Brian

I'd say JPEG level 4 is causing more harm than good. You really want to be higher. "10" is fine, of course you could go a little lower if you wanted to for web usage.

Another thought. How about a 200-400 f/4 or investing in a 1.4 Teleconverter to get some extra reach with the sports stuff? I've also heard of very good things with the new 300mm f/4 lens. Now that I think of it, you are at a crossroads. The gear that you'll choose depends on what path you truly want to follow. If you want to be a newborn and baby photographer, I have a few recommendations. Of course, there are TONS of Cutesyname Photography Businesses who shoot babies and newborns. Not so many that shoot little-league games who have a D4 at their disposal. Something to think about.

If you aren't using your 135, you probably won't use the 200mm f/2.0. Do you realize on just how LARGE the 200mm f/2.0 is? It's just under 6.5 pounds all by itself and the lens is 4.9 inches wide by about 8 inches long. That's roughly the size of a large 100-pack of blank DVDs. (The large cylinder of blank DVDs, I'm sure you have seen what I'm talking about.) What does your lens setup look like now? You have a 70-200 f/2.8 now. How committed are you to shooting sports? How committed are you to shooting newborns? Because with newborn photography, if you want to stand out, it needs an investment of time and resources; t's not something you can casually pick up. Believe me, I see A LOT of "Newborn Photographers" that really shouldn't be. Also an investment in lighting should be considered. Don't give me that BS in "specializing" in natural light. LOL! As between the D4 and D5...here is the thing, what are you missing from your D4? I'd kill to have one. I'm still shooting with a D300s and making things work. What doesn't the D4 do that you think it should? Do you know every square inch of that D4 and what ALL the settings and menu choices do? I'm asking from the viewpoint of why throw away $6500? Of course, you could sell the D4 and get a D5, but if all you do is click the button and not utilize any of the flagship features that make a D4 a D4 or D4s or D5... why bother? You aren't going to suddenly get better just by having a D5. I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about. Say I purchase a brand-new shiny guitar. I went as far as picking the wood from the tree and all of the features. In fact, there was enough wood for another guitar that Eric Clapton ended up buying. Our two guitars are identical, except for the one digit difference between the two guitars' serial numbers. Who do you think will sound better onstage? Me or him? Of course, I do agree with you in purchasing the best equipment that one can afford. But you already have top-of-the-line-stuff. If it were me, I'd take the $6500 you are going to spend and put it towards education or even a trip to help change your perspective. Or maybe get a set of nice Profoto Lights and Modifiers in preparation for newborns. Heck, rent a nice studio for a year. You'd be surprised in just how much a PITA it is to shoot at home, especially if you don't have a large room to work with (with high-ceilings.) So let's talk lenses. What do you have now?

At this point, you could send your lens in to have it cleaned / serviced. It's possible that some bits of the shattered filter got inside the lens, or more realistically, the AF mechanisms might be a little off. But from the images that we've been shown, there isn't a reason to be worried. Perhaps you are looking for problems now since the accident?

I'm really not seeing noise. Prime lenses tend to perform better the zoom lenses. The original Canon 24-70 f/2.8L is notorious for being soft, but your lens doesn't seem to be that bad. Honestly, you reaction is pretty much the same from others who went from a prime to a zoom. Not all lenses are created equal. Some lenses perform better than others when it comes to skin. This all boils down to learning your gear.

Since I shoot Nikon, I use Nikon's free viewer program, ViewNX. I can cull pretty quickly, and then import directly into ACR. Of course, Adove's Bridge pretty much does the same thing. If you shoot Canon, just use Bridge.

Well, get the CC first, then get back to me.

I have a talent for spending other people's money. I will answer this either tonight when I get home or over the weekend. What kind of realistic budget do you have in mind?

What camera body? What lens? Could you post some sample photos with the settings used?

I don't like the 6D personally. The main reason is that the ONLY reliable AF point is the center one. On the 6D that's the only "Cross Type" AF Point. Also, the Canon 6D, like the Nikon D610 is a "Entry Level" Full Frame body. I'm not going to spend $1400 on a "Entry-Level" anything. That's why I don't recommend the Nikon D600/D610 either. No sense buying a FX "Digital Rebel." Now, I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who would tell me that I'm wrong and of course, they would be correct. The 6D will definitely perform better in the High ISO dept. compared to your Canon 7D. But in reality, each time I "settled" for _________ camera body, due to lack of funds, I was ultimately unhappy and had buyer's remorse for my purchase. I hate wasting money on this sh*t. If you want the 5D Mark III and have your heart set on it, then get the 5D Mark III. No sense in blowing $1400 and being unhappy. Believe me, I feel your pain. I'm trying to get enough money to buy a used D3s in good shape. Speaking of used, here is a couple of used 5D Mark III on Keh.com: https://www.keh.com/shop/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-22-3-megapixel-digital-slr-camera-body-only-black.html You could save a little by getting a used body in EX or EX+ shape. Now, before we take the Full Frame Plunge, let's talk lenses. If you have a bunch of EF-S lenses, they will cripple your 5D Mark III. EF-S lenses are really only meant to be used with crop bodies. With Canon, you want to use the EF lenses with a Full Frame body. So list what you have. Keep in mind, the average cost to upgrade to Full Frame will run you between $4000-$4500. Why? Because crop shooters have a bunch of crop body only lenses and don't realize it. So chances are, you will be buying a lens along with your FF body. Edit: I just re-read your thread and you indicated that you have your lenses lined up. So disregard the last portion of this comment box. Unless you want to.

Alright, I'm looking at the manual. Let's start with setting your camera to Aperture Priority, the "A" Mode. It's important to note that if you switch between the auto modes, the AF selection settings reset. So if you go from the Flower to the Face on the dial, (Macro to Portrait - Auto Mode) this will affect your focus settings. I'd honestly stick with Aperture Priority and learn it. Or just shoot in full Manual mode. You will be looking at pages 33-38 in the D5200 Manual. Starting on Page 33, you want to be in AF-C (Continuous Servo AF). Page 36. Set your camera to Select Single Point AF. Now try focusing and see what happens. Then choose AF-S. (Single Servo AF). Take a few test shots. Then flip it back to AF-C and choose Dynamic Area AF (21 Points) and then Dynamic Area AF (39 Points.) I know with a lot of Nikon bodies, the 21 Point AF Dynamic Mode is the strongest setting. So say Nikon's Engineers who told Moose Peterson. Whatever you do, make sure you are NOT on 3D tracking or Auto-area AF. Either of those settings will override what you choose. If it were me, I'd choose AF-C and Single Point AF. (The very first box in the list.) OK, now go fiddle and report back.

Two things you need to look for in a monitor: 1. Make sure the screen is IPS based. This is extremely important. 2. Make sure it is either a Matte Screen or has a Matte coating. That's it. Dell, HP, NEC and Eizo make great monitors. I'd avoid Samsungs. While their displays are decent, they are a real pain in the arse to get calibrated. Like you'll need Tequila and a bottle of aspirin after trying to calibrate a Samsung. Last year's models are fine. (The ones on Damien's list.) You might just have to hunt for them. This is the problem with What to Buy lists, they need to be maintained.

Before you send it out, what focus mode are you set to? Refresh my memory. Try setting it to Single AF and have it set to you picking the AF point. There are a few settings that will allow you to pick the point, but if the camera finds something easier to lock on, it will override your choices. You need to tell your camera to not do that in the settings menu.

Here is the current model and seems to be the "Bee's Knees." Dell UP2716D 27" Widescreen It's meant to be in dual-monitor setups and is 100% Adobe RGB and sRGB color-spaces. IPS screen too. It also has a built in KVM, so one monitor could be hooked up to two computers. The Dell 2713H has been discontinued.

Oh, it's also a good idea to keep an eye on your free HD space. With Macs, once you hit about 75% full, things like Scratch Disks and Bridge's Cache start to complain and get cranky.

You are really between a rock-and-a-hard place. I know you want the benefits with FX, but your lenses are holding you back, in my humble opinion. It's because of the stupid resolution of today's sensors. We start at 24MP, and that's for consumer models! So you really need to get glass first, before body. That hasn't changed. The first lens I would replace is the 70-300. Get either the 70-200 f/2.8 VR II or it's little brother, the 70-200 f/4. Both are great lenses. I have a love-affair with my 70-200 f/2.8. Her name is Bertha and she gets sh*t done.

If you have the cash, and feel like upgrading lenses, then a D810 is in your future. Plan on a budget of $6000 or so. Maybe more. To use your current lenses, and slowly upgrade them, then the D500 is your best bet. Or possibly a D750. That body is still on the table. My advice: Pickup a D750 and play around with it, before committing. The D500 is the D300/D300s replacement, so that falls in line with what you currently have.

For a comparison, my FX lens line up is: Nikon 24-70 f/2.8G Nikon 70-200 f/2.8G VR II Nikon 85mm f/1.8G Nikon 60mm f/2.8D Macro Nikon 50mm f/1.8D I really don't use the 60mm Macro that much. In fact, I'm tempted to sell it. The 50mm f/1.8D...I got that lens years ago, when it was $110 new. I really don't use that lens that much and actually use my 35mm f/1.8G DX lens A LOT MORE. I HEART that little Nikon 35mm f/1.8G DX lens. If you shoot DX and don't have that lens, I'm questioning your sanity. It's that good. Only downside is it's a DX body lens only. So if i were to upgrade my 50mm f/1.8D, I would purchase the 58mm f/1.4G, and that lens is on sale for $1496.95. (Whatever you do, SKIP the Nikon 50mm f/1.4G. I hate that lens. That stupid lens caused so many threads in the old Ask Brian. It tends to either miss focus, or will back-focus, especially on a D700. On a D810...bwahahahaha!! Don't even bother. Nikon themselves doesn't recommend that lens for use on a D800/800E or D810 body.) See a theme here? I've rounded off the prices for my FX kit, and I've spent $5200+ so far, and don't have the FX body yet!! Switching to FX is expensive. I'm not trying to humble-brag, but this stuff costs money. So choose wisely.

Ugh. The only one on that list that will work well on the D810 is the AF-S 85mm f/1.8G. The 50mm f/1.8G isn't "bad" either. 20mm f/2.8D...not sure how well it will perform. Not looking that good. The 24-120...is that the VR version? Or the older "D" version? The 70-300...if it's not the VR version, don't bother. In fact, the Non-VR 70-300 lens is one of Nikon's worst performers. The camera stores can't give them away. For example, the 70-300 f/4-5.6 Non-VR is $169.95 @ B&H. That's a new lens. The VR version is MUCH BETTER and that is $496.95. If anyone is reading this and saying, "Oooh!! A 70-300 lens for $170!!! I'm gonna get one!" DON'T. If you want to waste $170, send it my way...I take donations and will put it to good use. Again, do not buy a Non-VR Nikon 70-300. Period. Anyhoo... In reality, I'm not liking your lens setup. The reason has to do with the DX sensor. Since it's physically smaller, it's only using the center-most portion of the lens. So you don't see any flaws with them. You are using the "Sweet Spot" of the lens, where it's supposed to perform its best optically. You will be surprised on just how soft the 24-120 is in the corners, or how bad the Non-VR 70-300 truly is. If you go with a D810, you will be upgrading lenses, for that I'm certain. I know Nikon Marketing has been pushing FX for the last few years, since that's all they had new, technology-wise. They have pushed FX as "Pro" or "Better" and DX as "Consumer" or "Amateur." Now the marketing machine is reversing course, and has released a Pro-Level DX body again, the D500. Keep in mind, the average cost to switch to FX will run you around $4000-$4500, conversationally speaking. That's why I've been acquiring lenses over the last 5 years and I've spent plenty on this sh*t. $2500 here, $1700 there...$500 here, etc. It all adds up. Since the D800E and D810 are very similar IQ-wise, here is the list of recommended lenses for use with the D800E / D810. For a comparison, here is a list from Thom Hogan: Thom's recommended lenses. As you can see, both lists are very similar. Thom really likes the D810 and highly recommends it. But as I've said before, you really need to have your lenses and computer / hard drives / accessories lined up in order to support the D810. So now we are right back to where we started. Which body? As of right now, unless you drop some serious coin on new lenses, the D500 is looking to be your best bet. I think it will be released around the $1999 price-point.

The D500 looks interesting. The controls and setup are very much like a D5. It really is the true D300/D300s replacement. So before we go further, what does your lens setup look like? If you do get a D810, you really NEED to use the best lenses with it. Those 36MP need to be fed, unfortunately, those lenses usually end up being the $2000 lenses.

Well, it's because you are crunching data from 36.1 Million Pixels. Which really puts it at the limit of what the EXPEED4 Processor can handle. If you want 9-11fps, you need to have less pixels. This is why the D4/D4s/D5 are below 20MP. That's why I say the D810 is like a Bomber. It goes in, does its job really well, than leaves. It's not like a Fighter Jet, which does a lot of things quickly, but it's not a true air to surface bomber. KWIM? Most of the things that I noticed with the D700 coming from a D300s, is that the D700 is a tad bit "slower." It's more like a D810 than I realized. The problem today is people are looking for a "Forever Camera." They want to get back to the days of inheriting Grandpa's F2 and a bunch of prime lenses, which gets a person through college and some time beyond. They want a body that is going to last 10+ years. Or longer. The problem is today's cameras are computers that think they are cameras. Bodies only last 4-5 years on average, then they start getting quirky. Take my D300s, the rubber that wraps around the body, the glue is breaking down and it needs to be re-glued and re-wrapped. Sometimes it locks up on me and I have to pull the battery out for a few seconds. Weird thing like that. Which puts me in the market sooner than later.

Note: If anyone is reading this thread and thinking I'm being too hard on the D810, I'm not. I really would love to own one. It's a fine camera.

I'd allow it to do it's thing. That said, if I wanted to purge the cache weekly, you could set it by launching the preferences and changing the duration. If you are a busy photographer who is working on new / different sessions every few days, purge the cache sooner than later. If you like taking your time and not editing batch after batch, then stick with the 30 day purging.

Now, what am I going to do? Since I have a limited budget after purchasing the 24-70, more than likely I will go with a used D700 for about $879. I will add the D3s battery to my MB-D10 grip, and that will get the thing up to 8fps instead of 5fps. I shoot Weddings and Sports, so I need a camera that's fast. I'm also really tough on my gear, so I think I would eat a D750 alive. Plus, I can use all the cards and accessories that I have now, since the D300s is pretty much the same. My final cost with the extra battery is around $1299. About $1000 less than the camera that I'd really like to have, the D3s. I'm hoping to make some money with the D700 then get a used D4s next year. Oh, one more important thing: You really do not want to use DX lenses on a FX body. Sure they will work, but they will Cripple that FX body. For example, if you put a DX lens on a D700, it goes from 12MP to 5MP and the image in the viewfinder? It will be darkened around the sides, which makes things tough to frame.

I'm not sure of the question? LOL!! Believe it or not, I am exactly in the same boat. I have a D300s and will be making the jump to FX soon. In fact, I just bought a Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 in preparation for this. OK, here are your choices: Used Nikon D700, Used Nikon D3s, New D750 and New D810. Used Nikon D700: This is the cheapest route right now. They are running around the $879 mark for EX+ condition. The bonus is you can use the batteries and CF cards that you have now. As far as a Battery Grip, with the D700 you only want to use the Nikon MB-D10. The 3rd party grips have a habit of zapping the D700's electronics. Yes, I'm sure there are people out there who have 3rd party grips and don't have any problems. But when I had Ask Brian on Facebook, I had 4-5 members who had their D700 cameras turn into paperweights due to 3rd party grips. I have a friend in real life who's D700 started acting weird with her Targus Grip. So I can't in good conscious recommend them. Stick with Nikon in this case. The reason I'm going on about this is we haven't discussed what you have in terms of gear now, or if you do have a battery grip. Downfall to the D700: It's tech from 2009. So you if you are looking for those insane high ISO numbers, you are going to have to go to the D3s or get a brand new body. That said, I'm a old film guy, and ISO 6400 seems magical to me. Used D3s: Great camera. Professional Body. All the Bells & Whistles turned on. (You'd be surprised on how many features Nikon leaves out of the consumer bodies.) It's heavier and bigger than your D300, but you get used to it. Viewfinder is different too, the light meter is along the right side and not on the bottom. External controls are very similar to a D300. It has a built in grip and dual card slots. It's fast too, about 9fps. Cost is between $2000 - $2500. New D750: This camera reminds me of a happy puppy. "I'm-a-D750!! Let's go shooting!! C'monC'monC'mon." Images from this camera are great. But it seems that it has chronic problems and there are multiple recalls out. So you might be sending your brand new Nikon D750 back to Nikon if it's one of the models that are affected. Now since you are used to shooting with a D300, which is "Pro Level DX," the D750 will feel like a step backwards. (At least to me.) It's like shooting a D90 or D80 instead of a D300. It just feels like going backwards and the body doesn't feel rugged. D300 users can just "Tell." It's hard to explain. The D750 is equivalent to the D5xxx Class. It's like a FX D5200. New D810: I really like this camera. But the D810 is like a Bomber instead of a Fighter Jet. So it will feel "Slow" compared to your D300. But the images produced from this thing...OMG! The detail and dynamic range. I've played around with one, and it's like... "I'm Tex. Glad to meet you. Now we are going to mosey over there and take great photos...but in a little bit. I have to finish this thing first..." Compared to the D750 where it's like a hyper puppy yanking on the leash. "Let's go shooting!! C'monC'monC'mon....yank-yank-yank.... So the D810 reminds me of a old film camera. It really makes you slow down. At 5fps, you really can't go into "Machine Gun Mode." So if you do shoot sports, you are going to use Group Area AF with 3D tracking to compensate. Also, with the 36MP and the 75MB Raw files, you will need the infrastructure (Large EHDs, i.e. 4TB or larger) and a computer that can keep up. So the biggest downside to the D810 is all the stuff you'll need besides the camera. All the computer stuff. 32GB or 64GB CF cards. 4TB EHDs, 16GB of RAM but really you want 32GB. So you are spending money on a possible new computer AND the D810. In addition, the D810 isn't cheap. If you want the Grip and D4s battery to get the crop mode up to 7fps, It's gonna run you about $3800. In reality, I wish Nikon would come out with a D810h...put the D750's sensor in the D810 body and give us 7fps natively. Those suckers would sell like hotcakes. But that will never happen. Nikon keeps splitting the bodies up to give you just "enough" but wanting more. Like the D810...you want a faster camera? Then you have to buy a D4s or D5. The D750....want a better AF function, want the focus points to be spread out more? Then you have to buy a D810, etc. etc. One camera that you will not see me recommending is the D600 or D610. They are "Entry Level FX" bodies. Think Nikon D3xxx class. I'm not going to be spending over $1000 on an entry level anything. The D610 is meant to be outgrown, just like a D3300. Honestly, it's better to spend a little more and get the D750 and skip the D610.