Analysis paralysis - Feedback wanted on camera/lens purchase

[billythekidrock]

I am looking to buy a camera in the next few weeks and am thinking about the Nikon D7100.

I am currently borrowing a Nikon D5000 with AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR lens and I am mostly shooting rock shows at local clubs and some larger venues. Lots of my images are soft, but I do get a few solid photos with this setup. I will continue shooting shows for a while but will eventually take wildlife or landscape shots as well.

I am just not sure if I should buy a body only (lenses separate) or a two lens kit. I understand that kit lens are not always the best option so I thought I would ask.

Current prices on the Nikon site are:
*Body only - $800
*Kit 1 with AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR II lens and AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR telephoto zoom and bag - $1,150
*Kit 2 with AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR lens and the AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR and bag - $1,350
*Lens only AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3G ED VR - $700

I will be buying a Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G lens for shows ($200). But I am wondering if the 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G is adequate for wildlife photography or would the AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3G ED VR be a better option for starters?

If the 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G is adequate for wildlife photography I can get the kit 2 and the 35mm f/1.8G for about $1,550 before tax.
If the 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3 is better, then with the body and 35mm it would be closer to $1,700 before tax and I would still need to by a lens to bridge the gap.

I am getting decent photos with a 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 so I would probably use it if I bought a kit and would maybe buy it separate if I bought a body only.
Is there any reason I would choose the 18-55mm over the 18-140mm or vice versa?

Also, is not having an optical low pass filter (OLPF) something I want or would it be better to get a camera with the ability to turn it off and on?

[Bean Counter]

I don't know much about Nikon but if I were staring over today I'd probably invest in that system over canon. That's for my particular shooting but f I were going for what you doing id still chose Nikon.

For people, especially if you might shoot video, go with the anti aliasing filter. Not so much for the skin, but for the moire-happy patterns in clothing. The cameras without the OLPF are really most beneficial for landscapes, but only if you're printing too large and looking too close. The risk of moire, which can ruin a photo, far outweighs the additional sharpness IMHO.

The more I shoot the less I shoot zooms. I just love the DOF I can get with fixed lenses. In general for all optics you'll find that when you exceed 3x in zoom range, ie from the bottom mm to the top being more than 3x, the optical quality and performance tends to go down. You couldn't pay me to pack around a ghastly 18-300mm lens for an important shoot. Yes if go with the 55-300mm over the former. Plus it's faster aperture at the max focal length.

I had an assistant (shooting Nikon) with the 35mm f/1.8G and I found it awesome. Whether you have full frame or crop you can't go wrong bringing it to a club. For landscapes you'll want wider, especially on a crop/APS-C.

[billythekidrock]

The cameras without the OLPF are really most beneficial for landscapes, but only if you're printing too large and looking too close. The risk of moire, which can ruin a photo, far outweighs the additional sharpness IMHO.

So your recommendation would to get one with the OLPF?

[Bean Counter]

Whep you've done a good job identifying what you want to shoot (landscapes, wildlife, and concerts), and I really appreciate that. Too many people (myself included) jump in buying stuff not knowing what they want to do. I guess if you want to dig into the weeds a little more, identify what % of each you're going to shoot, and how important it is to you. It sounds like landscapes and wildlife are down the road for you and shooting clubs is happening already. If you're getting paid for this, have a short turnaround time to deliver the images, and don't like to fingerbang around in post, then yes in the OLPF would make your life easier. I did a headshoot for a corporate officer I go to church with recently and even though my camera has the OLPF/AA filter, I still got moire in a few shots. Usually in clothes or hair. Moire rarely occurs in nature, and its fun to spot it when it happens. You can tinker with it in post: there's a specific adjustment brush in Lightroom to smudge it out, but I'm lazy and "ain't nobody got time fo dat."

Personally, if I were someone who has well identified typed of photography to focus on, I would probably more consumed with building your lens collection, at the expensive of buying a slightly older camera. I would buy lenses used and maybe a new/refurb camera model a few years old. Your lens forms your image. Digital cameras have been mature for the past five years and advancements have been slow and incremental. They all have FAR more megapixels than anyone actually needs and the biggest justification to buy newer would be less noise at higher ISOs, as improvements here creep along albeit slowly. You want an ultra wide for landscapes, one or two fixed 'fast' lenses for the clubs, and a decent telephoto for willdlife. You can probably skip a midrange zoom just fine (18-55mm kits and crap).

For better or worse, Canon would be easier to contend with on lenses as they simply have a higher market presence, and used lenses can be bought and sold quite easily. I've bought lenses used, played with them a few months, and then resold them used for more than what I paid for them. They also tend to be a bit cheaper than Nikon. While Nikon has made better bodies in the past few years, Canon has focused on developing some amazing zoom lenses, whose quality rivals the best fixed lenses, such as the 11-24mm f/4L, the 16-35 f/4L IS, the 24-70 f/2.8 II, the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II. Nikon makes great glass too, but these new Canon zooms are in a league of their own.

I was thinking that you might want to invest in full frame and VR lenses for the clubs given low light. However, when bands are often spotlit and backgrounds are darker you can cheat 1-2 stops of shutter speed into the exposure by using negative exposure compensation, to not blow your subject out. 

[Bob33]

I have two D7100s that I’ve used extensively. The D7100 is a good body targeted towards higher end non-professionals.   It does not have the durability that the pro models have and require, and perhaps some other features but it is capable of taking high quality images. I believe it has an estimated life of 150,000 shutter cycles which for most non-professionals is sufficient.

The D7100 does not have a low pass filter, which I prefer. A low pass filter is designed to eliminate moire but does it at the expense of some loss of detail. If you do have moire in an image, it can be removed or minimized in post processing. Here’s an article that might help: https://photographylife.com/what-is-low-pass-filter

The lens I carry on one of the bodies is a Nikon 18-200. For overall general purpose photography, I have been pleased with it. Since the D7100 is a DX body, the 35mm equivalent would be something like 27-300. The primary drawbacks of a zoom lens like that are some increased distortion and slower minimum F stops.

For wildlife, 200 is on the lower end of ideal. My opinion is that wildlife lens really start at 300mm and go up. The maximum F stop should ideally be F4 or better.  Faster F stops not only provide the ability to shoot in lower light, but also reduce depth of field to blur the background and isolate the subject. It is certainly possible to crop images taken with lens with less magnification. I have some fantastic wildlife images taken with a D7100 and an 18-200mm lens.

Another factor to consider is Vibration Reduction, which some lens have. At slower shutter speeds, this can improve the quality of images by reducing blur.

As in most things, photography is a game of compromises. We’d all love to have a 10-600mm lens with a constant F1.4 maximum, no distortion, perfect MTF curves, weighs one pound, and costs $300.

I own and still use lens I purchased in the early 1990s. All my camera bodies from the 1990s are in landfill. Good glass never goes out of style. If you can,compromise on camera bodies not lens.

You can probably find a good used D7100 for $600 to $650 if you want to save a little money.

For the $700 you refer to for an 18-300 lens, you could find a good used fixed 300 F4 lens with ED glass that will outperform the 18-300 with wildlife. I’ve seen some for around $450 from time to time. If you already have a lens that covers the 18-55 range, that might be a consideration.

Good luck.

[KFhunter]

I had to google Moire

https://photographylife.com/what-is-moire

[Bean Counter]

Billy,

Not sure where you are but it looks like your D7100 is at least $100 cheaper right now. This price can likely be beat if you're up for used, grey market, etc.

http://www.adorama.com/g/Nikon_DSLR_Specials

[Bean Counter]

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1192711-REG/nikon_13489_d7100_dslr_camera_with.html

[Bean Counter]

BOOM! 
http://www.adorama.com/INKD7100R.html?hotlink=t&svfor=5m&utm_medium=Affiliate&utm_source=rflaid21866&cvosrc=affiliate.21866

[billythekidrock]

Thanks.

I almost got one. Had the cart loaded and a 35mm F/1.8 lens, but am still debating the 7100 not having the filter and what that may mean for me.

[Bob33]

Thanks.

I almost got one. Had the cart loaded and a 35mm F/1.8 lens, but am still debating the 7100 not having the filter and what that may mean for me.

It's a good thing, but not enough of a good thing to make a decision based on.
www.extremetech.com/extreme/117627-new-36mp-nikon-d800e-is-it-too-sharp-for-you

[billythekidrock]

We shall see. I ordered it that night. Still waiting on an email saying they sent it.

[Bob33]

I think you will be pleased with it.

FYI - as one old enough to remember when cameras had two adjustments which were shutter speed  and aperture, it's daunting to get an owner's manual that is nearly 400 pages.

[billythekidrock]

I think you will be pleased with it.

FYI - as one old enough to remember when cameras had two adjustments which were shutter speed  and aperture, it's daunting to get an owner's manual that is nearly 400 pages.

I am sure a lot of it will be an uphill battle between me and the camera as well as a steep learning curve.

[Bob33]

I think you will be pleased with it.

FYI - as one old enough to remember when cameras had two adjustments which were shutter speed  and aperture, it's daunting to get an owner's manual that is nearly 400 pages.

I am sure a lot of it will be an uphill battle between me and the camera as well as a steep learning curve.

I think you will master 90%+ of the functionality easily. Much of the customization are things you may never need, but are there if you do.

[billythekidrock]

I do know that I probably should have gotten the D7200. The buffering on the D7100 is pretty slow.
But I used it in a venue I am familiar with and it shot better photos than the D5000 I was using before. It is a bummer to have to shoot at ISO 6400 but being able to double the ISO over the D5000 gets me more useable images.

[grade-creek-rd]

Damn...I just saw this thread and wish I saw it before you got your lens...(which one did you get by the way?, as I read through the posting as fast as I could so I could reply...)

I shoot the D7100 and so far really like it (I can't afford to go full frame yet as with Nikon it also means upgrading all your lenses so there is no crop). I picked up a Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4 and it shoots really well. It is fast enough and wide enough for what I shoot (landscape, wildlife, product ad shots). I also have a Nikon F1.8 50mm (mostly used for product shots) and the Tamron 70-200 F2.8 which is absoluty awesome for sports shots (my kids baseball) as well as wildlife. I got the lens that does not have the vibration reduction (you can get it for around $800 vs the $1200+ VR model) as I tend to shoot really fast with it (for baseball I rarely shoot anything under 1/2000 sec) so the VR is not needed.

Don't forget you can shoot in RAW and maybe shoot with less ISO for less noise and then tinker with the images in post processing...though all of that takes a lot of time but if your getting paid for your photos (even if its in trade for things like getting into venues for free, concert tickets, etc) then you want a quality product. I often shoot products for fishing companies and get stuff in trade...if you can show details or give the consumer what they want then you will get more work.

Lasty, though I mention processing the photos...as you know, you must first have a good photo to process. I think you will like the D7100 as you use it more (as there really isn't much difference than the D7200 other than built in wifi and a slightly faster processor to write the images...but you shouldn't try and shoot fast in low light anyway without a full frame camera, otherwise you will just end up with a headache). 

Grade

PS. So far no problems with me with the off brand lenses...and as far as the super zoom's go (18-300) everything I read about them is that they are no better than a kit lens for image quality...it's just too much to make a sharp image and I know of at least one that broke...that is a lot of movement in a lens each time you make an adjustment.

[billythekidrock]

I have only purchased a 35mm F/1.8 so far.
Mostly looking at a 200mm F/2.8 right now, but tonight I borrowed a 55-200mm F/4-5.6 to screw around with.

I was using a borrowed Nikon D5000 and if the lighting is good I could get good shots with the 18-55mm F/3.5-5.6.
Some of the clubs I shoot in require ISO 3200 with that lens and even then it is hard to capture many solid shots.

With the D7100, 35mm F/1.8 and ISO 5000 I was able to get good pics of a very active bands in a near dark club. I was also able to take less shots and have more useable images. Some tinkering and learning is still in order, but I think I will be happy with this camera.

[grade-creek-rd]

Yes, with time you'll figure out all the functions (I'm still finding new features and I've had mine since this summer). You might look into the Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4. It can give you wide shots and some zoom with a relative fast lens. I really like mine. Its about $500 and takes great landscape and the trophy "grip and grin" shots.

Grade