I need camera recommendations!

I'm an artist looking to buy a Nikon Digital SLR. I'm not a professional photographer by any means, so I don't know much when it comes to the tech behind a camera. Therefore, I need recommendations for a camera that will best meet my needs and meet my criteria, which are as follows:

-Is mid-range (up to around $2000)
-Will take decently sized, highly-detailed, and clear reference photos (mostly portraits and full-figure shots in various settings).
-Is not too complicated to use. However, I would rather have a camera that will take more time to learn but provide better photos, than one that is simpler to learn but provides poorer photos.

It may also be helpful to know that I currently own a D5000 with the standard 18-55mm lens. I'm not very satisfied with it because when I take photos with it, they tend to lose clarity and detail as they get close to the edges. It also seems a little too easy to use and I'm afraid I'm missing out on some features in other cameras that may be beneficial to me.

Anywyas, if you guys could offer any suggestions, I would greatly appreciate it!

I vote D600 on the low end and D800 on the high end.

Those are the two that I have been looking at, but there seems to be a lot of debate on which one is a better camera. It seems that a lot of people think the megapixel count for the D800 is too high for its sensor size and that it will therefore turn out poorer-quality images. Can you shed any light on this?

I don't think many people will tell you that too many pixels on the 800 translates to poor image quality. The D800 takes Amazing pictures, and captures amazing detail. And it costs an amazing amount of money, haha. My vote would be the D600. I have it, and absolutely love it. It takes amazing pictures. The color, quality, and ease to learn are all positives. If you have the money for the D800 and a few lenses, Id def. go that route, but it can get pricy. I was debating between those two, and ended up with the D600 putting the difference into a few lenses.

I think I may go the same route so I can use the money I save for another lens or two. Do you have any recommendations there?

Zic6269 said:

Those are the two that I have been looking at, but there seems to be a lot of debate on which one is a better camera. It seems that a lot of people think the megapixel count for the D800 is too high for its sensor size and that it will therefore turn out poorer-quality images. Can you shed any light on this?

Click to expand...

For $2k you could get the D600, but not the D800.

I'm not sure who would say that the number of pixels is too high for the sensor size (sounds like they don't know anything about CMOS sensors) when the pixel size is on par with other Nikons and the sensor has proven itself to handle noise extremely well even up to higher ISOs. In fact, this particular sensor is a marvel in terms of how well it defies conventional wisdom that with higher pixel densities/smaller pixels comes higher noise.

The D800 sensor has been compared against medium format sensors and holds up very well in terms of dynamic range and holding details in the shadows.

If you were to take an image in DX mode on the D800, then take an image from a D7100, the D7100 would have even higher pixel density than the D800.

And all one has to do is look at sample images from a D800 at different ISOs to see that it does exactly the opposite....it renders images like no other DSLR camera out there.

So your recommendation would be the D800 then?

Nikon D600 versus D800

That link goes to the article I read that talks about the D800 having too many megapixels, but it's a little over my head. Although in another area on his site, the guy calls the D3100 the best camera for everything and claims to never use more than 6 megapixels for his own photography. That seems to make very little sense to me and it makes me question his opinions. What do you think?

Just buy the best your money can get..
The D800 with your eyes closed if you can afford it (not just the camera but at least 2 decent lens)
If your budget does not allow, it would make sense to look at the D7000/D7100.

I would have defo voted for the D600 if it did not have all those many issues

Would you consider yourself an expert in lenses?

I think the issue here is the lack of complete understanding on how to operate your current camera. Although I am not a fan of the kit lenses, I would suggest getting a good medium range zoom such as the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 AFS DX lens, and match it with a flash. You can come up with a lot of creativity with the set-up alone.

Next task that I would suggest is to learn more on the basic fundamentals of ISO, Aperture, Shutter speed and how these affects the exposure and the final image. That's just my suggestion which is a little different since I normally suggest the higher end. Getting something better may improve your pictures a little bit but a good know how always helps.

Just my two cents!

You simply need better glass, not a better body.

You say that you have a very capable camera yet don't want anything 'too complicated'...higher end models such as those in your preferred price range are complicated..

You also say something about using the kit lens and having fuzziness in the corners, yadda yadda. I don't have to read any more to suggest investing in better glass. That will pay off moreso than a better body. You aren't missing out on features. You're missing out on light, clarity and fast apertures with that kit lens.

​IMHO, of course.

Zic6269 said:

So your recommendation would be the D800 then?

Nikon D600 versus D800

That link goes to the article I read that talks about the D800 having too many megapixels, but it's a little over my head. Although in another area on his site, the guy calls the D3100 the best camera for everything and claims to never use more than 6 megapixels for his own photography. That seems to make very little sense to me and it makes me question his opinions. What do you think?

Click to expand...

Well I wouldn't take everything that Ken Rockwell says seriously because he is offering opinions rather than actual information. What he means is that for some photographers, 36.3 effective megapixels may be much more than they practically need because it really boils down to the use of the images and to what extent one needs to enlarge their images. Sure, 6 MP is fine for images you just look at on a regular computer screen, or if you only care about shooting jpegs and having a minimalistic workflow. But if you are doing editorial or commercial work, or nature photography, then resolution is important. Ask any wedding photographer if they think 6 MP is enough, or conversely if 36 MP is too much. And to just consider MP count on cameras like these, the way that Ken Rockwell does, is a one dimensional view of what these sensors are really capable of. The D600 can provide more than enough resolution for most applications. But it is more than that, such as dynamic range, color depth, and ISO performance. When you buy a camera like the D600 or D800 (or D700 for that matter) you are buying more than pixel counts.

So your impression was correct, Ken's opinion does make very little sense.

You mentioned the fuzziness on the edges of your photos which is like others said... a glass issue. Before putting money into a more complicated camera for a whole lot money I would suggest you look at a 50mm 1.8G lens (~$200) for your D5000. This is a prime lens as others have mentioned and you could use it on your D5000 to see if this lens makes you happier and no new camera needed. If it doesn't do what you need then you could still purchase the D600-800 camera as the aforementioned lens is a high quality lens that goes with those cameras.

When I put a 35mm 1.8G prime lens on my D5100 it changed the animal entirely. However, like others have alluded to, question is have you mastered the tool your using before tackling a more complex camera like the D600-800.

Zic6269 said:

So your recommendation would be the D800 then?

Nikon D600 versus D800

That link goes to the article I read that talks about the D800 having too many megapixels, but it's a little over my head. Although in another area on his site, the guy calls the D3100 the best camera for everything and claims to never use more than 6 megapixels for his own photography. That seems to make very little sense to me and it makes me question his opinions. What do you think?

Click to expand...

The best piece of photographic advice I'm going to give you today is this: stop reading Ken Rockwell.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

jwstl said:

The best piece of photographic advice I'm going to give you today is this: stop reading Ken Rockwell.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Click to expand...

Unless you need a quick reference on lens and body compatibility

Or the perceived crappyness of a particular lens hood hahaaa

But if we all stop reading his articles and supporting him, how is he going to support his 1200000000000 family members?!?!

Lets keep this simple. Can you afford $3k for the best camera ever made (D800)? If you cant, get the D7100. Case closed. Its the best value DSLR on the planet. I own both. You cant go wrong with either. The D7100 renders images like no other crop sensor I have ever seen. Its the "D800" of the DX cameras. Its priced @ $1196.00 which is an EPIC bargain to say the least! I spend all weekend shooting 4 different weddings (2 of them video) and the D7100 is just out of this world for a DX camera.

I hope this helps. Happy Shooting.

crycocyon said:

Well I wouldn't take everything that Ken Rockwell says seriously because he is offering opinions rather than actual information. What he means is that for some photographers, 36.3 effective megapixels may be much more than they practically need because it really boils down to the use of the images and to what extent one needs to enlarge their images. Sure, 6 MP is fine for images you just look at on a regular computer screen, or if you only care about shooting jpegs and having a minimalistic workflow. But if you are doing editorial or commercial work, or nature photography, then resolution is important. Ask any wedding photographer if they think 6 MP is enough, or conversely if 36 MP is too much. And to just consider MP count on cameras like these, the way that Ken Rockwell does, is a one dimensional view of what these sensors are really capable of. The D600 can provide more than enough resolution for most applications. But it is more than that, such as dynamic range, color depth, and ISO performance. When you buy a camera like the D600 or D800 (or D700 for that matter) you are buying more than pixel counts.

So your impression was correct, Ken's opinion does make very little sense.

Click to expand...

I agree on your statement about Ken and I think he is an over opinionated hef and needs to stop feeding his shit down everyones throat. I wouldnt trust a damn thing he ever said.