D750 bundle with zoom or filmmaker. Which is better value?

A

alexmeadeint

Member
Hello everyone,

I'm moving over from the GH4 and starting from scratch with Nikon. Planning on doing more photojournalism work with some video/doc work on the side. I'd like to be able to do both with this camera but I'm keeping the GH4 as a backup. I had high hopes for the A7rii but I'll be working in dangerous and harsh environments. From what I've seen durability is not Sony's strong point and image quality doesn't match the d750 in terms of uncompressed RAW.

Unless I'm wrong about the A7rii that leaves me with the D750. Which bundle do you think is better value for photojournalism and occasional video?

Nikon D750 Film Maker's Kit
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-D750-FX...UTF8&qid=1439235274&sr=8-1&keywords=nikon+750

Nikon D750 FX-format Digital SLR Camera w/ 24-120mm f/4G ED VR Auto Focus-S NIKKOR Lens
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-D750-FX...UTF8&qid=1439235274&sr=8-1&keywords=nikon+750
 
The one with the 24-120mm f/4 lens.
Because that's an expensive lens that you get at quite a discount with the camera.
Also because if you're talking about photojournalism then you want a great zoom lens, not the slow-down, hassle, and missed shots of changing lenses.
 
Thank you sir but it looks like I could get the same lens on ebay for about the same price separate from the bundle so don't know how great of a deal that is. Amazon does however have $250 coupon for purchasing the camera and the 28-300 VR. This would end up being about $100 more than the D750 with 24-120 bundle but I'd get a hell of a lot more reach. Any thoughts on this lens? Been looking at reviews and it seems to hold up pretty well against the 24-120.
 
that 24-120 is a crap lens. stick with primes. nothing like it for selective focus. brighter VF and much cleaner image. if you need the flexibility of the zoom, go with the sigma 24-105 art which is a stellar lens. but most definitely the prime set. if youre shooting wedding or at an event where thinsg are changing and you need flexibilty to get the shot, then go with the zoom. even a 35-70 AFD 2.8 can be found used for $300 or so. or id even go with the tamron 28-75 2.8. less range but better IQ.
 
I agree with the overall sentiment of the advice here. If you are shooting a doc or film, prime sets can't be beat. If you are shooting events or other footage that you are not staging or don't have control of, a zoom is much more flexible. I love primes and shoot with them whenever I can but I have had clients, even with sit down interviews that want me to, "just zoom in to tighten the frame" or "widen the shot just a touch". They seem to get irritated when I pick up the whole camera and tripod and move it because, "sorry, this lens doesn't zoom".
 
If the only thing you ever want to shoot with the camera are films, then you might want to consider the three primes. (I purchased a Rokinon Cine set for approximately the same amount). But for run and gun shooting (documentary, corporate shots, etc.), the zoom will be much more useful. I would say, buy the zoom and then see where you stand.
 
Yeah, zooms are great for events and things without much setup time.

But how anyone could get excited about an F 5.6 lens is way beyond me. If you're doing that kind of work, you're not going to be setting up a ton of lights. Usually a "video" camera is a better bet, with XLRs, NDs, and a wide zoom range. The footage really looks pretty nice these days, you just won't get killer DOF unless you spend for a big sensor model.

For a DSLR, you either need fast & constant zooms, like a 24-70 and an 80-200 (and you're still challenged on the wide end). Or a 18-35 and a 28-70, everything F 2.8.

I generally use the big Panasonic 1080 camera for events and the DSLR for planned stuff. I usually bring 'em both to a gig.
 
Go with primes. You're going to miss the VR capability, so, get the 24-120 eventually (for video that is). Also forget about the Sigma 24-105. It has a 82mm filter thread which is incompatible with 24-70 and 70-200 Nikon lenses which you may work with at some point. Plus it's heavier and has no significant quality advantages compared to Nikon's 24-120 (or Canon's 24-105). Also has heavy distortion in 24mm (as do the aforementioned Nikon and Canon lenses). If you had the moneys you would get the 24-70 and 70-200 for photo journalism. But, they cost a lot. So, go with the primes. Quality in both IQ and the art of photography. Limiting oneself is resourceful, requires more practice and yields better results. Cheers.
 
I know its an old thread but if someone else finds it looking for info on the 24-120/4 I can say that my first impression is positive.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top