do i upgrade to full frame ?

[Polar01]

Peter: it can depend on what you like to take images of, I see birds, so I would suggest the 70-200mm f2.8, top len 105-300mm on that D7000 great camera I own one, but heavy and costs, quick convertion about 1,200.00 pds. As for the lower end, a number of choices. If perhaps you shoot more of the second image, better glass here and then better glass than what you have at the upper end. I myself am looking at the 80-400 4.5-5.6 VR as I shoot mainly landscapes here in Canada with a tripod, so I can get away with slower glass. I use the 16-85mm DX len most of the time as my walking around len. You could go 18-300mm 3.5 DX or 28-300 3.5 FX more or less 1 len covering off your other two. I do not mean you have to stick with Nikkor lens some other makers make some very fine glass also. It is a hard choice and it comes down to what feels good to you as you are the shooter.

Cheers:

Allan

[Wyeman]

Thanks Allan - much food for thought

[C24]

Hello folks, I thought to poke my feathers over the fort wall.

So, how can I help the World economy? Low return on capital, buy something and keep someone in work.
I have a perfectly good Pentax K7, plus lenses and certainly do not do them justice with my level of competence.
According to the tracking log that I just checked, the Nikkon D800 body should get here today. The Nikkor 85-300mm lens is on back order.
I doubt that my images of fast jets will improve but it will be fun trying. I am fortunate to be able to use my life's savings on a hobby that I enjoy and certainly could not have used money on when raising a family.
Why do professional photographers use a full frame dslr?

[Dave Humphries]

Why do professional photographers use a full frame dslr?

That sounds like one for Colin to answer

I'd hazard a guess that the sort of images that earn the most money generally require a shallower Depth of Field and/or wide angles of view - both things that FF is better at than crop bodies.

Then factor in that FF bodies are often better designed, built and weather sealed, etc. and you have an answer.

Wildlife and Macro, the two things Colin mentioned above that crop is better at generally tend to only be 'stock image' earners, but I guess a review of what bodies any Nat Geo professionals use might be enlightening.

[IanCD]

Advice on how to determine "good" lenses will be very much appreciated.

I've trusted PhotoZone's reviews for lenses, and sometimes also used SLR gear... I've also searched various forums to get a general impression from users - which is useful, provided you take the occasional biased, dogmatic - and sometimes even angry - views with a pinch of salt... PhotoZone's own forums are heavily gear-orientated and sometimes useful.
I bought the 16-85 DX lens, rather than the kit lens, with a D7000 on that basis - lots of positive feedback from users, good reviews at PZ and SLR gear and elsewhere - and haven't been disappointed at all, though the PZ reviews on the D7000 don't put it as far ahead of the 18-105 for optical quality as the reviews on the D200 did.

The 'good' lenses you'll get most out of will depend on what your priorities are. As others have said, it will probably be helpful to clarify where you think your current lenses could be improved.
An example for me would be a Tamron 70-300 (VC, USD) which I'd like to be sharper at the long end (and faster)... but I know I'd have to go to much heavier lenses, like the 300mm prime, to get that... which is a step too far for me at the moment (but it's on my one day wish-list..! )
Ian

[IanCD]

I myself am looking at the 80-400 4.5-5.6 VR as I shoot mainly landscapes here in Canada with a tripod, so I can get away with slower glass.

Hi Allan, have you checked out reviews and forum threads about that lens? I just recall seeing some feedback that was less than positive about how sharp it is (i.e. it isn't), particularly at the long end...
Hope that's useful.
Ian