In article <0001HW.26D96BD1029C08A130ED2138F@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>,
Bill W <nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:

I really just want to have all options open. If I need a long lens for something, I want it available. I was just looking to see if anyone warned me off the D610, or just old Nikons in general. The 610 is like 8 years old now, but it looks like used Nikons might be a good idea. The reviews from back then looked just fine, and nothing scared me off. And I really don�t want
to spend much money.

get a d7100 or later in the series.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Aug 27, 2021, Incubus wrote
(in article <sga9fo$ipq$1@dont-email.me>):

On 2021-08-27, Bill W<nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:

It’s about $500, and it’s from a camera store in Japan. I don’t know the shutter count, but I sent them a message asking about it.

I want to buy the Sigma 150-600 for my Pentax K-1, and use an adapter for the
Nikon version. But I also thought I could get a cheap used Nikon body in case
it doesn’t work too well with the Pentax, or I just decide I need autofocus.

Any opinions?

The Nikon D6*0 cameras are underrated in my view. The sensor is excellent, even by to-day's standards, with about as much dynamic range as a FF camera has
and good high ISO performance. People complained about the autofocus system at
the time (not as much coverage with fewer sensors) but the AF is capable. If you have the money, a D750 would be better for the AF and high ISO improvements.

What will you be using the Sigma for? If it's for wildlife,

I really just want to have all options open. If I need a long lens for something, I want it available. I was just looking to see if anyone warned me off the D610, or just old Nikons in general. The 610 is like 8 years old now, but it looks like used Nikons might be a good idea. The reviews from back
then looked just fine, and nothing scared me off. And I really don’t want
to spend much money.

you'll certainly
have a better lens selection with a Nikon and a much better AF system from what
I have read.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <0001HW.26D99D5302A7A34930DBA538F@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>,
Bill W <nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:

I really just want to have all options open. If I need a long lens for something, I want it available. I was just looking to see if anyone warned
me
off the D610, or just old Nikons in general. The 610 is like 8 years old now,
but it looks like used Nikons might be a good idea. The reviews from back then looked just fine, and nothing scared me off. And I really don1t want to spend much money.

get a d7100 or later in the series.

I�m leaning towards full frame, even if there�s not a particularly good reason.

there isn't.

the 7xxx series is extremely capable.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Aug 27, 2021, nospam wrote
(in article<270820211455264225%nospam@nospam.invalid>):

In article<0001HW.26D96BD1029C08A130ED2138F@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>,
Bill W <nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:

I really just want to have all options open. If I need a long lens for something, I want it available. I was just looking to see if anyone warned me
off the D610, or just old Nikons in general. The 610 is like 8 years old now,
but it looks like used Nikons might be a good idea. The reviews from back then looked just fine, and nothing scared me off. And I really don¹t want to spend much money.

get a d7100 or later in the series.

I’m leaning towards full frame, even if there’s not a particularly good reason.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Aug 27, 2021, Bill W wrote
(in article<0001HW.26D99D5302A7A34930DBA538F@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>):

On Aug 27, 2021, nospam wrote
(in article<270820211455264225%nospam@nospam.invalid>):

In article<0001HW.26D96BD1029C08A130ED2138F@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>,
Bill W <nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:

I really just want to have all options open. If I need a long lens for something, I want it available. I was just looking to see if anyone warned
me
off the D610, or just old Nikons in general. The 610 is like 8 years old now,
but it looks like used Nikons might be a good idea. The reviews from back then looked just fine, and nothing scared me off. And I really don¹t want
to spend much money.

get a d7100 or later in the series.

I’m leaning towards full frame, even if there’s not a particularly good reason.

Why FF when APS-C does a pretty good job?

This is what my Fuji APS-C can deliver. <https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-tKJg2NJ/0/dc385f23/O/i-tKJg2NJ.jpg>

--
Regards,
Savageduck

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Aug 27, 2021, Savageduck wrote
(in article<0001HW.26D9C1FE04F52E6170000F17F38F@news.giganews.com>):

On Aug 27, 2021, Bill W wrote
(in article<0001HW.26D99D5302A7A34930DBA538F@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>):

On Aug 27, 2021, nospam wrote
(in article<270820211455264225%nospam@nospam.invalid>):

In article<0001HW.26D96BD1029C08A130ED2138F@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>, Bill W <nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:

I really just want to have all options open. If I need a long lens for something, I want it available. I was just looking to see if anyone warned
me
off the D610, or just old Nikons in general. The 610 is like 8 years old
now,
but it looks like used Nikons might be a good idea. The reviews from back
then looked just fine, and nothing scared me off. And I really don¹t want
to spend much money.

get a d7100 or later in the series.

I’m leaning towards full frame, even if there’s not a particularly good reason.

Why FF when APS-C does a pretty good job?

This is what my Fuji APS-C can deliver. <https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-tKJg2NJ/0/dc385f23/O/i-tKJg2NJ.jpg>

I know that those are fine - I still have 2 Pentax APS-C that I think are great. Like I said, it don’t think there is a compelling reason for a hobbyist like me, but for one thing I am fond of low light photography. All other things being equal, the 24 MP FF should have better low light
performance than 24MP APS-C. And I know that all other things are not necessarily equal. There’s tradeoffs, there’s not one clear winner. I
have plenty of time to think about it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Aug 27, 2021, Bill W wrote
(in article<0001HW.26D9D37C02B454F730F37D38F@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>):

On Aug 27, 2021, Savageduck wrote
(in article<0001HW.26D9C1FE04F52E6170000F17F38F@news.giganews.com>):

On Aug 27, 2021, Bill W wrote
(in article<0001HW.26D99D5302A7A34930DBA538F@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>):

On Aug 27, 2021, nospam wrote
(in article<270820211455264225%nospam@nospam.invalid>):

In article<0001HW.26D96BD1029C08A130ED2138F@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>, Bill W <nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:

I really just want to have all options open. If I need a long lens for
something, I want it available. I was just looking to see if anyone warned
me
off the D610, or just old Nikons in general. The 610 is like 8 years old
now,
but it looks like used Nikons might be a good idea. The reviews from back
then looked just fine, and nothing scared me off. And I really don¹t want
to spend much money.

get a d7100 or later in the series.

I’m leaning towards full frame, even if there’s not a particularly good
reason.

Why FF when APS-C does a pretty good job?

This is what my Fuji APS-C can deliver. <https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-tKJg2NJ/0/dc385f23/O/i-tKJg2NJ.jpg>

I know that those are fine - I still have 2 Pentax APS-C that I think are great. Like I said, it don’t think there is a compelling reason for a hobbyist like me, but for one thing I am fond of low light photography. All other things being equal, the 24 MP FF should have better low light performance than 24MP APS-C. And I know that all other things are not necessarily equal. There’s tradeoffs, there’s not one clear winner. I have plenty of time to think about it.

If you want low light performance look to your glass. An FF with mediocre glass is going to be out performed by an APS-C with outstanding fast glass at a much lower cost. What FF fast Nikkor glass are you prepared to pay for to get that low light
performance with a D610?

Try the AF-S Nikkor 28mm f/1.4 @ $1999, or the AF-S Nikkor 58mm f/14G @ $1599.95, or AF-S Nikkor 85mm 1.4G @ $1599.95, or AF-S Nikkor 105mm f/1.4ED @ $2099.95.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Aug 27, 2021, Savageduck wrote
(in article<0001HW.26D9D8A304FA7CFD70000F17F38F@news.giganews.com>):

On Aug 27, 2021, Bill W wrote
(in article<0001HW.26D9D37C02B454F730F37D38F@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>):

On Aug 27, 2021, Savageduck wrote
(in article<0001HW.26D9C1FE04F52E6170000F17F38F@news.giganews.com>):

On Aug 27, 2021, Bill W wrote
(in article<0001HW.26D99D5302A7A34930DBA538F@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>):

On Aug 27, 2021, nospam wrote
(in article<270820211455264225%nospam@nospam.invalid>):

In article<0001HW.26D96BD1029C08A130ED2138F@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>, Bill W <nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:

I really just want to have all options open. If I need a long lens for
something, I want it available. I was just looking to see if anyone warned
me
off the D610, or just old Nikons in general. The 610 is like 8 years old
now,
but it looks like used Nikons might be a good idea. The reviews from
back
then looked just fine, and nothing scared me off. And I really don¹t
want
to spend much money.

get a d7100 or later in the series.

I’m leaning towards full frame, even if there’s not a particularly good
reason.

Why FF when APS-C does a pretty good job?

This is what my Fuji APS-C can deliver. <https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-tKJg2NJ/0/dc385f23/O/i-tKJg2NJ.jpg>

I know that those are fine - I still have 2 Pentax APS-C that I think are great. Like I said, it don’t think there is a compelling reason for a hobbyist like me, but for one thing I am fond of low light photography. All other things being equal, the 24 MP FF should have better low light performance than 24MP APS-C. And I know that all other things are not necessarily equal. There’s tradeoffs, there’s not one clear winner. I have plenty of time to think about it.

If you want low light performance look to your glass. An FF with mediocre glass is going to be out performed by an APS-C with outstanding fast glass at a much lower cost. What FF fast Nikkor glass are you prepared to pay for to get that low light performance with a D610?

Try the AF-S Nikkor 28mm f/1.4 @ $1999, or the AF-S Nikkor 58mm f/14G @ $1599.95, or AF-S Nikkor 85mm 1.4G @ $1599.95, or AF-S Nikkor 105mm f/1.4ED @ $2099.95.

You might not have seen my original post. I’ve always felt that I am
missing one lens, a long lens. The Sigma 150-600 would be just fine for that last lens, but they don’t make it for Pentax, and never will. So I planned
to get a mount adapter and get the Nikon mount on the lens. The idea came up
of getting a used Nikon body to go with the lens in case it didn’t work out on my Pentax. Plus I might really want AF. That lens is not fast, but it is
F5 - 6.3, and not terribly slow. But that could still be considered low light under normal conditions, especially with a teleconverter that B&H sells with the lens. It’s also not that big a deal to carry two cameras, one with the long lens. That should be useful at air shows, or race tracks. Or I might
just get a little hip repair done, and see if I can walk a lot better afterwards. I’d hate to have that new lens and camera, and have to sit on
the porch hoping some interesting birds come around. Anyway, I don’t plan
to switch to Nikon, so it would be one lens only. I always like the photos
you post with that Fuji system, and when I do finally switch, that’s the first place I’m looking.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 27/08/2021 19:52, Bill W wrote:

I really just want to have all options open. If I need a long lens for something, I want it available. I was just looking to see if anyone warned me off the D610, or just old Nikons in general. The 610 is like 8 years old now, but it looks like used Nikons might be a good idea. The reviews from back then looked just fine, and nothing scared me off. And I really don’t want to spend much money.

If long lens is what matters, you could do worse than invest in a micro-four-thirds system, where good quality lenses are available from multiple manufacturers, and they are much more compact, and much lighter.

Apart from the cost, of course!

I do still have Nikon, but last used in September 2015.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

To: Savageduck
On 2021-08-27 8:59 p.m., Savageduck wrote:

Why FF when APS-C does a pretty good job?

This is what my Fuji APS-C can deliver. <https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-tKJg2NJ/0/dc385f23/O/i-tKJg2NJ.jpg>

Good work indeed.

Well in the early 2000's affordable dslr even the ones with "pro"
pretension where APS's. So when I switched from film to digital I was
concerned with the "zoom" factor of cropped image, but then it tough
might be a plus. Lenses defect like vignetting are usually more at the
edge of the lens so you eliminate some by cropping at the center. You do
lose in shallow dept of field and 28mm is the normal insteal of 50mm.
But that's a trade back.

At first I thought it would be transition period where I would
eventually go back to full frame, when I get lenses I still go for full
frame. But weirdly I always go back to an APS body when I upgrade.

I got used to it and I get a better deal. And if you plan to do zoom photography you to get that 1.6X bump in magnification.
--- Synchronet 3.18a-Linux NewsLink 1.113
MtlGeek - Geeks in Montreal - http://mtlgeek.com/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <sgck05$r5a$1@dont-email.me>, David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

If long lens is what matters, you could do worse than invest in a micro-four-thirds system, where good quality lenses are available from multiple
manufacturers,

true, although more limited than for dx/fx.

and they are much more compact, and much lighter.

myth.

for equivalent image quality, 4/3rds lenses are usually bigger, heavier
and more expensive, especially at the wider end, where such lenses may
not even be possible.

only at the telephoto end is that sometimes true.

keep in mind that a 4/3rds lens must be two stops faster than a fx lens
for the same results, which means an equivalent lens may not exist at
all due to physics, or if it does, it's big and heavy and not cheap.

for example, the equivalent of a 50mm f/1.4 lens on fx is a 25mm f/0.7
on 4/3rds. that lens does not exist on 4/3rds.

don't even think about an equivalent for a 50mm f/1 or f/1.2 on 4/3rds.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, 26 August 2021 at 21:39:33 UTC-4, Bill W wrote:

It’s about $500, and it’s from a camera store in Japan. I don’t know the shutter count, but I sent them a message asking about it.

I want to buy the Sigma 150-600 for my Pentax K-1, and use an adapter for the
Nikon version. But I also thought I could get a cheap used Nikon body in case
it doesn’t work too well with the Pentax, or I just decide I need autofocus.

Any opinions?

$500 for that plastic junk? You can get a D3s for that and the sensor differences are marginal.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Aug 30, 2021, RichA wrote
(in article<8a707ed9-4b94-4e74-90f4-d873bb6e52e8n@googlegroups.com>):

On Thursday, 26 August 2021 at 21:39:33 UTC-4, Bill W wrote:

It’s about $500, and it’s from a camera store in Japan. I don’t know the shutter count, but I sent them a message asking about it.

I want to buy the Sigma 150-600 for my Pentax K-1, and use an adapter for the
Nikon version. But I also thought I could get a cheap used Nikon body in case
it doesn’t work too well with the Pentax, or I just decide I need autofocus.

Any opinions?

$500 for that plastic junk? You can get a D3s for that and the sensor differences are marginal.

12 vs 24 MP is marginal? 2007 vs 2013 is marginal? Why would I care if it’s plastic? I’m not using it to drive nails. And I’m not changing systems. I just need a cheap but usable body for the lens, because they don’t make it for Pentax. That is the only lens I’m missing of all the ones I think I
need and want. And if this works out, I will have no need to change systems until my Pentax cameras fail, and they go out of business.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <0001HW.26DDB6230369FE9330664538F@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>,
Bill W <nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:

I want to buy the Sigma 150-600 for my Pentax K-1, and use an adapter for the
Nikon version. But I also thought I could get a cheap used Nikon body in case
it doesn�t work too well with the Pentax, or I just decide I need autofocus.

Any opinions?

$500 for that plastic junk? You can get a D3s for that and the sensor differences are marginal.

12 vs 24 MP is marginal? 2007 vs 2013 is marginal? Why would I care if it�s plastic?

rich has a thing for plastic.

I�m not using it to drive nails.

old nikons could do that :)

And I�m not changing systems.

yet :)

I just need a cheap but usable body for the lens, because they don�t make it for Pentax. That is the only lens I�m missing of all the ones I think I
need and want. And if this works out, I will have no need to change systems until my Pentax cameras fail, and they go out of business.

they're working on that :(

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, 30 August 2021 at 19:07:17 UTC-4, RichA wrote:

On Thursday, 26 August 2021 at 21:39:33 UTC-4, Bill W wrote:

It’s about $500, and it’s from a camera store in Japan. I don’t know the shutter count, but I sent them a message asking about it.

I want to buy the Sigma 150-600 for my Pentax K-1, and use an adapter for the
Nikon version. But I also thought I could get a cheap used Nikon body in case
it doesn’t work too well with the Pentax, or I just decide I need autofocus.

Any opinions?

$500 for that plastic junk? You can get a D3s for that and the sensor differences are marginal.

D3x 24mp ($7000 new) are around $700 barebones now.
Can't pay real money for something that has a mode dial that looks like it came of a D40.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2021-08-27, Bill W <nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:

On Aug 27, 2021, Incubus wrote
(in article <sga9fo$ipq$1@dont-email.me>):

On 2021-08-27, Bill W<nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:

It’s about $500, and it’s from a camera store in Japan. I don’t know >> > the shutter count, but I sent them a message asking about it.

I want to buy the Sigma 150-600 for my Pentax K-1, and use an adapter for >> > the
Nikon version. But I also thought I could get a cheap used Nikon body in >> > case
it doesn’t work too well with the Pentax, or I just decide I need
autofocus.

Any opinions?

The Nikon D6*0 cameras are underrated in my view. The sensor is excellent, >> even by to-day's standards, with about as much dynamic range as a FF camera >> has
and good high ISO performance. People complained about the autofocus system at
the time (not as much coverage with fewer sensors) but the AF is capable. If >> you have the money, a D750 would be better for the AF and high ISO
improvements.

What will you be using the Sigma for? If it's for wildlife,

I really just want to have all options open. If I need a long lens for something, I want it available. I was just looking to see if anyone warned me off the D610, or just old Nikons in general. The 610 is like 8 years old now, but it looks like used Nikons might be a good idea. The reviews from back then looked just fine, and nothing scared me off. And I really don’t want to spend much money.

It's definitely the most cost-effective option. Nikons are very reliable.
Lots of us are still using D700s and D3s alongside newer cameras.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2021-08-27, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

In article <0001HW.26D99D5302A7A34930DBA538F@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>,
Bill W <nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:

I really just want to have all options open. If I need a long lens for >> > > something, I want it available. I was just looking to see if anyone warned
me
off the D610, or just old Nikons in general. The 610 is like 8 years old >> > > now,
but it looks like used Nikons might be a good idea. The reviews from back
then looked just fine, and nothing scared me off. And I really don1t want
to spend much money.

get a d7100 or later in the series.

I¹m leaning towards full frame, even if there¹s not a particularly good
reason.

there isn't.

the 7xxx series is extremely capable.

Low light/high ISO capability and depth of field are two good reasons. The ability to use Ai lenses is also a good reason now that this has been dropped with the D7500.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2021-08-28, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

On Aug 27, 2021, Bill W wrote
(in article<0001HW.26D99D5302A7A34930DBA538F@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>):

On Aug 27, 2021, nospam wrote
(in article<270820211455264225%nospam@nospam.invalid>):

In article<0001HW.26D96BD1029C08A130ED2138F@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>,
Bill W <nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:

I really just want to have all options open. If I need a long lens for >> > > something, I want it available. I was just looking to see if anyone warned
me
off the D610, or just old Nikons in general. The 610 is like 8 years old >> > > now,
but it looks like used Nikons might be a good idea. The reviews from back
then looked just fine, and nothing scared me off. And I really don¹t want
to spend much money.

get a d7100 or later in the series.

I’m leaning towards full frame, even if there’s not a particularly good >> reason.

Why FF when APS-C does a pretty good job?

This is what my Fuji APS-C can deliver.
<https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-tKJg2NJ/0/dc385f23/O/i-tKJg2NJ.jpg>

It's a good photo but a full frame camera would deliver a cleaner, sharper image. There is more shadow noise and noise in the defocussed area than I am used to since moving to full frame.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2021-08-28, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

On Aug 27, 2021, Bill W wrote
(in article<0001HW.26D9D37C02B454F730F37D38F@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>):

On Aug 27, 2021, Savageduck wrote
(in article<0001HW.26D9C1FE04F52E6170000F17F38F@news.giganews.com>):

On Aug 27, 2021, Bill W wrote
(in article<0001HW.26D99D5302A7A34930DBA538F@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>):

On Aug 27, 2021, nospam wrote
(in article<270820211455264225%nospam@nospam.invalid>):

In article<0001HW.26D96BD1029C08A130ED2138F@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>, >> > > > Bill W <nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:

I really just want to have all options open. If I need a long lens for
something, I want it available. I was just looking to see if anyone warned
me
off the D610, or just old Nikons in general. The 610 is like 8 years old
now,
but it looks like used Nikons might be a good idea. The reviews from back
then looked just fine, and nothing scared me off. And I really don¹t want
to spend much money.

get a d7100 or later in the series.

I’m leaning towards full frame, even if there’s not a particularly good
reason.

Why FF when APS-C does a pretty good job?

This is what my Fuji APS-C can deliver.
<https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-tKJg2NJ/0/dc385f23/O/i-tKJg2NJ.jpg> >>

I know that those are fine - I still have 2 Pentax APS-C that I think are
great. Like I said, it don’t think there is a compelling reason for a
hobbyist like me, but for one thing I am fond of low light photography. All >> other things being equal, the 24 MP FF should have better low light
performance than 24MP APS-C. And I know that all other things are not
necessarily equal. There’s tradeoffs, there’s not one clear winner. I
have plenty of time to think about it.

If you want low light performance look to your glass. An FF with mediocre glass is going to be out performed by an APS-C with outstanding fast glass at a much lower cost. What FF fast Nikkor glass are you prepared to pay for to get that low light

performance with a D610?

Try the AF-S Nikkor 28mm f/1.4 @ $1999, or the AF-S Nikkor 58mm f/14G @ $1599.95, or AF-S Nikkor 85mm 1.4G @ $1599.95, or AF-S Nikkor 105mm f/1.4ED @ $2099.95.

Not everyone wants to shoot wider open in low light.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2021-08-30, RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, 26 August 2021 at 21:39:33 UTC-4, Bill W wrote:

It’s about $500, and it’s from a camera store in Japan. I don’t know >> the shutter count, but I sent them a message asking about it.

I want to buy the Sigma 150-600 for my Pentax K-1, and use an adapter for the
Nikon version. But I also thought I could get a cheap used Nikon body in case
it doesn’t work too well with the Pentax, or I just decide I need
autofocus.

Any opinions?

$500 for that plastic junk? You can get a D3s for that and the sensor differences are marginal.

Good luck getting a D3S in good condition with low shutter count for the same price as a D610. Good luck getting a D3 for that matter.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2021-08-31, RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, 30 August 2021 at 19:07:17 UTC-4, RichA wrote:

On Thursday, 26 August 2021 at 21:39:33 UTC-4, Bill W wrote:

It’s about $500, and it’s from a camera store in Japan. I don’t know >> > the shutter count, but I sent them a message asking about it.

I want to buy the Sigma 150-600 for my Pentax K-1, and use an adapter for the
Nikon version. But I also thought I could get a cheap used Nikon body in case
it doesn’t work too well with the Pentax, or I just decide I need
autofocus.

Any opinions?

$500 for that plastic junk? You can get a D3s for that and the sensor differences are marginal.

D3x 24mp ($7000 new) are around $700 barebones now.
Can't pay real money for something that has a mode dial that looks like it came of a D40.

The D3x is terrible in low light. Snobbery about having a dial is silly. Most amateurs and even professionals don't have the kind of working conditions where they need a body as solid as a D3. There is also such a thing as insurance.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <sgkv92$c0m$3@dont-email.me>, Incubus
<incubus9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

This is what my Fuji APS-C can deliver.
<https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-tKJg2NJ/0/dc385f23/O/i-tKJg2NJ.jpg>

It's a good photo but a full frame camera would deliver a cleaner, sharper image.

not necessarily. that depends on many, many factors.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Aug 31, 2021, Incubus wrote
(in article <sgkv1s$c0m$1@dont-email.me>):

On 2021-08-27, nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

In article<0001HW.26D99D5302A7A34930DBA538F@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>,
Bill W <nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:

I really just want to have all options open. If I need a long lens for
something, I want it available. I was just looking to see if anyone warned
me
off the D610, or just old Nikons in general. The 610 is like 8 years old
now,
but it looks like used Nikons might be a good idea. The reviews from back
then looked just fine, and nothing scared me off. And I really don1t want
to spend much money.

get a d7100 or later in the series.

I¹m leaning towards full frame, even if there¹s not a particularly good reason.

there isn't.

the 7xxx series is extremely capable.

Low light/high ISO capability and depth of field are two good reasons. The ability to use Ai lenses is also a good reason now that this has been dropped with the D7500.

One other important thing I forgot to bring up is that this camera purchase revolves only around one lens. I want a 150-600, but if I put it on APS-C, I have a 225-900 instead, which limits its uses. If I put it on FF, I can
always add (with a penalty, of course) a 1.4x TC. I’m still up in the air about this, and I’m looking at the 7100, 7200, and 610. I get the lens tomorrow, so I can try it on both my APS-C and FF bodies, and get a better
feel for it. That should make the decision easier.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <0001HW.26DE90E8038C503230F1A538F@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>,
Bill W <nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:

One other important thing I forgot to bring up is that this camera purchase revolves only around one lens. I want a 150-600, but if I put it on APS-C, I have a 225-900 instead, which limits its uses.

you could get a 100-400mm lens for aps-c, which would be equivalent to
a 150-600mm full frame.

nikon's 180-400mm f/4 vr would be a *very* good choice, other than not
having 100-180mm, which another lens can provide.

the only problem is that it's $12,397 at b&h. on the other hand, you'll
get a *lot* of cash back on your payboo card.

<https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1383763-REG/nikon_180_400mm_f_4e _tc_1_4.html>

if that's over budget, you might be able to find their older 200-400mm,
which was a far more affordable $7000 msrp. used prices will be a bit
less than that.

If I put it on FF, I can
always add (with a penalty, of course) a 1.4x TC. I�m still up in the air about this, and I�m looking at the 7100, 7200, and 610.

of those, d7200.

I get the lens
tomorrow, so I can try it on both my APS-C and FF bodies, and get a better feel for it. That should make the decision easier.

maybe :)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Aug 30, 2021, nospam wrote
(in article<300820212207338402%nospam@nospam.invalid>):

In article<0001HW.26DDB6230369FE9330664538F@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>,
Bill W <nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:

I want to buy the Sigma 150-600 for my Pentax K-1, and use an adapter for
the
Nikon version. But I also thought I could get a cheap used Nikon body in
case
it doesn¹t work too well with the Pentax, or I just decide I need autofocus.

Any opinions?

$500 for that plastic junk? You can get a D3s for that and the sensor differences are marginal.

12 vs 24 MP is marginal? 2007 vs 2013 is marginal? Why would I care if it¹s
plastic?

rich has a thing for plastic.

I¹m not using it to drive nails.

old nikons could do that :)

And I¹m not changing systems.

yet :)

I just need a cheap but usable body for the lens, because they don¹t make it
for Pentax. That is the only lens I¹m missing of all the ones I think I need and want. And if this works out, I will have no need to change systems until my Pentax cameras fail, and they go out of business.

they're working on that :(

Yeah, I’m not optimistic. I guess they are doing okay overseas, but they could still end operations in the US.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Aug 31, 2021, nospam wrote
(in article<310820211247035795%nospam@nospam.invalid>):

In article<0001HW.26DE90E8038C503230F1A538F@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>,
Bill W <nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:

One other important thing I forgot to bring up is that this camera purchase revolves only around one lens. I want a 150-600, but if I put it on APS-C, I
have a 225-900 instead, which limits its uses.

you could get a 100-400mm lens for aps-c, which would be equivalent to
a 150-600mm full frame.

nikon's 180-400mm f/4 vr would be a *very* good choice, other than not
having 100-180mm, which another lens can provide.

the only problem is that it's $12,397 at b&h.

I can come up with that. Just not for a lens. Maybe a nice little used pickup truck.

on the other hand, you'll
get a *lot* of cash back on your payboo card.

Oooh, now I’m wavering.

<https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1383763-REG/nikon_180_400mm_f_4e _tc_1_4.html>

if that's over budget, you might be able to find their older 200-400mm,
which was a far more affordable $7000 msrp. used prices will be a bit
less than that.

If I put it on FF, I can
always add (with a penalty, of course) a 1.4x TC. I¹m still up in the air about this, and I¹m looking at the 7100, 7200, and 610.

of those, d7200.

I get the lens
tomorrow, so I can try it on both my APS-C and FF bodies, and get a better feel for it. That should make the decision easier.

maybe :)

Yes, exactly “maybe". Thinking more, if I use just my existing cameras,
APS-C and FF, and get a 1.4 TC, I have an effective range of 150-1260mm. But all with MF only because of the lens adapter. So the main reason for the
Nikon would be AF, whether FF or APS-C. So with an optional TC, I have to choose between a range of 150-840 with FF, and 225-1260 with APS-C, with the benefit of AF. Except that the AF might not work with the TC because of the effective aperture. And it probably won’t work even without it if I stop down. I’m getting a headache. And if the Pentax “catch in focus” works with this lens, that adds one more thing to consider. Now it’s a migraine.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2021-08-31, Bill W <nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:

On Aug 31, 2021, nospam wrote
(in article<310820211247035795%nospam@nospam.invalid>):

In article<0001HW.26DE90E8038C503230F1A538F@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>,
Bill W <nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:

One other important thing I forgot to bring up is that this camera purchase
revolves only around one lens. I want a 150-600, but if I put it on APS-C, I
have a 225-900 instead, which limits its uses.

you could get a 100-400mm lens for aps-c, which would be equivalent to
a 150-600mm full frame.

nikon's 180-400mm f/4 vr would be a *very* good choice, other than not
having 100-180mm, which another lens can provide.

the only problem is that it's $12,397 at b&h.

I can come up with that. Just not for a lens. Maybe a nice little used pickup truck.

on the other hand, you'll
get a *lot* of cash back on your payboo card.

Oooh, now I’m wavering.

<https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1383763-REG/nikon_180_400mm_f_4e
_tc_1_4.html>

if that's over budget, you might be able to find their older 200-400mm,
which was a far more affordable $7000 msrp. used prices will be a bit
less than that.

If I put it on FF, I can
always add (with a penalty, of course) a 1.4x TC. I¹m still up in the air >> > about this, and I¹m looking at the 7100, 7200, and 610.

of those, d7200.

I get the lens
tomorrow, so I can try it on both my APS-C and FF bodies, and get a better >> > feel for it. That should make the decision easier.

maybe :)

Yes, exactly “maybe". Thinking more, if I use just my existing cameras, APS-C and FF, and get a 1.4 TC, I have an effective range of 150-1260mm. But all with MF only because of the lens adapter. So the main reason for the Nikon would be AF, whether FF or APS-C. So with an optional TC, I have to choose between a range of 150-840 with FF, and 225-1260 with APS-C, with the benefit of AF. Except that the AF might not work with the TC because of the effective aperture. And it probably won’t work even without it if I stop down. I’m getting a headache. And if the Pentax “catch in focus” works with this lens, that adds one more thing to consider. Now it’s a migraine.

One thing I can say is that AF makes wildlife photography much easier. I missed a lot of opportunities with manual focus that I can easily get with AF. Also, getting accurate focus is a lot harder with a tele lens even if it's not particularly fast. There's no comparison, really. I would never use a manual lens for wildlife again.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)