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?

In article <0001HW.26D879D00273FD4330A3C538F@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>,
Bill W <nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:

> It¹s about $500, and it¹s from a camera store in Japan.

grey market, don't bother.

> I don¹t know
> the shutter count, but I sent them a message asking about it.

nikon puts that in exif. all you need is a recent photo.

On Aug 26, 2021, nospam wrote
(in article<260820212204084826%nospam@nospam.invalid>):

> In article<0001HW.26D879D00273FD4330A3C538F@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>,
> Bill W <nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > It¹s about $500, and it¹s from a camera store in Japan.
>
> grey market, don't bother.
>
> > I don¹t know
> > the shutter count, but I sent them a message asking about it.
>
> nikon puts that in exif. all you need is a recent photo.

The shutter is at 82K. I also looked around and see that the used 610’s
aren’t exactly rare, so there’s no rush. I have to first decide if I want
to spend the money on the lens right now.

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

On 2021-08-27, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <0001HW.26D879D00273FD4330A3C538F@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>,
> Bill W <nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> It¹s about $500, and it¹s from a camera store in Japan.
>
> grey market, don't bother.

Why not? It's not as though it'll be within the guarantee period. If any
repairs are required, there are companies other than Nikon who can work on it.

On 2021-08-27, Bill W <nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Aug 26, 2021, nospam wrote
> (in article<260820212204084826%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
>
>> In article<0001HW.26D879D00273FD4330A3C538F@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>,
>> Bill W <nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> > It¹s about $500, and it¹s from a camera store in Japan.
>>
>> grey market, don't bother.
>>
>> > I don¹t know
>> > the shutter count, but I sent them a message asking about it.
>>
>> nikon puts that in exif. all you need is a recent photo.
>
> The shutter is at 82K. I also looked around and see that the used 610’s
> aren’t exactly rare, so there’s no rush. I have to first decide if I want
> to spend the money on the lens right now.

You can save money by getting a D600. Don't worry about the shutter issue with
oil/debris on the sensor; as long as it's not "new old stock", you can be
confident with any model more than a few thousand actuations into its life.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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/

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.

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.

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.

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 :(

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.