Looking for a suitable FF camera.

[Black Pearl]

Its a bit of an odd one the desire for a 'full frame' camera. Until recently the larger sensor allowed a similar number of pixels to be made larger (still the case with the new D4/1Dx) so the image quality was better over a greater range of circumstances but now, as we are plunging down the path of huge pixel numbers, the difference isn't so great. The pixel density/size is identical on the D800 and D7000, the D800 simply has more of them due to it having a bigger sensor.

You also have to consider what is Full Frame? The 4/3 system is technically a full frame system as its not based on a 35mm one and the only lenses ever made for it have been designed specifically for that sized sensor. Its only our heritage of using 35mm as a base line that means we class it as a cropped sensor - its not. Its funny because when 35mm was released it was poo poo'd as being a miniature system and not the sort of thing that a 'real' photographer would use.

[Colin Southern]

Then, Colin, looks like I shall stay put with my D7000.

But, Sorry Sir, why & what are the purposes of most photographers talking and taking the upgrades ?

Hi Albert,

I can't speak for all, but I am about to upgrade my Canon 1Ds3 to the new 1Dx (just waiting for it to arrive) - so I can give you a "peak into my brain" if it helps.

- The highest ISO mode of the 1Ds3 is only ISO3200 - so @ F4 (F2.8 lens + 1.4x TC) I sometimes get a shutterspeed of only 1/20th during concert photography - and that's insufficient to arrest performer movement. The new camera will allow my to have a shutterspeed of around perhaps 1/100th or higher.

- The 1Ds3 was part of the "old school" of flash management where I could only use an A and a B flash zone (there was also a zone C, but it's output isn't part of the ETTL metering). With the 1Dx (and my 600EX-RT flashes) I can have zones a, b, c, d, and e all ETTL (or manual - or any combination inbetween).

- The AF on the 1Dx will be vastly superiour - thus more "hero" and less "zero" shots during studio and location shoots

- The 1Ds3 is only 5FPS - the 1Dx can do up to 14FPS - heck of a difference during sports photography.

- The 1Ds3 is an old camera now - kinda like a car that's done 300,000 km (about 5 years old at a guess)

- I like new toys

- "cause I can"

[Colin Southern]

Please help to strengthen my thoughts of buying a FF.

Don't assume FF is "better" - it's not necessarily - it's DIFFERENT. Sometimes those differences work for you - sometimes they work against you - sometimes (with correct lens selection) they make no difference at all. All a case of finding the best tool for the job.

Given the opportunity of photographing a dangerous animal from an open-top vehicle, would you rather shoot with an 18MP FF camera or an 18MP 1.6x crop-factor camera that allowed you to be 1.6x further away?

[Albert Sim]

Don't assume FF is "better" - it's not necessarily - it's DIFFERENT. Sometimes those differences work for you - sometimes they work against you - sometimes (with correct lens selection) they make no difference at all. All a case of finding the best tool for the job.

Given the opportunity of photographing a dangerous animal from an open-top vehicle, would you rather shoot with an 18MP FF camera or an 18MP 1.6x crop-factor camera that allowed you to be 1.6x further away?

Summarize the above, Colin, can I say that :-
1) Necessary to have a FF is:-
-up to the differences in requirement of a photographer, such as
-under certain different day-to-day usage, or
-under certain rules of condition of an individual to justify the upgrading,
2) FF's featurewise and its cost or budget is the keys to look at for which model to go for.
In short -- use the right tools for the right job.

Am I right? Correct me if I am wrong. TQ.

[Colin Southern]

Hi Albert,

Sorta / kinda, but I still think you need to disassociate "upgrade" with "full frame" in terms of the assumption that full frame is always better.

In your case, if you want to shoot macro subjects then FF will positively work against you (you'll struggle more with DoF). If you want to shoot wildlife then it'll positively work against you (you'll need to get a lot closer to the wildlife, or you'll pay a TRUCKLOAD more for longer lenses) (check the difference in price between a 400mm lens and a 600mm one!). If you want to shoot landscape then - depending on the lenses you have - it probably won't make a lot of difference (you get wide field of view on a FF, but that in itself generally makes for a boring shot devoid of meaningful detail unless you know how to use UWA lenses, and regardless, there are crop-factor lenses that'll get you the same field of view on a crop-camera as their equivalent lens would on a FF camera).

[Black Pearl]

The other thing to consider Albert is "What can't your current camera do that you hope a larger sensor will help achieve?"

[Manfred M]

Manfred,
Seen the comments from Colin ?
Seems better to stay put with my D7000, Then why people upgrading ?
Please help to strengthen my thoughts of buying a FF.

Albert:

I agree with Colin's comments. For the majority of users, a crop frame camera is more than adequate.

I wanted a full-frame for a number of reasons:

1. Ability to crop and still get a good image. If I crop my images (from my 12 MP D90) I reach the limit I can make a large print all too quickly. I do a fair number of large format prints at 19" x 22" (and sometimes larger). If I do a crop, the 12 MP drops to 10 or even 6 MP equivalent. This is definitely noticeable in a larger print. A full-frame gives me more "headroom" for my crops.

2. Printing - as per item 1; the full frame is a bit more forgiving if my focus is not quite 100% or there is a tiny, tiny bit of movement. The full-frame gives me a tiny bit more margin of error before issues are noticeable in a print. I was shooting outdoors yesterday and had my camera on a tripod and was using a cable release; even so, there was a tiny bit of blur; which I suspect was from the wind.

3. Viewfinder size. With glasses on it is easier for me to shoot with a full-frame camera because the viewfinder is so much larger than my crop-frame sensor. I can pretty well see everything at once, even with glasses on. With the crop frame I have to move my eye / head to check the edges of the viewfinder. I find my composition is better on a FF; much like it was with my film SLRs.

4. Pro features on the camera - as the full-frame cameras tend to be aimed at the pro or serious amateur, so the features and controls are laid out more to my liking. Details like 100% view in the viewfinder and the ability to change setting through button pushes, all without taking my eye of the camera. On the D90, some of the functions I use frequently are buried in as a menu item or the button placement is such that I have to move the camera away from my face to access them.

I'm sure other people have other reasons, but these are why I went FF. If I did just posted images on the internet or did "normal" sized prints, I might have stuck with the crop frame camera.

[Mark von Kanel]

mmm no good for macro, landscape & wildlife no benefit for portraiture...so guess I'm left with because i can

[Albert Sim]

Thank you guys for all your helpful response.
I had gone thru my D7000's manual again and happily confirmed myself that it really is featured-rich with adequate MP for my current usage.
I will temporary stay put with my D7000 and only will go for a FF if situation really requires one.

Best Regards.

[rpcrowe]

I just need to put a short bit of input on Full Frame vs. Crop in both Canon or Nikon cameras...

If you are shooting with a crop camera and top-line lenses and are not getting excellent quality imagery, you need to look at your technique because the fault probably rests with the indian rather than the arrow...

If you are shooting with a crop camera and are not using top-line lenses and you don't really like the images you are producing, I recommend that you try that camera with a top-line lens. Note: you can get some top-line Canon lenses (EF mount) which can be used with either Full Frame or Crop cameras (so if you decide to switch to FF, you will not be out any money). I assume that Nikon also has lenses like this but, the Nikon lens needs are beyond my comprehension and since I am a Canon guy, I have not done any serious study of them...

One thing that I will say and this goes for both Nikon and Canon gear. Switching from a crop camera to a full framer will not result in an epiphany in your imagery. If you ware getting very good to excellent images with the crop gear, your images may improve with the full frame equipment. However, if you are not getting the results that you like from the cropper, I suspect that you will continue to get less than optimum imagery from your new FF camera system unless your technique improves...

BTW: The crop or non-crop question comes up. I crop my images very minimally because I shoot with high quality zoom lenses so I can select the appropriate focal length (= appropriate framing). In fact, I go so far as to normallly carry two cameras so I can have the 17-55mm and 70-200mm focal lengths at my finger tips.

[IanCD]

I've begun thinking about FF specifically for landscape photography... not really needed - Richard's points about getting better results from crop-frame are certainly valid for me - but some of the images I've seen from landscape photographers using medium-format and high-end FF 35mm are staggering in terms of resolution, detail and overall image quality. I couldn't say exactly what it is - other than resolution - but there's a difference in quality that I see at times. It's not always there, and sometimes it's subtle...

I've a long way to go with developing my technique and learning to get the best out of my camera (also a D7000) and took the decision to invest in as good glass as I could afford when I started building my kit, so it's down to me now..!

I didn't go FF from the start mainly because of the size and weight of those cameras... of all the DSLRs I tried, the D90 felt 'right' in my hands at the time, but I decided to wait for the D7000 as it was about to come out. Now, having got used to the D7000, I picked up a D700 couple of months ago and it didn't seem so much bigger and heavier any more. Now along comes the D800... mmm, but how about processing those huge files..? And, for me, the cost makes it unjustifiable.

I've just been reading the possible specs of the rumoured 'D600'... now, that does look interesting... and even possible at some time, maybe..!
Ian

[Manfred M]

Ian - I went through very much the same argument when I first got into a DSLR almost 4 years ago now. At the time I was looking at three bodies in the Nikon line (having decided to Nikon rather than Canon after the first round of evaluting the gear); the D40, D90 and D300. While I looked at the D700; I just could not justify the cost at the time, as I wasn't sure if the technology was quite mature enough. I bought really cheap kit lens (18mm-55mm) along with the D90 and followed up with another kit lens (55mm-200mm) shortly afterwards.

After a few months of use, I was reasonably certain that I would be going to FF when the next generation of bodies came out, so started accumulating high end lenses over about a 3 year period. I ordered the D800 the day it was announced and have had it for about 3 weeks now. I did not have to invest in a single new piece of glass, because of my forward thinking.

It seems to have been the right move for me as I was starting to get frustrated with some of the D90's limitations. When I first got the D800 the only frustrations that I had were more related to the fact that ACR could not import the RAW files (no problem; Capture NX2 could) and DxO could not handle the data either. Both problems went away over the past couple of weeks (Adobe and DxO labs were both on that issue quite quickly).

The large file size? Not at issue at all. Large hard disks handle that quite well, and yes, the PP work is a bit slower, but then, my computer is about 3 years old as well, so I will end up upgrading the processor and motherboard some time this summer and that quite minor issue will go away too. With 1 - 4TB drives being on the market right now, storage is not going to cause me any issues at all. Honestly, the image size issues have always been a bit of a red herring. Stick the camera on a sturdy tripod, shoot with the mirror locked, shoot at or wider than f/11 and the IQ is stunning. In fact my prediction is that people are going to be moving back to prime lenses, rather than zooms with this body, just to get better IQ.

As for the rumoured D600; I figure I might pick one of those up in another year, if the specs and IQ is anywhere close to the D800. While I was planning to use the D90 as a second body, it seems to have been requisitioned by my daughter....

[Colin Southern]

When I first got the D800 the only frustrations that I had were more related to the fact that ACR could not import the RAW files (no problem; Capture NX2 could) and DxO could not handle the data either. Both problems went away over the past couple of weeks (Adobe and DxO labs were both on that issue quite quickly).

You would have needed to download the public beta/RC; they're usually available on launch day.

In fact my prediction is that people are going to be moving back to prime lenses, rather than zooms with this body, just to get better IQ.

I doubt it'll happen. As I see it, the more pixels we have, the more we throw away. The vast majority of images that end up online are still only 800 -> 1200px (long side). I've seen side by side comparisons of images taken with about 6 different cameras from an iPhone 3g to a MF - and when they're retuced to the same size on the net they all looked more or less identical.

This was also an interesting read "between the lines" http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

[Manfred M]

Colin, if you are only posting your images to the net or view them on your computer, I would quite agree.

On the other hand, if you frequently do large prints (like I do; 17" x 22" and larger) and want to do some degree of cropping, one definitely sees the difference.

[Jim Eslinger]

What a woman your wife must be! May I suggest you have her contact MY wife, and convince her that I too should have a D800?

[Clactonian]

I have found this an interesting thread and deduce that contributors fall into two main camps. Firstly those 'professional', 'semi-professional or serious amateur' photographers (I use the terms in the widest possible sense) who can clearly justify the upgrade (questionable) path and that to FF, and secondly us keen amateurs that if we can afford it, think it the right thing to do, although may struggle to justify the move given our true level of expertise.
I actually believe that fora such as this (excellent though it is) can confuse us amateurs as much as they may help. The problem is peer pressure. There will always be those who have the money and can upgrade at will, whether or not they can actually justify those decisions from a skills point of view. The recommendations are then apt to follow thick and fast that either x or y is the right camera to buy. I'm sure that for many those recommendations are justification enough to take the plunge, whereas a more considered approach may in fact see the purchase of a better lens, tripod etc. which will have a far more marked effect on results.
There are some excellent professional commentators on the web, many that specialise in products from one manufacturer, and that can offer sound advice as to the benefits or otherwise of upgrading from your current camera to the latest release. I would recommend seeking out those sites. Many will be surprised by what they read.
Is it fair to say that if you have the technical ability you don't need to ask if you should upgrade or move to FF? Maybe that's a bit harsh. Consider it a brick in the pond.

[pnodrog]

Is it fair to say that if you have the technical ability you don't need to ask if you should upgrade or move to FF? Maybe that's a bit harsh. Consider it a brick in the pond.

Mike I suspect you are right. In fact I have seen a number of questions on this site relating to equipment selection that I do not think would be asked by someone who was truly ready to take advantage of the new equipment. Specific feedback yes - general advice no.