I need help with cameras and lenses

[TheGermanEngie]

Hi everyone -

 

Currently am thinking to upgrade from my Nikon D3400 to a mid range DSLR with more capabilities. I've explored the limits of my camera's manual and priority modes and am looking for something a little more complex with more technological flexibility. My current lens is a 40mm macro which I also use for portraits. I'm also planning to get a Nikon 18-180mm.

 

Should I invest in better glass for better sharpness/color reproduction or spend money on a new body, like a D5600 or switch to Canon? I know quality of glass can make a big difference in picture quality but a beginner DSLR body can only go so far.. I need help.

[bloodthirster]

If you like the Canon ecosystem better, go Canon.  Personally, I'm a Nikon guy.   Only you can make that choice.  Both manufacturers have goods and bad bodies and lenses.   Just remember, once you start investing in glass, the harder it is to switch.

 

What do you mean by explored the limits your your camera's manual and priority modes?  It's hard to go on vague terms.  Do you want better AF, better high ISO performance, better camera ergonomics/buttons, etc?  If you can provide more details about what you want, that makes it much easier to help you. 

 

What's your budget?  Used cameras are also an option.  Assuming youre not photographing squirrels on crack(where stupidly good AF is needed) a D700's output still looks awesome (you can easily print 8x10s with it too).  In fact, while I have a nice new camera, I'm still lusting over a D4s...  There are some real gems to be had in the used market.

 

As general saying is that you date your cameras but marry your glass.   A good lens will stick with you while bodies come and go much.  Either lenses everything is a trade off.  Assuming everything is the same, having a 24-70 and 70-200 will give you better results that a 24-200 for example.  Things like longer zoom range, weight, size, f stop, all are variable can make it harder to make a good IQ lens.  That's why primes are still popular today because zooms still can't provide the image quality of a good prime (mainly lower glass count).   You might not care a lot about IQ (which is fine), but being aware of the lens trade offs is never bad. 

 

Sorry for the info dump. 

[cc143]

If you are gonna stick with nikon there's no point going for a d5600, I mean the d3400 is a fairly recent body and has a lot in common with the d5600, so while it might seem like an upgrade it isn't that substantial. With nikon I always say avoid the d3x00 and d5x00 series outright and get something with an in body AF motor. So if I were you I'd look at a used d7200, d7500, d750, d610, something along those lines. 

 

Definitely avoid the 18-180mm, its a great range but you are sacrificing IQ and honestly, given the crop factor, anything north of 100mm on that lens will be redundant. I find that a 24-120mm is probably the most necessary and versatile focal length if you only want 1 lens with you, since the tradeoff is much less and the range is still very useable. 

 

With Canon what is great is that the lenses are just cheaper while they are as good if not better. I mean we do miss some stuff that the Nikon system has, like a 105mm portrait lens, a 200-500mm, but still, that can be said of nikon too, so its a draw in that respect. What is great though is that there's just so much used Canon glass out there, because so many people jumped ship and because more of it sold that you are getting into a system that will in equivalent terms be much cheaper over the long run, as long s you are happy with current glass. If you wanna go RF, its a whole different story. 

 

Where Canon is often lacking is body technology. They are not incapable by no stretch, but there's better bodies out there depending on what you are looking for. I'd say the entry level stuff is better on the Canon side, I'd certainly go for an 800d over a d5600. And the 1dx2 is a better camera than the D5, but the d500 and d850 are king, hell the d750 is still competitive vs Canon today. 

 

Now, the question is, should you move to full frame? I believe your current macro lens will not be useable on a FF body anyway, and then we do come to the questions above, what are you subjects shooting and what sort of budget do you have? 

[bloodthirster]

2 hours ago, cc143 said:

If you are gonna stick with nikon there's no point going for a d5600, I mean the d3400 is a fairly recent body and has a lot in common with the d5600, so while it might seem like an upgrade it isn't that substantial. With nikon I always say avoid the d3x00 and d5x00 series outright and get something with an in body AF motor. So if I were you I'd look at a used d7200, d7500, d750, d610, something along those lines.  

I'd stay away from the D6X0 series since they've had some issues with the shutter mech throwing oil on the sensor.  A used d7200 is rarely a bad option for that price range.  Those are fairly nice crop sensor bodies.   D700s are too.

 

2 hours ago, cc143 said:

Definitely avoid the 18-180mm, its a great range but you are sacrificing IQ and honestly, given the crop factor, anything north of 100mm on that lens will be redundant. I find that a 24-120mm is probably the most necessary and versatile focal length if you only want 1 lens with you, since the tradeoff is much less and the range is still very useable.  

Agreed other than having a long lens is REALLY nice for things like wildlife and some sport/action.  Even my 300mm with the 2x TC feels super short when I'm birding.

 

2 hours ago, cc143 said:

With Canon what is great is that the lenses are just cheaper while they are as good if not better. I mean we do miss some stuff that the Nikon system has, like a 105mm portrait lens, a 200-500mm, but still, that can be said of nikon too, so its a draw in that respect. What is great though is that there's just so much used Canon glass out there, because so many people jumped ship and because more of it sold that you are getting into a system that will in equivalent terms be much cheaper over the long run, as long s you are happy with current glass. If you wanna go RF, its a whole different story.  

Can you provide some examples of this? Not trying to start a Nikon vs Canon war or anything, but to my knowledge, in lenses the companies often play leap frog.  There are some lenses which both have put out where have been stinkers too.   Each company has things other other doesn't (Canon's 85mm F1/2, Nikon's DC series, etc).

 

A lot of the points you make for Canon also apply just as much or more for Nikon.  There's TONS of old but perfectly awesome f-mount glass, more so than Canon since they changed their mount part way through while Nikon stayed with f-mount.   There's older gems from both companies where if you know what old lens to get (and maybe a slight compromise in some way) you can get REALLY nice glass for not that much money. 

 

2 hours ago, cc143 said:

Where Canon is often lacking is body technology. They are not incapable by no stretch, but there's better bodies out there depending on what you are looking for. I'd say the entry level stuff is better on the Canon side, I'd certainly go for an 800d over a d5600. And the 1dx2 is a better camera than the D5, but the d500 and d850 are king, hell the d750 is still competitive vs Canon today. 

The D5 was never that good (other than low light situations where you ISO is cranked and then it's dynamic range is pretty good) and there's a lot of reasons why the D4s is still as expensive as it is on the used market.  But yes, both companies have good and bad bodies across the price range. 

 

[cc143]

1 hour ago, bloodthirster said:

 

 

Can you provide some examples of this? Not trying to start a Nikon vs Canon war or anything, but to my knowledge, in lenses the companies often play leap frog.  There are some lenses which both have put out where have been stinkers too.   Each company has things other other doesn't (Canon's 85mm F1/2, Nikon's DC series, etc).

 

 

 

Examples? How do you mean? Stuff like the 16-35mm f/2.8, 50mm and 85mm 1.2 135 f/2, 11-24mm f4L, I mean obviously this will usually not apply but still. There's stuff thats close thats unquestionable, but still.

 

Sure Nikon have stuff Canon doesn't, like older D series glass (105mm f/2 etc.), but, that'solder often not as sharp and much more difficult to find in good condition many times because it is still sought after by some people. 

 

If you are looking for examples of sharper glass on the same generation, the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is a great example, so is the 24-70mm f/2.8L, those lenses are sharp as hell and it Nikon only recently updated it, but its still way more expensive than the Canon equivalent, new or used. 

 

Also, that 14-24mm is quite old now, sure Tamron make great and much cheaper alternatives but still.

 

Figures point to there being more EF glass  out there than any other mount (130mn EF lenses by 2017, 110mn F mount lenses by 2017 according to each manufacturers website), I mean you can't really expect all nikon lenses from the 60s to still be alive. Also, some quick research will reveal it does sell for cheaper in the used market. I have from time to time used reputable used market dealers to price out systems to see how much it would take to get a complete kit (Holy trinity, fisheye and 7-8 fast primes) and Canon usually comes at 10-20% discount Vs. Nikon.

 

Its just sad that we don't have a d850;P 

 

EDIT: Yes all companies have stinkers, but at this point, I think either way you go you'll be fine, you can get a very complete kit for either with excellent glass. 

[LyondellBasell]

8 hours ago, TheGermanEngie said:

Hi everyone -

 

Currently am thinking to upgrade from my Nikon D3400 to a mid range DSLR with more capabilities. I've explored the limits of my camera's manual and priority modes and am looking for something a little more complex with more technological flexibility. My current lens is a 40mm macro which I also use for portraits. I'm also planning to get a Nikon 18-180mm.

 

Should I invest in better glass for better sharpness/color reproduction or spend money on a new body, like a D5600 or switch to Canon? I know quality of glass can make a big difference in picture quality but a beginner DSLR body can only go so far.. I need help.

I can directly empathise, I started with a Canon t6i (roughly the d3400's equivalent, at 24mpix APS-C sensor).

 

I'd like to suggest with picking up some superior lenses before upgrading bodies as an upgrade path, and here's why:

 

A body upgrade might give you features such as better weather sealing, faster AF, or a larger sensor. But for most, everyday scenarios, these features aren't necessary. Better camera bodies aren't going to offer a major step up in complexity as far as controlling the light with aperture, shutter speed, and ISO. 

 

Superior quality lenses can offer you a marked increase in capability and quality. Look at getting a fast 85mm for portraiture, and whatever the Nikon equivalent to Canon's 16-35 f2.8 III is. Not only will you be able to see more of the detail that your sensor can offer, but you'll be able to achieve different creative effects depending on your lens choice.

 

Build out a library of quality lenses and work through the creative opportunities those afford you before moving on from bodies, I collected L lenses for years with my t6i before moving to a full-frame. You won't regret it.

[TheGermanEngie]

On 2/19/2019 at 9:47 AM, bloodthirster said:

If you like the Canon ecosystem better, go Canon.  Personally, I'm a Nikon guy.   Only you can make that choice.  Both manufacturers have goods and bad bodies and lenses.   Just remember, once you start investing in glass, the harder it is to switch.

 

What do you mean by explored the limits your your camera's manual and priority modes?  It's hard to go on vague terms.  Do you want better AF, better high ISO performance, better camera ergonomics/buttons, etc?  If you can provide more details about what you want, that makes it much easier to help you. 

 

What's your budget?  Used cameras are also an option.  Assuming youre not photographing squirrels on crack(where stupidly good AF is needed) a D700's output still looks awesome (you can easily print 8x10s with it too).  In fact, while I have a nice new camera, I'm still lusting over a D4s...  There are some real gems to be had in the used market.

 

As general saying is that you date your cameras but marry your glass.   A good lens will stick with you while bodies come and go much.  Either lenses everything is a trade off.  Assuming everything is the same, having a 24-70 and 70-200 will give you better results that a 24-200 for example.  Things like longer zoom range, weight, size, f stop, all are variable can make it harder to make a good IQ lens.  That's why primes are still popular today because zooms still can't provide the image quality of a good prime (mainly lower glass count).   You might not care a lot about IQ (which is fine), but being aware of the lens trade offs is never bad. 

 

Sorry for the info dump. 

You make a very good point. Date your cameras, marry your glass. I recently had my portrait taken for high school and the photographer had a fairly recent Nikon full frame body but used a 35 year old lens. He printed it out on an 8x10, sharp as a TACK. So I may invest in better glass and work on my ability to physically get a better grip on my camera rather than spend money on a new body. Thanks for the dump.

 

On 2/19/2019 at 6:14 PM, LyondellBasell said:

I can directly empathise, I started with a Canon t6i (roughly the d3400's equivalent, at 24mpix APS-C sensor).

 

I'd like to suggest with picking up some superior lenses before upgrading bodies as an upgrade path, and here's why:

 

A body upgrade might give you features such as better weather sealing, faster AF, or a larger sensor. But for most, everyday scenarios, these features aren't necessary. Better camera bodies aren't going to offer a major step up in complexity as far as controlling the light with aperture, shutter speed, and ISO. 

 

Superior quality lenses can offer you a marked increase in capability and quality. Look at getting a fast 85mm for portraiture, and whatever the Nikon equivalent to Canon's 16-35 f2.8 III is. Not only will you be able to see more of the detail that your sensor can offer, but you'll be able to achieve different creative effects depending on your lens choice.

 

Build out a library of quality lenses and work through the creative opportunities those afford you before moving on from bodies, I collected L lenses for years with my t6i before moving to a full-frame. You won't regret it.

Well I guess I know what I'm saving my money for now. Quality glass here I come. Thank you for the advice!

 

On 2/19/2019 at 11:22 AM, cc143 said:

If you are gonna stick with nikon there's no point going for a d5600, I mean the d3400 is a fairly recent body and has a lot in common with the d5600, so while it might seem like an upgrade it isn't that substantial. With nikon I always say avoid the d3x00 and d5x00 series outright and get something with an in body AF motor. So if I were you I'd look at a used d7200, d7500, d750, d610, something along those lines. 

 

Definitely avoid the 18-180mm, its a great range but you are sacrificing IQ and honestly, given the crop factor, anything north of 100mm on that lens will be redundant. I find that a 24-120mm is probably the most necessary and versatile focal length if you only want 1 lens with you, since the tradeoff is much less and the range is still very useable. 

 

With Canon what is great is that the lenses are just cheaper while they are as good if not better. I mean we do miss some stuff that the Nikon system has, like a 105mm portrait lens, a 200-500mm, but still, that can be said of nikon too, so its a draw in that respect. What is great though is that there's just so much used Canon glass out there, because so many people jumped ship and because more of it sold that you are getting into a system that will in equivalent terms be much cheaper over the long run, as long s you are happy with current glass. If you wanna go RF, its a whole different story. 

 

Where Canon is often lacking is body technology. They are not incapable by no stretch, but there's better bodies out there depending on what you are looking for. I'd say the entry level stuff is better on the Canon side, I'd certainly go for an 800d over a d5600. And the 1dx2 is a better camera than the D5, but the d500 and d850 are king, hell the d750 is still competitive vs Canon today. 

 

Now, the question is, should you move to full frame? I believe your current macro lens will not be useable on a FF body anyway, and then we do come to the questions above, what are you subjects shooting and what sort of budget do you have? 

I mainly do portraits/street. The max I'd spend is $200-300 for a lens, I emphasize sharpness the most. So probably in the 15-40 range.

[LyondellBasell]

1 hour ago, TheGermanEngie said:

I mainly do portraits/street. The max I'd spend is $200-300 for a lens, I emphasize sharpness the most. So probably in the 15-40 range.

I do understand that it can definitely hurt the wallet, but the $700-1k range is really where the getting gets good.

You can pick up a used copy of a Sigma 85mm 1.4 Art for $850ish. It's a pro-grade lens that will annihilate backgrounds and produce some of the sharpest images you'll ever see. If you've ever wanted to see how razor-fine eyelashes can get, premium lenses are your friends.

[bloodthirster]

4 hours ago, cc143 said:

Examples? How do you mean? Stuff like the 16-35mm f/2.8, 50mm and 85mm 1.2 135 f/2, 11-24mm f4L, I mean obviously this will usually not apply but still. There's stuff thats close thats unquestionable, but still. 

 

Side note: Nikon has as 135mm F/2 DC which is awesome~  It's one of the ones on the to get list.

 

4 hours ago, cc143 said:

Sure Nikon have stuff Canon doesn't, like older D series glass (105mm f/2 etc.), but, that'solder often not as sharp and much more difficult to find in good condition many times because it is still sought after by some people.  

 

There's some stinky D series glass, but there's a lot of good D series glass that works really well.  You can often fine good glass in good condition from Japan.   They generally take really good of their lenses.  I got a 85mm f/2.8 that looks pretty much well brand new.

 

4 hours ago, cc143 said:

If you are looking for examples of sharper glass on the same generation, the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is a great example, so is the 24-70mm f/2.8L, those lenses are sharp as hell and it Nikon only recently updated it, but its still way more expensive than the Canon equivalent, new or used.  

The FL actually leap frogged the Canon 70-200.  Not saying it's cheap but it's better for more money.  But the VR II just wasn't that good as far as IQ goes.    The 24-70 G is pretty good.

 

4 hours ago, cc143 said:

Also, that 14-24mm is quite old now, sure Tamron make great and much cheaper alternatives but still. 

Old but still is a wonderful lens.  The only reason I only the 15-30 is because it's cheaper but both is still really good lenses.

 

4 hours ago, cc143 said:

Figures point to there being more EF glass  out there than any other mount (130mn EF lenses by 2017, 110mn F mount lenses by 2017 according to each manufacturers website), I mean you can't really expect all nikon lenses from the 60s to still be alive. Also, some quick research will reveal it does sell for cheaper in the used market. I have from time to time used reputable used market dealers to price out systems to see how much it would take to get a complete kit (Holy trinity, fisheye and 7-8 fast primes) and Canon usually comes at 10-20% discount Vs. Nikon. 

  

Its just sad that we don't have a d850;P  

 

EDIT: Yes all companies have stinkers, but at this point, I think either way you go you'll be fine, you can get a very complete kit for either with excellent glass.  

-shrugs-  We might have to agree to disagree. 

[bloodthirster]

1 hour ago, TheGermanEngie said:

I mainly do portraits/street. The max I'd spend is $200-300 for a lens, I emphasize sharpness the most. So probably in the 15-40 range. 

 

He's rather opinionated but his recommendations are pretty spot on.  As a note, with the D3X00 series bodies, AF and D series lenses will be manual focus only (the bodies don't have motors in them to drive the lenses).   Sadly I'm not that well versed on DX lenses at your price point (or at all, really), so this is the best I can do.  I've heard the 35mm f/1.8 DX lens is really good though and can be bought used pretty cheaply.

[cc143]

On 2/19/2019 at 7:53 PM, UncleJarvis said:

-snip-

You should probably stick to primes then, in which case, Nikon has some excellent older D series glass like the 105 f/2 I mentioned earlier. In which case though, you'd really benefit from a body with an in body AF motor. 

 

Side note, on the Canon side there's the 85mm f/1.8 and 28mm f/1.8 USM which are within that range and actually pretty great for the money. 

 

unfortunately short of spending the money on a used 5d3, there's not much that you can buy that will be significant enough an upgrade, so I'd probably stick with Nikon, just an older used body with an AF motor.

On 2/19/2019 at 8:08 PM, bloodthirster said:

 

Side note: Nikon has as 135mm F/2 DC which is awesome~  It's one of the ones on the to get list.

 

 

There's some stinky D series glass, but there's a lot of good D series glass that works really well.  You can often fine good glass in good condition from Japan.   They generally take really good of their lenses.  I got a 85mm f/2.8 that looks pretty much well brand new.

 

The FL actually leap frogged the Canon 70-200.  Not saying it's cheap but it's better for more money.  But the VR II just wasn't that good as far as IQ goes.    The 24-70 G is pretty good.

 

Old but still is a wonderful lens.  The only reason I only the 15-30 is because it's cheaper but both is still really good lenses.

 

-shrugs-  We might have to agree to disagree. 

I know there's some real D series gems, I was actually looking into getting an F2 for that reason, but it just didn't make sense. The 135 f2L  is unbeatable, sharp as can be, very fast AF and about £500 used (I'm actually really tempted to get one every couple of days.) Its still the undisputed king in the range. 

 

on the last point, disagree on what? That's just numbers, its fact the EF system sold more lenses by this point than the F mount, granted some of it is cine glass, which nikon has (to my knowledge) no equivalent of, but I'm sure just because of age of older lenses even considering that they'd be ahead. I'm not saying you can't find older nikkor lenses in good condition, but as they become older less of them are available. 

 

Also, people are moving out of the EF system like crazy after sony, its usually just those who can afford to spend the money and usually have little to no clue what they are doing beyond a spec sheet, but still. That didn't happen to nikon because their bodies are still competitive tech wise. That is what the used market discount is attributable to. Its less demand for more supply, simple as that.