# Not disappointed.. Not satisfied.



## MVPernula (Feb 2, 2018)

Hello guys!

Back again after a few months after asking for help over a potential upgrade from a Nikon D5100 to something more rigid. After some discussion going on with people here on the forums I ended up going for a D7100 and man it's a splendid camera, I like the display by the power button, size and most things with it. 

But I stil had a feeling of "But what is the upgrade here"?
Sure I get more megapixels, I get a bigger camera like I wanted, but aside from that it's basically the same (Yeah more focus points and many other improved specs but you get the general idea). Lenses I put on from my D5100 gives pretty much the same result on this camera.

During my post I was thinking "Well.. I want an FX most of all, but I'll never be able to afford that."
That was apparently just naive thinking since you can get some really nice fx cameras for not too much, I realized this AFTER I bought the D7100 and now I'm looking to sell it so I can get something FX.

My eyes are set on the D800 since they're getting more affordable in the used market, has a whopping 36 megapixel, is FX and seems the be a powerhouse for a hobbyist like me. But cheaper options are also D600, D610 if I want to add a little extra, d700 if I want to get something on the cheapest side in cost of age (not worth it imo since it's getting dated compared to alot of other FX variants). And so on.

What are your thoughts? The used D800 prices are basically as far as I'm willing to go, since I'm selling my D7100 with it's 2 batteries and battery grip for 4500 sek (swedish krona) I'll just add the in-between for the new camera, but I don't want to put a fortune in that.
Is the D600 worth going for since it's significantly cheaper? Heard about some "oil stain problems"? Something with the sensor getting dirty and long service times? Dunno, might've been rumors.

Hit me!
Thanks


----------



## Timppa (Feb 2, 2018)

Have you thought about the D800e ? it has no AA filter, and so it should be sharper, better for landscapes, nature....
the D800 has the AA filter, so it helps to remove moiré in repeating patterns, but it makes the image a bit less sharp.
in the end it comes down to pixel peeping tough.

Remember that going to FX, also requires buying FX glass, and there is where the money goes up!
I was thinking the same, going to a used D800e, but in the end, it depends on what you shoot.
there as some VERY good DX lens options, mostly upgrading to a better lens is better then a new body. (think about a sigma 18-35 1.8,...)


----------



## jaomul (Feb 2, 2018)

You could look at d610, better image quality but less autofocus ability. You could try snag a d800/810 second hand and get improvement all over, better image quality, great autofocus but less FPS if that is important.

If I was buying a Nikon FX right now second hand I'd go d800/810, if I was buying new I'd get a d750 which is basically a d7100 with a fullframe sensor and flippy screen


----------



## MVPernula (Feb 2, 2018)

Timppa said:


> Have you thought about the D800e ? it has no AA filter, and so it should be sharper, better for landscapes, nature....
> the D800 has the AA filter, so it helps to remove moiré in repeating patterns, but it makes the image a bit less sharp.
> in the end it comes down to pixel peeping tough.
> 
> ...


I've looked up the D800e, but it seems to come in short supply in the used marked here in Sweden. It's definetly an option if I can find one, if the price is right of course. +

I'm already buying FX glass since I want all my lenses to be compatible to a possible future FX upgrade, so that's fine.
And I've gotten pretty.. Sick of DX. I guess that's a pretty rough way of saying it but I felt (in my early photography days) that I got robbed of my choices since they weren't completely right. 

"50mm isn't 50mm on DX because DX, it's basically 75mm!"

And I ended up realizing that after I broke the seal on the box, put it on my D5100, and realized it was way more zoomed in than on the cameras I studied with (FX). If I would've known that I would have taken a 35mm and called it a day but that STILL bothers me. Even DX version lenses have this. I know its because of the sensor, but I don't get why they would bother making a DX lens that has the same crop as an FX variant, it's just cheaper.

Ohwell
/rant


----------



## MVPernula (Feb 2, 2018)

jaomul said:


> You could look at d610, better image quality but less autofocus ability. You could try snag a d800/810 second hand and get improvement all over, better image quality, great autofocus but less FPS if that is important.
> 
> If I was buying a Nikon FX right now second hand I'd go d800/810, if I was buying new I'd get a d750 which is basically a d7100 with a fullframe sensor and flippy screen


From what I can see the D800's don't go for sooo much more than the D610's.. But it's still enough to make me consider the D610. Hard decision really.

FPS don't matter to me that much, but snappy autofocus does.


----------



## jaomul (Feb 2, 2018)

I really think you are overthinking the fx dx thing. You get the lenses you need for whichever format. 

There should be nothing stopping you getting super shots with a d7100. But the fx allows for lower light possibilities, and possibly depth of field benefits depending on the lenses you use.


----------



## MVPernula (Feb 2, 2018)

jaomul said:


> I really think you are overthinking the fx dx thing. You get the lenses you need for whichever format.
> 
> There should be nothing stopping you getting super shots with a d7100. But the fx allows for lower light possibilities, and possibly depth of field benefits depending on the lenses you use.


I might yeah. The D7100 is a really good camera, I won't say anything about that. I'm by no means limited by the camera itself.

I'm actually fiddling alot with low-light, photography. Specifically long exposure!


----------



## jaomul (Feb 2, 2018)

Long exposure, iso 100, correct lens, you should manage great photos. I'm not saying don't get a full frame, or don't upgrade, but make sure you know what you need and what your upgrade will do for you.

It's very easy to spend loads of money and get very little improvement


----------



## MVPernula (Feb 2, 2018)

jaomul said:


> Long exposure, iso 100, correct lens, you should manage great photos. I'm not saying don't get a full frame, or don't upgrade, but make sure you know what you need and what your upgrade will do for you.
> 
> It's very easy to spend loads of money and get very little improvement


Yeah.. Alright I hear you.

You're telling me "D7100 is good, you can do what you want with the right stuff, you don't really need an upgrade". - And that's good.

I'm one of those guys whose upgrade itch doesn't scratch off easily. The D7100 is actually plenty for an amature like me, I know that, but man.. That D800 though.
Although going from a 7100 to an 800 would be a pretty clear improvement.


----------



## jaomul (Feb 2, 2018)

What lenses do you have? What do you feel you need with a new setup?


----------



## MVPernula (Feb 2, 2018)

jaomul said:


> What lenses do you have? What do you feel you need with a new setup?


D800 would give me this:

More pixels, cropping alot.
Full frame, which suits all my current lenses except the 18-55mm I got with the D5100
And right now I'm looking for a 35mm lens since I wanted that 50mm specific lens.
To get that I have to about 2000-2500 sek, which is basically as much as I have to pay to get the D800 anyways (after selling my D7100). So either way I'll get my sought after 50mm portrait lens, favorite! And since I have a 10-20mm I would looove to actually get those wider shots.

I currently have:
50mm, f/1.8
70-300mm f/4-5.6
35-70mm ais f/3.5
18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 (DX)
10-20mm f/3.5

So either way I will spend money to get what I'm looking for, so the question then is;
Do I upgrade or do I get a new lens? 

I'll spend as much.


----------



## jaomul (Feb 2, 2018)

I dunno, that 10-20 is also a dx lens that won't give you a full fov on a d800.

I think unless your set on spending money buy a 35mm f1.8 dx and go take some photos. 24mp was twice what anyone had only a few years back


----------



## MVPernula (Feb 2, 2018)

jaomul said:


> I dunno, that 10-20 is also a dx lens that won't give you a full fov on a d800.
> 
> I think unless your set on spending money buy a 35mm f1.8 dx and go take some photos. 24mp was twice what anyone had only a few years back


Oh.. Man I didn't know it was DX.
Lack of research again, rip.

Yeah. Hm, you've made me think twice.
I'll take a step back and collect my thougts.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 2, 2018)

Used D800 is what I did after having bought a used D610 eight months ago or so. I prefer the D800 is every category. The 800e minus AA filter does not seem to be that big of a deal, to me at least, I'm plenty happy with the 800's detail level even on landscapes.


----------



## jaomul (Feb 2, 2018)

MVPernula said:


> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> > I dunno, that 10-20 is also a dx lens that won't give you a full fov on a d800.
> ...



Look at it this way, 10-20f3.5 excellent wideangle, 50mm on dx very nice portait lens, 70-300, good Tele on dx, nothing wrong with kit lenses either in good light. You add that 35, you have there or thereabouts the same field of view that a 50mm gives on fullframe, if it don't work out you are only a little money down (cost of 35mm dx) from where you are now.

Make sure you've good tripod, cable release or infrared remote. It's the small things make the bigger difference, shoot (raw)in 14 bit lossless if you are gonna be at iso 100 and learn a little editing


----------



## MVPernula (Feb 2, 2018)

jaomul said:


> MVPernula said:
> 
> 
> > jaomul said:
> ...


Settings and editing are no big deal, studied media in high school so I have, photoshop, premiere, in design, after effects, lightroom and all of those in the bag!

But I have no shutter controller, really gotta get me one of those.


----------



## MVPernula (Feb 2, 2018)

Derrel said:


> Used D800 is what I did after having bought a used D610 eight months ago or so. I prefer the D800 is every category. The 800e minus AA filter does not seem to be that big of a deal, to me at least, I'm plenty happy with the 800's detail level even on landscapes.


Ugh, it seems so good. Although I know what I have is fine too.
I'll look around more.


----------



## Cortian (Feb 2, 2018)

MVPernula said:


> Sure I get more megapixels, I get a bigger camera like I wanted, but aside from that it's basically the same (Yeah more focus points and many other improved specs but you get the general idea). Lenses I put on from my D5100 gives pretty much the same result on this camera.


I'm not a Nikon guy.  (Heck, I'm not even really a "Canon guy," yet.)  And I wasn't here for the original discussion, so maybe I'm going over old ground.  But I have to ask: What did you expect?  What was it for which you were hoping?  What is it about what's happening with your current setup with which you're dissatisfied?

The point to all these questions is this: Improved hardware is wonderful and all--who doesn't like new gear, but it's not going to perform miracles.  Probably .

One of my best photos ever resulted from me seeing something interesting from a cabin window, grabbing my lowly Olympus Stylus Tough 6000, running down to a dock in my PJs, and snapping several photos laying on my belly on the end of that rickety pier.


----------



## MVPernula (Feb 2, 2018)

Cortian said:


> MVPernula said:
> 
> 
> > Sure I get more megapixels, I get a bigger camera like I wanted, but aside from that it's basically the same (Yeah more focus points and many other improved specs but you get the general idea). Lenses I put on from my D5100 gives pretty much the same result on this camera.
> ...


That's a really good question actually. I think what I wanted was.. Difference.
Like sure, the piece of equipment I held in my hands was bigger and had more megapixels along with easier use (I mean it has buttons man, BUTTONS!). 

Slapping my lenses on it gave the same result. I think I'm way too focused on the fact that it's not a full frame sensor, but I also think that's what I *actually* wanted to make it feel like an upgrade. AF felt as "fast", which isn't very fast and snappy, everything just felt the same. Like I could've used my D5100 for what I was doing with it, I just added a battery grip.

Idunno if that makes sense, but I don't think I can explain my feeling better


----------



## astroNikon (Feb 2, 2018)

MVPernula said:


> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> > What lenses do you have? What do you feel you need with a new setup?
> ...


Keep in mind a few things.  The D800 and variants are a pro body.
So you lose all the Beginner stuff you find on the D5100/D7100.

Also it really needs high IQ lenses.
I know some of my older lenses went to mush on just a 24mp sensor.  But you'll have to check DXO for those numbers assuming some your lenses are even listed.

FYI, "DX" lens are different in that they are designed for the Smaller image circle of the DX Sensor.  Thus they use less diameter glass as compared to a FX lens.  Thus they are lighter, cheaper, etc.  If you put many of them on a FX camera you'll have the outer edges all black on the image as the image circle is not large enough to fully cover a FX sensor.


----------



## john.margetts (Feb 2, 2018)

MVPernula said:


> Slapping my lenses on it gave the same result. I think I'm way too focused on the fact that it's not a full frame sensor, but I also think that's what I *actually* wanted to make it feel like an upgrade. AF felt as "fast", which isn't very fast and snappy, everything just felt the same. Like I could've used my D5100 for what I was doing with it, I just added a battery grip.
> 
> Idunno if that makes sense, but I don't think I can explain my feeling better


The lens creates the image - the body just records it. Same lenses has to give you the same images.


----------



## Cortian (Feb 2, 2018)

john.margetts said:


> The lens creates the image - the body just records it. Same lenses has to give you the same images.


That is both a gross simplification _and_ manifestly untrue.


----------



## john.margetts (Feb 2, 2018)

Cortian said:


> john.margetts said:
> 
> 
> > The lens creates the image - the body just records it. Same lenses has to give you the same images.
> ...


But explains why the Op did not notice any improvement with his body upgrade which is the topic de jour.


----------



## Destin (Feb 2, 2018)

OP: I have chased upgrades for the last 18 months. Went from D7000 to 7100 to 500 to 750, then swapped the 750 for the 810. I know all too well
How tempting the upgrades are.

Currently I shoot with the D500 and the D810. The images really aren’t much different.. you get more resolution in the 800 series bodies but it doesn’t make any difference whatsoever unless you are cropping massively or printing gigantic prints.

You can buy the D800, but you won’t see any massive changes in your images. Sure, you’ll get a wider FOV on equivalents lenses.. but that doesn’t really change much because you can always zoom out more or get a wider lens.

It used to be that full frame cameras offered better low light performance, but that isn’t even true anymore. My D500 massively outperforms my D810 in low light/high iso performance. The images made by the cameras are generally indistinguishable from one another if you’re looking at a final product and not pixel peeping.

The reason that you upgrade to pro level bodies is for better durability, longer life expectancy, more external controls, faster AF, better low light performance, etc.  But it generally isn’t for better image quality as the entry level and amateur bodies have professional level image quality at this point.

You could go buy a D5 or any other high end professional body, and at iso 100, you will be extremely hard pressed to notice any difference whatsoever in image quality when compared to your 7100.

Basically, it’s about the photographer and not the camera. If I were you I’d buy a few pro lenses and hone your skills. When you start feeling the camera slowing you down, then you will know you’re ready to upgrade. But that generally takes years.


----------



## Designer (Feb 2, 2018)

Your thinking is rather shallow, and can be summed up thusly:


MVPernula said:


> More pixels
> Full frame




So it's no wonder you are not satisfied, and you will not be unless and until you acquire a D800.  Your mind has already been made up.

Some of us actually appreciate the differences between the D5xxx series and the D7100, but it's obvious that you will not be satisfied unless you have your D800.


----------



## adamhiram (Feb 2, 2018)

Destin said:


> The reason that you upgrade to pro level bodies is for better durability, longer life expectancy, more external controls, faster AF, better low light performance, etc.  But it generally isn’t for better image quality as the entry level and amateur bodies have professional level image quality at this point.



This is probably the best advise you'll see on this thread.  Last year I upgraded from a D5100 to a D500, and under ideal conditions I couldn't tell you which body was used to take the photo.  My main reason for upgrading was better autofocus, and I was willing to to pay a high price for that.  I didn't need higher resolution or a full frame sensor, but I wanted the D5 AF system.  I could have gotten the same high ISO performance and higher resolution from a recent generation D5xxx for less than half the price, and without giving up some of the integrated features like the IR remote shutter release and pop-up flash.

Going from a D5100 to D7100 means going from 11 to 51 AF points, and from 1 to 15 cross-type, which is huge.  It doesn't mean your shots will be any nicer, but try tracking a moving subject, particularly in low light, and you'll notice your number of keeper shots goes up tremendously.


----------



## Timppa (Feb 2, 2018)

I was so close on switching to FX, but then i found the Nikon 10-20 with VR for wide angles and now I could set my needs for FX aside ^^. (the VR is awesome, I actually hand hold a 1.5sec picture and it was sharp! But generally taking pics at 10mm are no problem at 1/5 of a second)
If you want the 50mm-feel on DX, get a decent 35mm (the nikon 35 1.8 is cheap and good), if you want better, sigma has a 1.4 one and tamron a 1.8 with VR (i've heared they are awesome).
And like I mentioned before, the sigma 18-35 1.8 is like having primes from 18 to 35, it is that good! (it will be like 27-50mm on FX, isn't this was you look for?).
you want better low light control, but all your lenses are f3.5+, those are fast on FX, but slower on DX.
Can you rent a sigma 18-35 for a day, give it a go? and then you could decide to get the lens, or upgrade to FX.

Also, the idea that FX lenses are better on DX bodies is not always true! Yes you use only the center of the frame, so no vignetting and you have sharper parts in the edges, but the lens is not made for DX, you also lose a lot of information. (check this good video for example: 



 )

And I'm in Finland, I think finding a used D800e is indeed difficult


----------



## MVPernula (Feb 2, 2018)

Designer said:


> Your thinking is rather shallow, and can be summed up thusly:
> 
> 
> MVPernula said:
> ...


Yeah, my mind mas pretty set on it when I started this topic, but the discussion has made me think differently.

And it's not like I dont appreciate the differences between the two, I know you might think that after the things I said.


----------



## MVPernula (Feb 2, 2018)

adamhiram said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > The reason that you upgrade to pro level bodies is for better durability, longer life expectancy, more external controls, faster AF, better low light performance, etc.  But it generally isn’t for better image quality as the entry level and amateur bodies have professional level image quality at this point.
> ...


Yeah.. I'm coming to the conclusion that I should play around a bit more with this guy before doing anything else. Put my focus on a new lens if anything.


----------



## MVPernula (Feb 3, 2018)

Timppa said:


> I was so close on switching to FX, but then i found the Nikon 10-20 with VR for wide angles and now I could set my needs for FX aside ^^. (the VR is awesome, I actually hand hold a 1.5sec picture and it was sharp! But generally taking pics at 10mm are no problem at 1/5 of a second)
> If you want the 50mm-feel on DX, get a decent 35mm (the nikon 35 1.8 is cheap and good), if you want better, sigma has a 1.4 one and tamron a 1.8 with VR (i've heared they are awesome).
> And like I mentioned before, the sigma 18-35 1.8 is like having primes from 18 to 35, it is that good! (it will be like 27-50mm on FX, isn't this was you look for?).
> you want better low light control, but all your lenses are f3.5+, those are fast on FX, but slower on DX.
> ...


I don't have any camera shops close by, sadly. To rent one would be quite a hassle.
But I'll definetly keep that lens in mind! 

Right?? Like I hadn't even heard of it until a friend om mine showed him his.


----------



## snowbear (Feb 3, 2018)

I had my D40 for ten years; the D750 is probably my _last_ main body.


----------



## MVPernula (Feb 3, 2018)

snowbear said:


> I had my D40 for ten years; the D750 is probably my _last_ main body.


As in "It's that good"?


----------



## snowbear (Feb 3, 2018)

It works quite well for me.


----------



## s_marolf (Feb 3, 2018)

A little over ago I purchased a used nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VRI, then a few months later I upgraded from the D5100 to the D610. Looking back if I could have just choose just one no doubt it would be the lens.

The 35mm f1.8 DX several people mention  is a great lens. I had one for my D5100 and had it on the majority of the time. In your case though it may be better to stick with FX lenses. Sounds like you'll end up their eventually.


----------



## Cortian (Feb 3, 2018)

MV, what got _me_ started on this was a friend giving me his old (Canon) 20D, along with a 17-55m lens.  I actually had it in my possession for six months or so before I even approached it.  On Christmas Day I sat down and started studying it.

It took me all of about two weeks playing with it before I started thinking about the things I wished it had or could do.  I found 80% of those things in an inexpensive upgrade of two model versions.  (Yes: I upgraded from a fourteen-year-old model to an eleven-year-old model.)

In my case the features were... uhm... "utility" and convenience features, such as a more useful LCD display, a button I could dedicate to back-button focus, auto-ISO and settings memories.  Things I found myself wishing for as I'd used the 20D.  (I gained some actual photo-taking performance improvements at the same time, but those weren't the impetus.)

The thing is: The improvements I seeked won't really do much, if anything, to improve the photos I take.  They will simply make the camera more convenient or more fun to use.  If I want to improve the photos I take it's the gear between my ears I need to improve, not the gear I hold in my hands.

This is what I was more-or-less getting to in my first post in this thread: What is it you seek?  If you seek better, more powerful gadgets for the sake of having better, more powerful gadgets then by all means: Have at it.  But if what you're seeking is better photos I _suspect_ you're looking in the wrong direction.

There are things I think I'm going to want to do with photography that _will_ demand some eventual equipment additions, but they'll be in lenses and speedlights.  I figure this eleven-year-old 40D body will carry me a good, long way.  As for the lenses, in particular: I won't be needing those until I exhaust the possibilities with what I have already.

This is my perspective.  As they say: YMMV.


----------



## MVPernula (Feb 6, 2018)

Cortian said:


> MV, what got _me_ started on this was a friend giving me his old (Canon) 20D, along with a 17-55m lens.  I actually had it in my possession for six months or so before I even approached it.  On Christmas Day I sat down and started studying it.
> 
> It took me all of about two weeks playing with it before I started thinking about the things I wished it had or could do.  I found 80% of those things in an inexpensive upgrade of two model versions.  (Yes: I upgraded from a fourteen-year-old model to an eleven-year-old model.)
> 
> ...


This is probably one the best replies yet, at least to me. 
Basically, I'm a huge tech geek. I love tinkering, upgrading, changing and having good stuff. Of course I want to improve as a photographer and what I have will definetly do for a long time like you say with your Canon 40D. Right now I'm just basically at the point where I feel like "man that's juicy".

The D7100 is by no means bad, and for an amature like me it'll go miles before I actually start using its full potential. If ever. A good example would be my PC interest, I built myself a PC will all the latest and gratest (well alright, in this case I didn't necessarily NEED it, but I use all of it to the fullest), but I basically got it because I wanted to remove any possible bottleneck- leaving nothing but me to improve with my equipment.

But this thread has helped me realize that maybe I should focus on the lenses a bit more, and upgrade when I feel like I'm limited by the camera.


----------

