Thinking about selling my Nikon DSLR -- spammy

[rodekyll]

Putting this out there to A)  see if I'm being reasonable with my price, and B) see if there is any interest among the group here.

I have a fairly current model Nikon DSLR outfit I'm thinking of selling so's I can 'upgrade' my kit.  The camera and all accessories are in excellent cosmetic and working order.  I am thinking of selling only to step up to a full-frame (FX) DSLR.  This DX format feels cramped to me.  Well, FX also feels cramped since I'm stepping down from large format to participate in the digital age.

Here's what I've got:

Nikon D7000 camera body  (~$825 at current market)
oem battery/charger
additional Nikon AA battery holder/vertical mount/shutter button (~$350)
Tokina SD 11-16 2.8-2.8 lens  (~$800)
Nikon VR 18 - 140mm f3.5-5.6 lens ($600)
cabled remote trigger (3rd-party)
books and most original packaging

Here's what it does:


18-140 set wide

18-140 set long


11-16 set wide/remote trigger

This kit is DX format.  The camera body and lenses have all been bought to fit together.  None of it is junk, either in mfgr quality or current condition.  

Will sell for $2200, + shipping

Thoughts?  Interest?

[rocker59]

I'm a Nikon shooter, too.  Great equipment!

I've been eyeing a D610 lately, myself.

Good luck with your sale and upgrade!

 ;-T

[rodekyll]

I'm a Nikon shooter, too.  Great equipment!

I've been eyeing a D610 lately, myself.

Good luck with your sale and upgrade!

 ;-T

 :-[   Busted.

I can couple all my really magnificent Nikon and large format lenses to the 610 and get 'full frame' use of the glass.  That's the big advantage for me.  I also like the 24mpx sensor and the built-in HDR.  Not so excited about the motion features.

[radguzzi]

I have been a Nikon snob since 1972-ish...

My current body is due for replacement too but I will stay put until a year prior to the I of M trip in a couple of years. 
One more lens to buy for that gig too.

Best of luck with the sale and upgrade.

Rob

[LowRyter]

I'm a Nikon shooter, too.  Great equipment!

I've been eyeing a D610 lately, myself.

Good luck with your sale and upgrade!

 ;-T

going full frame

[rocker59]

going full frame

Yeah.  I never liked the DX format, and the mid- to high-end bodies can take the older lenses.

Though I sold off most of my film equipment, I've still got a few older lenses that are pretty nice.

[steven c]

 Another Nikon fan here I would love to upgrade, but my D300 and D200 are not worth much .They still are fine cameras but I would love to have the low light ability of the newer bodies. I think my F2's and 3s have more value now!

[LowRyter]

Yeah.  I never liked the DX format, and the mid- to high-end bodies can take the older lenses.

Though I sold off most of my film equipment, I've still got a few older lenses that are pretty nice.

Actually I thought that all Nikon DSLR cameras could accept any Nikon Lens.  I have a buddy that picked up a D600 D810 and gave up his mid frame Canon.  

full frame: better resolution, bigger area, more range depth of field, high end quality and features

APC-S: near great resolution, cropped area, less depth of field range, quality dependent, smaller camera, choice of FF or APC-S lenses

It does look like many of the new SL cameras are moving up market to FF.  Some have gone mirrorless.  I am impressed with most of the features and quality that most of these camera systems provide.  

[rodekyll]

I still have a handful of F and photomics and some N90 variants, but I sold the F4 and F3 bodies along with most of my Pentax bodies (keeping the K1000's and sold the LX's) when I got sick a few years back.  None of them brought much.  It was especially sad for the F4, which was virtually unfired.

I have kept the best of the glass though.

[rocker59]

Actually I thought that all Nikon DSLR cameras could accept any Nikon Lens.  I have a buddy that picked up a D600 and gave up his mid frame Canon. 
 

Used to, this was part of their policy.  Every new body was backward compatible.  A great selling feature.

The bayonet mount is the same, but there is a large variability in compatibility with the DSLR bodies.

Doesn't do you much good to slap on that great old lens if the meter doesn't work.  Well, you could used a hand-held meter, but you get the point.

The pro-level DSLRs have always had pretty much full compatibility.  Luckly, now the compatibility has improved down into the mid-level lenses.

[rodekyll]

Hmmm.

I've been using all my F-mount lenses on the digital body (long live the 50mm f1.2!).  I have found some microscopic dimensional differences with some of the really early (ais/photomic coupler) lenses that make them 'stiff' when mounting, but the focal plane and such seem right.  I of course can't shoot them in full-auto mode, but I can go to either manual or aperture priority, set the lens, and then let the on-board light meter figure out the math.

Even in manual mode the Nikon digi will still meter light and report on focus -- the little +/- exposure meter in the viewfinder reacts, and the >o< meter for focus will tell you when you're focused or if you're in front/behind.  I've been using those tricks to successfully shoot the digicam through my old Speed Graphic and Eastman equipment.

[rocker59]

I'm getting rusty on my Nikon knowledge, but I recall lens compatability problems with the lower-end DSLR bodies.  metering, F-stop, auto focus, etc.

I cannot recall the details, but it was enough of an issue with me and my huge collection of AI lenses that I didn't buy the DSLR I could afford  (D70 ?).  And I couldn't afford the pro-level DSLR  (D3 ?) at the time.

I worked in photography from 2000 to 2005 pretty heavily.  I had an F2, F3HP, Two F4s and an F100.  I had an all inclusive collection of AI lenses from 20mm to 135mm, and a few AF-D lenses.

I sold off most of that stuff a few years ago, after non using it for five years.  I put the money into a Guzzi!  Anyway, I kept a 28mm f2.8 AF-D and a 50mm f2.8 AF-D for the day when I'd get a nice FX DSLR body.  I'm really liking the D610, and if they drop them below the current $1499 body-only price they've been advertising since Thanksgiving, I'll probably bite the bullet and pick one up.  Or, if they lower the price of the kit with the 24-85 G lens (currently $1995), I might go that route because I sold all my zoom lenses and only currently have fixed.

[rodekyll]

I don't have any Rokon-grade lenses, so I don't know about the low end, clone glass on the dslrs.  But yes, if you've got a simple, manual lens you're not going to couple up to any of the gee-whz stuff on the digicam.

The $1499 price for the 610 is still happening at places like BHphoto, but that's what the D7000 retailed for a few years ago when I bought mine.  It's a 12mpx (iirc) unit with some of the fancy stuff the high end has, but it was considered more of an entry-level pro gun at the time.  Now for the same price we get 2x the sensor saturation, full size sensor, HDM, 1080P, etc.  It's a big step up for the same money.  If I can offset the purchase with the sale of the DX kit I won't hesitate.

[Guido Valvole]

Re: lens compatibility. I bought a D50 some years back as it could take AI lenses. The kit 18-55 was a POS, and the camera wouldn't meter with a manual lens -- but neither do my plain-prism and (dead meter) Photomic Fs or the Nikkormats. Or the screwmount Leicas. Or Rollei 35. Or…

If you have basic exposure knowledge and a histogram display you don't need a meter. Manual focusing with a consumer-grade camera not really meant for that is a pain -- and that viewfinder is even more squinty than that of my Leica III. Which is for composition, not focusing…

*Some* Nikon DSLRs can take any F lens. D40 maybe. SO had a D600, AI only -- I checked last time she was here. Like the D50, body gets in the way of the rear extension of pre-AI lenses. Btw, her 600 never had the dread shutter oil problem but NPS replaced the shutter mechanism anyway. Camera never quite worked right after that and had compatibility problems with new lenses (especially the oh so useful 24-70/2.8). Took a while, and confirmation by colleagues, but Nikon eventually did right and she now has a D610 for her troubles. And loves it.
cr

[Carlo DeSantis]

I've been a Nikon shooter since the late 60s.  When the time came to move to digital, I waited until the D200 was released so that I could use my collection of Nikkors.  The images from the D200 were fantastic -- except for low light.  400 ISO was about the limit for best quality.

The D700 was my next step, and I am still using it after five years.  Although its resolution is well behind current Nikon standard-bearers, the photosites are so large (in the D700) that the images shot at high ISOs are really good.  While I'd love to move up to an 810 or even D4s (assuming I could afford it), I'm not sure it'd be a value for me since most of my stuff is displayed on screen, and seldom printed larger than 8 x 10.  If I were into really large prints that might be different.

You guys wanting to go Nikon FF might give a used D700 some consideration.  Lots of pros still using them.  Hell, the D200 still cranks out great images as long as there's enough light or I use flash.

Carlo

PS: Just bought a Fujifilm X-E2 with a couple of lenses and have been pleased with my first few hundred images.  I did go backward to an APS-C sensor, but it doesn't bother me.  The end results are good and that's what matters, no?

[rodekyll]

I was all ready to pull the string on a D700 when the owner decided to give it to his daughter who is headed to college for a fine arts degree.  I was very disappointed.  A couple of weeks later I found the NIB D7000 for slightly less than the negotiations on the D7000.  I wasn't thrilled about the DX format, but to get my feet wet it was a very solid choice and I don't regret it a bit.  If I could get my money's worth out of my FX lenses I'd be keeping it.  But the D7000 drops the value of my ultra-wide, ultra-fast lenses do to the partial coverage.  It makes more sense to replace the body @$1500 than duplicate my existing collection of lenses for at least that much per unit.  If a guy was just starting out and had to buy everything anyway, the D7000 is a cost-effective option.

[ratguzzi]

It's exactly what fell out of my sidebag 3 months ago when riding back from a Blues band shoot. I was sick to my stomach and rode back and forth looking for it in the ditches for the 28 mile ride. I planned to replace it but like you, I have a ton of good glass waiting for a full format dslr so I too will probably do the D610 or better. I also have a d200 to hold me over,
JB

[rodekyll]

It's exactly what fell out of my sidebag 3 months ago when riding back from a Blues band shoot. I was sick to my stomach and rode back and forth looking for it in the ditches for the 28 mile ride. I planned to replace it but like you, I have a ton of good glass waiting for a full format dslr so I too will probably do the D610 or better. I also have a d200 to hold me over,
JB

 :o :o :o

Oh, No!

I had the same thing happen with my Fuji Finepix when the soft bag melted on my muffler.  I found it though and still use it as a sacrificial camera.  It has melt spots on the lens cover and body from the incident.  It was raining hard enough when it happened that the camera didn't fall directly onto the highway.   ::)  I was impressed by the lickin' it took.

The funny part about having a 'ton' of GOOD glass is that if you've got more than one, it really IS a ton, compared to these plasti-element digi-ones.

[Carlo DeSantis]

RK: The only lens I really missed with DX was the 24/2.8, my favorite wideangle which I used as my 35mm equivalent workhorse.  I compensated with a Tokina 12/24 (excellent lens), but it was a pain to haul a rather large zoom for what was basically just the one (~16mm) focal length I really wanted.  Adding insult to injury, it was an f/4 max aperture.  Other than that, though, I was OK with the 1.5 FL factor.

JB: That sucks!  Nothing else to say.  Or maybe not so bad if you now have a good excuse to move up to a camera you really wanted anyway :)

BTW, I shot the Barber Museum with my D200 and couldn't have asked for better results.  The exhibit lighting was great so high ISOs were not needed.

[rodekyll]

The crop factor cost me the value of a 'wide' range of fixed-focus lenses from an 18mm1.8, 20 1.8, 24 1.8 -on up to my 50 1.2 --all good northern lights/landscape/nightscape lenses.  The crop factor is not a bad thing if you chose your focal lengths with them in mind, but I did not.

[rocker59]

Any update on your search RK ?

I've ruled out the D610 because of too many complaints about shutter shavings and oil getting on the sensor, just like happened on the D600.

So, I've got a choice:  Go with the very excellent DX format D7100, or go with the even more excellent D750 Body. 

Big difference in cost, but they do have a D750 with 24-120 f4 kit out there for $2999.

And, my birthday is coming up here in a few weeks!

[rodekyll]

I'm focusing (pun intended) on the new version of the 810.  It seems to have the buck-bang and features I'd like to have.  The lesser models are overpriced by comparison, and the greater ones have farkles that I'll never use.  I see new 810s as low as $1500 for a bare body (doesn't even include the battery, but Nikon is using the same one for several models and I have some).  But until my health insurance is sorted out I need to be careful with my spending.  It looks like an after-tax-day purchase.

[LowRyter]

Any update on your search RK ?

I've ruled out the D610 because of too many complaints about shutter shavings and oil getting on the sensor, just like happened on the D600.

So, I've got a choice:  Go with the very excellent DX format D7100, or go with the even more excellent D750 Body.  

Big difference in cost, but they do have a D750 with 24-120 f4 kit out there for $2999.

And, my birthday is coming up here in a few weeks!

My 2 cents:  I think the APS-C format is a good compromise,  you gain a rational sized and cost effective camera with great capability.  I am OK with 1.5 crop and willing to give up some wide angle or attendant gain of depth of field.  Certainly lenses and practice can mitigate these very manageable shortcomings.  And APS-C cameras have the benefit of flexibility of using full frame lenses as well as less expensive APS-C lenses.

I don't really think there's a big advantage in image quality despite the sensor size.  Today's APS-C is probably as good or better than last years full frame.  APS-C image can be blown up larger than most anyone will print other than pixel peeking.

Just carrying them around and taking more distance I shots, I think I prefer the smaller camera.  The only real negative is where the future of DSL cameras are going.  It does look like some of development now is being done the expensive FF. just because hobbyists seem to want to spend more.

never mind, I am repeating myself

[rboe]

Current school of thought; for general shooting and wild life the APC format is just fine. Gives you extra reach due to the crop factor, with medium telephoto. Full frame will work better with landscape work. Meh. I have an APC Pentax and do primarily sports (dog agility) and close ups. Full frame would be lost on me.

But I think the new school of though gaining traction (if only in my mind), the Sony mirrorless bodies are the ones to keep an eye on. They are about a model or two out from cleaning up on everyone else - and you can use anybody's lens on them. No need to replace all your kit.

Saw a video on a comparison of the DSLRs from Sony, Nikon, Canon and Pentax along with a lonely mirrorless Sony (A6000?). APC for sure, but it did every thing the DSLR's did, with less weight and at 11-12fps. Holy Moly!

Kinda jones-ing for the new K-3, but the brain says wait for the next Sony. In a couple years I think they will be the 800lb gorilla in the room.

By the way, all those camera's used the "same" chip. Two used a Toshiba chip designed by Sony, virtually the same chip.

I also like the idea of carrying around less weight.

[rodekyll]

Back in the old days (read that "film camera days") we said that the camera is just the box that holds the film.  The glass is the thing.  So I shot the basic Pentax and Nikon for 35mm and bought some marvelous lenses, some of which exceed the cost of this new 810.  Fast forward, and I've still got the lenses -- probably $10K in Nikon alone.  I reason that it makes sense to have a camera body that will use them.  Since they are all FX format, they are 30% wasted on a DX camera.  Because of the crop factor I'd have to replace everything on the normal-to-wide end of my collection.  It makes more sense to buy the FX body and use my lenses than buy a DX, waste my lens investment, and then have to replace them with the inferior lenses that the DX uses. 

[LowRyter]

Current school of thought; for general shooting and wild life the APC format is just fine. Gives you extra reach due to the crop factor, with medium telephoto. Full frame will work better with landscape work. Meh. I have an APC Pentax and do primarily sports (dog agility) and close ups. Full frame would be lost on me.

But I think the new school of though gaining traction (if only in my mind), the Sony mirrorless bodies are the ones to keep an eye on. They are about a model or two out from cleaning up on everyone else - and you can use anybody's lens on them. No need to replace all your kit.

Saw a video on a comparison of the DSLRs from Sony, Nikon, Canon and Pentax along with a lonely mirrorless Sony (A6000?). APC for sure, but it did every thing the DSLR's did, with less weight and at 11-12fps. Holy Moly!

Kinda jones-ing for the new K-3, but the brain says wait for the next Sony. In a couple years I think they will be the 800lb gorilla in the room.

By the way, all those camera's used the "same" chip. Two used a Toshiba chip designed by Sony, virtually the same chip.

I also like the idea of carrying around less weight.

I have a Sony A57 which is a translucent mirror camera ... unfortunately Sony mirrorless camera use a different lens mount ("E" vs "A").  (Although the mirrorless camera offers several adapters for other mounts.) 

[boatdetective]

This is a classic case illustrating that one size does NOT fit all. I really liked my Nikon DSLRs. At the time- they were light years better than compacts. Things have changed considerably. For my needs, portability is a concern. The weight of glass and the bigger body got really oppressive. I switched to an Olympus mirrorless and it does a great job. However, i'd say that the Nikon flash system and intuitive menu system are much better.  My priorities (mostly forensic macro stuff in iffy light) are way off from what RK is doing. He's making the considered decision to see what tool fits his needs- not just what the cool kids are buying.

[rocker59]

I'm into Nikon like I'm into Guzzi, so not really looking at anything else.

And, I don't really shoot sports at long distances like lowryter does, so gaining extra length by using FX lenses on DX cameras doesn't have much appeal.

Back when I shot professionally, I used 20mm, 24mm, and 28mm quite a lot.  And, rarely used more than 85mm.

Since I have some Nikon AF-D lenses, I will buy a camera that can use them to best advantage.  That most likely means a Nikon DSLR in FX format.

I was ready to pull the trigger this week on the D610, but the negative reviews I searched up really scared me off.  I'll buy and use a camera for YEARS, so I want to buy something that will hang in there for me.  So today it's narrowed to the D7100 (if I can bear the DX format) and the D750 (if I can bear the price of admission).

 :o

[rodekyll]

It amounts to having the right tool for the job.  We see in the last several posts, good arguments why different styles and formats are 'right' for one guy and 'wrong' for another.  I'd never try forcing my camera buying criteria on anyone else (unless they were buying it for me), but I'll be thorough about explaining why my choice works for me.  If I was expounding about what I feel the best cameras are, I would not be discussing 35mm at all.   :D

[rboe]

I'm a bit of a sucker for Pentax, starting back in the film days. Had a soft spot for Olympus cameras (the Citroen of the film cameras). But today, the camera body is so much of a percentage of the package (in the old days glass was king, now it's more like King and Queen) with advances in chips, circuit speed, articulated screens, mirrorless - gah! The list seems endless! Makes it very tough to be brand loyal when the right tool for the job is Brand X and you own Brand Y. Usually the differences are not that stark and most of us can muddle along just fine until our brand catches up - and we can afford to buy into the latest features.

I think the user interface plays a more important role today; if you like working with your camera, you know the controls and they fit your work flow you will do better work that with a camera that technically on paper is a better instrument but fights you as you try to work it.

The curve ball is the dang camera phone. Within a limited sphere these things make some very nice pictures. It's crazy just how good they can be. My little pocket Nikons are no slouches either. Just goes to show, the photographers skill set is still the major factor when it comes to making good photos. After all, you don't look at a picture and say "That was taken with a Nikon!".

Well we do at the photography club, but the Canon guys and Nikon guys have to rib each other in good fun.  ;D