Restarting photography after a while.

Lemaildetom

Lemaildetom

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,914
Name
thomas
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi, I'm probably not the first person with this kind of post, just thinking out loud where I am standing right now. I've been through some not-so-easy time in life which meant I have sold most of my camera equipment in the past. I would like to get back into photography but I am shocked at the price of the camera on the market it seems that what I sold two years ago is nearly worth more money today. A lot of bodies now seem to cost thousands of pound.

I would like a camera body with the 3 lenses in the future. A wide angle for the northern light I get on my doorstep (lucky to live in Orkney). A 150-600 sort of lens for the wildlife (again lucky in Orkney, puffins, seals, owls, orcas...) and a generalist lens for everyday use and portrait. The price of wide angle and long lens that won't break the bank is what gives me a really tough choice.

In the past, I used to have a nikon d750, a nikon 20mm f1.8 (I beleive samyang has come up with some cheaper option now), a sigma 150-600 and the 24-120 nikon. I have always been blown away with the iso performance of this camera and I do not worry too much about autofocus and video performance. I feel like I want to go back for the same setup but I am a bit worried, I owned a d750 about 8 years ago and it wasn't even new back then so it feel like proper old tech now.

The cost idea for a setup like this:
-d750 £550
-24-120 f4 £300
-sigma 150-600 £700 (i'm sure I sold one of these for 550 years back...)
-wide angle for night photography need to be cheap?

Would you avoid such old tech?
Would you consider something else? For a similar or cheaper value?
I've not kept up with camera offering in the last few years so maybe something is more suitable.

PS: I own an excelent condition Lumix LX100 ii. But I have never really used it. So I hope to sell it to raise funds. It looks like it has held is value pretty good. I'd like to use it instead of getting the 24-120 but financially I don't think I can keep it.
 
If you don't need high ISO then M43 will save you money and weight.

The D750 is still a very capable camera (consider also the 780) and DSLR lenses will save you a lot of cash compared to current FX mirrorless, though image quality may not be so high in terms of detail resolution. If you're using zooms then absolute image quality isn't a priority anyway.

Welcome back to the forum.

If you want to try FF Mirrorless the Sony A7III is £949 at Cameraworld:

Sony A7 III Mirrorless Camera Body Now £949.00, Extra £150 Cashback for Students at CameraWorld | hotukdeals

www.hotukdeals.com www.hotukdeals.com
 
Last edited:
It’s the other way round for me - finding out that the D800 which I bought new ten years previously was only worth up to £300! (I’m tempted to hold onto it while replacing my kit, but it’d cover two lens adapters and a memory card.)

I would advise against the D750 because of the MP count; for night shooting and wildlife, you’ll do better with the larger canvas - more detail at night, more cropping of wildlife.

The D800 has 36.3MP; I bought a D5 and a D6 last year, and both have 20ish MP, and I’m certainly missing those extra MPs I used to have - I am so so looking forward to having them back when I get the Canon R5ii!

I hired a long lens a couple of years ago, which was far too slow for, well, basically any moving objects - I can check my inbox to see which it was, but I’m mentioning this as a general caution with slow zooms with wildlife / moving object shots.
 
harpistic said:
I would advise against the D750 because of the MP count; for night shooting and wildlife, you’ll do better with the larger canvas - more detail at night, more cropping of wildlife.
Click to expand...
You’re conflating 2 things here and whilst more megapixels does indeed allow for cropping.

Lower mp cameras are better for low light and arguably dynamic range too.

The best explanation for this is if you think of each pixel as the ‘bucket’ you’ll often hear about in exposure descriptions, then a larger bucket gives a much more accurate picture of the light it’s catching. So a smaller bucket will have less info in dark areas (less shadow recovery) and will fill quicker in bright areas (blow highlights earlier). Larger pixels are better.
 
I agree with most of the views above.
My "main" camera cost £5K new, body only. If it hadn't been worked hard and looked pristine it would now be worth around £300, but it's still just as capable as it was on the day it was bought.

"Only" 12 megapixels on a full-frame camera, so big(ish) pixels spaced apart, better for both noise and dynamic range than many new cameras, and it's had the odd mishap and has survived being dropped because of the build quality, and if it doesn't survive the next time I drop it then it won't owe me anything:)

So, maybe you should buy an older pro camera, full-frame to allow for more cropping without too much quality loss, and there are plenty of good second-hand lenses available for DSLR cameras. Over time, as your experience and commitment grows, you may decide that you need the best mirrorless camera with its very expensive lenses, but that's in the future. If that does happen then your old DSLR camera won't have depreciated in value much more than it already has.

We're all different, there are a lot of people out there who are happy to pay top price for the latest and best technology, and the rest of us need these people because we wouldn't be able to get our hands on cheap good cameras without them, but I take a different view - cameras are just tools, and they don't need to be top spec for most of us.
 
I was really happy with the image quality of the Nikon d750, especially at high iso. I just wonder how an old d750 compete with new entry level product like the Canon eos r50.
 
There are all sorts of ways you could go with this.

I don’t do much (if any) nighttime sky stuff. But because it’s relatively slow process, you could do something very different and get some old manual film era glass and an adapter to fit whichever camera you buy.

I recently bought a Canon R6ii and it’s sitting unused most of the time as I’m really enjoying using a mkI Sony a7 and some 40 year old Minolta lenses.

I genuinely think that the image quality is up there with anything I’ve produced from any other (more modern) camera. (Others may disagree ).

My only gripe is that coupled to the R6 (with superior in-body stabilisation) means that longer lenses work better on that set up. But I don’t tend to go in for longer lenses anyway, so it’s not a problem that often.

So while it wouldn’t be suitable for wildlife perhaps, most of the lenses I’ve bought come in at the £30 mark or thereabouts. With adapters in the £20-30 range.

Not for everyone, but it could free up funds for the other parts of your setup.
 
Last edited:
Lemaildetom said:
I was really happy with the image quality of the Nikon d750, especially at high iso. I just wonder how an old d750 compete with new entry level product like the Canon eos r50.
Click to expand...
The R50 is a crop camera, so whilst the pixel count is similar to the d750, they’re very different beasts.
The R50 will have superior focussing and handling speed, but I’d guess the D750 will still have better IQ.
 
Lemaildetom said:
I was really happy with the image quality of the Nikon d750, especially at high iso. I just wonder how an old d750 compete with new entry level product like the Canon eos r50.
Click to expand...

Basically what Phil said. Improvements in mirrorless are around focussing, image tracking, sensor stabilisation, frames per second, true silent shooting. Dynamic range hasn't changed much from your D750, still around 14 to 15 stops. If you photograph people, especially children, with fast lenses wide open or you find your hit-rate at bird photography is low then the new bodies are a game changer, but if not then don't worry.

The real improvement in image quality is available with the best optics, but that's expensive and not going to be obvious if you use zooms anyway.
 
Lemaildetom said:
Would you avoid such old tech?
Click to expand...
No, I certainly wouldn't! A D750 at that price to me is an absolute bargain. And cast a cautious eye on what might get recommended, unless you really have specialist needs.

Full frame is good! 24mpx is good!

And that camera is relatively light. A D610 would equally produce excellent images but has fewer focus points. A D810 (which has a few more mpx) is heavier, but has shutter speeds up to 1/8000 - handy in certain circumstances.

Another thing may relate to your temperament & tolerance of menu structures - you already have some familiarity with the Nikon way.

For a wide angle, any of the above cameras will accept a Nikon film-era manual focus prime, and meter with it.
 
Lemaildetom said:
Hi, I'm probably not the first person with this kind of post, just thinking out loud where I am standing right now. I've been through some not-so-easy time in life which meant I have sold most of my camera equipment in the past. I would like to get back into photography but I am shocked at the price of the camera on the market it seems that what I sold two years ago is nearly worth more money today. A lot of bodies now seem to cost thousands of pound.

I would like a camera body with the 3 lenses in the future. A wide angle for the northern light I get on my doorstep (lucky to live in Orkney). A 150-600 sort of lens for the wildlife (again lucky in Orkney, puffins, seals, owls, orcas...) and a generalist lens for everyday use and portrait. The price of wide angle and long lens that won't break the bank is what gives me a really tough choice.

In the past, I used to have a nikon d750, a nikon 20mm f1.8 (I beleive samyang has come up with some cheaper option now), a sigma 150-600 and the 24-120 nikon. I have always been blown away with the iso performance of this camera and I do not worry too much about autofocus and video performance. I feel like I want to go back for the same setup but I am a bit worried, I owned a d750 about 8 years ago and it wasn't even new back then so it feel like proper old tech now.

The cost idea for a setup like this:
-d750 £550
-24-120 f4 £300
-sigma 150-600 £700 (i'm sure I sold one of these for 550 years back...)
-wide angle for night photography need to be cheap?

Would you avoid such old tech?
Would you consider something else? For a similar or cheaper value?
I've not kept up with camera offering in the last few years so maybe something is more suitable.

PS: I own an excelent condition Lumix LX100 ii. But I have never really used it. So I hope to sell it to raise funds. It looks like it has held is value pretty good. I'd like to use it instead of getting the 24-120 but financially I don't think I can keep it.
Click to expand...
I've recently traded my Nikons D750, D500 my Olympus OM1 Mk III and a handful of lenses for a Nikon Z8 (but kept my D600 and 24-120mm f4).

The D750 is an excellent camera, and although it lacks some modern bells and whistles, there is no issues with image quality. Although there are some perks to a 45/50/60mp sensor in terms of being able to crop a bit tighter, I think that when looking at pictures, as opposed to direct comparison on the computer screen, the benefits are overstated.

On the other hand, the improved AF of something modern like a Z8 is really useful for wildlife and even compared to my old D500, the bird AF on the Z8 is incredible, However, a lot of the time it isn't "really" needed. I still prefer using a tripod for wildlife, and with the camera held in place, for a lot of subjects, I can manually focus on wildlife as easily, and sometimes better than the AF can.

There are two key occasions when a more modern bird AI, AF system is particularly useful for me. Locking onto flying birds, where it was much more difficult with the D750/D500 than the Z8, and tracking birds. Not so much for flying birds, but trying to concentrate on the "whole picture" composition AND keep a moving bird in focus is much easier when you can hand the focus over to the camera. But I am more interested in making "birds in the environment" type pictures than bird portrait type pictures.

The 24-120 f4 gets a fair bit of bad press, and it isn't very good at the 120 end but I find it useable enough at shorter focal lengths. Including landscape if it's stopped down to around f8. Having said that I have pictures at every focal length and wide open which are OK. DXO PhotoLab does wonders for this lens, as does Capture One as you can manually correct the edge sharpness. I don't know about LR/ACR

Because I only really know about Nikons, for your budget, if I was starting again I would probably do exactly as you have suggested (but my main interest is landscape). If Nikon had a Z replacement for the D500 I would have considered keeping the D750 for landscape and replacing the D500. Instead of replacing them both with the Z8

Longer term, for general wildlife, adding a more modern mirrorless would be worth thinking about, and to that end I would check that whatever long zoom you get is compatible with the Nikon FTZ adapter.

For wildlife, I got rid of my Nikon 200-500mm zoom, and went back to using a 300mm f4PF plus a x1.4TC, which I preferred to the zoom, and it actually works better on the Z8 with the FTZ adapter than it did on the D500. The D500 was more capable than the D750 at focussing on fast moving action.

I don't know anything about Canons, but some of the older Canon 5D models get nice things said about them as low cost/ high quality options
 
The sensor performance on a D750 is still up there after all this time. The D750's autofocus low light sensitivity is also very good for a non-pro DSLR (D4 onwards plus D500 and D850 beat it)

I use one for taking pictures of lindy hop dancers (ISO 8000 at 1/200s as it is dark). I also use an even older D3S, which still matches the low light performance of most mirrorless and feels great to use.

Some of the AF/AF-D lenses are really interesting and cheap to.

Samyang do a 14mm manual lens. The older version goes for about £150 used.
 
Thanks, I'd love the d780 but I don't think it is in my budget.
I'm looking at some d750. Ideally, I would sell my Lumix lx100ii first to help with the cost. I am always waiting for the next 80% selling fee rebate on Ebay before putting stuff up there. MBP is offering £570 for an excellent one but they sell them for £829 for a good one to £999 for an excellent one. I hope I can get more that £570 for mine.
 
I had the D750 and loved it, if you don’t need/want all the bells and whistles that modern cameras offer then the D750 is still a really good shout. I’ve gone through about 5 cameras since I had the D750 and there’s been no real difference in the final output/image (unless I’ve cropped HEAVILY). Newer cameras just make getting shots easier, but there’s not really been a noticeably gain in the final image.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top