Why not d7200? That's the refreshed model of the D90..
yeah it's the most immediate model to upgrade to..Also cheaper and can use back your DX lenses if you have any.
If you don't shoot action / sports / low light / high-iso photography, the D610 will be more suitable.
I guess he didn't meant it is not good. Just that there are many other models can do better.Can explain why D610 not good with low light/high iso?
Anyway, everyone want a better camera, some even want the best of the best. Whether is the camera able to release it potential fully in the hands of the photographer? that is not the topic of dicussion and nobody want to touch on it. So just need tell them which is better camera can liao.
Always when in doubt, get both since both 2nd hand prices are not more than $2k each.
Can explain why D610 not good with low light/high iso?
I am not sure if D3 holds low light high ISO advantage over D610: the sensors are 3-4 generations apart (D3-D300/D3s-D7000/D4-D7100-D600/D4s-D7200-D610).
DxO scores here.
Dynamic range score D4s ISO 3074, D610 ISO 2925, D3 ISO 2290 (the higher the better).
I think the D3 holds sway only in the high fps rate. The AF speed and accuracy may also have been surpassed.
Personally I would go for the later/latest generation unless I need the build and high fps rate (like for birding - I am contemplating getting D3s for this purpose, for comparison my FF solutions are D800 and Df).
At the similar cost range (mostly used prices +-#2000), speed D3s, resolution D800/E, high ISO Df. But my personal view in this matter is that the optimum solution (cost-performance compromise) is the D750. D7200 for reach but TS wants to optimally use his lenses, so this is out.
Shoot both at 6400, -2EV. Push up and you will see the difference.
Didn't know capability of camera is to be judged based on under-exposed shots... :dunno:
Shoot both at 6400 metered correctly and see what you get.
It's not. It's about how far the image can be pushed. Both metered correctly, the IQ of the D3 will still be better.