NickTrop
Veteran
You are probably shooting the wrong camera. You probably have the wrong lenses too. I'm here t' set youse straight. You're welcome.
1. You should not be shooting 35mm film. FF digital has eclipsed it for around the last eight years or so. Shoot it only if you like old cameras for nostalgia and because you can buy them cheap (see "obsolete"). Or? If you like making wet prints, which is laborious but it's a phase we all go through.
2. No APS-C. No small sensors. No 1" sensors. They're all rubbish no matter what kind of fancy body they put them in. I don't care if it's got a red dot or whatever. Full frame only. You're better off with an old FF camera that is short a few MP than any cropped sensor camera. Shooting a cropped sensor camera? You're sportin' a way overpriced digital version of a Minolta Vectus loaded with Advantix film. It's crap. Smaller? Hahaha. Shoot with your cell phone.
3. You should be shooting a Nikon FF DSLR. Canon sensors are currently "not competitive" imo due to their apparent desire to make their own. You should buy your FF camera based on the quality of its sensor and you should go by DXOmark rankings. Right now the cameras with the best sensors are made by Nikon (which outsources to Sony and Tower Jazz) and Sony -- and you can keep silly Sony cameras (a post for another day). New FF cameras are big and expensive. Thus your only real chances are used 600, 610, or 750. Cash stretched? A 700 will suffice. Best bargain? the 600 due to overblown oil spot issue. Anyway, Nikon by process of elimination. If this changes down the road, shot "whatever" camera has the best sensor specs unless it's a Sony.
4. These are the lenses you should purchase for your Nikon FF DSLR and the theory.
1. Ultra wide angle -- zoom (just say no to silly 20mm/1.8's and the like)
2. 24 to portrait length (85-135) primes (these are your mains and they should be primes...)
3. Tele -- zoom (70,80 -- 200-300) (just say no to silly 300/2.8 primes -- or what have you...)
Your main primes
-- All your primes should be autofocus. Autofocus. No "AI" lenses, No "AIS" lenses. They should be NIKKOR glass. Not "Sigma" (especially their silly "Art" series). That said, the Tamron primes with VC "might" be passable.
Your main lens should be a 50/1.4. Not "1.8", not "2.0", not "2.8". A 1.4. Not a 35. Not a 28. This is because you can shoot faces without much distortion and can take the proverbial two steps back (but you can't get rid of the facial stretching with a 35.) Since you're shooting a FF Nikon either the old AF-D or G. I opt for the older D (cheaper, better, overlooked, undervalued -- a "true" 1.4 t-stop value unlike that abomination the Sigma "Art" lens that's really closer to a 1.8.)
Next -- a 24. You will take this out and pair it with your 50 for wide/group shots. I recommend the dirt cheap Quantary Tech-10 24/2.8 which is the old Sigma Ultra Wide II in disguise and rates a 4.0 on Photodo. It also billed as a macro lens -- don't know about that but you can focus close.
(28 you ask? As Brother Manyard said before Arthur lobbed the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch at the killer Rabbit of Caerbannog -- it is RIGHT OUT!)
Next -- a 35. Really only one sensible choice here. The old 35/2 AF-D. Sometimes it's just fun to shoot with a fast 35. Small, light. But terrible for portraits... pair this with a...
Nikon 85/1.8 D or G. I went with the G series on this one. No need for the 1.4 unless you hate your money. You may also get a different short-tele Nikon like that DC one everone raves about (but I think it's too big and too expensive...)
Now -- your ancillary lenses to round out your tool set...
1. An ultra wide zoom. This is when you want to take a picture of a lovely landscape or are side hustling shooting real estate interiors. This is a "nice to have" piece but these lenses are pricey. No need for speed on these. You're shooting this on a tripod at f8 or f11 where they're all sharp. For this reason, I suggest the Tokina 17-35/4 ATX Pro (or whatever -- too lazy to look it up.) $399 -- as Alfred E used to say, "cheap".
2. Tele zoom. Bah. Hate these monstrosities. This is like watching Dario Argento's Dracula. Seen the rest -- and since I'm a completist... I went manual focus since this is an ancillary lens. I wanted the best picture quality for the least amount of money. So that means the old 80-200 metal monster f4.5 (or later f4), an $1800 lens in its day (adjusted for inflation). Now they cost $50-75 bucks. Several versions and much net noise about which one is best. I say get whatever one has the cleanest optics -- no scratches, haze, or fungus. Don't worry about zoom creep. This is not a lens you will often use. It's a "just in case"/occasional use lens. Still, not need to sacrifice IQ -- ever.
Other doo-dads.
Stop shooting "just" natural light. Get some Godox or Yongnou wireless radio flashes and a trigger. Also pick up various stands and diffusers.
Nikon FF DSLR body. Primes are your mains. Fast 1.4 50 your main-main. Zooms on either end of the focal length spectrum. Some cheep Chinese Speedlights and a radio trigger. Boom. Done.
This is the gear "thinking photographers" who don't hate their money own. It is what you should own. This is true.
1. You should not be shooting 35mm film. FF digital has eclipsed it for around the last eight years or so. Shoot it only if you like old cameras for nostalgia and because you can buy them cheap (see "obsolete"). Or? If you like making wet prints, which is laborious but it's a phase we all go through.
2. No APS-C. No small sensors. No 1" sensors. They're all rubbish no matter what kind of fancy body they put them in. I don't care if it's got a red dot or whatever. Full frame only. You're better off with an old FF camera that is short a few MP than any cropped sensor camera. Shooting a cropped sensor camera? You're sportin' a way overpriced digital version of a Minolta Vectus loaded with Advantix film. It's crap. Smaller? Hahaha. Shoot with your cell phone.
3. You should be shooting a Nikon FF DSLR. Canon sensors are currently "not competitive" imo due to their apparent desire to make their own. You should buy your FF camera based on the quality of its sensor and you should go by DXOmark rankings. Right now the cameras with the best sensors are made by Nikon (which outsources to Sony and Tower Jazz) and Sony -- and you can keep silly Sony cameras (a post for another day). New FF cameras are big and expensive. Thus your only real chances are used 600, 610, or 750. Cash stretched? A 700 will suffice. Best bargain? the 600 due to overblown oil spot issue. Anyway, Nikon by process of elimination. If this changes down the road, shot "whatever" camera has the best sensor specs unless it's a Sony.
4. These are the lenses you should purchase for your Nikon FF DSLR and the theory.
1. Ultra wide angle -- zoom (just say no to silly 20mm/1.8's and the like)
2. 24 to portrait length (85-135) primes (these are your mains and they should be primes...)
3. Tele -- zoom (70,80 -- 200-300) (just say no to silly 300/2.8 primes -- or what have you...)
Your main primes
-- All your primes should be autofocus. Autofocus. No "AI" lenses, No "AIS" lenses. They should be NIKKOR glass. Not "Sigma" (especially their silly "Art" series). That said, the Tamron primes with VC "might" be passable.
Your main lens should be a 50/1.4. Not "1.8", not "2.0", not "2.8". A 1.4. Not a 35. Not a 28. This is because you can shoot faces without much distortion and can take the proverbial two steps back (but you can't get rid of the facial stretching with a 35.) Since you're shooting a FF Nikon either the old AF-D or G. I opt for the older D (cheaper, better, overlooked, undervalued -- a "true" 1.4 t-stop value unlike that abomination the Sigma "Art" lens that's really closer to a 1.8.)
Next -- a 24. You will take this out and pair it with your 50 for wide/group shots. I recommend the dirt cheap Quantary Tech-10 24/2.8 which is the old Sigma Ultra Wide II in disguise and rates a 4.0 on Photodo. It also billed as a macro lens -- don't know about that but you can focus close.
(28 you ask? As Brother Manyard said before Arthur lobbed the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch at the killer Rabbit of Caerbannog -- it is RIGHT OUT!)
Next -- a 35. Really only one sensible choice here. The old 35/2 AF-D. Sometimes it's just fun to shoot with a fast 35. Small, light. But terrible for portraits... pair this with a...
Nikon 85/1.8 D or G. I went with the G series on this one. No need for the 1.4 unless you hate your money. You may also get a different short-tele Nikon like that DC one everone raves about (but I think it's too big and too expensive...)
Now -- your ancillary lenses to round out your tool set...
1. An ultra wide zoom. This is when you want to take a picture of a lovely landscape or are side hustling shooting real estate interiors. This is a "nice to have" piece but these lenses are pricey. No need for speed on these. You're shooting this on a tripod at f8 or f11 where they're all sharp. For this reason, I suggest the Tokina 17-35/4 ATX Pro (or whatever -- too lazy to look it up.) $399 -- as Alfred E used to say, "cheap".
2. Tele zoom. Bah. Hate these monstrosities. This is like watching Dario Argento's Dracula. Seen the rest -- and since I'm a completist... I went manual focus since this is an ancillary lens. I wanted the best picture quality for the least amount of money. So that means the old 80-200 metal monster f4.5 (or later f4), an $1800 lens in its day (adjusted for inflation). Now they cost $50-75 bucks. Several versions and much net noise about which one is best. I say get whatever one has the cleanest optics -- no scratches, haze, or fungus. Don't worry about zoom creep. This is not a lens you will often use. It's a "just in case"/occasional use lens. Still, not need to sacrifice IQ -- ever.
Other doo-dads.
Stop shooting "just" natural light. Get some Godox or Yongnou wireless radio flashes and a trigger. Also pick up various stands and diffusers.
Nikon FF DSLR body. Primes are your mains. Fast 1.4 50 your main-main. Zooms on either end of the focal length spectrum. Some cheep Chinese Speedlights and a radio trigger. Boom. Done.
This is the gear "thinking photographers" who don't hate their money own. It is what you should own. This is true.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
No.
Phil Forrest
Phil Forrest
peterm1
Veteran
No,no,no. All you need is a rock with a pin hole for a lens and some pterodactyl skin for the bellows.
kxl
Social Documentary
Just passing the time while you wait for the beer to be delivered from Walmart?
Paulbe
Well-known
Nick--thanks! Great advice... I'm at the bank Monday for a loan--gotta do all this!
Finally good to know the answer..etc etc, ---- have a good one.
Paul
Finally good to know the answer..etc etc, ---- have a good one.
Paul
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
For point 3 the " New FF cameras are big and expensive. " statement. 
It is outdated, you should see the price, size and sensor size ratio of MFT DSLRs fakes.
It is fly poop in the zeppelin.
It is outdated, you should see the price, size and sensor size ratio of MFT DSLRs fakes.
It is fly poop in the zeppelin.
johnf04
Well-known
Never thought I'd see a poe on rangefinderforum.
Huss
Veteran
No,no,no. All you need is a rock with a pin hole for a lens and some pterodactyl skin for the bellows.
I was going to ask red or blue skin, but I see blue is the answer.
NickTrop
Veteran
Glad you get it. I wouldn't expect the rest of these foo'z to. It's about maximizing IQ, minimizing cost. It's all a max/min problem. Approach it like an engineer. Cost/quality. Price/performance. Hard data. Quantitative analysis. Leverage depreciation. Know when you're being marketeered to. Avoid any/all (red dotted) Veblen goods. I've done all the leg work for you -- amidst a deep sea of gear. No need for a loan. Volume digital cameras and lenses (not the niche ones -- the "cranked out in Asia" mass produced ones by companies that specialize in mass production) depreciate faster than cars, no shortage, plenty of supply. Sell your old "amatuer photo system" APS-C digital Kodak Advantix F600 (in whatever form it may be) camera(s) and lens(es) to some suckah. Use that scratch to partially fund a used FF Nikon -- a 700 if you're strapped, a 600 (undervalued, top 5 iirc sensor, small/light, will remain relevant for years) and a used 50/1.4 AF-D. Next the Quantaray 24/2.8 to pair with the 50. That'll set you back about $75 (best relatively undiscovered budget fastish WA prime lens out there...only 5 elements! Spring $8 for the matching "Sigma Perfect Hood". It flares a bit. Again -- Photodo MTF = 4. Not too shabby for a $70 lens with AF. Undervalued because "Quantaray".) Next move on to a Yongnuo or Goddox flash and wireless trigger, a diffuser or three. Take a breather then pick up your portrait lens. Then your ancillary zooms on the ends. These can be manual and 3rd-party. They're "nice-ities" and not really necessary. Build it over time. 24MP (or 12) is plenty. Don't get suckered by the release cycle. Don't be an early adapter suckah.
Steve M.
Veteran
Sounds like a great listing of what NOT to do.
No more late night coffee for Nick :]
No more late night coffee for Nick :]
NickTrop
Veteran
It is completely the correct gear choices. Since when were APS film cameras any good? Why are they suddenly terrific in the digital era and worthy of a $1,500 price tags? They stink. They always did -- film or digital. Smaller sensors micro 4/3rd's? No. That's just silly. 35mm Film? No longer practical. Just isn't. Shoot a few roles for tactile pleasure if you must. Or shoot medium or large format. That's still fantastc and economical relative to MF digital.
That leaves you with full frame by process of eleminition. Finally, after all these years, you got your 35mm back -- on steroids relative to small format film. No stupid "Amateur Photo System" "crop factor". Your 35 = 35. Bokeh at f4 even! Now -- which one?
What gives you the most bang for the buck? For this we turn to DXO for data and eBay, Amazon, and KEH used for costs. D600. 94 on DXOmark (750 is 93) Canon and Leica nowhere in the top 10. Their sensors suck. Prices -- $600-700 used, going rate. I got mine at Ardorama with 18,000 actuations. (I bought an even cheaper one as a back-up.)
24MP -- still very relevant. Plenty of rez for anything. Still one of the best sensors on the market -- $650-ish at the big NYC retailers w/ box, wires, pile, and papers. Fairly small, fairly light, weather sealed, two SD cards. Oil spots? Send it to Nikon for free repair. Prob doesn't have it though, given it's been used since 2012. Neighter of mine had them. Or? Send it back to the retailer -- that's why you don't foo' with eBay on these. Don't have to.
Great camera. Classic. Undervalued.
The rest of my recommendations follow similar impecable logic. Max/min. Price/performance.
Coffee? Two today. One cold brew. One hot. This morning. It's Saturday evening. Cape May Belgium "inspired" craft beer -- and a nice peaty Islay dram. Yes.
barnwulf
Well-known
The correct gear choices for you maybe, but not for me. Sorry Nick but no. - jim
FujiLove
Well-known
Is this an ironic thread or a p*ssing contest?
If it's the latter, my Mamiya 6 gives me an effective 100MP. My Mamiya 7 was more like 150MP.
Do I win? (until the 8x10 guys arrive)
If it's the latter, my Mamiya 6 gives me an effective 100MP. My Mamiya 7 was more like 150MP.
Do I win? (until the 8x10 guys arrive)
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Partially right on, Nick. Forget the 35/2 AF D. It's crap. Don't rule out the AIs lenses. Most are excellent. Built as well as Leica could have done. I am trying out the 17-35/2.8 Nikkor. I'm sure it's better than the Tokina. I've started doing pushups to deal with its weight on the D700. I'm sure it will work out. Keeping the 18/3.5, 20mm P CV, 24/2.8 AF-D just in case it doesn't. I'm with you on the 85/1.8 AF-D.
Dpingr1
Established
Intentional or not, that is an awesome Ken Rockwell impersonation. Kudos.
Michael Markey
Veteran
Haven`t got any of that stuff but can`t argue with the logic .
I am curious though about the dismissal of Sony …. I have two of `em.
Think I know what you might mean though Nick .
I am curious though about the dismissal of Sony …. I have two of `em.
Think I know what you might mean though Nick .
peterm1
Veteran
I was more inclined to think he was impersonating "The Angry Photographer"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn4v4I40Fvo
Gid
Well-known
I have often wondered if Nick and Ken R have ever been seen together
As to the recommendations, the D600 is a very good camera and there's nothing wrong with the lenses recommended either. We're lucky to have so much choice and options.
As to the recommendations, the D600 is a very good camera and there's nothing wrong with the lenses recommended either. We're lucky to have so much choice and options.
CMur12
Veteran
This is about the third time I have read Nick disparage Canon sensors, and I have no reason to doubt his personal sincerity.
I'm still waiting, however, for a Canon user to push back on this assertion.
- Murray
I'm still waiting, however, for a Canon user to push back on this assertion.
- Murray
rangefinderlove123
Established
I've always liked Nick's post, even though I never agree with them =)
Cheers for the entertainment!
Cheers for the entertainment!