Moving On From A Nikon D7000 .

[Skyehammer]

After 10 years of owning my Nikon D7000 I feel it's time to invest in FF later on this summer -

The obvious choice [ for me ] seems to be the D750 but I'm not sure I like the thought of a tilt-screen .

Then there's the D810 - D850 - D4s - D4 ....and

The Z6 , Z6ii , Z7 etc .

I've read that the file sizes of the D850 and Z7 can bring their own problems so that kinda puts me off a bit but not entirely and of course there's the matter of the new Z Series Lenses [ yes , I know you can buy adapters ] .

At the moment I'm thinking a D750, a D810 or a low shutter count D4s but for the money I'd spend on a D4s I might be able to buy a D850 or a Z6 / Z7 so I'm going round in circles .

I'm only an average hobbyist who enjoys taking Landscape , few Portraits and a tiny bit of bird photography [ not much ] but who knows , interests can change .

I'm 66 now and this will probably [ but not certainly ] be my last camera purchase so I want to get it right .
My lenses are a mixture of DX and FX .

I will be buying second hand most probably - budget will be up to £2k .

[xpatUSA]

After 10 years of owning my Nikon D7000 I feel it's time to invest in FF later on this summer ...

Apart from just a feeling, Peter, what specific reasons might you have to invest in FF? In other words, what would FF bring that you need but the D7000 can not provide?

One thing you could lose is geometric resolution. For example, the afore-mentioned D750 has a 6um pixel pitch versus the D7000's 4.8um.

After some 10+ years of hobby work, I've gone retro to 3.4MP Sigma and 20MP µ4/3 ... but I don't print.

[Manfred M]

My first question to you would be is why do you want to go FF?

File sizes are not a issue and in fact, there are advantages to having more data to work with. The downside is that it requires more storage space and that is probably the only one. Given how inexpensive storage is these days, I would not worry about that too much. I shoot a D810 now and had a D800 prior to that.

The D810 is getting a bit long in the tooth and I expect that I will replace it once Nikon announces its next generation of mirrorless cameras. My understanding is that the D850 and Z7 (ii) use the same sensor. Both are great landscape and portraiture cameras.

A larger viewfinder, a physically larger body with lots of space for controls that can be reached without taking my eye off the viewfinder are two of the main reasons I went full frame. The main reason, however, is that I am a print maker and more data does make a tangible difference. You don't need the pixels if all you do is post to the internet or view images on a computer screen or portable device. Most computer screens are still around 2MP and the 4K screens are only around 8MP, so the higher pixels counts don't do much for you.

[DanK]

I think the starting point for me would be a few questions:

1. Do you print, and if so, how large?

2. Do you shoot in low light, and if so, how high do you raise ISO?

I shoot mostly full frame (Canon 5D Mark IV). The main advantages for me are low-light performance, detail when printing large, and comfortable fit for my large hands. The main disadvantages are cost, weight (factor in the larger, longer lenses one needs), and again size (for packing in a pack).

If printing large and, to a lesser degree, low light performance were not important for me, I doubt I would be shooting FF. In fact, I have been mulling over buying either a crop-sensor body or even a micro-four-thirds body (the new Olympus OM-1) so that I don't need to lug as much weight around when I don't need it.

[xpatUSA]

... My lenses are a mixture of DX and FX ...

While I realize that most FF interchangeable lens cameras have an 'APS-C' shooting mode, are you prepared to accept the inconvenience of that, especially if the great majority of your favorite lenses were to be DX?

[Skyehammer]

I realise you're all just trying to give me good advice and I do appreciate it honestly I do -

Ok , to answer one question - photos taken in low light have resulted in quite a lot of noise , I used to have my camera set to Auto ISO - but I do enjoy taking photos in low light so it's something I've been thinking of for a while now [ upgrading to FF ] .

I have printed a few photos , I've had some enlarged and to be honest there wasn't much wrong with them but the shutter count on the D7000 is 90,000 + now and I'm not expecting it to last forever -

I do have a Nikon F80 , F90 - I also have a Canon AE-1 so in effect I already possess FF cameras .

Anyway , I guess that ultimately it's my decision to make - thanks for your input , everyone .

[Manfred M]

Ok , to answer one question - photos taken in low light have resulted in quite a lot of noise , I used to have my camera set to Auto ISO - but I do enjoy taking photos in low light so it's something I've been thinking of for a while now [ upgrading to FF ] .

The D7000 is about 12 years old and it came out shortly after I bought my D90. The sensor technologies have really improved over those dozen years. If you are looking for stronger low light performance, the larger sensor will generally perform better. My wife shoots the D7500 and it is noisier than my D810, even though the D7500 is a more modern product. The D7500 significantly outperforms the D90 that it replaced for her.

The Z7 or the D850 would probably be good choices for you. The D4 was really targeted at the sport and wildlife shooters and has great low noise performance, but is considerable larger and heavier than the D850.

[Skyehammer]

Hi Manfred ,
Yeah , I bought my D7000 new and being a total beginner to digital photography , well , photography in general I guess [ decades previously I had stuck my cameras , a Zorki 4K and an old Praktica into Auto and just snapped away ] it was a whole new learning curve for me . I bought lots and lots of books , I subscribed to a couple of photography magazines and like everyone else I'm still learning .

I'll be perfectly honest - when I bought the D7000 I wasn't fully aware of the differences between cropped sensors and full frame - I decided I wanted to go with Nikon and went with the recommendation of a well known Photography Reviewer at the time . He said [ at the time ] that the D7000 was the best camera that Nikon had ever produced .

Whenever I read these ' Help Me Upgrade From DX ' posts invariably the questions will be -
'' Why are you upgrading , what can't a D7000 , D90 etc etc not offer you that a Full Frame camera can ? '' and invariably these people asking the question are mostly all owners of full frame cameras . I do understand why you'd be asking such questions but I have been using an APS-C camera for nigh on 10 years now , I'm not a total beginner .

Is it a mistake to go Full Frame , are the benefits not worth it - do you all regret spending thousands of pounds / dollars on your new gear ? Did any of you switch back to DX ?



I am aware that some professional photographers still use the DX format cameras , not many but some do , Paul Harcourt Davies being one - for Macro work , bird photography , wildlife etc - but my interests are mostly landscape .

I feel that if I'm to improve as a photographer I'll need to invest in full frame .

Thanks , Manfred , the D850 is certainly on my list .

[Skyehammer]

Found this piece from 2012 - it has made me think .

'' For amateurs though it's rarely worth it, but they've been indoctrinated by marketing to think there is a path to a destination and it must be walked of you'll be left behind. It's a strong pull I'll admit. But every time I think to myself "how many more excellent pictures will I get because of these new camera specs?" The honest answer never justifies the cost. Because the camera doesn't take excellent pictures, I do. ''

The question at the back of my mind is this -

Why did camera manufacturers go down the APS-C route and aim them at beginners / enthusiasts etc - was it cost ?

When I started out the D4 was way out of my reach as was the D800 - I looked at the D700 which was still quite pricey in 2012 but got confused by pixel count - FX cameras have traditionally always been pricier than DX - I guess that's intentional , the camera manufacturers want to push you a certain way - a Z6 is now cheaper than a D750 .

[pnodrog]

Unless you shoot nothing but sport or birds moving to a FF does bring benefits. Years ago I moved from a Nikon D200 DX camera to a D800 FX camera and have never regretted it. I mainly do landscape, street and travel photography. Part of the reason for my shift to FF digital was that having come from the film era I only had FX lenses and it was nice to get back to my wide angle lens (15-30mm) behaving like a wide angle lens again.

My next camera will be a mirrorless full frame (Z8? ). Not because of fashion but because my eyesight will appreciate a brighter viewfinder in low light and when doing depth of view previews. Also sensor technology keeps getting better and I prefer not to get left too far behind.

[DanK]

I'll try some answers.

Why did camera manufacturers go down the APS-C route and aim them at beginners / enthusiasts etc - was it cost ?

Yes, in part. It is much more expensive to produce larger sensors. Technology has reduced that, but the Canon 5D, introduced in 2005 with a 12.8 MP sensor, was the first FF camera accessible to large numbers of amateurs.

Is it a mistake to go Full Frame , are the benefits not worth it - do you all regret spending thousands of pounds / dollars on your new gear ? Did any of you switch back to DX ?

I don't regret it, but now that I am 72, I think it's likely that my next camera won't be FF. The additional weight of the larger body, the wider lenses, and the longer focal lengths becomes more burdensome every year becauser I lug my gear with me. To put this in perspective, I currently have a very good FF (5D Mark IV), a very out-of-date APS-C (original 7D), and a weak entry in the MFT world Lumix LX-100 version 1). I still use all three.

Since you are mostly interested in landscape, FF might be the best choice. But I think it's worth listing the pros and cons of FF.

1. Better low-light performance. Valuable for me, probably not so much for you if you do landscape.
2. Narrower depth of field at a given aperture. Worthless to me, worthless in landscape work.
3. Wider maximum angle of view. Not valuable for me because I don't go wider than the available APS-C lenses go.
4. Better detail in large prints (only holding all else constant). Valuable to me, although to be honest, no one actually seems to notice other than me. And that greater detail attenuates as you move away from smooth coated papers (glossy, metalic). At the largest size I print, 17 x 22 (roughly A2), I doubt it would be noticeable on fine art papers.
5. Given the huge shift in the market toward FF, the variety of lenses is much greater. True, in some instances (depending on the mount), you can use FF lenses on APS-C bodies, but that removes one of the advantages of the smaller sensor (narrower, shorter, lighter lenses).

If size and weight were not an issue, I would stick with FF for all but macro and wildlife. For those, especially macro (which I di a lot), I prefer APS-C for reasons I can explain. However, the weight is getting to me. My longest lens (canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6) by itself weighs 1640g (about 3.6 lb). I'm not sure I get enough benefit from FF, for my particular uses, to justify FF.

I feel that if I'm to improve as a photographer I'll need to invest in full frame .

Unless you are very different from me, you'll find that you'll be disappointed if that's your goal. As Ansel Adams said, the most important piece of equipment is the 12 inches behind the viewfinder. What you may find is that some images are improved a bit, e.g., by having less noise, but they will otherwise be the same images.

Good luck making the choice. I'm not advocating for any particular choice. I'm just suggesting being careful to lay out the pros and cons.

[DanK]

PS: For another thread, I searched for a video I had seen some time ago by a professinal landscape photographer who largely switched from FF (Nikon) to APS-C (Fuji XT series) 6 years before he made the video. I found it thought provoking. It's one of the things that got me thinking about possibly downsizing for many purposes--but to be clear, I haven't made up my mind to do that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEKlEghwpjY

[xpatUSA]

PS: For another thread, I searched for a video I had seen some time ago by a professinal landscape photographer who largely switched from FF (Nikon) to APS-C (Fuji XT series) 6 years before he made the video. I found it thought provoking. It's one of the things that got me thinking about possibly downsizing for many purposes--but to be clear, I haven't made up my mind to do that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEKlEghwpjY

Interesting video - thanks!

[Skyehammer]

Thanks , Dan + Pnodrog -

The lack of good DX lenses is another thing I was going to mention -

My D7000 came with the kit 18-105mm but I gave that away to my daughter along with my D80 thinking she may become interested in Photography .

Nikon replaced the 16-85mm with a 16-80mm but I've stuck with my 16-85mm throughout [ I have 2 of them ] - I bought a 55-200mm for £47 on Ebay and a 12-24mm .

I have an A1 135mm , A1 50mm , 50mm F1.8 , Tamron 90mm , an ancient Sigma 200mm , Sigma 28-80mm , Nikon 28-80mm , Nikon 80-200mm , the cheapo lens Galen Rowell used - couple of Nikon 70-300mm [ D+G versions ] .

I know Nikon brought out the expensive 17-55mm DX but apart from that and the 16-80mm f2.8 they haven't really tried making good DX lenses .

Is that also deliberate policy in the attempt to get folk to upgrade to FF [ I realise we can use FF lenses on DX cameras ] ?