Considering a new DSLR... (now own a D600 - next: other discussions)

[randomrogue]

I've read this multiple times and it seems to be controversial but it probably isn't. I don't think there's much truth to it based on my experience. I would look into your shooting technique first for the most improvement in your images. The D700 has an amazing AF system and is almost a flawless camera. I don't know much about the RX-100 but can the same be said of it? I think it's honestly a bit unfair to compare a P/S to a DSLR. The DSLR has a major advantage - especially one as good as the D700. The sensor on the Sony is tiny compared to the one in the D700 (7.5x bigger)

http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon_D700-vs-Sony-Cybershot-DSC-RX100

If you look at this you'll see that there are some key features that the D700 just dominates with and they're the most important. AF, Noise, image quality, etc. The RX-100 has higher MP. That doesn't make it a better camera. It's a great P/S but not competing with the D700.

 

[twistedlogic]

Heh - I think it's literally going to be a coin toss tomorrow or at least sometime soon. No matter how much research I do on each camera, I hem and haw because of price differences.

I'd go FX for sure. Just go with one body and one lens for now, get to know your camera and needs before deciding what else.

Nikon hasn't given much love to DX and looks like they aren't going to, even though it accounts for a bulk of there sales. In the 14 years that Nikon has sold DX cameras, they have only introduced 17 DX lenses, but have launched 26 DX bodies.

 

[blastingcap]

Perhaps you could explain to me why a current top of the line 20 Megapixel sensor in Sony RX-100 which is paired with a Carl Zeiss Lens produce worse images than a Nikon D700 12 MP sensor with a kit lens not to mention the 12 MP sensor is 5 years old and also made by Sony?

Did you read my post? Because I was talking about pixels when HOLDING SENSOR SIZE EQUAL. A modern Sony Exmor sensor like in the RX100 can be sliced and diced into 5, 10, or even 20 megapixels and the image quality will be basically the same when you print out. You only get the illusion of the 20MP being worse if you zoom in 100%, but that's zooming in a LOT more than you would at 5 or 10 MP so it's not a fair comparison. At low enough ISOs the 20MP will give you more resolution than 5 or 10 MP, at the expense of taking more processing power and storage space and thus lowering frames per second.

Also, this assumes holding glass equal too. If for instance you put a Coke bottle in front of the D700 instead of a proper lens, I bet the RX100 image quality will be better even given the huge sensor size discrepancy.

Also note that to some extent, more MP can actually help out an otherwise mediocre lens and bring up the system to the level of a lower-MP-better-glass system. http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/a-24-70mm-system-comparison Also, you can still gain resolution even if pixels go below diffraction limits, though the gains will be modest.

I've read this multiple times and it seems to be controversial but it probably isn't. I don't think there's much truth to it based on my experience. I would look into your shooting technique first for the most improvement in your images. The D700 has an amazing AF system and is almost a flawless camera. I don't know much about the RX-100 but can the same be said of it? I think it's honestly a bit unfair to compare a P/S to a DSLR. The DSLR has a major advantage - especially one as good as the D700. The sensor on the Sony is tiny compared to the one in the D700 (7.5x bigger)

http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon_D700-vs-Sony-Cybershot-DSC-RX100

If you look at this you'll see that there are some key features that the D700 just dominates with and they're the most important. AF, Noise, image quality, etc. The RX-100 has higher MP. That doesn't make it a better camera. It's a great P/S but not competing with the D700.

I don't think anyone is trying to compare a D700 with a RX100 except someone who didn't read my multiple disclaimers of holding sensor size constant. And I have repeatedly stated that the RX100 can't do certain things, so there is zero controversy that the D700 is a more able camera. The benefit of a compact, though, is its portability. I'm not saying my way is the best way. In fact, we already have at least one person on this thread who is very happy with his MFT setup as a balance between size and image quality and having lens options, etc. and if it works for him, good!

 

[destrekor]

Well - some items are on the way, others will be ordered or picked up shortly.

I've decided on a D600

Gambling a bit on lens choices, but I'm doing the "work with them and see what I use or feel I need" approach:
Nikon 50mm F1.8G AF-S
Nikon 85mm F1.8G AF-S
Tokina AT-X 16-28mm F2.8 Pro FX

I'll have to break out my Tamron 70-300 (old AF style) and see how the images compare. I hadn't decided what other zoom range should get my focus. I think between having 28, 50, and 85mm available, I should be able to cover things alright.
I don't know if I want a new lens around the 28-80 range, or a new telephoto zoom.
Sometimes I simply love the compression of DOF at the longer telephoto ranges - sometimes I want to capture detail that I can't get any closer too. More importantly, I do like to have the ability to capture wildlife or anything where distance is impossible to close. Local and younger sports teams sometimes want photographers, and I may give that a shot this year. Obviously higher level sports will demand the massive telescope-type telephoto lenses, with the astronomical prices to match.

The Tokina, as mentioned here, seems to be getting great reviews. Some distortion and CA, and reviews seemed to waver on how much compared to other notable lenses, but I haven't heard anything other than "easily correctable" with software so I have hope on that front. While paying for even the top-end doesn't change this fact, but the inability to use a filter worries me a little. I'll give it some hands on time indoors and out, see if I can't get around it - but there are scenes I can picture using a ND or graduated ND filter, and being disappointed without them. Perhaps one more prime could alleviate this, such as a 20mm? (looking at landscapes in particular for this point). But as I said, even the $2000 Nikon can't use them. That's one thing I'm also going to pay close attention to: is 16mm enough? Do I feel I need 14mm? Nikon has a cheaper 16-35mm (compared to the 14mm offering), and I almost sprang for it, but some reviews suggest the Tokina hangs or outmatches it, and it was another $500 or thereabouts. Ken Rockwell says the 16mm is the sharpest of them all, but also has significant barrel distortion at 16mm. :\ Correctable, but that's an optical issue I'd rather not get more of after having paid more.

I am looking forward to apertures wider than F3.5 - I've never had anything faster than that. Part of the reason I chose those primes. Looking at various photos shot with them, they seem quite versatile, and having the two of them I shouldn't need to physically move myself all THAT much to get a shot lined up... but a fast standard zoom would be quite handy, and that's what I'm really focusing on next: do I need that standard zoom range more, or can I get away with the UWA zoom, the primes, and a good telephoto zoom for the settings that aren't all about buildings and landscapes?

 

[iGas]

Well - some items are on the way, others will be ordered or picked up shortly.

I've decided on a D600

Gambling a bit on lens choices, but I'm doing the "work with them and see what I use or feel I need" approach:
Nikon 50mm F1.8G AF-S
Nikon 85mm F1.8G AF-S
Tokina AT-X 16-28mm F2.8 Pro FX

I'll have to break out my Tamron 70-300 (old AF style) and see how the images compare. I hadn't decided what other zoom range should get my focus. I think between having 28, 50, and 85mm available, I should be able to cover things alright.
I don't know if I want a new lens around the 28-80 range, or a new telephoto zoom.
Sometimes I simply love the compression of DOF at the longer telephoto ranges - sometimes I want to capture detail that I can't get any closer too. More importantly, I do like to have the ability to capture wildlife or anything where distance is impossible to close. Local and younger sports teams sometimes want photographers, and I may give that a shot this year. Obviously higher level sports will demand the massive telescope-type telephoto lenses, with the astronomical prices to match.

The Tokina, as mentioned here, seems to be getting great reviews. Some distortion and CA, and reviews seemed to waver on how much compared to other notable lenses, but I haven't heard anything other than "easily correctable" with software so I have hope on that front. While paying for even the top-end doesn't change this fact, but the inability to use a filter worries me a little. I'll give it some hands on time indoors and out, see if I can't get around it - but there are scenes I can picture using a ND or graduated ND filter, and being disappointed without them. Perhaps one more prime could alleviate this, such as a 20mm? (looking at landscapes in particular for this point). But as I said, even the $2000 Nikon can't use them. That's one thing I'm also going to pay close attention to: is 16mm enough? Do I feel I need 14mm? Nikon has a cheaper 16-35mm (compared to the 14mm offering), and I almost sprang for it, but some reviews suggest the Tokina hangs or outmatches it, and it was another $500 or thereabouts. Ken Rockwell says the 16mm is the sharpest of them all, but also has significant barrel distortion at 16mm. :\ Correctable, but that's an optical issue I'd rather not get more of after having paid more.

I am looking forward to apertures wider than F3.5 - I've never had anything faster than that. Part of the reason I chose those primes. Looking at various photos shot with them, they seem quite versatile, and having the two of them I shouldn't need to physically move myself all THAT much to get a shot lined up... but a fast standard zoom would be quite handy, and that's what I'm really focusing on next: do I need that standard zoom range more, or can I get away with the UWA zoom, the primes, and a good telephoto zoom for the settings that aren't all about buildings and landscapes?

IMHO, most people don't need a 50mm if they already own a wide angle and a short telephoto lens such as the 85mm f1.8. F2.8 is quite a fast aperture for wide angle for indoor low light, specially with any modern FF that do well with high ISO setting.

The wider that you can get is the better for landscape, and distortion isn't as important for landscape as architecture photography, hence any sharp lens will do.

I have the Samyang 14mm that do well for landscape, but terrible at architecture due to the mustache distortion.

As for long telephoto, if you shoot mostly for outdoor, then any lens will do if you shoot at f8. Other wise a good 70-200mm is a good start (Tamron make one at f2.8 that is just about as good as the best Canikon from 70~150mm, but slightly soft at 200mm end). The new Sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS and 1.4x TC is another candidate if you need longer reach and have money to burn.

<-- contemplating at selling the Samyang 14mm to get the Tokina 16-28mm, and sell the 70-200L f4 IS to get the Sigma 120-300mm.

 

[randomrogue]

I find the 50mm useful since it's so small. I use it as my walk around. I need/want one lens that is very small and light so that I'm not forced to have a heavy package with me at all times. I want the new Sigma 35mm though.

The Tokina 16-28 has served me well so far. The only thing I've noticed is that it can generate some rainbow flare if shooting a light source. Oh well. You have to accept that every wide angle lens is going to have something you have to compromise on. The 14-24 is expensive and still has flare. The 16-35 has VR and takes filters but it's F4 and not as sharp. The Samyang has mustache distortion. If you really want filters there are ways to do it.

For portraits the 85mm is my favorite focal length. That lens is very nice. Enjoy! Spend a few hours browsing the net for portrait poses and then test them out when you get the lens. Use side lighting from a window. It won't disappoint.

On the telephoto side I think you should use your 70-300 for a while before making a decision. The 70-200 F2.8 or the new F4 are both big and expensive lenses. They're good but are you really going to use them? Are you going to need to add a TC to your budget? Are you going to be envious of images taken with the 300mm F2.8? The grass just keeps getting greener with these lenses. I'm sticking to my 70-300 and if I find myself needing more I would budget for a Bigma or the 300 F2.8 which produces disgustingly amazing images. I doubt this will ever happen though. Situations that I've needed these really long focal lengths are rare and I wouldn't want to bust out a big, heavy, and expensive lens in these places.

 

[destrekor]

So, D600 in my hands... woah.
Feels gooood man.

Oddly, the D7000 on display at Microcenter didn't seem that much smaller - didn't touch any of the other models, like a D3200.
But it's definitely larger than my old 35mm Nikon N65. Which is to say, I like. It's also heftier. So much so that, yes, if this were just a hobby, I wouldn't want this thing draped around my neck all day. It is, however, just fine considering I want to use this for professional work. In the future, once I can get some income rolling in (or my non-photo career takes off between now and the time at which I have a solid portfolio built), I'll probably pick up a smaller camera (type to be determined, mirror-less MFT perhaps?) if I feel I just don't want to deal with the larger body and lenses on vacations or whatever. I doubt I'll reach that though, because I know I'd then have photos I'd rather have shot on this camera!

And this Tokina 16-28 - holy cow it's a beast. At least, compared to lenses I've ever had. I can tell it won't be an issue for the tripod/head so it's not that beastly, but it's a sad reminder of things when this focal length is heavier and larger than the telephoto zoom you own (70-300mm).
So, there is a room to improve on the lens front there. But that's not at all the focus for the time being.


Up first: rounding out the software needs.

One, I know when I take this gig to the professional freelance point, I'll need even more software, like QuickBooks. Or would something be better than that? I don't want to sidetrack this thread with the business side of the operation, and I have plenty of questions regarding the business and legal worlds. I'll get into that later, in a different thread/subforum.


So, photo software:
thus far, I have bought Lightroom 4 and Nik's Complete Collection for Lightroom/Aperture (for $150 instead of $300 (and tax?! dammit Google), I thought WTH).

It seems the common opinion in this thread is, due to improvements in Lightroom, DxO Optics Pro isn't really necessary (and for the D600 - that means the $300 Elite package would be required).
Would those same improvements render Capture NX 2 an unnecessary purchase, or is there enough still left to offer to make it a beneficial purchase?

I've settled on not getting Photoshop, at least for the foreseeable future. With enough filters and plugins, and considering I'm not really into Portrait photography and shooting faces and models, it likely means editing at the pixel-level shouldn't be all that necessary.

Also for Lightroom: any particular stand-alone plugins that are just great to have? They don't necessarily have to be about adding more editing capabilities. Recently, I was giving a good look at some online Gallery integration and publishing plugins. Streamlining stuff like that is always appreciated.

 

[randomrogue]

I used Capture NX 2 briefly. It had some kind of memory leak and was not useable. It was just too slow. What I did like about it though (as I remember) was that it showed the focus point. Would I recommend the software? No. Not at all.

When you're making money you'll want Photoshop. I don't think there's much that can replace liquify, the clone tool, stitching, layers for manual HDR, etc. Also, if you have two photos and like the one with the eyes close the best you can put the open eyes on that photo with photoshop.

 

[MrSquished]

now it's time to go out and shoot and shoot and practice editing.

i'm curious as to your strategy is for getting paid gigs in various types of shooting situations.

it's a very tough field to break into in general - to be paid for it. from my knowledge, the most prevalent market is in portraiture and events. real estate is there but very hard to break into as very few listings and/or realtors use a photographer.

i'm starting to create a way to market real estate photography and did a bunch of reading on that but always good to hear other peoples research.

 

[MrSquished]

I'd recommend learning digital workflow with what you have first, getting down the fundamentals, then worrying if you need the more advanced tools of PS later. From the styles of photography you mentioned, it's not even known if you will need any PS tools.

for LR you can get the Photomatix plugin to Merge to 32 bit HDR. $29. it ill merge your files and spit out a nice TIFF right back into LR so you can tonemap it. NO PS needed whatsoever for HDR work.

 

[destrekor]

I used Capture NX 2 briefly. It had some kind of memory leak and was not useable. It was just too slow. What I did like about it though (as I remember) was that it showed the focus point. Would I recommend the software? No. Not at all.

Thanks

When you're making money you'll want Photoshop. I don't think there's much that can replace liquify, the clone tool, stitching, layers for manual HDR, etc. Also, if you have two photos and like the one with the eyes close the best you can put the open eyes on that photo with photoshop.

Some of these things I can do with GIMP, yes?
Photoshop CS6, if not Creative Suite package, is definitely on the list in the future. Paying $600 for a few different applications, filters, plugins, etc - that's one thing. Plopping down $600 for a single application? Yikes. You get what you pay for, if you know how to utilize it, that much I can definitely agree with... but at this point I think I'd rather not entirely destroy my credit in the short term (too late?), and focus on other lenses or the other costs of business.

now it's time to go out and shoot and shoot and practice editing.

i'm curious as to your strategy is for getting paid gigs in various types of shooting situations.

it's a very tough field to break into in general - to be paid for it. from my knowledge, the most prevalent market is in portraiture and events. real estate is there but very hard to break into as very few listings and/or realtors use a photographer.

i'm starting to create a way to market real estate photography and did a bunch of reading on that but always good to hear other peoples research.

Well... the strategy is very much in a "such a rough draft it's not even technically a draft" state of existence at this point. The main focus, as you said, is getting familiar with the new parts in my toolkit: how to ring out as much as I can from a DSLR (as opposed to a fairly entry level film SLR), how to even do half the things on this beast (holy menu batman!), and how to best utilize the digital darkroom.

So, as you said, shoot, shoot, edit. My focus at this point is learning what needs to be learned, practicing and building upon what I know, and most importantly: building a strong portfolio with which to market myself.

Once I have something to actually market, then I will do so. Some part of my strategy is to seek out other photographers locally, or people with certain associations, get some starting tips and/or an ability to get my name out there as a word of mouth hire. Say, talk to a portrait photographer, see if he can name drop me if he ever gets into a conversation about a type of photography he doesn't do.

Real estate is definitely not going to be my only focus - if I am sticking in this region (NW Ohio/SE Michigan), the market for real estate photographers is going to be small. There simply is not that many high-price properties in the region. Some decent areas with travel, but to make a good income (especially doing it part time), there is a limit to how far one can really travel.

That was something I was thinking about quite a bit: event photography.

Craigslist and elance.com are two places I think I should utilize to start with once I'm ready to market myself.

In the mean time, I am definitely hoping I can get into a decent IT job/career - and my "photography business" would be a side business. Part of the end-goal is to get to a better region for IT reasons (Columbus, OH is great if I'm still only looking within a nearby radius - and I love that city, saw enough during my time at school to realize I need to be there, not here), and it just so happens that, at least around here, good IT regions also have much better real estate markets. Boom, more chances to grow the side business.

I am definitely looking to avoid studio portrait work, but am willing to do portrait-style work in the course of going about shooting events if need be. And I think events will be the better chance to showcase to a greater number of people what I can do.
Could kill two birds with one stone if I could get an event with a lot of realtors in the room, perhaps some kind of realtor or real estate event.

 

[destrekor]

Also: monitor calibration.

I think this will be pretty important for ensuring what I intend to be the result is not screwed up on my end; as in, if I want it to look this way (both on the web and at a professional printer), that my monitor and software color space settings aren't way off target.
You obviously can't do jack about someone's monitor settings when they view your photos on their computer, or print them on their home machine.


Does anyone have any recommendations regarding hardware calibration systems (the pucks and software included)?

I have three Asus PA238Q IPS monitors (8bit - none of that e-IPS crap). 23" 16:9 1080p
At $300 or so when I bought them a little over a year ago, it was about getting IPS but panels that were decently fast so that I could still game on them (surround gaming = heavenly ).
I reckon I could do much better for pro photography work, but I'm not ready or even willing at this point.
The best photo monitors are going to be too slow for gaming, so eventually, if it seems like the right approach, I might pick up one or two to set up a secondary work station. A few things to work out about that whole concept, so let's move on...

Where is the best bang for the buck in regards to hardware calibration? A $200 set? $500? Is there a point where it'll be "good enough" at such and such cost, but if I spend that much more, I won't see as much of an improvement (especially for these monitors, or otherwise for monitors that aren't top-end professional and don't cost $2000 a piece) ?