I got my first DSLR when my daughter was born 12 years ago, it was a Canon Rebel. We got away from using the DSLR camera and just relied on our iPhone's. Now I want to get back into a DSLR camera and I am looking at the Nikon D610 with a 24-70mm f 2.8 lens. Additionally I want to get the 70-200mm f 2.8 lens when I recover from this initial purchase. Is purchasing a DSLR a lot like buying Apple computers, just buy what's available when the need arises knowing something better is coming? Is the D610 a good option? I've watched a lot of reviews on YouTube. I realize it has some shortcomings in AutoFocus focal points. Is it best to go full frame? Last question. What software do most people use to edit photo's? I use Mac computers, MacBook Air and MacMini. I am sure these questions get asked a lot, so thanks for your response.
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.
New to Digital Photography
- Thread starter bt22
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Since you are coming off of an iPhone then even a good small sensor DSLR would be a step up. I am unsure why you zeroed in on the Nikon D610 (though it is a very good camera to be sure). If you want to be "married" to the Nikon line up, perhaps going with something like a good small sensor Nikon with top quality glass would be a good step up. In this, you can invest more in the glass while learning how to use the DSLR to your advantage.
You never mentioned the type of photography you wish to do and your expectations on out put (would it be for web use or do you plan to make prints and if the latter, how large?).
Many today have opted for mirrorless cameras from makers such as Sony, Fuji and Olympus. The resulting images can be more than impressive. I would suggest doing a bit more homework on this. The lenses tend to stay and people (serious hobbyists) simply get new camera bodies. If you do opt for the smaller sensor Nikon with intention to get to full frame later, consider buying lenses for full frame for your small sensor camera.
As for me, having gone from film (view camera all the way down to Minox), I made the change with my first camera being a Nikon DSLR and now moved on to mirrorless which suits my needs perfectly.
You never mentioned the type of photography you wish to do and your expectations on out put (would it be for web use or do you plan to make prints and if the latter, how large?).
Many today have opted for mirrorless cameras from makers such as Sony, Fuji and Olympus. The resulting images can be more than impressive. I would suggest doing a bit more homework on this. The lenses tend to stay and people (serious hobbyists) simply get new camera bodies. If you do opt for the smaller sensor Nikon with intention to get to full frame later, consider buying lenses for full frame for your small sensor camera.
As for me, having gone from film (view camera all the way down to Minox), I made the change with my first camera being a Nikon DSLR and now moved on to mirrorless which suits my needs perfectly.
There are a lot DSLR to chose from. You will have to look at what you basically want to shoot with. D610 is a nice purchase for someone who doesn't want to pay a lot for a full frame camera. The Nikon D700 is still an excellent buy. You really only need one Autofocus point. Its a nice perk to have more than one especially when tracking a subject. Remember you can purchase used lenses if you are also trying to get the 70-200mm lens.
One of the main reasons people go full frame is that they want something close to a SLR film camera. What you see is what you get type of shooting. Go with the D610 if that's what you want.
One of the main reasons people go full frame is that they want something close to a SLR film camera. What you see is what you get type of shooting. Go with the D610 if that's what you want.
Nikon D750 shooter her, and I have both the lenses you mention. I got them for a fraction of their true value through work. Tbh the 70-200 stays at home a lot due to the weight. I tend to favour the 70-300 3.5-5.6. Not quite as good, but hardly noticeable drop in IQ for the reduced weight.
It really depends on what you want to shoot, but my big hands prefer the layout of controls on a DSLR to the smaller cameras I've looked at.
In terms of software, Lightroom is the most common and is what I use.
It really depends on what you want to shoot, but my big hands prefer the layout of controls on a DSLR to the smaller cameras I've looked at.
In terms of software, Lightroom is the most common and is what I use.
Having just bought my iMac, I have no answers on software.
Re cameras, are you sure you want an SLR? I have spent nearly a decade with SLR-type cameras mainly using single superzoom lens, the quality of which is always regarded as a compromise. Latterly I had 2 lens to give me a good range with superior quality. But, for me, the hassle factor and weight are just too big a price to pay. I now have the Panasonic FZ1000 25-400mm equivalent all-in-one, with 1inch sensor. Love it. See http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz1000
Indeed, dpreview is probably the better place to get advice, at least on your choice of camera.
Re cameras, are you sure you want an SLR? I have spent nearly a decade with SLR-type cameras mainly using single superzoom lens, the quality of which is always regarded as a compromise. Latterly I had 2 lens to give me a good range with superior quality. But, for me, the hassle factor and weight are just too big a price to pay. I now have the Panasonic FZ1000 25-400mm equivalent all-in-one, with 1inch sensor. Love it. See http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz1000
Indeed, dpreview is probably the better place to get advice, at least on your choice of camera.
Not a lot to add here other than to ask yourself "why do I want a DSLR?".
Mirrorless and m43 have come a LONG way in the past 12 years. As someone returning, are you thinking DSLR as it is what you went for for a good camera back then? or do you specifically want/need a DSLR?
I would take a look at Sony, Fuji, Olympus and explore the market a bit more before laying down cash on an expensive DSLR.
Mirrorless and m43 have come a LONG way in the past 12 years. As someone returning, are you thinking DSLR as it is what you went for for a good camera back then? or do you specifically want/need a DSLR?
I would take a look at Sony, Fuji, Olympus and explore the market a bit more before laying down cash on an expensive DSLR.
Could not agree more. If you want 35mm based mirrorless look at Sony and Fuji systems. The wife and I sold all our Canon 35mm equipment and went Micro Four Thirds using Olympus equipment. It smaller, lighter, and much less expensive compared to 35mm DSLR equipment.
I want to be able to take good pics as we travel to different locals. Also our daughter is getting involved in school sports such as softball, volleyball and cheerleading. As stated we've been using the iPhone mainly due to convenience. We went to Disney a few years ago and the DSLR was a pain to carry around. So I do struggle with this idea. I just need the ability to zoom which the iPhone does not offer. I figured if I was going to invest that kind of money in glass I might as well get a full frame body as there's not a whole lot of difference in cost of the body, cropped vs full frame. If I need a big lens to zoom I don't think having the smaller mirror less body will make that much difference really. I realize the trend is mirror less but I think you have more options with traditional SLR cameras. Thanks for everyone's responses. I am struggling with is this the right decision.
I know what you mean. I've played with mirror less but it just isn't my thing. Currently I'm using my iPhone for daily snaps if I need something quickly and my DSLR for anything more serious where I need proper zoom, DR, use of quality glass etc.
You are right about the cropped vs full frame body cost. If you know you will eventually invest in quality glass, full frame is still the way to go.
You are right about the cropped vs full frame body cost. If you know you will eventually invest in quality glass, full frame is still the way to go.
Generally speaking, a full frame DSLR will offer the best in terms of image quality and flexibility, however...
I'm guessing that was the Canon Rebel with perhaps a kits lens? Remember that the set-up you're now describing is bigger and much heavier. Great gear for sure but it hasn't gotten any easier to carry.
I'm guessing that was the Canon Rebel with perhaps a kits lens? Remember that the set-up you're now describing is bigger and much heavier. Great gear for sure but it hasn't gotten any easier to carry.
You might look at the SONY a7 form factor.
Small body, BIG performance.
Small body, BIG performance.
In a way, I'm glad I'm committed (for the moment) to the Nikon FF system. It means I don't have to make this decision...which I think is a tough one if you are looking for a long term decision. I'll add my .02 though. After going from a crop sensor Nikon to a FF the only reason I can see using the DX anymore is for the extra reach (1.5x crop). If saving money was the big motivator I'd go M43. Weight too I guess....but I can tell you that my D750 with the 50mm 1.8 on it is ridiculously light. Not as light as a Sony A7R II but a featherweight compared to my D90.
At the moment my biggest "issue" with the FF DSLR is the size and weight of quality glass (not the body). Most of the time I don't mind lugging it. In certain situations I do want high quality + small size and weight. One day I might add a mirrorless to the arsenal. For now it's the D750 with the 50mm or the 24-85 f/2.8-4.
In the end, handle as many different setups as you can and see what feels best for how you want to use it. I rented when I was deciding on a FF body and in the end chose the D750 over the D610 because it was lighter and felt better in my hands. (and as a bonus it has a better focus system and does better at high ISO).
At the moment my biggest "issue" with the FF DSLR is the size and weight of quality glass (not the body). Most of the time I don't mind lugging it. In certain situations I do want high quality + small size and weight. One day I might add a mirrorless to the arsenal. For now it's the D750 with the 50mm or the 24-85 f/2.8-4.
In the end, handle as many different setups as you can and see what feels best for how you want to use it. I rented when I was deciding on a FF body and in the end chose the D750 over the D610 because it was lighter and felt better in my hands. (and as a bonus it has a better focus system and does better at high ISO).
JDDavis thanks for the reply. I have considered the D750. Where I live SAMs and Best Buy are my only options and neither stock any of these camera's. We are planning a trip the end of July and I will try to look when we pass thru Atlanta. We live in a small town in South Alabama so I do not have access to any of these camera's. I am getting recommendations from someone that used to own a camera shop here in town. He actually suggested a cheaper DSLR. I think I would go for a Panasonic GH4 if I went mirror less for the ability to shoot 4K in camera. Not that 4K is important or something I'm looking for
It really depends on what you plan on doing with your camera. There is no right answer without a more specific way you plan to use your camera. Yes the Nikon D610 is a very good camera. With software, lightroom and photoshop are the kings of editing... I personally prefer photoshop and can't stand lightroom.
You shoot a lot of sports? Moving action? You take hundreds of pictures of herons catching fish? Then you need a...
Same here. Bought a "good camera" couple years ago. Canon DSLR and a decent selection of L lenses. Then I realised I never took the camera out the house as it was too c
By the sound of it
Usually the centre point and if you use the focus and recompose method then you are good to go...
Depends on what you want to shoot. I LIKE SLR, and recently got a D750. The 610 is a wonderful camera.
I am not as big a fan of micro4/3 or other mirrorless cameras, including that very nice Sony people are raving over. I like the physical controls and feel of the SLR. Others care less and want the smallest form with the biggest sensor.
The 24-70 F2.8 is excellent. If you feel your shooting needs sharp glass and a full frame sensor, that is not a bad start. Tamron's 24-70 F2.8 with vibration control isn't bad either, and a little bit less money. It gets very nice reviews.
The 70-200 F2.8 is big and heavy. Brace yourself. I found an 80-200 F2.8 for a good price and using that until I am ready to bite on the newer glass. It is also big and heavy, but it was a bit less expensive. I am trying to be better about zooming with my feet.
If you want SLR on a budget, you could get an APSC camera (canon or Nikon) and the Sigma 18-35 F1.8 ART series lens.
I am not as big a fan of micro4/3 or other mirrorless cameras, including that very nice Sony people are raving over. I like the physical controls and feel of the SLR. Others care less and want the smallest form with the biggest sensor.
The 24-70 F2.8 is excellent. If you feel your shooting needs sharp glass and a full frame sensor, that is not a bad start. Tamron's 24-70 F2.8 with vibration control isn't bad either, and a little bit less money. It gets very nice reviews.
The 70-200 F2.8 is big and heavy. Brace yourself. I found an 80-200 F2.8 for a good price and using that until I am ready to bite on the newer glass. It is also big and heavy, but it was a bit less expensive. I am trying to be better about zooming with my feet.
If you want SLR on a budget, you could get an APSC camera (canon or Nikon) and the Sigma 18-35 F1.8 ART series lens.
If you need it that quick then your choices might be limited (though most places ship very quickly these days). Depending on your photography goals on the trip I'd still suggest renting a kit and seeing if it meets your needs. A "cheaper" DSLR like a Nikon D3300 is still a great camera. Even the kit lens takes pretty darn good images. Paired with an 18-300 DX lens you have a pretty good all around package. It's still roughly the same size as a D750 / D610 with a 24-70 on it. Probably a little lighter but just as bulky to carry around. That's why (after owning both a crop DSLR and a FF DSLR) if I was going for smaller and lighter and wanted interchangeable lenses I would probably go for a Sony system (maybe Fuji). The Panasonic is a good camera too (or so I've heard).
If the best possible image quality in the widest possible set of scenarios with the least amount of compromises is your desire than you are not going to get much better than a FF DSLR with pro glass on it (at least when considering portability). If that isn't your ultimate goal then I'd really take a look at the mirror less / M43 offerings over the crop sensor DSLRs if they have the lens choices you are interested in.
If you want to take good quality photos and still shave off some weight from your Canon Rebel experiences, I would definitely look at a mirrorless option. Especially if you're adamant about going full frame.
The only real choices you have there are Leica and Sony. The former is really expensive and the latter can be found for just under a grand.
Now, ASP-C is another choice... It's the same size as the Super35mm cinema format, so it's not lacking in quality. If you're looking for small, Sony makes some good cameras like the a5100 or the a6000. I personally have the 6000 and I find it to be the perfect balance of size, quality and price. I can also adapt a myriad of lenses (I currently own 3 old Minolta MC/MD lenses and I love the smooth look they offer).
There's also the m4/3 system whose sensors are smaller than FF and APS-C, but it's a system with a lot of support and lenses and a big following.
The only real choices you have there are Leica and Sony. The former is really expensive and the latter can be found for just under a grand.
Now, ASP-C is another choice... It's the same size as the Super35mm cinema format, so it's not lacking in quality. If you're looking for small, Sony makes some good cameras like the a5100 or the a6000. I personally have the 6000 and I find it to be the perfect balance of size, quality and price. I can also adapt a myriad of lenses (I currently own 3 old Minolta MC/MD lenses and I love the smooth look they offer).
There's also the m4/3 system whose sensors are smaller than FF and APS-C, but it's a system with a lot of support and lenses and a big following.
Well you hear all sorts of comments that included likes for FF and for smaller sensors. I'll throw one more peanut into the gallery here -
Do you take sports or fast moving action shots?
Do you take shots that are in very low light conditions?
Do you make enlargements bigger than say, 11x14 or 16x20 paper?
Do you prefer physical dials or buttons or happy to dive into menus?
From the above I wont tell you what is your best camera solution but that in your shoes, I would first see what I wanted out of a camera and then start narrowing down.
As an example - DSLR (some models) are ideal for sports and fast motion and mirrorless falls a bit behind though some do compete.
Another example - DSLR doesn't quite have an advantage here anymore as some mirrorless offerings are more than good enough. The gap is closing fast on low light noise handling.
Another example - Assuming your FF is top notch, your lenses and your ability to do post processing, FF would have the advantage on 'uber' large prints. If you print within the above paper sizes, there are both DSLR and mirrorless that would meet your needs as it is a misnomer to say that only FF has excellent optics. Fuji, Zeis/Sony, and others offer some impressive lenses in their catalogue of lenses.
Another example - most digital cameras are for push buttons and menu lovers. Some of us prefer a bit more old school control and that limits the choices in both mirrorless and DSLR, makers like Fuji do pretty good and Nikon's homage tpto the film camera is one solution you might look at.
Last - I was a Nikon guy in film days, and liked also Nikon's DSLR line (still do) but ultimately, for what I like to shoot, the Fuji fit the bill for two reasons - outstanding in camera jpegs along with great RAW files and the handling as well as absolutely excellent optics. There are other makers that have their perks and some lenses that also are outstanding yet not made for FF. My prints rarely go larger than what fits on 11x14 and 16x20 paper and look (according to others) beautiful and amazing.
Do you take sports or fast moving action shots?
Do you take shots that are in very low light conditions?
Do you make enlargements bigger than say, 11x14 or 16x20 paper?
Do you prefer physical dials or buttons or happy to dive into menus?
From the above I wont tell you what is your best camera solution but that in your shoes, I would first see what I wanted out of a camera and then start narrowing down.
As an example - DSLR (some models) are ideal for sports and fast motion and mirrorless falls a bit behind though some do compete.
Another example - DSLR doesn't quite have an advantage here anymore as some mirrorless offerings are more than good enough. The gap is closing fast on low light noise handling.
Another example - Assuming your FF is top notch, your lenses and your ability to do post processing, FF would have the advantage on 'uber' large prints. If you print within the above paper sizes, there are both DSLR and mirrorless that would meet your needs as it is a misnomer to say that only FF has excellent optics. Fuji, Zeis/Sony, and others offer some impressive lenses in their catalogue of lenses.
Another example - most digital cameras are for push buttons and menu lovers. Some of us prefer a bit more old school control and that limits the choices in both mirrorless and DSLR, makers like Fuji do pretty good and Nikon's homage tpto the film camera is one solution you might look at.
Last - I was a Nikon guy in film days, and liked also Nikon's DSLR line (still do) but ultimately, for what I like to shoot, the Fuji fit the bill for two reasons - outstanding in camera jpegs along with great RAW files and the handling as well as absolutely excellent optics. There are other makers that have their perks and some lenses that also are outstanding yet not made for FF. My prints rarely go larger than what fits on 11x14 and 16x20 paper and look (according to others) beautiful and amazing.
yeah You didn't read what I wrote. Sorry. I said you only need one AF point to shoot. I also added "its a nice perk to have more especially when shooting moving objects " Translation - action shots lol
It seems most will comment on what a reviewer said or mentioned about a camera. Lets remember back when there were only a few AF points on the Nikon D80 which is sorta in the same body size as the D610. Having more AF points on the D610 is a perk, its not something that you truly need to capture an image. All you really need is a camera to adjust your aperture and shutter on any SLR to capture an image.