rennocneb wrote:
so is full frame worth the roughly $2000 price premium? or do i buy more glass? or better yet put money in the bank lol
FF vs APS-C advantages:
Just over 1 stop better noise performance, assuming equal technology/sensor generations (which is true for D7000 vs D800). However, that advantage disappears for DOF-limited situations where you have to stop-down a FF camera to match the greater DOF of APS-C (assuming identical framing/FOV)
Sharper images on lenses at/near their wide-open apertures (excludes lenses that are diffraction-limited wide open, like the teles/exotics such as 200mm f/2, 300mm f/2.8, 400mm f/2.8 etc..). Lens MTF is lower at/near wider apertures so the lower FF optical magnification translates to a large acuity difference vs crop than stopped-down. This advantage typically doesn't apply to the extreme borders of the imaging circle.
Larger/better optical viewfinder
General speaking, FF cameras have more wide-angle lens options
APS-C vs FF advantages:
Usually have higher available pixel densities, providing better acuity for focal-length limited situations, esp. when light is good
1.3 stops more DOF at equal framing. For DOF-limited low-light situations, this nullifies FF's one-stop High ISO advantage
Lighter, smaller, less expensive body
Cheaper, lighter lenses
Faster development cycles/technological advances, both in body features and sensor technology
would the GH2 not have a relativly deep depth of field due to its small sensor? I keep hearing rumors of the d600 as well, i dont mind spending the cash for the d800 and having to wait to get some lenses i want if im going to be rewarded everytime i pick up the camera. I know its listed as an advantage but to me i miss the bulk of the 1d series. so the d7000 one of my biggest complaints is its small size it doesnt fit my hands well
Perhaps you can offer more details on your rather brief view?
For now, I beg to differ. If "full frame" is a 35mm film format, then what is a 645 or 8x10 film negative? Spilling over? There is no "full" anything. FX is a particular and very common sensor format. There are bigger ones, and smaller ones, and they each have their own set of advantages and disadvantages. I'd rather do portraits on FX, but I'd rather do stitched panos and macro on DX. FX has less DOF which is great sometimes, DX has more DOF which is great sometimes. Sometimes I want low-light capability (FX for that), sometimes I want small, lightweight, and cheap (DX, M43, or even CX for that).
There is no single "best" answer for sensor size, or for little else in life either.
rennocneb wrote:
so is full frame worth the roughly $2000 price premium? or do i buy more glass? or better yet put money in the bank lol
I prefer DX when I can get away with it: smaller, lighter, cheaper, and because I use the best glass I can get and DX is seeing the center of the image circle, often sharper corner-to-corner. It gives me great landscapes with lots of DOF, especially since I prefer to do stitched panos anyway. It gives me great macro. My DOF is shallow enough to make me very happy, since I prefer f/2 or so to the razor-thin f/1.4 look anyway.
However, I want to make very large prints. And I often shoot in very low light. So, despite my preferences, I felt forced to give up my beloved D300 bodies (still miss 'em) and move to D3x bodies for the pixel count. FX cost me a whole lot more than $2K, especially since my 200-400 was no longer long enough and I had to buy a 500 in addition to the two D3x bodies. Now, I'm shooting with three D800 bodies because the highest-pixel-count DX camera is 16MP.
Is FX worth it? My personal answer is, only when one of its traits (i.e. high ISO performance or high pixel count) allows me to capture an image I could not otherwise have gotten on DX.
rennocneb wrote:
so is full frame worth the roughly $2000 price premium? or do i buy more glass? or better yet put money in the bank lol
The FX is good if you want really shallow DoF, amazing high ISO noise control, great wide-angle options, and a really bright viewfinder. For all those reasons, I love my (single) D800 and (single) D700 body. The D7000 gives you decent high ISO noise control, slightly greater DoF at any given aperture, and slightly fewer wideangle options. It also saves you a lot of money, which I think is always a good thing when it comes to camera gear.
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
FX cost me a whole lot more than $2K, especially since my 200-400 was no longer long enough and I had to buy a 500 in addition to the two D3x bodies. Now, I'm shooting with three D800 bodies because the highest-pixel-count DX camera is 16MP.
Your example is hardly applicable to the OP, as FX costs a lot more for you than it would cost most photographers. Not all of us require three copies of the same camera and lenses in the 400mm (e.g. >$5000) range. Seems to me that the OP has indicated quite clearly he isn't operating in the rather rarified equipment realm you've described here.
rennocneb wrote:
would the GH2 not have a relativly deep depth of field due to its small sensor? I keep hearing rumors of the d600 as well, i dont mind spending the cash for the d800 and having to wait to get some lenses i want if im going to be rewarded everytime i pick up the camera. I know its listed as an advantage but to me i miss the bulk of the 1d series. so the d7000 one of my biggest complaints is its small size it doesnt fit my hands well
DOF is deeper on GH2 which for video is more often a benefit rather than a detriment. DOF on APS-C/FF is often far too shallow for typical video use in my experience.
i guess im just not blown away enough with the d7000 i have borrowed. some of it is probably needing to get back into working with photos and cameras again, but it just lacks that WOW factor. Also i want something that does great video, which makes me eye the canon line but the 5D mark II is really the only thing in the budget and im not sure how i feel about it honestly(old AF etc)
Arka wrote:
Your example is hardly applicable to the OP, as FX costs a lot more for you than it would cost most photographers. Not all of us require three copies of the same camera and lenses in the 400mm (e.g. >$5000) range. Seems to me that the OP has indicated quite clearly he isn't operating in the rather rarified equipment realm you've described here.
Absolutely agree with you, which is why I offered the specifics to explain my background and my reasoning. I was reinforcing the point that "FX is better" is not universally true: it applies in many circumstances, but not in many others. I had also previously addressed the OP's specific situation in another post, so I did not believe this one would cause any confusion or apparent contradiction.
I don't think FX is "worth it" for the OP's needs either. But he may choose to go the D800 route simply because he wants to, or because he values the high ISO, shallow DOF, etc. more than what this thread has allowed the rest of us to perceive. Nothing wrong with that, or with any other choice that makes him happy.
Not so sure about the video, haven't even tried it on mine, don't care for it..
And it is the last comment that is germane. From video reports I've seen, the D800 is still behind Canon. For OP, I believe the smart move for him IS a 5D Mark II. I'll never go back to Canon but then I have no interest in video. I also am underwhelmed by the D800 I've been using the last five days for a number of reasons, but that is a different subject.
CGrindahl wrote:
And it is the last comment that is germane. From video reports I've seen, the D800 is still behind Canon. For OP, I believe the smart move for him IS a 5D Mark II. I'll never go back to Canon but then I have no interest in video. I also am underwhelmed by the D800 I've been using the last five days for a number of reasons, but that is a different subject.
Couldn't agree more. The OP want's the wow factor, at least for stills it is the d800. I've had my camera since the early deliveries were made and I'm still in awe.
If you want both a wow in video and stills, I can't help with that. I'll grant that the 5D2 or 5D3 might be much better all around packages..
The comparison is ridiculous. I have the D7k, but honestly, the D800 stands in a different class and the D7k has absolutely no advantage except for the size and weight..
cipsaz wrote:
The comparison is ridiculous. I have the D7k, but honestly, the D800 stands in a different class and the D7k has absolutely no advantage except for the size and weight..
regretfully, i don't think you understand photography. but you do "understand bigger is better".
I hope your budget includes paying for private school, dance class, martial arts, soccer or other costly sports. Unless you want to see her spend all her time on facebook and pregnant by 15, I'd look for a good point and shoot that does video.
Don't get the 5dmk2 . Its great but for anything moving it's just makes life more difficult than it needs to be. AF sucks and the video is good if you set it up as a video rig.
I would get a D700 / grip 1600 +/- $200
I would look at some good used glass - if you want the tamron stuff you are looking at
$350 28-75
$650 80-200 nikon
$300 - 18-35 nikon
+ Gh1 plus nikon adapter $350
and maybe a 20, 1.7 Lumix
any extra money on speedlights.
This is just what i've worked out in my head but I think Im with in budget.
sjms wrote:
the wow factor is what you shoot and how you feel about it not what you shot it with in the long run.
Not entirely true. Of course the photographer is the creator and imparts his wow and all but,
Seeing diapos (E6) on a light box is the perfect example. Compare some 4x5 diapos to 35mm diapos on a light box and your jaw will drop. equally so with 6x6 vs 35mm. Print them huge. Project them. The difference is WOW.
Equipment can make a difference. The files I am getting from my D800 have nothing to do with the files I got from my D300 and much less of my D70. The D800 feels like medium format output, and not so with the D300.
I think what you refer to is "does the photographer have the abilities to extract the potential from his super camera?" If he does, then the difference is visible.
you miss the forest for the trees. its the subject. this one is still one of my all time favorites. says more then any over saturated color dripping picture i've ever seen. and it was a simple walk up shoot walk away. you can put all the best hardware in the world together and produce a stunning array of color, light and shadow and still end up with the same old same old that in a few months just turns into a yawn and is eventually forgotten. http://digitaljournalist.org/issue9911/images/C_07.jpg
But he may choose to go the D800 route simply because he wants to, or because he values the high ISO, shallow DOF, etc. more than what this thread has allowed the rest of us to perceive. Nothing wrong with that, or with any other choice that makes him happy.