Moved to a full frame DSLR? What benefits did you experience?
Discussion
I currently have a D90 and a small but useful collection of lenses.
I keep thinking about buying a D7000 as people seem to rave about it being a 'significant upgrade' over the D90, but now I'm wondering if the D7000 would just be another stop-gap until I went 'full frame' with the likes of a D700.
But I really don't know what difference full frame would make to me?
I don't shoot sports or weddings or anything 'professional' such as that.
I mostly shoot:
City at night on a tripod type stuff.
Architecture, buildings and bridges.
Stationary vehicles indoors and outdoors.
Bit of arty model/portrait photography here and there for friends.
I also travel a lot and love taking my D90 wherever I go, so a lot of travel shots are snow sports, landscape and very sunny type locations.
So to give me a clearer picture (no pun intended) can you tell me about your experiences switching to full frame wether they be good, bad or indifferent.
Thanks
I keep thinking about buying a D7000 as people seem to rave about it being a 'significant upgrade' over the D90, but now I'm wondering if the D7000 would just be another stop-gap until I went 'full frame' with the likes of a D700.
But I really don't know what difference full frame would make to me?
I don't shoot sports or weddings or anything 'professional' such as that.
I mostly shoot:
City at night on a tripod type stuff.
Architecture, buildings and bridges.
Stationary vehicles indoors and outdoors.
Bit of arty model/portrait photography here and there for friends.
I also travel a lot and love taking my D90 wherever I go, so a lot of travel shots are snow sports, landscape and very sunny type locations.
So to give me a clearer picture (no pun intended) can you tell me about your experiences switching to full frame wether they be good, bad or indifferent.
Thanks
I tried it and went back, but that was specific to me and how I work.
If you don't know the advantages you shouldn't be considering it.
Lower noise (have you thought - 'my photos are too noisy'?)
Bigger viewfinder (have you thought - 'this VF is too small'?)
Shallower depth of field (have you thought - 'this DOF is too great'?)
Neither an advantage or disadvantage: for any given focal length, you get more wide angle and less telephoto.
Disadvantage: Pound for pound, lenses will be bigger, heavier and more expensive as they need to throw a larger image than DX lenses.
50p says it's a gearfest thing
If you don't know the advantages you shouldn't be considering it.
Lower noise (have you thought - 'my photos are too noisy'?)
Bigger viewfinder (have you thought - 'this VF is too small'?)
Shallower depth of field (have you thought - 'this DOF is too great'?)
Neither an advantage or disadvantage: for any given focal length, you get more wide angle and less telephoto.
Disadvantage: Pound for pound, lenses will be bigger, heavier and more expensive as they need to throw a larger image than DX lenses.
50p says it's a gearfest thing
Simpo Two said:
Lower noise (have you thought - 'my photos are too noisy'?)
Yes- when I first started out and didn't have a clue! But not now that I actually know how to limit noise by controlling ISO amongst other things. So no, my photos aren't noisy anymore!
Bigger viewfinder (have you thought - 'this VF is too small'?)
Erm, no, not that I ever notice!
Shallower depth of field (have you thought - 'this DOF is too great'?)
Not since I invested in a few decent lenses with low F numbers such as my 50mm 1.8
Food for thought there... And my answers.Yes- when I first started out and didn't have a clue! But not now that I actually know how to limit noise by controlling ISO amongst other things. So no, my photos aren't noisy anymore!
Bigger viewfinder (have you thought - 'this VF is too small'?)
Erm, no, not that I ever notice!
Shallower depth of field (have you thought - 'this DOF is too great'?)
Not since I invested in a few decent lenses with low F numbers such as my 50mm 1.8
Thanks for the input
It's not really narrower DOF on full frame of course - the same lens on a full frame body taken from the same location will just result in a wider shot.
Does that matter in practice? Guess that depends For me it doesn't, you frame shots as you see them, so you will naturally stand closer to a subject with an identical lens on a full frame camera.
I don't regret buying a full frame camera, I like the creative opportunities it affords, but I didn't have to change any lenses around to get it - could imagine this may be a deal-breaker if it's significant upheaval
Does that matter in practice? Guess that depends
For me it doesn't, you frame shots as you see them, so you will naturally stand closer to a subject with an identical lens on a full frame camera.I don't regret buying a full frame camera, I like the creative opportunities it affords, but I didn't have to change any lenses around to get it - could imagine this may be a deal-breaker if it's significant upheaval
i sold my D700 as I used my D7000 more
FX is great for silly ISO's with no noise, a more natural focal length/viewfinder and there was better tone from the jpegs. In reality though, I hardly ever shot jpeg, I used 3 lenses as the rest wouldn't fit and I don't go much past ISO3200 at the best of times.
Also, the focus points being in the middle of the viewfinder (compared to say the D300 where there all over it) grates when you're shooting a portrait at 1.4
FX is great for silly ISO's with no noise, a more natural focal length/viewfinder and there was better tone from the jpegs. In reality though, I hardly ever shot jpeg, I used 3 lenses as the rest wouldn't fit and I don't go much past ISO3200 at the best of times.
Also, the focus points being in the middle of the viewfinder (compared to say the D300 where there all over it) grates when you're shooting a portrait at 1.4
FX has made a massive difference to me. The triangle of Shutter speed, aperture and ISO is finally a triangle! ISO flexibility with FX means the possibility of greater depth of field with any given light, and being able to do without a tripod 90% of the time. Also done some weddings indoors and internal jobs in pretty dark conditions with no flash, something I never could have done with DX. I could never go back to DX unless it sorted the noise issue.
Edited by GetCarter on Monday 16th January 18:31
I intend to move from a 7D to a 5Dx (or add a 5d2).
Why? Access to good wide primes like the 24ts-e , 24L and 21cz, and decent sealed wides (17-40L).
The lower noise and more resolving power will be nice but I am happy with the overall image quality of the 7D, look forward to more dof control too tho.
Dont look forward to weight and cost of the lenses!
Why? Access to good wide primes like the 24ts-e , 24L and 21cz, and decent sealed wides (17-40L).
The lower noise and more resolving power will be nice but I am happy with the overall image quality of the 7D, look forward to more dof control too tho.
Dont look forward to weight and cost of the lenses!
RobDickinson said:
D90 still part of the nikon's lets not worry about noise CCD era ...
Ok, I will rephrase my answer:"I never seem to have any issues with noise in my photos as I am conscious of controlling it and rarely stray above 400-800 ISO and take most of my shots right down at 200-400 if I can"
andy-xr said:
i sold my D700 as I used my D7000 more
FX is great for silly ISO's with no noise, a more natural focal length/viewfinder and there was better tone from the jpegs. In reality though, I hardly ever shot jpeg, I used 3 lenses as the rest wouldn't fit and I don't go much past ISO3200 at the best of times.
Also, the focus points being in the middle of the viewfinder (compared to say the D300 where there all over it) grates when you're shooting a portrait at 1.4
So I'm not the only one who dipped a toe in and went back!FX is great for silly ISO's with no noise, a more natural focal length/viewfinder and there was better tone from the jpegs. In reality though, I hardly ever shot jpeg, I used 3 lenses as the rest wouldn't fit and I don't go much past ISO3200 at the best of times.
Also, the focus points being in the middle of the viewfinder (compared to say the D300 where there all over it) grates when you're shooting a portrait at 1.4
Yes, 51 points all in the bloody middle. How stupid (but allows them to use the same module in the D300).
Ideally I'd like the displays and FOV of the D200 and the low noise of the D700. And I really don't like the CMOS sensors of the D700 or D300; I just can't get the results looking as nice as with the D200. I have a D300 but it will be back-up for 2012. The D200 just works, the only Achilles heel being noise (but even in churches I can keep it to ISO800 with fast glass).
Simpo Two said:
So I'm not the only one who dipped a toe in and went back!
yes, it wasnt because the D700 was doing a bad job per se, it's a fantastic camera probably the best I've ever owned. I just wasnt using what it could offer and had a couple of frustrations on bits it didnt do (the focus point one really started to piss me off when I had to shoot everything with a 10x8 crop in mind) Coupled with me wanting to try video on fast lenses with manual focus and a dreamy soundtrack. Still havent done that bit though
I swapped from a D300 to a D700 last week. Absolutely no need to, certainly hadn't outgrown the D300 but I just wanted to try FF. I'd imagine there are actually very few people, pros and amateurs that 'need' full frame but is this not a little bit similar to the arguments about requiring fast cars?
Anyhoo, back to the D700. In normal, good light there is not a a lot to tell pictures apart when using a similar lens. The D300 was good, the D700 is good. In low light however, I'm utterly gobsmacked. I mentioned on Talk Photography that using crop camera, I can't really remember taking a photo above ISO 1600 that was anything other than a grainy mess. ISO 1600 was sometimes ok but only with very careful exposure. First thing I did when I got the D700 was fire some flashless shots off around the house at high ISO. I was of course expecting the D700 to be better than the D300 in this regard but the difference has blown me away. I would say that it might be as much as 3 stops better if not more. That is to say that shots taken at ISO 800 on the D300 look comparable to shots at 6400 on the D700.
A couple of quick examples:
ISO 4000 (left on auto iso, hence strange number)
ISO 4000 by G.A.D, on Flickr
ISO 6400
ISO 6400 -2 by G.A.D, on Flickr
And just for fun, ISO 25,600
ISO 25600 by G.A.D, on Flickr
Of course, if you mainly shoot outdoors, it won't matter too much and being honest I can't justify it to myself either but I'm still very happy! I spent Friday evening shooting handheld landscapes right through into sunset and the results look almost noiseless, never done that before! One thing that is troubling me though, is how on earth the D3S can be even better still?
Edited to add, yes that central focus point cluster can be a bit annoying!
Anyhoo, back to the D700. In normal, good light there is not a a lot to tell pictures apart when using a similar lens. The D300 was good, the D700 is good. In low light however, I'm utterly gobsmacked. I mentioned on Talk Photography that using crop camera, I can't really remember taking a photo above ISO 1600 that was anything other than a grainy mess. ISO 1600 was sometimes ok but only with very careful exposure. First thing I did when I got the D700 was fire some flashless shots off around the house at high ISO. I was of course expecting the D700 to be better than the D300 in this regard but the difference has blown me away. I would say that it might be as much as 3 stops better if not more. That is to say that shots taken at ISO 800 on the D300 look comparable to shots at 6400 on the D700.
A couple of quick examples:
ISO 4000 (left on auto iso, hence strange number)
ISO 4000 by G.A.D, on Flickr
ISO 6400
ISO 6400 -2 by G.A.D, on Flickr
And just for fun, ISO 25,600
ISO 25600 by G.A.D, on Flickr
Of course, if you mainly shoot outdoors, it won't matter too much and being honest I can't justify it to myself either but I'm still very happy! I spent Friday evening shooting handheld landscapes right through into sunset and the results look almost noiseless, never done that before! One thing that is troubling me though, is how on earth the D3S can be even better still?
Edited to add, yes that central focus point cluster can be a bit annoying!
Edited by Gad-Westy on Monday 16th January 22:03
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff