i see, now i get it. thanks
)so you think sb910 is waste of money like Paul or not? If I invest in a flash I want something that will last me perhaps my whole life
))
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
D800 or D610?
- Thread starter Freida
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
i see, now i get it. thanks
)so you think sb910 is waste of money like Paul or not? If I invest in a flash I want something that will last me perhaps my whole life
))I wouldn't buy the D610 on principle alone. I'm pretty much down with Nikon as soon as the X-Pro 2 and the Fuji X-mount 56mm lens is out.
i see, now i get it. thanks
so you think sb910 is waste of money like Paul or not? If I invest in a flash I want something that will last me perhaps my whole life
I got two SB800 back when they were just newly released and i'm still using them. They will last a long time. However, depending on what you want to do, a real studio setup with old fashioned studio strobes might be better suited. As soon as it's posed photography, TTL becomes less important.
I want something that is portable when I go to a wedding or an event but I also want something that I can put on a stand so I can then play with the light. Its my understanding that those SB 700-910 ones are fine for this and much more. Its like 2 in 1 as I can just put it in the hot shoe and shoot away at a wedding but also take it off with remote shutter and play for portraits
As I'm learning all this stuff I want something that is good and will last ages as I prefer to jump the gun and buy better at the beginning that will last me rather than buy cheap solution and upgrade later
I haven't played with these newer models, but keep in mind that you will have to buy accessories like umbrellas, diffusers, reflectors and so on, which will have much more impact on the final image than the model of strobe you'll be using. Small strobes are great for portability, and modern models can, in a pinch, be useful for studio work, but they sacrifice power for portability. In direct light, they're ok, but they lose quite a bit of range if diffused/bounced, and outdoors it can be a problem. Those who use small strobes outdors will often use them in pairs.
Light is light- the only things you can control is the intensity and direction. Here's the issue, an "expensive" TTL flash has a lot more electronics than a cheaper unit- the flash tube is going to have approximately the same lifespan, but LED lighting will get better over time, and last longer, so it's actually to your advantage to spend less now. Also, look at the early thermal issues with the SB900s.
Personally, I'd recommend looking at the MPXST3 starving student kit at Midwest under their Strobist kits but with the Vivitar flash units and without the reflector and reflector arm (you can use foamcore which is a lot cheaper and figure out a cheaper mounting option for sure.)
That kit will run $553- about the same price as a single SB900.
IF you get good at it and happy with it, you'll eventually end up with some larger studio units- but the travel kit will still be useful for when you don't want to haul around a big battery pack, large modifiers and studio strobes.
Paul
----------
Seriously, start simple- go through the "Lighting 101" series of blog posts at Strobist before you purchase anything (then again afterwards,) it's a really, really good resource.
Paul
----------
Shooting events and weddings means having backups of everything- in which case, multiple smaller units that can be used together are likely a better deal than a single larger unit. I'd much rather have 4 cheap units paired up than 2 large units- the only issue is carrying more batteries or battery packs.
Paul
Personally, I'd recommend looking at the MPXST3 starving student kit at Midwest under their Strobist kits but with the Vivitar flash units and without the reflector and reflector arm (you can use foamcore which is a lot cheaper and figure out a cheaper mounting option for sure.)
That kit will run $553- about the same price as a single SB900.
IF you get good at it and happy with it, you'll eventually end up with some larger studio units- but the travel kit will still be useful for when you don't want to haul around a big battery pack, large modifiers and studio strobes.
Paul
----------
Seriously, start simple- go through the "Lighting 101" series of blog posts at Strobist before you purchase anything (then again afterwards,) it's a really, really good resource.
Paul
----------
I want something that is portable when I go to a wedding or an event but I also want something that I can put on a stand so I can then play with the light. Its my understanding that those SB 700-910 ones are fine for this and much more. Its like 2 in 1 as I can just put it in the hot shoe and shoot away at a wedding but also take it off with remote shutter and play for portraits
As I'm learning all this stuff I want something that is good and will last ages as I prefer to jump the gun and buy better at the beginning that will last me rather than buy cheap solution and upgrade later
Shooting events and weddings means having backups of everything- in which case, multiple smaller units that can be used together are likely a better deal than a single larger unit. I'd much rather have 4 cheap units paired up than 2 large units- the only issue is carrying more batteries or battery packs.
Paul
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.?
Remember D800/D610 have pretty decent ISO so that you can bump it up without having to use fast glass. For what you are doing, you can probably get away with using the kit lens. I wouldn't go cheap on the flash. I'm still using the SB600 that I got with my old D50. It's works well. I'm not a heavy user of a flash but when I shoot portraits, I like using my SB 600. You can try to locate a used SB600 or SB700 flash. I wouldn't spend more than that. Until you start making money shooting weddings and can justify getting the SB900.
Since we are getting near the holiday, I would wait and see who will have the deals. Most likely you can get the body, lens, flash for a great deal. I'm waiting to move to the D610 but I want to wait until I have enough money for the lens (24-70mm Nikkor) and body. I've rented the 24-70mm and used on my D90.. It's a beast! Whatever body you decide to move to, get some fast glass. I know I said you could get away with the kit..but ultimately you should move to the faster glass.
Also, if you don't want to go full frame the D7100 is a nice step up from D90. Body wise it's very close to the D600/D610. The only thing that's different is that it's not full frame.
Hi there!
Giant step here, DX to FX,
On FX,
your 50mm and 18-105 are just that,
On the D90, the 18-105 is approximately 27-157mm,
On FX, 18-105 is going to be cropped anyway
And, with the D800 you will need huge storage and larger cards
IMHO,
Plan for the future and buy new glass, lasts almost forever, cameras are like PC's, you need to change them more often
Best bang for your buck at the moment is the D7100,
DX, 24mp, pretty much latest technology,
My friends who are waiting for the forever coming D400 bought the D7100,
they are wildlife photogs and like the "reach" of DX, EG: a 300mm lens is effectively 450mm
if you really need and want to go FX, get the 610 and put the extra into high end glass
Lastly, with all those pixels, your shooting discipline will have to be perfect, poor shooting will produce disappointing results,
Also, with that many pixels, diffraction is now going to be a problem, you will have to choose your f stops wisely
If your still going for the D800,
Get at least one good lens, like the 24-70, f2.8
If budget is stretched, get at least a 24-120 f4, a lot slower glass but will be a good all round lens
Regards,
Gary
Giant step here, DX to FX,
On FX,
your 50mm and 18-105 are just that,
On the D90, the 18-105 is approximately 27-157mm,
On FX, 18-105 is going to be cropped anyway
And, with the D800 you will need huge storage and larger cards
IMHO,
Plan for the future and buy new glass, lasts almost forever, cameras are like PC's, you need to change them more often
Best bang for your buck at the moment is the D7100,
DX, 24mp, pretty much latest technology,
My friends who are waiting for the forever coming D400 bought the D7100,
they are wildlife photogs and like the "reach" of DX, EG: a 300mm lens is effectively 450mm
if you really need and want to go FX, get the 610 and put the extra into high end glass
Lastly, with all those pixels, your shooting discipline will have to be perfect, poor shooting will produce disappointing results,
Also, with that many pixels, diffraction is now going to be a problem, you will have to choose your f stops wisely
If your still going for the D800,
Get at least one good lens, like the 24-70, f2.8
If budget is stretched, get at least a 24-120 f4, a lot slower glass but will be a good all round lens
Regards,
Gary
Last edited:
So after reading the strobist website, I think I will follow the advice and will get this kit:
1 x LumoPro Compact 7.5ft Stand w/Ground Spikes
1 x LumoPro Compact Umbrella Swivel w/ Variable Cold Shoe
1 x Westcott 43" Collapsible Umbrella with Removable Cover 15" FOLDED
1 x LumoPro Universal Hot Shoe Translator Kit w/Miniphone to Miniphone Sync Cord
1x LumoPro LP180 Quad-Sync Manual Flash
Reading all the good stuff about LP180 I think it will fit my needs well and its basically almost half price 162GBP vs 273GBP.
Strobist praises the LP180 so I'll go with it.
I wish I lived in USA as what you guys get for $300 I have to pay $450 for the same stuff
Paul, I looked at the Vivitar flash but in EU its expensive and the LumoPro is almost the same price so the Vivitar at that point probably won't make sense. I guess in USA it would be different story as its so cheap there.
I've decided to wait with the body for now and will get a new lense.
Here is my confusion though. Few people mentioned "fast lens" which to me I think you talk about the f number. The lower it is the more you can play with depth of field so at f2.8 the background will be blurred a lot. So, if I don't want to have blurred background and I shoot at 4.5 or higher then what would be the benefit of f2.8 lens? I know that lower the number is the more open it is and more light goes inside the lens but as mentioned above things will get more blurred that are out of focus. Or am I missing something?
I'm thinking about the 28-300 as kenrockwell and other reviews seem to be very positive about it (except the distortion but that can be fixed easily on the camera) so is that a right choice or am I missing something about the f number that is more than just "depth of field" player?
Also, thank you so much guys for all the advice you have given me so far. I've learnt a lot and the strobist website was extremely helpful So you guys should give yourselves a high five. You were very nice to help a newbie
1 x LumoPro Compact 7.5ft Stand w/Ground Spikes
1 x LumoPro Compact Umbrella Swivel w/ Variable Cold Shoe
1 x Westcott 43" Collapsible Umbrella with Removable Cover 15" FOLDED
1 x LumoPro Universal Hot Shoe Translator Kit w/Miniphone to Miniphone Sync Cord
1x LumoPro LP180 Quad-Sync Manual Flash
Reading all the good stuff about LP180 I think it will fit my needs well and its basically almost half price 162GBP vs 273GBP.
Strobist praises the LP180 so I'll go with it.
I wish I lived in USA as what you guys get for $300 I have to pay $450 for the same stuff
Paul, I looked at the Vivitar flash but in EU its expensive and the LumoPro is almost the same price so the Vivitar at that point probably won't make sense. I guess in USA it would be different story as its so cheap there.
I've decided to wait with the body for now and will get a new lense.
Here is my confusion though. Few people mentioned "fast lens" which to me I think you talk about the f number. The lower it is the more you can play with depth of field so at f2.8 the background will be blurred a lot. So, if I don't want to have blurred background and I shoot at 4.5 or higher then what would be the benefit of f2.8 lens? I know that lower the number is the more open it is and more light goes inside the lens but as mentioned above things will get more blurred that are out of focus. Or am I missing something?
I'm thinking about the 28-300 as kenrockwell and other reviews seem to be very positive about it (except the distortion but that can be fixed easily on the camera) so is that a right choice or am I missing something about the f number that is more than just "depth of field" player?
Also, thank you so much guys for all the advice you have given me so far. I've learnt a lot and the strobist website was extremely helpful
So you guys should give yourselves a high five. You were very nice to help a newbie
Really really consider multiple units. I'm a huge fan of having a background light for portraits. It provides some separation, giving more of a 3D look and a quick Google of "Hollywood Lighting" will show what I mean. I really consider a key, fill and background light to be very valuable for portraits.
What about when you go to 2 or 3 units? That's the price I'd be looking at- though if the price is close, I'd probably go with the other unit too,
Generally, faster lenses have better resolution, less distortion and higher quality overall than slower ones. In portraiture, resolution isn't necessarily a good thing because every skin blemish will show up- the last time I shot an author's image for a text book, the publisher was supposed to Photoshop the files and didn't- I was NOT happy with the results at all because I'd have spent about half an hour on the skin! There are plug-ins that'll do that work though, and still allow you to keep high detail and sharpness in the eyes. They'll also allow you to shoot in lower light when it's necessary, such as when your flash batteries go out.
[/QUOTE]
Paul
Paul[/QUOTE]
I will start with one and then will add more probably next year as I'm going to USA so will get it cheaper there then.
So, if I take lens that is 2.8 and then another that is 4.5 and I set them both to f9 does it mean that the 2.8 will be sharper etc.? Because up until this point I thought that those numbers meant how low you can go with the f number (so 2.8 will go to 2.8 and 4.5 will only go to 4.5) and then if you set it up to something higher (lets say f9) then the result from both lenses is identical (maybe slight difference in better quality of glass but nothing else). Did i then completely misunderstood the concept?
I thought that you get lower number only if you want to have the blurred background etc. but if one shoots in f9 (lets say) then its wasted money.
Now I'm confused or was confused before
So, if I take lens that is 2.8 and then another that is 4.5 and I set them both to f9 does it mean that the 2.8 will be sharper etc.? Because up until this point I thought that those numbers meant how low you can go with the f number (so 2.8 will go to 2.8 and 4.5 will only go to 4.5) and then if you set it up to something higher (lets say f9) then the result from both lenses is identical (maybe slight difference in better quality of glass but nothing else). Did i then completely misunderstood the concept?
I thought that you get lower number only if you want to have the blurred background etc. but if one shoots in f9 (lets say) then its wasted money.
Now I'm confused or was confused before
That is the main difference, but lenses made for larger apertures like 2.8 and 1.4 have to be constructed better, so you'll generally see better image quality even at f/5.6-f/8 after which diffraction is likely the bigger differentiator.
Paul
Ah, ok. So my initial knowledge was correct. Good to know.
And thank you for reiterating it for me.
I think I will sell the kit 18-105 and will get the 28-300 so that should cover pretty much everything, right?
Is the kit 18-105 worth anything decent or is it pretty much just junk for $10? I can see amazon selling it quite high but does anyone buy it?
Anyway, back to original question. I think it will be good to practise now especially as i will be getting the light sets and will experiment with it + new lens and then in 3-4 years I will come back and we can reopen the conversation. Might be fun to see what will happen in those 4 years in the technology.
Maybe iPhone will do video then as D800 does now
))
Depends on your definition of "cover." Just like slow lenses, wide range zooms are also lower quality than short range zooms, so in general, something like a 28-150 and 150-300 will give better overall quality than a 28-300. With that said, most modern lenses are "good enough" for most photographers who aren't shooting specialty subjects like birds.
Is the kit 18-105 worth anything decent or is it pretty much just junk for $10? I can see amazon selling it quite high but does anyone buy it?
It's definitely worth the price- but you'll have to shoot it for yourself under your distance and lighting conditions to say if it's good enough for you. However, I will say that there's a reason that many lenses cost more than the camera bodies they're attached to- if you get picky, it gets expensive quite quickly!
Anyway, back to original question. I think it will be good to practise now especially as i will be getting the light sets and will experiment with it + new lens and then in 3-4 years I will come back and we can reopen the conversation. Might be fun to see what will happen in those 4 years in the technology.
Maybe iPhone will do video then as D800 does now
You have to go in leaps of 10-15 years for the technology to make enough difference that the person behind the camera doesn't make as much difference, and that's generally for challenging situations like low light
Paul
Instead of buying an SB910, consider buying the cheaper SB700 then spending the spare cash on 2 used SB24s. That way you have the ttl option when you use the SB700 on-camera, but for the same price you also have far more flexibility than the single SB910 can provide.
You asked about weddings - I am a wedding & portrait photographer, my flash kit includes: two SB24s, an SB26, an SB28 and an SB700. I never use nikon's CLS / iTTL with off-camera flashes, so I have never found this kit limiting. To buy five SB900s would have cost a small fortune.
You asked about weddings - I am a wedding & portrait photographer, my flash kit includes: two SB24s, an SB26, an SB28 and an SB700. I never use nikon's CLS / iTTL with off-camera flashes, so I have never found this kit limiting. To buy five SB900s would have cost a small fortune.
Great advice, I sold my SB910's and went the same direction. But have added Profoto Air's since going medium format.
Most important difference is the AF. The D610 has a DX-AF module with a tiny coverage, the D800 the 51 field pro AF. Image quality is the same. If you don't have crazy-sharp lenses like the 14-24 2.8, the 60mm micro, the 85mm PCE or stuff like that, you won't notice the 36 vs 24 mpixel. And there is the feel. I think the D610 is too tiny and light. But others like that.
I like the 28-300 on a D800 because it's a versatile lens and can also do pretty good close-ups. I use it as my walking-around lens and when the D800 and my other lenses are stored in the hard case, I always have the 28-300 fitted. The reason is that if I have to grab and shoot, the odds favor my being able to do what I need to with the 28-300.
But -- and we're in high-price land here -- the 70-200 f/2.8 is maybe the finest glass I've ever used, and I've been buying Nikon lenses since 1965. It's just a fabulous lens. I've never done a blind test but I feel confident that if I were looking at a 28-300 image and a 70-200 image, same focal length, same aperture, I could tell the difference.
In the old days I sometimes got to borrow a Leica M3 with a Summicron 50 on it. Again, no blind test but in the darkroom those Summicron negatives were so easy to work with. They just popped, in comparison to the Nikon 50 mm f/1.4. The 70-200 in Lightroom feels the same way to me.
I had to borrow money to get the D800/70-200 but I've never regretted it. I already had the 14-24 f/2.8 for wides, and an older 85 f/1.4 for portraits and general low-light stuff.
I say that if you can get the money together, get the D800 and then go ahead with the 28-300. You can pick up a fast prime later.
But -- and we're in high-price land here -- the 70-200 f/2.8 is maybe the finest glass I've ever used, and I've been buying Nikon lenses since 1965. It's just a fabulous lens. I've never done a blind test but I feel confident that if I were looking at a 28-300 image and a 70-200 image, same focal length, same aperture, I could tell the difference.
In the old days I sometimes got to borrow a Leica M3 with a Summicron 50 on it. Again, no blind test but in the darkroom those Summicron negatives were so easy to work with. They just popped, in comparison to the Nikon 50 mm f/1.4. The 70-200 in Lightroom feels the same way to me.
I had to borrow money to get the D800/70-200 but I've never regretted it. I already had the 14-24 f/2.8 for wides, and an older 85 f/1.4 for portraits and general low-light stuff.
I say that if you can get the money together, get the D800 and then go ahead with the 28-300. You can pick up a fast prime later.
Nikon didn't say. It looks like what they've done in the past ..like with the D40 and D70. Some of the D600 users did not have any problems with their cameras. The D600 is a good deal if you can find one that didn't have the problems. Plus from what I've been reading, after 5k actuations you see less of the oil/dust. I think with a lot of people posting on the web, it seems like it was more of a problem than it actually was.
I'm sure they will clean it up the damage control or they will be loosing a lot of users.
This isn't quite right. The D600's autofocus isn't as awesome as the D800's, but still isn't bad. Low light autofocus is pretty good too compared to the Canon's.
The D600 noise in low light is much better than the D800!
One thing you should remember though - if you want to improve your images, invest in better lenses. The extra $1000 you'd spend on the D800 could be spent on a great lens instead.
If you've got no limits on your budget, then by all means go the D800. But then you may as well consider the new Df, which has the D4's sensor, and is a true low-light king!