[rameshnanda]

Originally Posted by ampere

Any particular reasons for an upgrade? Because if not into serious photography, do you really need that as an upgrade is the question.

My take : slowly you should build lens fire power. Unless and until you push the limits of your current camera to extreme, you should not feel the need to upgrade. (If I remember through one of your TLs, you have a D7000 right? )

Of course you know your needs better. But just trying to make the point that don't go for an upgrade till you have not pushed your current camera to the maximum.

I have a 4 year old 550D Canon. I am still OK with it for landscapes and other snaps. But I built up on lens based on checking out my own shooting profile preferences.

No Amp. I am not looking at upgrading immediately and totally agree with your point of exploring the limit of my current camera.

Originally Posted by R2D2

Most importantly I fully agree with what ampere has stated below - upgrade only if you must, not coz you want the latest and greatest, and before upgrading the body, upgrade/invest in better lenses. If you have a D7K with DX lenses, you'd be better of purchasing FX lenses which can be expensive rather than buying a Df. The camera body should be the last to be upgraded.

Thanks. After I got D7000, the only DX lens I have is 35mm and the 11-16 Tokina. My 24-85 and 70-300 are FX lenses.

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by rameshnanda

Thanks. After I got D7000, the only DX lens I have is 35mm and the 11-16 Tokina. My 24-85 and 70-300 are FX lenses.

The 24-85 and 70-300 (assuming it's the VR II version) are good enough to start with, but you could get better ones to work with a D800. The D800/E is pretty sensitive to the quality of glass. Just IMO of course.

Ok, let me throw this whole thing for a loop, IF and a very big IF you are serious about a full frame camera, consider getting a D610. You will get a very good FX camera and save money. Use the money you save for some renowned lenses like the 24-70 F/2.8 and/or the delicious 70-200 F/4 or 70-200 F/2.8. Not right away...maybe some day down the line.

With a 24MP D610 you wont be bogged down by the massive files the D800/E can generate, saving still more on a possible PC upgrade. Trust me, you will be happier overall. The camera body should be the last on your upgrade list.

BTW, Nikon is offering rebates on camera + lens combinations right here in India...no I am not smoking any strange substance. Looky here:

http://www.nikon.co.in/en_IN/about/e...nikon&Section=

Good luck!

[rameshnanda]

Originally Posted by R2D2

The 24-85 and 70-300 (assuming it's the VR II version) are good enough to start with, but you could get better ones to work with a D800. The D800/E is pretty sensitive to the quality of glass. Just IMO of course.

Ok, let me throw this whole thing for a loop, IF and a very big IF you are serious about a full frame camera, consider getting a D610. You will get a very good FX camera and save money. Use the money you save for some renowned lenses like the 24-70 F/2.8 and/or the delicious 70-200 F/4 or 70-200 F/2.8. Not right away...maybe some day down the line.

With a 24MP D610 you wont be bogged down by the massive files the D800/E can generate, saving still more on a possible PC upgrade. Trust me, you will be happier overall. The camera body should be the last on your upgrade list.

BTW, Nikon is offering rebates on camera + lens combinations right here in India...no I am not smoking any strange substance. Looky here:

http://www.nikon.co.in/en_IN/about/e...nikon&Section=

Good luck!

Thanks again R2D2. Yes, I have the VR version of 24-85 and 70-300.

A dealer in Chennai offered me the Df at 1.55 and D800 at 1.56. That is the reason for me to get tempted. Anyway, I have now decided to put this on hold for now and instead get a good FX glass as you suggested.

[ampere]

Originally Posted by rameshnanda

A dealer in Chennai offered me the Df at 1.55 and D800 at 1.56. That is the reason for me to get tempted. Anyway, I have now decided to put this on hold for now and instead get a good FX glass as you suggested.

Started with Kit lens. In 6 months, got the 50mm prime when I realised I needed to get portraits in low light. Played a lot with that lens. In another six months, I realised I need a telephoto. Some suggested 55-250 while some 70-300. Ditched both and bought the 70-200 F4 IS L. Did not repent that decision one bit, as I am not into birding and 200mm is more than enough for me. 70-200 was perfect all round walk-though lens. Awesome glass. Still having a great time with that lens. Another six months to one year down the line, I realised 18mm of the 18-55 is not wide enough. Needed an Ultra Wide angle. Invested in a 10-22. So my outdoors were well taken care off with 10-22 and 70-200.

Though 10-22 is an APSC mount and 17-40 would have been nice, but since I am on an APSC body thought other wise. 3 years down the line felt need for aspects. Firstly was not satisfied with 50mm portraits. Was looking for something better. But 50mm 1.4/1.2 or 35mm were not solving my needs. Rudra gave a perfect class on how to get the 50mm work for oneself. Esp. the lens and its working length. At the same time, I was also looking out for macro learning capabilities. Combined the two and ended up buying the 100mm Macro IS L. Initially thought of non-L and then bought the L because of IS and could get it for good portraits as well. 100mm Macro is a super performer and in many cases, I use it more often than 70-200 in the outdoors too. Brilliant portraits on the outdoors.

But with all this not one for instant felt my 550D is under-performing. True its ISO performance beyond 400/800 is not all that great. But for such cases I think spending a 30K on a flash would better than the 1/1.5L FF frame new body. To summarise perfectly at peace with current set-up.

The other significant investment I think which is paramount is setting you work flow very clean. It should be seamless and also lend itself to back-ups. Else all the work can go down the drain. With that aspect I am on MAC with Aperture (LR like). May be its not that great compared to Adobe. But with integration to all the filters, it works seamlessly. I don't know if there many Aperture users out there.

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by rameshnanda

A dealer in Chennai offered me the Df at 1.55 and D800 at 1.56. That is the reason for me to get tempted. Anyway, I have now decided to put this on hold for now and instead get a good FX glass as you suggested.

With a minor difference like that I'd definitely take a D800. The Df doesn't quite float my boat.

From your current set of lenses me thinks you are into landscapes, walk-about & people photos. If that's true the 70-200 F/4 and/or 24-70 F/2.8 will bring a smile to your face.

If you want to have only one good lens it's the 24-120 F/4. Classic walk about lens.

Between the 3 suggestions my order of purchase would be:

a) 24-70 (this is also the most expensive)
b)70-200
c) 24-120

Hope this helps!

Cheers!

[Aroy]

Originally Posted by rameshnanda

......
A dealer in Chennai offered me the Df at 1.55 and D800 at 1.56. That is the reason for me to get tempted. Anyway, I have now decided to put this on hold for now and instead get a good FX glass as you suggested.

Inspite of the lucrative price, I would still recommend the D610, and your dealer may have it at a lucrative price also. The sensor is as good and the files smaller, so unless you need 36MP for large prints or severe cropping, the 610 is a better proposition. Add a 300mmF4+TC1.4 and you have a perfect hand holdable wild life rig.

[amitoj]

Originally Posted by amitoj

But latest CC version has a filter that is supposed to treat camera shake as well (although however i tried i could not get it to work on the trial version that i have).

I had posted in Adobe Support forums about this problem and got a reply the very next day by an Adobe staff member! Amazing support! I am a fan!

[Unknownsatan]

Hi all,

I use a 600D and is looking for a lens now. Now I have seen 2:
1. 18-200 (Tamron)
2. 55-250 (Canon)

Pricewise not there is not much diff
200-250 range may not matter much for me
I am inclined to 18-200 because otherwise I have to keep changing lens.

Now my question is, is there any difference in the picture quality taken in the range of 55-200 with both these lenses?

[rameshnanda]

Originally Posted by Aroy

Inspite of the lucrative price, I would still recommend the D610, and your dealer may have it at a lucrative price also.

Got a call from my dealer today. He offered me the following prices.

D610 - 1.06
D800 - 1.48
Df - 1.515

[Aroy]

Originally Posted by rameshnanda

Got a call from my dealer today. He offered me the following prices.

D610 - 1.06
D800 - 1.48
Df - 1.515

Go for the D610. 24MP is more than enough resolution and 2 SD cards are, in my opinion, better than 1 SD and 1CF card. The 610 has 2 User modes, which are lacking in the 800. User modes let you save setting.

[rameshnanda]

Originally Posted by R2D2

Between the 3 suggestions my order of purchase would be:

a) 24-70 (this is also the most expensive)
b)70-200
c) 24-120

Hope this helps!

Cheers!

If I get the 24-70, why would I need the 24-120? I think 24-70 (with 70-300 or 70-200) would do the job well.

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by rameshnanda

If I get the 24-70, why would I need the 24-120? I think 24-70 (with 70-300 or 70-200) would do the job well.

The 24-70 is a f/2.8 and the 24-120 is a f/4. The former lens weighs 900g and latter 670g. Choose any one of them. To quote:

If you want to have only one good lens it's the 24-120 F/4. Classic walk about lens.

[ampere]

Originally Posted by rameshnanda

If I get the 24-70, why would I need the 24-120? I think 24-70 (with 70-300 or 70-200) would do the job well.

Same Confusion in Canon World.

24-70, 24-105, 70-200. (All L series). And on top Canon has multiple flavours of F stops.

24-70 F2.8/F4
24-105 F4
72-200 : F4zF/2.8 IS/no-IS (IS is VR in Nikon world)

Why should one buy 24-70 F4 compared to 24-105 F4? But one thing is clear. In Canon world 70-200 glass is notches above 70-300. So if one is not interested in the 300 mm range and has the cash, 70-200 is a perfect choice.

[skartik2]

Originally Posted by ampere

Same Confusion in Canon World.

24-70, 24-105, 70-200. (All L series). And on top Canon has multiple flavours of F stops.

24-70 F2.8/F4
24-105 F4
72-200 : F4zF/2.8 IS/no-IS (IS is VR in Nikon world)

Why should one buy 24-70 F4 compared to 24-105 F4? But one thing is clear. In Canon world 70-200 glass is notches above 70-300. So if one is not interested in the 300 mm range and has the cash, 70-200 is a perfect choice.

A low cost alternate to the 24-70 is Tamron 28-75, I bought it and very pleased, tack sharp.

[anujmishra]

Originally Posted by ampere

---
In Canon world 70-200 glass is notches above 70-300. So if one is not interested in the 300 mm range and has the cash, 70-200 is a perfect choice.

I agree 100%. But, I want to add more into it. Canon/Nikon 70-200 are insanely priced. You can get better alternatives in Tamron/Sigma. I have already got Sigma 70-200 F2.0 OS and quite pleased with its sharpness & performance. It costed me less than 50% of equivalent Canon. Two pages back I posted image of my 70-200 F2.8 OS (IS, VR, OIS, VC)