Looking for Upgrade Advice – Lens or Body?

TomD13

TomD13

Suspended / Banned
Messages
156
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

After a bit of a break (kids and life getting in the way), I’m getting back into photography with a Nikon D5600. I’ve had it for a while and, while it’s still a solid camera, I’m starting to think about what might be worth upgrading – either the body or the lenses.

My current setup:
  • Nikon D5600 DX
    Nikon 35mm f/1.8
  • Nikon 18–55mm kit lens
  • Nikon 70–300mm f/4.5–6.3
  • Sigma 150–600mm Sport

I mostly shoot with the 35mm and 70–300mm. I don’t really stick to one genre – I enjoy landscapes, the odd portrait/family shot, a bit of street or abstract stuff when the mood strikes. I’m just shooting for enjoyment.

I’d love to go mirrorless eventually, but it’s not in the budget right now. I’m not looking to spend a fortune or build up loads of gear, I just want to take sharper, more consistent photos and keep things enjoyable.

I’ve been looking at the 18–140, 18–200, or 18–300 as a potential upgrade over the 18–55 (and potentially the 70-300), mainly for travel and general shooting. I know they offer more reach, but does anyone have real-world experience with image quality on these compared to the kit lens?

Also open to second-hand body upgrades – maybe a D7200, or even full-frame if the price/setup makes sense. Just trying to work out where I’d see the most benefit for my money.


Thank you,
Tom
 
Last edited:
Hi Tom
I used to have Nikon DSLR cameras ie D810 as one example. Then "er indoors who must be obeyed" complained I had too much gear never being used
So I did P/X all and bought a Panasonic micro four thirds camera the G9. It got me interested in photogrqaphy again. What I do like is the lenses being that much lighter . A MFT lens 100mm =200mm in full frame terms. Now also own the G9ii +4 lenses with another in transit from Japan.
Picture quality ++++ colour ++++ .

I can only speak as I find, for me this change for Nikon to Panasonic after years with Nikon was an eye opener.
 
TomD13 said:
Hi all,

I just want to take sharper, more consistent photos
Click to expand...
What do you think a change of system will give you to help with this?

Prime lenses will be somewhat sharper than zooms with a big range. Larger sensors will generally be sharper but most people won't notice at normal viewing size. And modern mirrorless systems may help you nail focus more accurately. But really - the issue is more likely to be technique. Perhaps post some images to show what you want to improve?
 
Generally its 1. Technique and 2. Lenses but for the latter you really need a system that is both up to date and supports the glass you want. I think an upgrade to full frame z mount or another system may be a prerequisite that will not only enable 1. And 2 but also contribute somewhat by itself due to more accurate focus, ibis, better sensitivity and so on. Then you can build up some quality primes as you need and dont forget the technique and practice
 
If you are happy with the image quality of the Nikon I'd say mirrorless could be an option.

Maybe take a look at a used MFT body together with just two lenses, a 17mm f1.8 and 45-150mm? You could also add a standard range kit lens if you wanted.

PS. Reasons for mirrorless...
No MA faff on for lenses.
AF points over the sensor giving freedom of composition.
Eye detect... This together with greater AF coverage is IMO a real and true "game changer."
Being able to see the whole frame and the depth of field and the exposure before you take the picture.

Good luck choosing.
 
Last edited:
What you have looks OK, why not use what you have for a while, and see what you lean towards.

I agree with the comments on M43, I changed nearly 4 years ago now, and it made a huge difference to my enjoyment and results.

One of the biggest advantages is the dual stabilisation, hand held at 1/15 second with a FF eq of 800mm :) (I went with the Panasonic G9, which you can probably get for around £400 now)
 
realspeed said:
Hi Tom
I used to have Nikon DSLR cameras ie D810 as one example. Then "er indoors who must be obeyed" complained I had too much gear never being used
So I did P/X all and bought a Panasonic micro four thirds camera the G9. It got me interested in photogrqaphy again. What I do like is the lenses being that much lighter . A MFT lens 100mm =200mm in full frame terms. Now also own the G9ii +4 lenses with another in transit from Japan.
Picture quality ++++ colour ++++ .

I can only speak as I find, for me this change for Nikon to Panasonic after years with Nikon was an eye opener.
Click to expand...
Thank you for sharing this @realspeed. If I’m honest, I don’t know much about MFT - perhaps something to look into. I like the idea of carrying my camera around all the time - but never seem to have the right lens…but a smaller setup might be the answer….


juggler said:
What do you think a change of system will give you to help with this?

Prime lenses will be somewhat sharper than zooms with a big range. Larger sensors will generally be sharper but most people won't notice at normal viewing size. And modern mirrorless systems may help you nail focus more accurately. But really - the issue is more likely to be technique. Perhaps post some images to show what you want to improve?
Click to expand...
Fair question @juggler - I suppose I’m hoping a better focusing might just improve the consistency a bit. Even when I feel like I’ve done everything right, I still find most of my shots slightly off. I use aperture or shutter priority mostly, and I do try to focus on the eye when I’m doing portraits or family shots, but I rarely feel like it lands reliably. Could well be technique, and I might dig out a few examples if that helps, but I do think the it lets me down when tracking and in low-light


LongLensPhotography said:
Generally its 1. Technique and 2. Lenses but for the latter you really need a system that is both up to date and supports the glass you want. I think an upgrade to full frame z mount or another system may be a prerequisite that will not only enable 1. And 2 but also contribute somewhat by itself due to more accurate focus, ibis, better sensitivity and so on. Then you can build up some quality primes as you need and dont forget the technique and practice
Click to expand...
Thank you @LongLensPhotography - that’s really helpful!


woof woof said:
If you are happy with the image quality of the Nikon I'd say mirrorless could be an option.

Maybe take a look at a used MFT body together with just two lenses, a 17mm f1.8 and 45-150mm? You could also add a standard range kit lens if you wanted.

PS. Reasons for mirrorless...
No MA faff on for lenses.
AF points over the sensor giving freedom of composition.
Eye detect... This together with greater AF coverage is IMO a real and true "game changer."
Being able to see the whole frame and the depth of field and the exposure before you take the picture.

Good luck choosing.
Click to expand...
That’s exactly the sort of thing I think would help me. Half the battle is just getting a sharp shot of someone before the moment’s gone, and being able to trust the camera’s going to hit the eye consistently would take a lot of the stress out of it.


Sangoma said:
What you have looks OK, why not use what you have for a while, and see what you lean towards.

I agree with the comments on M43, I changed nearly 4 years ago now, and it made a huge difference to my enjoyment and results.

One of the biggest advantages is the dual stabilisation, hand held at 1/15 second with a FF eq of 800mm :) (I went with the Panasonic G9, which you can probably get for around £400 now)
Click to expand...
Thank you @Sangoma - That’s fair, and in some ways the D5600 has served me well. But the reality is, I find I’m spending more time trying to make it work than actually enjoying taking the photo. Especially with anything moving or in lower light, it just feels like it can’t quite keep up.
 
yes the dual stablisation is truly amazing. I took this yesterday in my back garden hand held using my pana. G9 and 100-300mm lens (200 -600mm in FF )to give some Idea. Being 80 years old steady hands they are not . I have the 100-400mm lens arriving shortly and depending on how I get on with it this lens I may well be putting up for sale

unedited. bright sunlight didn't help
View: https://youtu.be/mKUQmdR3wFc

to give some idea of size which goes up to 600mm

P1070273.jpg
Using that lens together with a MeiKe extn tube got this

b5mZaBE.jpeg
again hand held
 
Last edited:
TomD13 said:
That’s exactly the sort of thing I think would help me. Half the battle is just getting a sharp shot of someone before the moment’s gone, and being able to trust the camera’s going to hit the eye consistently would take a lot of the stress out of it.
Click to expand...

Being able to focus anywhere in the frame is a big plus. You don't have to focus and recompose and you don't have to rely on a focus point in the central area and crop the picture for the framing you want later. Your subjects eye can be just about anywhere in the frame. It really is wonderful for pictures with people in them. What you can also do, assuming your camera has this feature, is save faces so that the camera will focus on them rather than whoever is stood next to them. You don't even have to hold the camera to your face, as long as you can see the back screen you can hold the camera at an angle to get you the composition and perspective you want and leave it to the camera to hit your subjects eye.

Here's an example of how small your subjects face can be in the frame and this camera still locked on. The camera wasn't to my face, just held in front of me at about waist height pointing up. A true "snap shot." :D

1-DSC01090.JPG

Good luck choosing but honestly I wouldn't go back to a DSLR's now, I've got so used to the advantages of mirrorless. It's at least worth looking into.

One last one. I wasn't going to lay on the grass for this but I didn't have to. I held the camera near the ground pointing slightly upwards and composed on the back screen leaving the camera to hit her eye.

1-DSC00033-C.jpg
 
Last edited:
Looking at your replies and original post, I don't think you would be happy upgrading the body to something essentially similar.

Also, M43 looks more and more like it would suit you :)

Nothing less than a G9 (they were going for around £400), the G9ii may have some advantages, but not for 4 times the price for me.

The added advantage if that you can use other other M43 cameras (from a sub £59 16MB G3, to a compact GX9) with the same lenses.

The ergonomics of the G9 are considered to be extremely good, it has all the features you need now, and probably for a good while into the future.

About the only point against it is that it uses contrast detect focus, but it is very fast (was the fastest of all at one time), and I have not had missed shots because of it.

I chose Panasonic over Olympus as I can't get on with the menu system on the Olympus, and the feel in my hand is nowhere near the Panasonic, very personal things, so try both and see which feels better to you. Though I don't think you would get the features on an Olympus for the same price :)

Have a look on youtube for the G9
 
Tom,

You have some nice glass there, perfectly adequate for pin sharp consistent photographs, the 18-55 is still one of my all time favorite lenses. Nikon didn't mess about and the silver ring undersold it in my view, of course the F 2,8 zooms are nice but enter the realms of specialist gear where by the eye of a portrait is pin sharp and the ear is out of focus or very low light. The D7200 would be a mind bendingly superb choice. The D7000 is the only camera I regret selling, and that was only because it was a pals daughter who going to uni on a photography course ( I hope she did well with it).

If you are just looking to feel a bit of love for taking photos again spend the absolute minimum and certainly the D7200 is bang for the buck whilst you keep the super glass you already have. If you need supers sharp - up the shutter speed and F stop, if you need creamy bokeh move your subject 1 or 2 steps further away from the back ground.

Get out there and snap away!
 
Last edited:
Wayne


yes the Nikon you mentioned are good cameras no doubt about it. It is the lenses and their weight that made me change over to MFT range. You have also forgotton about image stablisation. This is here where the Panasonic G9 and G9ii walk all over those Nikons. remember I was a huge Nikon fan since getting the D70s-D200-D300-D800-Finally the D810 , nearly 20 years with Nikon so I know them well also A large number of lenses to go with them even using Sigma lenses and Tamron thrown in the mix with Nikon . Even have one of these

name removed for security reasonstttttttttt.jpg
One of the constant issues I had with almost all of the Nikons I owned was photograping the colour red. why I don't know even using different lens manufacturers
 
Last edited:
My advice would be to define what it is you're trying to achieve. The kit that you have seems adequate for most purposes, to be honest. Are you really going to derive much value from new kit? I'd work with what you have, although I'd possibly consider swapping out the zooms for a couple of primes in the range that you need.

I've ended up to some extent viewing my zooms almost as primes anyway. Their sweet spot in terms of focal length and aperture range is quite a small subset of their stated range. I'm also not going to expect (or even hope for) rapid tracking in low light. I just discard that expectation and cater as best as possible in non-ideal situations.
 
Last edited:
TomD13 said:
Thank you for sharing this @realspeed. If I’m honest, I don’t know much about MFT - perhaps something to look into. I like the idea of carrying my camera around all the time - but never seem to have the right lens…but a smaller setup might be the answer….



Fair question @juggler - I suppose I’m hoping a better focusing might just improve the consistency a bit. Even when I feel like I’ve done everything right, I still find most of my shots slightly off. I use aperture or shutter priority mostly, and I do try to focus on the eye when I’m doing portraits or family shots, but I rarely feel like it lands reliably. Could well be technique, and I might dig out a few examples if that helps, but I do think the it lets me down when tracking and in low-light



Thank you @LongLensPhotography - that’s really helpful!



That’s exactly the sort of thing I think would help me. Half the battle is just getting a sharp shot of someone before the moment’s gone, and being able to trust the camera’s going to hit the eye consistently would take a lot of the stress out of it.



Thank you @Sangoma - That’s fair, and in some ways the D5600 has served me well. But the reality is, I find I’m spending more time trying to make it work than actually enjoying taking the photo. Especially with anything moving or in lower light, it just feels like it can’t quite keep up.
Click to expand...
IME Eye detect is a game changer if you get a good implementation, and not good enough to rely on otherwise.

Sony have had it fairly well nailed for a while. Nikon have only recently got it to the point where I'd rely on it - with the Z8 and Z9 - and even then I have my cameras set up so I can quickly swap back to single point with focus & recompose or 3d tracking

I've never actually used Fuji or Canon mirrorless myself but I see plenty of people on group shoot events who do and they struggle with eye detect indoors. I think Olympus had it first but they haven't progressed as fast as Sony & Nikon.
 
TomD13 said:
Hi all,

After a bit of a break (kids and life getting in the way), I’m getting back into photography with a Nikon D5600. I’ve had it for a while and, while it’s still a solid camera, I’m starting to think about what might be worth upgrading – either the body or the lenses.

My current setup:
  • Nikon D5600 DX
    Nikon 35mm f/1.8
  • Nikon 18–55mm kit lens
  • Nikon 70–300mm f/4.5–6.3
  • Sigma 150–600mm Sport

I mostly shoot with the 35mm and 70–300mm. I don’t really stick to one genre – I enjoy landscapes, the odd portrait/family shot, a bit of street or abstract stuff when the mood strikes. I’m just shooting for enjoyment.

I’d love to go mirrorless eventually, but it’s not in the budget right now. I’m not looking to spend a fortune or build up loads of gear, I just want to take sharper, more consistent photos and keep things enjoyable.

I’ve been looking at the 18–140, 18–200, or 18–300 as a potential upgrade over the 18–55 (and potentially the 70-300), mainly for travel and general shooting. I know they offer more reach, but does anyone have real-world experience with image quality on these compared to the kit lens?

Also open to second-hand body upgrades – maybe a D7200, or even full-frame if the price/setup makes sense. Just trying to work out where I’d see the most benefit for my money.


Thank you,
Tom
Click to expand...
Before spending any money I’d be asking why the shots aren’t sharp enough and why there’s a lack of consistency. Chances are it’s down to technique and/or lack of understanding how light affects these things in which case changing gear isn’t going to help.

Of course you could be talking lack of consistency between one lens and another, for example I wouldn’t expect the 18-55mm to be as sharp or give as nice rendering as the 35mm f1.8. However it’s hard to know based on the info provided (y)

(Apologies if this has been covered by other posts).
 
Last edited:
For focus, put the camera in a fixed position (tripod if you have it) and then use live view to focus it using the centre point onto a bright, flat white target with a big X drawn on it. Don't move the camera or the target. Then, put the lens on manual, stick it on optical viewfinder and see if the focus dot appears when you half press the shutter. Make sure you have decent lighting.

Repeat with other lenses.

If it is consistently off then you might have to adjust the focus on the camera. This is complicated.

My D5500 needed tweaking to get the focus right- it was okay in the centre but 2 of the corners were off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top