D800 or D610?

[Freida]

Hello guys,

I'm thinking of upgrading my camera and want something that does great video (D800 is superb as I've seen so far) as addition to full frame etc.
I've seen results of D800 and the camera is amazing but how about the D610? What are the real differences etc., please?

I have D90 at the moment so if I invest in a new body I want something good that will last me a long time.

Or, when D800 is going to be updated, worth waiting?

 

[acearchie]

What sort of shots do you take and what is your current lens selection.

D800 might be overkill for the moment. You might want to consider upgrading your harddrives if you go with the D800 as well!

 

[swordio777]

Hello guys,

I'm thinking of upgrading my camera and want something that does great video (D800 is superb as I've seen so far) as addition to full frame etc.
I've seen results of D800 and the camera is amazing but how about the D610? What are the real differences etc., please?

I have D90 at the moment so if I invest in a new body I want something good that will last me a long time.

Or, when D800 is going to be updated, worth waiting?

I don't use my DSLR for video (I use two D700s, they don't even "do" video), but I believe one major difference between the D600 and the D800 is the ability to change aperture value while recording - the D600 can't do it, but the D800 can.

Are you looking to mainly use it for stills or mainly for video? And what kind of conditions will you shoot in?

For stills, the AF in the D800 wipes the floor with the D610 - especially in less-than-optimal lighting conditions. Although both systems will offer a decent step up from your D90.

You need to prioritise the importance of various features. If you'll shoot mainly video then autofocus might not be important to you, but the lack of aperture control while recording might drive you mad.
Also remember the D800's massive files - that's going to slow down your workflow and cost you money in hard drives. And FX sensors mean expensive glass too - do you have the lenses you need already? If not, the purchase of an FX body can get expensive fast.

 

[Freida]

I don't use my DSLR for video (I use two D700s, they don't even "do" video), but I believe one major difference between the D600 and the D800 is the ability to change aperture value while recording - the D600 can't do it, but the D800 can.

Are you looking to mainly use it for stills or mainly for video? And what kind of conditions will you shoot in?

For stills, the AF in the D800 wipes the floor with the D610 - especially in less-than-optimal lighting conditions. Although both systems will offer a decent step up from your D90.

You need to prioritise the importance of various features. If you'll shoot mainly video then autofocus might not be important to you, but the lack of aperture control while recording might drive you mad.
Also remember the D800's massive files - that's going to slow down your workflow and cost you money in hard drives. And FX sensors mean expensive glass too - do you have the lenses you need already? If not, the purchase of an FX body can get expensive fast.

I shoot mainly stills. The video is just addition and not extremely important but I would prefer to have a good quality video as I sometimes need it. When you mentioned lack of aperture control, you meant the D610, right?
I looked and the D800 is not that much more. Only 200pounds difference so it seems that D800 is better option, no?

I don't have much glass. I have kit lense 18-105 which is ok.
And then have 50mm 1.4G - its my understanding that this lense will work fine on full frame, correct?

 

[Cheese&Apple]

Good advice so far Freida.

There's a lot of information out there on this subject – some of it worth reading.

I don't shoot video so I have nothing to add except that I wouldn't expect, or wait for, an updated D800 anytime soon. It's less than 2 year old top-of-the-line technology and, in terms of camera bodies, it's still got lots of life and great legs.

~ Peter

 

[ChrisA]

Hello guys,

I'm thinking of upgrading my camera and want something that does great video (D800 is superb as I've seen so far) as addition to full frame etc.
I've seen results of D800 and the camera is amazing but how about the D610? What are the real differences etc., please?

I have D90 at the moment so if I invest in a new body I want something good that will last me a long time.

Or, when D800 is going to be updated, worth waiting?

The big thing to think about is HOW you plan to record video. The D800 has an uncompressed HDMI output. You can capture this and also use it to feed an external monitor. I don't think this is possible with a D610. But the external equipment you need for this costs a lot.

The full farm video camera will allow a VERY tiny depth of field. Can you pull focus to take advantage of this. If not what is the point of Full frame video. It is NOT for more pixels because you only get 1080 lines not matter what. From an audience point of view the larger sensor allows for shallow focus.

If you are just shooting the kids football game then buy a Canon HDr400 for $300. Seriously. It can do 1080/60P where as the SLR ca n can only shoot 30 frames per second.

In short a D800 is good for serious work but a bit more of a pain in the but to use then a simple video camcorder.

The D610 is likely a better camera for more casual video Youget the make number of pixels in the D800, the D610 and the HD R400, 1080 lines what differs is (1) the depth of field, (2) the amount of video compression, (3) low light abitly

The other thing to think about are lenses. You will likely have to buy some that are longer than what you use on the D90. And if your D90 lenses are all DF the will not work on the FX body. But for Video those older manual focus primes are the way to go.


Other equipment is audio heat and a good heavy video tripod and of course lights. All this other gear costs as much or more than the camera

----------

..
I don't have much glass. I have kit lense 18-105 which is ok.
And then have 50mm 1.4G - its my understanding that this lense will work fine on full frame, correct?

No. the 18-105 is a DX lens, It is for the crop frame SLR (like a D90 or D300)

Yes, the 50mm will work fine on the D800.

You might want a wider lens that can still cover the full frame for most indoor video. A manual focus 24mm to 35mm would be a very good start. I'd NOT advise using a zoom lens because few of the wide zooms open up to f/2 and if you only use a slow f/5.6 lens what is the pint of the expensive full frame body? I assume you'd buy the D800 for it's abitly for isolate a subject. Nikon made some very nice lens back in the 60's and 70's. The 35mm f/2 and the 105mm f/2.5 are true classics. Those two lenses are what caused many people to buy Nikon cameras. They'd give professional level result with a D800 and HDMI capture.

Be warned that focus is really hard to get right in video. When we shoot still we can depend on auto focus and if a focus point is not on a subject's eyes we move the camera, focus, hold the focus, re-frame then shoot. In video most likely the subject is not right on an AF point and you can't reframe.

 

[Laird Knox]

No. the 18-105 is a DX lens, It is for the crop frame SLR (like a D90 or D300)

Yes and no. The D800 will default to crop mode if you put a DX lens on it. So it will work, just using a smaller part of the sensor.

 

[compuwar]

I don't have much glass. I have kit lense 18-105 which is ok.
And then have 50mm 1.4G - its my understanding that this lense will work fine on full frame, correct?

The 50 will work fine on either body. If you're not happy with the 18-105, you may find it less useful on the D800, as the extra resolution will show any flaws- and obviously it will need to be shot in DX crop mode or every image will have to be cropped manually since the image circle won't cover the entire sensor.

While I haven't always followed it, the advice to spend as little on the body and as much on glass as you can is always pertinent. Unless there's a specific body feature that you need, consider using the extra money on good lighting and good glass.

Paul

 

[El Cabong]

Or, when D800 is going to be updated, worth waiting?

It won't be updated anytime soon (D700 came out in 2008), so there's no sense waiting for a D800 update, but since the new Sony A7R is coming out soon, I expect to see quite a few D800s on eBay. There will probably be a lot of bargains after the holidays.

 

[nburwell]

You also have to consider if your computer is going to be able to handle the massive RAW files of the D800. If not, then you're going to want to consider upgrading your computer hardware, too. With that said, if you're planning on printing huge images, then the D800 is for you. However, if you are only planning to make prints here and there, and not making massive prints, then you're probably better served getting the D610.

 

[swordio777]

I shoot mainly stills. The video is just addition and not extremely important but I would prefer to have a good quality video as I sometimes need it. When you mentioned lack of aperture control, you meant the D610, right?

Sorry - I was confusing myself. I was actually speaking about the D600 when I made the claim, but as far as I know, the same is true of the D610. Someone with more experience of the D600 & D610 may be able to confirm.

I looked and the D800 is not that much more. Only 200pounds difference so it seems that D800 is better option, no?

I don't have much glass. I have kit lense 18-105 which is ok.
And then have 50mm 1.4G - its my understanding that this lense will work fine on full frame, correct?

Compuwar hit the nail on the head above - spend money on glass before bodies. I know that lenses are nowhere near as exciting as bodies, but the truth is that a decent £300 lens will probably last you longer than a £1500 body.

Is there a specific reason you want to go full frame?? My advice would be not to at this stage. Full frame sensors are definitely a luxury - not a necessity.

If you have a budget of £1800 then don't blow it all on a body, consider a D7100 (£780ish) plus a Nikon 85 f/1.8G (£350ish) and a sigma 35mm f/1.4 (£640ish). For the same money you have started to build a really outstanding kitbag, and those lenses will will be compatible with an FX sensor if you do decide to upgrade the body in 3 years.

On the other hand, if budget is no concern then just get the D800 and pick up some great glass at the same time.

Hope that helps.

 

[Freida]

Thank you guys for feedback so far.

I usually shoot 2 things:
1) landscapes etc. on holiday
2) people close to me

So, I am currently learning about portrait photography so that is why I got the 50mm 1.4 as everyone told me its a great lense. I am hesitating whether or not to get the flash SB-900.

When I shoot nature the 18-105 is great as I have a freedom to position it quite well but still my photography skill is a beginner but I want to keep improving. I won't be professional photographer as this is just a hobby but that doesn't meant that I don't wanna be good. I work in animation field so this also helps me improving my staging etc.

I'm also toying with the idea to try macro photography of insects, flowers and all the "little" life that we miss.

So, I've had D90 for almost 4 years now and I started editing photos in Aperture almost 2 years ago. The reason why I am thinking of upgrading is that I know the D800 is super great body and the videos I've seen from my friends are superb. The still quality is amazing and I thought that its better to do jumps then little steps. ie. if I buy 7100 now and then D800 later then I might lose more money overall then if I bite the bullet now and go straight to D800, don't you think?

Video is mainly for references as I sometimes study details of movement (my job )) ) but I'm thinking to do a short movie with my gf as we already have a concept etc.

So, that is why I said the video is not super important but its somehow important. Still quality is mainly what I'm after.

When it comes to lenses, the 50mm and 18-105 is usually what worked for me although sometimes I wished I had something that goes to 200mm or even 300mm (things like ZOO or nature when you see beautiful deer but your range doesn't do it)

Now, a side topic. Do you think the SB-900 is enough for decent portrait photography? I noticed that you can put it on a stand and position it etc. so its a good compromise as I can have it with me when I'm out but also can position it in a room when I'm at home and playing with a "model"

 

[admwright]

Thank you guys for feedback so far.

Now, a side topic. Do you think the SB-900 is enough for decent portrait photography? I noticed that you can put it on a stand and position it etc. so its a good compromise as I can have it with me when I'm out but also can position it in a room when I'm at home and playing with a "model"

The SB-900 will definately be good for portrait photography, it is Nikon's 'top' flash. However, also look at the LED panels that are now available, great for most photography where you would use a flash but also useful for video as you have continous light.

 

[Freida]

The SB-900 will definately be good for portrait photography, it is Nikon's 'top' flash. However, also look at the LED panels that are now available, great for most photography where you would use a flash but also useful for video as you have continous light.

Any suggestions for the LED? I looked at some and it seems that they are not as portable as the SB-900

 

[swordio777]

Thank you guys for feedback so far.

I usually shoot 2 things:
1) landscapes etc. on holiday
2) people close to me

So, I am currently learning about portrait photography so that is why I got the 50mm 1.4 as everyone told me its a great lense. I am hesitating whether or not to get the flash SB-900.

When I shoot nature the 18-105 is great as I have a freedom to position it quite well but still my photography skill is a beginner but I want to keep improving. I won't be professional photographer as this is just a hobby but that doesn't meant that I don't wanna be good. I work in animation field so this also helps me improving my staging etc.

I'm also toying with the idea to try macro photography of insects, flowers and all the "little" life that we miss.

Based on what you've said above, I honestly think buying a D800 would be crazy & a waste of money for the time being. The reason I say this is that it WILL NOT help you take better photographs. You say yourself that you are still a beginner, so what you need is not new gear - it is practice! Take the time to learn about light and composition and your D90 will be able to produce photographs that blow your mind.

So, I've had D90 for almost 4 years now and I started editing photos in Aperture almost 2 years ago. The reason why I am thinking of upgrading is that I know the D800 is super great body and the videos I've seen from my friends are superb. The still quality is amazing and I thought that its better to do jumps then little steps. ie. if I buy 7100 now and then D800 later then I might lose more money overall then if I bite the bullet now and go straight to D800, don't you think?

No. I think it's better to build up your kit gradually, only upgrading when you have reached the very limits of what your kit can do. Blowing £1800 on a body you don't need will hinder your photography rather than help it, because you might not be able to afford other things that would actually help you take better photos.

I have not seen your friends' photographs of videos, but I am absolutely certain that what you like about then has nothing at all to do with the camera that captured them. If your friends are more experienced than you then it's far more likely that the shots are well composed and this is what appeals to you.

Video is mainly for references as I sometimes study details of movement (my job )) ) but I'm thinking to do a short movie with my gf as we already have a concept etc.

So, that is why I said the video is not super important but its somehow important. Still quality is mainly what I'm after.

Have you looked at dedicated video cameras for this? I don't know much about video, but I believe Sony make some great cameras that will be far cheaper than a D800. Even if you do want to shoot video on an SLR, there are many other options that could save you a lot of money as well - consider something like a D5200 (they're under £500!).

When it comes to lenses, the 50mm and 18-105 is usually what worked for me although sometimes I wished I had something that goes to 200mm or even 300mm (things like ZOO or nature when you see beautiful deer but your range doesn't do it)

Now, a side topic. Do you think the SB-900 is enough for decent portrait photography? I noticed that you can put it on a stand and position it etc. so its a good compromise as I can have it with me when I'm out but also can position it in a room when I'm at home and playing with a "model"

The 50mm is a great lens & will be good for the portraiture you want to shoot. If you'd like a longer lens, I've heard great things about the 70-300 - it's supposed to be very sharp.

The SB910 is an amazing flash. It will do everything you need an much more. Spend some time learning about lighting and it will definitely pay off.

Please take a look at my Flickr page - there's a link in my signature. I'm not saying this to promote myself, but the photos on there are mainly portraits and nearly all taken on a D90 with a 85mm AF-D lens (£300 new) and either one or 2 SB24 flashes (about £70 each, second-hand). Not expensive gear, but all very capable equipment.

As a beginner it's natural to want to improve quickly (every photographer has been there) and "gear-lust" grips us all from time to time. But rather than spending money on new equipment, just learn more about the areas of photography that interest you. There is no magic bullet and it's not a quick process, but as you learn more about it all you will start to see that the equipment has far less impact on the final image than you think.

Sorry for the super-long reply, but I really hope that helps.

 

[Freida]

Thank you man, that is really nice of you to spend that much time and very helpful. I looked at your stuff and it looks very nice.
I like this guy's work (https://www.facebook.com/jiri.subrt.796) and although I know that he is professional and I won't be able to do that as I simply don't have that equipment, time and "models" to experiment I still hope that I will get a bit close to it one day. The other stuff I like is (https://www.facebook.com/TheArtOfBeingYou) which has some amazing pics also. Nice combination of style&art together.

I will look into your lenses etc suggestions and hope to come back later for some advise
Thank you and if anyone has more suggestions or even great tutorial for portrait then I would really appreciate it. Thank you guys

 

[Freida]

P.s.: What do you guys think about the Nikon 28-300 lens? It looks like it will be good for DX and eventually FX and it seems to have good reviews except the distortion but apparently the D90 or newer cameras can fix that automatically.

Is it really that sharp and good?

 

[compuwar]

So, I am currently learning about portrait photography so that is why I got the 50mm 1.4 as everyone told me its a great lense. I am hesitating whether or not to get the flash SB-900.

It's overpriced and IMO, you'd be better off getting three or four cheaper units with some radio triggers and shoot-through umbrellas. Start reading the how-to and articles at http://strobist.blogspot.com/ if you want to do portraiture well then you'll really want to have 3-4 lights- key, fill and background for a start. I'd also Google "Hollywood Lighting." Larger strobes are better, but you can do well with a kit of smaller flashes, stands and umbrellas. I prefer shoot-through umbrellas since they tend to give nice softbox-like soft light when positioned close enough to the subject but also produce nice round catchlights in the eyes. Unlike reflective umbrellas, you can get closer with shoot-throughs, giving you softer light. You may also want to pick up a copy of Light: Science and Magic. Radio triggers will help you get the light off-camera, where you can work with positioning it for maximum effect based upon your subject's facial structure.

Paul

 

[Internaut]

I think you need to be clear on why you'd like to move from APS-C to full frame. There's a lot more to the difference than just bigger photosites (pixels) on the sensor. This covers the field of view at a given focal length, depth of field at a given focal length and aperture, the total amount of light hitting the sensor, and the fact you need to shoot at narrower apertures for landscapes where maximum depth of field is required.

For what I mostly take photos of, the D600 will probably give little benefit over one of Nikon's 24mp APS-C cameras. OTOH, if you take a lot of portraits, full frame can give you the narrower depth of field that might just make the difference you're after.

The D800? The potential for resolution and large prints make this beast an entirely different kettle of fish. Of course, even with Nikon's ultimate monster sensor, there are trade offs (but the pixel count should usually win, if it's the biggest print you're after).

 

[logista]

P.s.: What do you guys think about the Nikon 28-300 lens? It looks like it will be good for DX and eventually FX and it seems to have good reviews except the distortion but apparently the D90 or newer cameras can fix that automatically.

Is it really that sharp and good?

I love everything about this lens, except the weight. For me, it was an affordable way to get a long focal length. The distortion is there for sure, but I take care of it in LightRoom if it's too bothersome.

I started out with a D90, now I'm on a D600 (sometimes regretting I didn't wait for the oil problems to get fixed). I've also used a D800 (rented it for a gig). My advice, for what it's worth, is to rent gear you might be interested in buying.

 

[juanm]

For video: D800. No doubt about it.

 

[Freida]

Thank you guys! A lot of info to digest

Do you agree with Paul about the flash? I've looked for those SB-24/26 but can't find them new, only used ones which I'm usually hesitant as I don't like getting things without warranty.

Also, if you take a camera for wedding shooting or occassions like that, would those 24/26 work well? What is the difference then between the integrated flash and those 24/26 in terms of wedding scenarios etc.?

 

[juanm]

Thank you guys! A lot of info to digest

Do you agree with Paul about the flash? I've looked for those SB-24/26 but can't find them new, only used ones which I'm usually hesitant as I don't like getting things without warranty.

Also, if you take a camera for wedding shooting or occassions like that, would those 24/26 work well? What is the difference then between the integrated flash and those 24/26 in terms of wedding scenarios etc.?

I think the integrated flash is useful for non critical snapshots, and to trigger external strobes, either manually with older models or with TTL with newer models.

 

[Freida]

I think the integrated flash is useful for non critical snapshots, and to trigger external strobes, either manually with older models or with TTL with newer models.

im sorry, im not sure i understand what you mean.

 

[juanm]

im sorry, im not sure i understand what you mean.

The integrated flash is pretty much useless for real photography, except if you use it simply as a trigger for external flashes (for that it's really useful)