens. :)

I've never heard of NextDayCamera, but they are significantly cheaper than the grey importer I used atm. :oops: :$ :)

The price of the SD card they were recommending seems a bit OTT. :oops: :$ You can get 128Gb, 120Mb/s write SD cards, rather than the current fastest 300Mb/s recommended on that site for £32 on Amazon which would probably give 70+ frames in a buffer on a D500 @ 10Fps, and probably be faster than is needed on a camera whose buffer may not be that large. ;)
Appreciated Ted:) I think a secondhand D7200 might be a very good option over buying a new D7500. I could get a D7200 with MB-D15 for £526.00 which frees up funds for a lens.
I haven't really looked at 70-300, do they have metal mounts?
The Nikon AF-P 70-300mm f4.5-5.6E ED VR Lens has a metal mount, and is great value for money. I've found mine very good wide open, which was not the case with the previous version of this lens I had. :)
 
Last edited:
What about a D600/610? Full frame, compatible with many older Nikon lenses (works perfectly with AIS MF lenses, and screw drive AF lenses), excellent sensor, better than DX especially in low light. Handles really well with the MB-D14. S/H prices for a good one will leave loads more for other lenses. I also had a D3300, and whilst that is a great little camera, gonna be pretty similar to the D5600 really, I didn't find the DX lenses to be good enough for my liking tbh. Especially the DX 35mm f1.8. Had two; one was dreadful, the other was merely ok. Other DX lenses I tried weren't as good as FX equivalents I have.

Of course, if you really want that reach, then DX is the way to go. A later D7XXX series or D500 obvs better than the lower series models. D500 perhaps a bit overkill unless you really need the weather sealing and faster AF etc.

D5600, D7500, D750 or D500?

Z6... ;)
 
As you're starting from scratch I would recommend mirrorless as that's where manufacturers focus seems to be moving forward. The Z6 is a very capable camera, but then so are the Sony A73, A7R3, A7RIV and Canon's two mirrorless offerings, although the Canon's won't be quite as suited to landscape due to the lower dynamic range. Of the mirrorless Sony is the most mature system and has by far the most native lenses (including 3rd party native mount) but Canikon will catch up, and of course if you don't mind using the adapter you can use almost their whole back catalogue of lenses.

I've owned both the D750 and D500 and they are both different beasts, but in terms of outright image quality the D750 has the edge, whereas the D500 has the edge in AF. I personally preferred the D750, has a better viewfinder, is lighter and ultimately better IQ. Out of the 4 that you have mentioned I would only consider these two tbh. It's not that the others aren't great cameras, but they don't stack up against the D500 or D750.
 
Mirrorless is the future, but you seemed to be asking about DSLR's. ;) That said, mirrorless is not my future as I prefer the DSLR and am extremely happy with the D500. :) I don't think they could improve it in any significant way to tempt me to upgrade. That, added to the move to mirrorless, probably means that it won't be bettered.

The 16-80mm VR is a great lens, and the best combination of range, quality, size, weight and price imho, but I understand some prefer prime lenses, and although good value, it is a lot of money that could be put towards a larger telephoto lens. :)

I've never heard of NextDayCamera, but they are significantly cheaper than the grey importer I used atm. :oops: :$ :)

The price of the SD card they were recommending seems a bit OTT. :oops: :$ You can get 128Gb, 120Mb/s write SD cards, rather than the current fastest 300Mb/s recommended on that site for £32 on Amazon which would probably give 70+ frames in a buffer on a D500 @ 10Fps, and probably be faster than is needed on a camera whose buffer may not be that large. ;)

The Nikon AF-P 70-300mm f4.5-5.6E ED VR Lens has a metal mount, and is great value for money. I've found mine very good wide open, which was not the case with the previous version of this lens I had. :)

I also asked the lad in WEX about DSLR's:) I'm glad you cleared that up with the memory card, there's way too much technical stuff in modern cameras, it's enough to fry the brain.
I'd like the 16-80, I just think at the moment it'd take too many pennies away from purchasing the 200-500 which would see more action...
 
What about a D600/610? Full frame, compatible with many older Nikon lenses (works perfectly with AIS MF lenses, and screw drive AF lenses), excellent sensor, better than DX especially in low light. Handles really well with the MB-D14. S/H prices for a good one will leave loads more for other lenses. I also had a D3300, and whilst that is a great little camera, gonna be pretty similar to the D5600 really, I didn't find the DX lenses to be good enough for my liking tbh. Especially the DX 35mm f1.8. Had two; one was dreadful, the other was merely ok. Other DX lenses I tried weren't as good as FX equivalents I have.

Of course, if you really want that reach, then DX is the way to go. A later D7XXX series or D500 obvs better than the lower series models. D500 perhaps a bit overkill unless you really need the weather sealing and faster AF etc.

D5600, D7500, D750 or D500?

Z6... ;)


I didn't look at the D600/D610 as I thought one of them had problems, something I seem to remember reading after they came out, although I could be very wrong...If it's a camera still worth considering I wouldn't right it off...ZS, that's naughty:giggle:
 
As you're starting from scratch I would recommend mirrorless as that's where manufacturers focus seems to be moving forward. The Z6 is a very capable camera, but then so are the Sony A73, A7R3, A7RIV and Canon's two mirrorless offerings, although the Canon's won't be quite as suited to landscape due to the lower dynamic range. Of the mirrorless Sony is the most mature system and has by far the most native lenses (including 3rd party native mount) but Canikon will catch up, and of course if you don't mind using the adapter you can use almost their whole back catalogue of lenses.

I've owned both the D750 and D500 and they are both different beasts, but in terms of outright image quality the D750 has the edge, whereas the D500 has the edge in AF. I personally preferred the D750, has a better viewfinder, is lighter and ultimately better IQ. Out of the 4 that you have mentioned I would only consider these two tbh. It's not that the others aren't great cameras, but they don't stack up against the D500 or D750.

The only one I've given more than a couple of minutes to is the Nikon Z50 twin lens outfit, but I'm jut not convinced yet. I think in part it was due to either reading or watching a video where a comment was made that mirrorless cameras would suit folk that prefer to look at a digital screen rather than through a view finder and seeing what the lens sees. Also, I don't think I could
buy in to a system where you have to buy an adapter to have more access to lenses. Plus, anything above the Z50 comes with a heavy price tag...
 
It may be helpful to paint some broad brush strokes, rather than give highly specific advice, so please see these comments in that context, rather than thinking I'm writing 'rules'. FWIW I've owned and used Nikon FX and DX cameras (still have a D70 IR converted and an F301) and presently use a Sony A7III.

For wildlife, where reach is important, crop generally wins over full frame. APS-C is presently the sweet spot, but M43 (like the Olympus mirrorless you saw) is getting closer. However generally the long, fast lenses used for wildlife are full frame lenses, and therefore bigger, heavier, more expensive. M43 is the exception, where lenses are purpose-designed & therefore smaller and lighter. The smaller sensor cameras are getting better at handling noise at high ISOs.

For Landscape, in general FX will off greater dynamic range, lower noise, potentially better resolution through lower image magnification, better depth of field control with fast lenses, and if you're one of 'those' people you may see the image as looking more '3D' than from a small sensor. I prefer FX for almost every scenario except wildlife.

DSLR - the optical viewfinder is nice with FX, but often a bit crap with DX, camera handling is usually familiar. The biggest advantage for this technology is that the lenses are quite a bit cheaper than modern full frame mirrorless. Some AF systems are good (D750) and some are not (D600/610). My feeling is that if you want the best DSLR AF then you should look at Canon. DSLRs are often very heavy in the 'serious' versions, for example I was considering a D850 but the weight was >1KG. :rolleyes:

Mirrorless -some find an EVF hard to work with, and it does take some getting used to. Older Olympus EVF sucks a bit, most recent versions may be OK (not tried). More recent Sony A7 & A9 series EVFs are OK to good, but Nikon Z6/&7 reputedly much better. Lens quality seems a fair bit higher than for older DSLR lenses, but the prices can be a LOT higher. Lenses also often bulkier/heavier than DSLR equivalents. Most recent Sony mirrorless probably have the best AF of any cameras, though software updates are improving the Nikon and Canon offerings. Generally bodies are a bit lighter than serious DSLRs, but not eveyone likes the different ergonomics of mirrorless, especially Sony. Another mirrorless advantage is that they tend to have image stabilisation in the camera body, and particularly for some of the Olympus cameras it can be surprisingly effective.

As you're starting from scratch I would recommend mirrorless as that's where manufacturers focus seems to be moving forward. The Z6 is a very capable camera, but then so are the Sony A73, A7R3, A7RIV and Canon's two mirrorless offerings, although the Canon's won't be quite as suited to landscape due to the lower dynamic range. Of the mirrorless Sony is the most mature system and has by far the most native lenses (including 3rd party native mount) but Canikon will catch up, and of course if you don't mind using the adapter you can use almost their whole back catalogue of lenses.

I've owned both the D750 and D500 and they are both different beasts, but in terms of outright image quality the D750 has the edge, whereas the D500 has the edge in AF. I personally preferred the D750, has a better viewfinder, is lighter and ultimately better IQ. Out of the 4 that you have mentioned I would only consider these two tbh. It's not that the others aren't great cameras, but they don't stack up against the D500 or D750.

This really. If you don't have lots of expensive lenses then you're not committed to the older legacy gear, however if budget is tight then staying with the older systems (which still took excellent pictures) is a reasonable approach.
 
Last edited:
I didn't look at the D600/D610 as I thought one of them had problems, something I seem to remember reading after they came out, although I could be very wrong...If it's a camera still worth considering I wouldn't right it off...ZS, that's naughty:giggle:

There was a reported issue of oil on the sensor, with SOME D600s, for which Nikon offered a service to fix. Hasn't affected mine in nearly 7 years. The D610 has had the potential fault fixed, so praps the better choice if you're at all concerned. Definitely a camera worth considering; the D750 has some improvements, but nothing really to justify overlooking a D600/610.
 
The only one I've given more than a couple of minutes to is the Nikon Z50 twin lens outfit, but I'm jut not convinced yet. I think in part it was due to either reading or watching a video where a comment was made that mirrorless cameras would suit folk that prefer to look at a digital screen rather than through a view finder and seeing what the lens sees. Also, I don't think I could
buy in to a system where you have to buy an adapter to have more access to lenses. Plus, anything above the Z50 comes with a heavy price tag...
EVF vs OVF divides opinions and only the individual can decide what’s right. However for what it’s worth I’ve always been a die hard OVF fan, especially when you’ve had one as big and bright as the D850. However, with the new high res OLED EVF’s there’s not a lot not to like, and for me the advantages far outweigh the negatives. YMMV

As for cost, there’s always used and grey which could get you potentially better gear for your money.
 
Some AF systems are good (D750) and some are not (D600/610).

Sorry, but for all the fairly good advice in this post, there's also some utter rubbish, such as this. The D750 is slightly better in the AF dept, but the D600/610 is still pretty good; I know, so actually use a D600 in some pretty demanding situations. I've also tried a D750, and the difference is minimal. I do wish people would stick to just what they actually know, and not regurgitate rubbish trawled from the internet. Jeeze.

A better way of putting it would be; ’Some AF systems are good (D600/610) and some are better (D750)’. Were I choosing between either now, I’d go for the newer camera. But if budgetary constraints were a thing, then a D600/610 would be a chunk cheaper. Leaving more for lenses Etc. Hope that clears things up a bit.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but for all the fairly good advice in this post, there's also some utter rubbish, such as this. The D750 is slightly better in the AF dept, but the D600/610 is still pretty good; I know, so actually use a D600 in some pretty demanding situations. I've also tried a D750, and the difference is minimal. I do wish people would stick to just what they actually know, and not regurgitate rubbish trawled from the internet. Jeeze.

A better way of putting it would be; ’Some AF systems are good (D600/610) and some are better (D750)’. Were I choosing between either now, I’d go for the newer camera. But if budgetary constraints were a thing, then a D600/610 would be a chunk cheaper. Leaving more for lenses Etc. Hope that clears things up a bit.

I used a D610 for 3 years. In bright light the AF worked, but in low light it would endlessly hunt with a 50 f1.8. I'd have to use manual focus in pubs when shooting performers because the AF was un-reliable, although in that situation the AF confirmation light worked OK. It also wouldn't track moving objects well in normal out of doors shooting - the AF on the D610 is definitely a bit crap.

Perhaps you never use your D600 in less than ideal conditions, or maybe you're just not fussed about critical focus?
 
I used a D610 for 3 years. In bright light the AF worked, but in low light it would endlessly hunt with a 50 f1.8. I'd have to use manual focus in pubs when shooting performers because the AF was un-reliable, although in that situation the AF confirmation light worked OK. It also wouldn't track moving objects well in normal out of doors shooting - the AF on the D610 is definitely a bit crap.

Perhaps you never use your D600 in less than ideal conditions, or maybe you're just not fussed about critical focus?

Lol! I do a lot of shooting in dimly lit venues. The D600 has never let me down. And I’m proper fussy about sharpness. Perhaps you need to learn how to use the focussing system properly. My new Z6 has superior focussing in ultra low light. But then I can’t see in such conditons anyway. But to dismiss the AF of the D600/610 as ‘not good’, or ‘a bit crap’, is just bunkum. A poor workman...
 
Last edited:
My feeling is that if you want the best DSLR AF then you should look at Canon. DSLRs are often very heavy in the 'serious' versions, for example I was considering a D850 but the weight was >1KG. :rolleyes:
Mmm, Canon best DSLR AF! :thinking: The top of the range Canon's AF yes, maybe. The Nikon 51 AF has had a great reputation for many years, and the 153 point AF in the D5, D6 and D500 is even better. ;)

Most recent Sony mirrorless probably have the best AF of any cameras, though software updates are improving the Nikon and Canon offerings. Generally bodies are a bit lighter than serious DSLRs, but not everyone likes the different ergonomics of mirrorless, especially Sony.
For the Nikon mirrorless at least, even with the latest firmware update, for wildlife according to this vid by Steve Perry, may not be the best option, yet. Mirrorless users of other brands may have an opinion on those types of camera for wildlife. Not sure if there are people like Steve Perry doing tests like this for other brands with wildlife.

The benefit of AF on mirrorless is the coverage of the scene, something where a full frame DSLR, are at a big disadvantage. Hasn't stopped people getting pics with them of course. ;) The AF in the crop sensor DSLR's covers more of the scene.

Another mirrorless advantage is that they tend to have image stabilisation in the camera body, and particularly for some of the Olympus cameras it can be surprisingly effective.
No in body image stabilisation for Canon mirrorless, yet. ;)
 
Lol! I do a lot of shooting in dimly lit venues. The D600 has never let me down. And I’m proper fussy about sharpness. Perhaps you need to learn how to use the focussing system properly. My new Z6 has superior focussing in ultra low light. But then I can’t see in such conditons anyway. But to dismiss the AF of the D600/610 as ‘not good’, is just bunkum. A poor workman...

I had a D610 - It was by no means a bad camera and now is a very cheap way to get into full frame.

It's only 24mp and for landscapes I do find the 36mp plus bodies preferable. The issue with the D6x0 series is the spread of AF points didn't cover much of the overall frame. I find the AF system in the D750 and D810 are faster and more reliable but that's not to say the D610 was bad - it just isn't as good.
 
Lol! I do a lot of shooting in dimly lit venues. The D600 has never let me down. And I’m proper fussy about sharpness. Perhaps you need to learn how to use the focussing system properly. My new Z6 has superior focussing in ultra low light. But then I can’t see in such conditons anyway. But to dismiss the AF of the D600/610 as ‘not good’, or ‘a bit crap’, is just bunkum. A poor workman...

I'm a poor workman. Nice. :rolleyes:

The D610 is a very capable camera, based around an excellent sensor but with an intentionally less capable AF system so that it wouldn't compete with cameras further up the line. For the price, especially now, it offers fantastic value, and I'd be happy to use one again for general work. But compared to the AF of even some entry level DSLRs like the Sony A58 it's not very good in low light, hunting and failing to find lock. Even out landscaping it can sometimes struggle if a bit of the target is a little low in contrast.

I have no personal investment in whether the OP buys one particular model of camera over another, but would prefer to paint an honest picture of strengths and weaknesses based on my own experience. If your D600 works well for you in demanding conitions then that's great, but as you have already observed with your comment about reading on the internet, my experience is not unique.....
 
I'm a poor workman. Nice. :rolleyes:

The D610 is a very capable camera, based around an excellent sensor but with an intentionally less capable AF system so that it wouldn't compete with cameras further up the line. For the price, especially now, it offers fantastic value, and I'd be happy to use one again for general work. But compared to the AF of even some entry level DSLRs like the Sony A58 it's not very good in low light, hunting and failing to find lock. Even out landscaping it can sometimes struggle if a bit of the target is a little low in contrast.

I have no personal investment in whether the OP buys one particular model of camera over another, but would prefer to paint an honest picture of strengths and weaknesses based on my own experience. If your D600 works well for you in demanding conitions then that's great, but as you have already observed with your comment about reading on the internet, my experience is not unique.....

Read this:

I find the AF system in the D750 and D810 are faster and more reliable but that's not to say the D610 was bad - it just isn't as good.

See, I agree with that. Whatever your own personal experience with YOUR camera, doesn't make that particular model or make 'bad'. It just means YOU had less than satisfactory experience. Someone could just as easily turn round and go 'the D5 AF is great, the D750 is crap'. You see? Mt first AF cam was a Nikon F801s. Compared to my D600, the performance was nowhere near as good. But it still focussed much quicker than I could manually, most of the time. I wouldn't call it 'crap' though, as it enabled me to get more shots in focus than otherwise (I have quite poor eyesight). To offer balance to your dismissal of the D600 AF system; I've always found it to be bloody good in low light situations, and the camera is still, even compared to the Z6, an excellent performer in demanding situations.


I'm a poor workman. Nice. :rolleyes:

I see a lot of people seeming to rely more and more on camera technology, rather than technique. It's funny to read stuff like Ken Rockwell; 'X camera is crap, and Y camera is great!' type rubbish. Truth is, pretty much all current cams are amazing, in terms of what they can do. This was about trying to give the OP some helpful advice. Let's stick to that.
 
See, I agree with that. Whatever your own personal experience with YOUR camera, doesn't make that particular model or make 'bad'. It just means YOU had less than satisfactory experience. Someone could just as easily turn round and go 'the D5 AF is great, the D750 is crap'. You see? Mt first AF cam was a Nikon F801s. Compared to my D600, the performance was nowhere near as good. But it still focussed much quicker than I could manually, most of the time. I wouldn't call it 'crap' though, as it enabled me to get more shots in focus than otherwise (I have quite poor eyesight). To offer balance to your dismissal of the D600 AF system; I've always found it to be bloody good in low light situations, and the camera is still, even compared to the Z6, an excellent performer in demanding situations.

See I agree with Steve because I know how he uses his cameras and the kinds of subjects he shoots. In any situation that's not demanding the D610 AF is perfectly adequate, and as you say much much better than your F801 or the even older Minolta 7000 that was my first AF camera in the late 80s. But as I said, when things became more challenging then I'd have to use manual focus to work around the weakness of the tool. And it's not just MY camera that wasn't adequate in this area as you yourself pointed out - plenty of people have reported this as a weakness. Compare that with the D750, which is still a standard tool for wedding togs, the AF system is significantly better than the older entry-level D6XX series.

I see a lot of people seeming to rely more and more on camera technology, rather than technique. It's funny to read stuff like Ken Rockwell; 'X camera is crap, and Y camera is great!' type rubbish. Truth is, pretty much all current cams are amazing, in terms of what they can do. This was about trying to give the OP some helpful advice. Let's stick to that.

So am I a bad workman because, rather than relying on the tech which was NOT amazing in this situation, I did the focussing myself?

Lets give the OP some helpful, unbiased advice where we are not invested in the system and have no axe to grind in either direction. And please cut down on the snarky, aggressive, attacking style of commenting - in only makes TP a worse place.
 
See I agree with Steve

My point is; notice how he words his comment? 'X is good but Y is better'. That's all anyone needs to say. There's no problem you relating your own personal experience, just accept that it's only that, and that others have differing experiences. Someone might be on a tight budget, and claiming something as fact, based on subjective experience, isn't perhaps very helpful. Personally, I'd be saying something more like 'the D600 is a great camera, but the D750 has a better AF system, if that is important to you'. It's about giving advice that's positive and informs, not 'x is good y is bad' type guff. Leave that to the likes of KR and all the other SM 'Influencers'. As for being a 'bad workman'; well, you were blaming the tool... ;)


Lets give the OP some helpful, unbiased advice


Yes, let's. :LOL:

Back on track: I'd go for the FX cam, for landscapes etc. Higher image quality. With something like a D600/610 or D750, you can use older manual focus lenses, the lack of crop meaning you'll get a wider angle of view with any given focal length. AF not so important for landscapes, as generally you're spending more time composing the shot. For eg; I sometimes use a lovely old Nikkor 24mm f2.8AI lens, which gives superb results. Obvs for wildlife, you can get more 'reach' with a DX cam, but then you've lost that wider AoV option, plus are sacrificing a bit of IQ and low light performance. With FX, you can always crop down a fair bit; I've done some pretty brutal crops of birds etc, without significant IQ loss. But the FX cam will be the more versatile tool.

As for 'one lens to rule them all'; I have really enjoyed using the 24-120mm f4 lens for the last few years. I've found it to have an excellent range, yet still retain good IQ, and the constant aperture makes things more simple. It's not the 'best' lens at all focal lengths, but better than other zooms i've tried, particularly the 28-200mm type things, which are always quite heavily compromised in some way (not to say you can't take great pics with them, but they do present a greater challenge is IQ is your thing, I've found; more distortion, less sharpness overall, etc. But then, very versatile). Don't forget that with a D600/750 body, you have the screw drive AF system, so you have access to even more lovely lenses. There's things like the older Micro 105mm f2.8D, excellent for stuff like plants and insect closeup photography, or something like the 180mm f2.8D, an excellent fast tele lens, or maybe the older 300mm f4D. Such lenses won't break the bank; A 105mm can be had for around £250 in excellent condition, the 180 and 300 around £300-400 for excellent examples. Even the little 50mm f1.8D can produce excellent results; it's a bit plasticky but excellent optical quality, and really no 'worse' than the newer G version, and you could probably pick one up for around £60 or so. Bargain. A decent 24 or 28mm lens can be had from as little as £150 or so. So You can really get back into the swing of things without spending an absolute fortune.
 
Last edited:
I see a lot of people seeming to rely more and more on camera technology, rather than technique. It's funny to read stuff like Ken Rockwell; 'X camera is crap, and Y camera is great!' type rubbish.
I can see the big mistake you're making there. ;)

Truth is, pretty much all current cams are amazing, in terms of what they can do.
Cameras have been good enough for most people to do most things for a decade or more. As with most things though, technology improves, and while improvements may be harder to come by, some improvements can be significant. It's whether you want to pay sometimes quite a lot for small, or what may see as large, improvements.

Good that people tell others of their experiences, so someone making choices can make an informed decision as to what is important (to them) with a new camera compared to an older camera.
 
Back
Top