Upgrading to FX body

<p>Hi everyone!<br>

I am looking to upgrade my equipment, I would really appreciate some help! I currently use Nikon D7000 and I love almost everything about it, but I've been told time and again that FX bodies provide better tonal range, better focusing and shallower depth of field. I am shooting mostly portraits and hoping to get into wedding photography as well. I would love to have that creamy/dreamy bokeh in my images, but with the current setup I own doesn't allow it. Which body would you recommend? <br>

My husband feels generous, but I would prefer to stay frugal. I would consider getting D3 or D4 if they are significantly better than D700 or D 800. I am so very confused with all the specifications that I would heavily rely on your advice. I've gotten a great one in the past and I trust you guys!<br>

The lenses I am considering are:</p>

<ul>

<li>Nikon 35 1.4</li>

<li>Nikon 50 1.8</li>

<li>Nikon 80-200 2.8</li>

<li>What wide angle lens would be appropriate to get?</li>

<li>I already own a Sigma 105 Macro, should I upgrade to Nikon 105 macro as well? </li>

</ul>

<p>Thank you so much for your help!<br>

Oksana</p>

 

<p>Just to say that the 80-200 2.8 for a few members here doesn't focus that well at portrait distance with medium to tele focal lengths - for mine that was about 105mm onwards. If I was like 8m plus away from my subject then it was very sharp. I also sent mine to Nikon and paid for the evaluation but it came back "within spec". You can use F11 or whatever the images just weren't that in focus. </p>

<p>I've seen a lot of beautiful bokeh macro shots with a camera club member with her Sigma 105mm, Nikon D300 and then D700. Couldn't imagine they get anymore beautiful ... </p>

<p>I think everybody who is serious about digital photography needs <em>both</em> DX and FX bodies.<br>

One is not an "upgrade" or a "downgrade" -- they are simply two different formats.<br>

As long as you stay in the same generation, the capabilities of each are so close that it really doesn't matter. I doubt very much that those who sing the praises of FX could consistently pick out which is which in a true double-blind test (for which see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_experiment">link</a>).</p>

<p>I found it better to buy an DX when I want to stretch my telephotos than to use additional optics in an extender, so my DX body lives most of the time with a long telephoto zoom on it. On the other hand, when I go for very wide angle, I tend to carry those on my FX body.</p>

<p>Sometimes, I just want a smaller package, and carry the DX body with a single wide to telephoto zoom.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would love to have that creamy/dreamy bokeh in my images, but with the current setup I own doesn't allow it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes it does. The difference in sensor size is not that bloody significant for having nice blur. Get a lens like the Sigma 50mm f1.4, and you'll be fine.</p>

<p>If you don't need more resolution than the D7000 then the D4 would be a great choice for the low light performance and the autofocus. I like my D800E for my uses, which mostly landscape and static images (so not really relevant to you). You should also consider the D610, especially if you are happy mostly happy with the D7000. It will feel very much the same, though the focus points are clumped in the center. All the full frame options will give you the same feel from your lenses when printed the same size.</p>

<p>However if i was shooting weddings I would probably want to have a backup, and I'd want to have a standard zoom. So I'd keep the D7000, and maybe keep a longer lens on it. I'd also want a fast standard zoom for the full frame, like the Nikon 24-70. That would probably cover your wide angle needs too.</p>

<p>Also, I like the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 a lot, and when comparing images to the Nikon I'm glad I bought it. </p>

<p>I've been regularly doing weddings for the past year and half. I have some thoughts. Weddings are a business. The idea is to put the minimum amount of $$ into it that you need to do a good job. I see some VERY serious flaws in the package you listed. (Remember, this is coming from someone who actually shoots weddings.) First off, you need TWO cameras, not one. Are you really prepared to buy two D4 bodies? I suggest buying two of the SAME camera because (!) controls will be exactly the same (2) the look will be exactly the same.</p>

<p>Second weakness I see with your list are the lenses. There's just NO WAY that I would attempt a wedding without a fast pro f2.8 midrange zoom. That's something like a 24-70mm f2.8. NO WAY I would ever try it with 35mm as my widest lens, and NO WAY I would do it with single focal lenses like those. Weddings are all about speed, flexibility, and speed. Shoot, recompose, shoot, recompose....I typically shoot 2,000 images for a wedding (brides hair, rehearsal, ceremony, formals, reception.) Shoot, shoot, shoot, shoot. If you stop to change lenses YOU WILL DEFINITELY BE MISSING SHOTS!!! Bad plan! The 80-200mm f2.8 you list is old and BARELY up to the job. No VR? What are you thinking? You need the equivalent of a 70-200mm f2.8 VR. I find I only need two lenses for a wedding--Nikons 17-55mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8 VR-1. Sometimes I pull in a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 but not very often. I have a 30mm f1.4 and have used it a total of three times last year. That's it.</p>

<p>Third problem I see is you haven't listed ANY lighting system at all. Lighting is crucial! You need at least two Nikon SB-900/910 flash, plus something more powerful to do the formals. I suggest three Einstein 640ws flash with stands, softboxes, CyberSync+ triggers. That alone is nearly $2,000. DO NOT GO CHEAP ON LIGHTS! Those make a HUGE difference and are the difference between a pro portrait and a snapshot.</p>

<p>Here's my overall take. I'm using TWO Nikon D7100 bodies. These are more than adequate and are giving me much better quality than the Bronica 645 medium format system I was using up until ten years ago. The D7100 has Nikon's best AF system, are light enough and don't tire you out holding them all day (when you get tired your hand shakes,) and they are very affordable. I did look at buying a pair (remember--you must have TWO) of D800 but honestly, not ONE of my customers would ever tell the difference between a shot made with a D7100 and one made with a D7100. So, why spend the money? It's a business; the idea is to MAKE money, not spend it. As someone actually doing this, I strongly suggest a pair of D7100. You simply MUST have two bodies. If your only D4 gets stolen, has punch spilled on it, takes a hard drop to the floor--million things can happen during the chaos--you are shut down! What will you do then? I would rather have TWO D7100 than just one D4. I'd rather be shooting a D7100 than a D3 because it has twice the megapixels too. You are making the classic beginner's mistake--too much money in cameras and not nearly enough in lenses. You are exactly BACKWARDS here.</p>

<p>Finally, the "dreamy" look. It comes from software. You need a first class pro graphics monitor, color calibrated, an up to date computer with tons of memory, and a few pro level software programs including but not limited to CS6. The look you are after is largely done with software.</p>

<p>PS--<br /> I have never once had a need for a macro lens at a wedding. With the 24mp of the D7100 I simply crop down. Also have a Canon 500D I can put on the 70-200mm f2.8 VR that gives pro level quality and doesn't add weight to my bag. Have no idea what i would do with a macro lens at a wedding.</p>

<p>If you are just getting started, here's a more realistic list that I KNOW will perform for you and have you earning money:<br /> x2 Nikon D7100<br /> Nikon or Sigma 17-55mm f28<br /> Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR-1<br /> A back-up midrange zoom or Sigmas 30mm f1.4 and Nikon 50mm f1.8G<br /> x2 Nikon SB-900/910<br /> X3 monolights with stands, softbox, triggers<br /> x3 spare batteries for camera<br /> x12 spare AA batteries (NiNH) for the flash<br /> x8 very fast SD cards (keep two in D7100 set to back up.) More SD cards if also shooting video.</p>

<p>This is about the minimum you will need to shoot a wedding professionally. Again, you are making a very HUGE mistake if you think you only need one expensive camera. HUGE! BAD PLAN! And, I think your lens selection is very very weak. You need a pro level midrange f2.8 zoom AT A MINIMUM! Forget the single focal lenses, they just aren't flexible enough to do a modern wedding, and a 35mm is nowhere near wide enough. Finally, I honestly think that FX is way overhyped. I would entirely skip the idea of a D3, and a D4 is so expensive and heavy I would also knock it out of consideration right off the bat. Remember--not one of your customers will ever see the difference between shots from a D800 or a d7100.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>If one is happy with the D7000 in general, the D610 would be a great upgrade to FX as the two are very similar. And you can gradually add lenses.</p>

<p>When I reviewed the Nikon D3 in 2008, I used it in a wedding as a second photographer. After a full day of shooting, I developed some shoulder pain that lasted a couple of days. The D3 and D4 are huge cameras. You need to be sure that you want to hold them all day long, without any tripod or monopod support.</p>

 

<p>Thank you guys, you are awesome, as usual. <strong>Kent</strong>, thank you for such a detailed answer, it gives me a lot to think about. I apologize that I am not quite clear in my posts, English is my second language. I never intended to get rid of my D7000, I just wanted a more sophisticated body in addition. <br>

I do have a few lenses already and I know some will not be compatible with FX format:</p>

<ul>

<li>Nikon 17-55 2.8</li>

<li>Sigma 105 2.8 Macro, (it does not work with my current body, something to do with misaligned sensors)</li>

<li>70-300 VR</li>

<li>Tokina 11-16 2.8</li>

</ul>

<p>And I was going to consult about lighting in a separate post. As of right now I only own</p>

<ul>

<li>Speedlight SB600 </li>

</ul>

<p>I just didn't want to make a long post and I guess it led to a confusion. <br>

I did get to play with D600 and I loved the way the images looked with my existing lenses. That is why I set to explore the possibilities. I will be happy to hear more suggestions, including lighting! <br>

Thank you</p>

<p>Kent didn't pull any punches, did he !</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I would not buy a D600. It's a lot of money and it really does nothing for you business wise, and it's a camera with a cloudy repair record. And remember--you need TWO. The Nikon SB-600 is not enough power for weddings. Usually you want to use a small softbox (such as Lumiquest or Gary Fong) on the flash to soften it. The SB-600 just doesn't have the power for that. For cameras, keep the D7000 and add a D7100--that way you have two bodies with controls that are about the same. A D600/610 is a lot more money NONE of your customers will be able to tell if you used a D600 or a D7000/D7100. You won't earn any more money because you have a D600 rather than a D7100. You will not get more customers because of the camera you have. No one will be able to see the difference in a shot made with a D600 or a D7000, but they probably will be able to tell the difference between a shot made with the 80-200mm f2.8 vs. the 70-200mm f2.8 VR (or Sigma version) because the one made with the newer lens will be sharper most of the time (due to VR.) Put your money into lenses, lighting, and software. The camera is the least important thing. Remember, you need a back up for all important pieces of gear--camera bodies, key lens (17-55mm f2.8) and flash. If something breaks or gets stolen during a wedding, they aren't going to stop the wedding until you can go to the store and buy a replacement. You must be able to pull that replacement out of your bag or car immediately. You can't go back and reshoot a wedding if you screw something up. Weddings are mostly about lenses and flash use. After you are up and going and have earned enough money to actually live on, then start adding more expensive pieces of camera gear, maybe. Or, just keep that money in your pocket. Right now, I'd say your biggest priorities are (in order) 1. SB-900/910 flash 2. a 70-200mm f2.8 VR type lens 3. flash system for the posed shots. I always buy used gear when possible.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>John, I am not a punching bag :o) But I do read all advice and I do take everything into account.</p>

<p>Kent, thanks again, you are very thorough!</p>

<p>Looking over a list of what you have, here's what I suggest in order of priority. Keep D7000, add D7100 (or another D7000.) Buy SB-900/910 and keep SB-600 for now but replace soon with second SB-900/910. Put a small Lumiquest mini-softbox or Gary Fong on the flash. Sell 70-300mm and replace with Sigma or Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR. Add lighting system for formals. To start, the two SB-900 on flash with 8 or 10 ft. stands with simple umbrellas and simple radio triggers will get you by for group shots up to maybe 12-15 people. Add a pair of monolights as soon as you have earned the money to do it. If you live in USA the best deal are Paul Buff Alien Bees B1600. If you live in Europe the best deal might be the Elinchrom Ranger Quadra. First priority is adding a second camera, and I'd suggest either D7000 or D7100 to make things easy. Doing these things will give you quite a bit of capability for the least amount of money, to start. Putting a lot of money into cameras is a big mistake, especially as you start. The idea is to make money, not spend it.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Oksana, if you like shallow depth of field and dreamy bokah, you can achieve that with DX and FX alike. It looks like you don't have any fast f1.4, f1.8 lenses. Why don't you start with adding a 50mm/f1.8 AF-S and/or a 85mm/f1.8 AF-S? Those lenses are very affordable and can give you shallow depth of field.</p>

<p>In the longer run, if you are serious about photography, I would definitely upgrade to FX. Nikon, and Canon, has made it very clear that high-end DX is dead; Nikon will continue to sell more DX DSLRs, but those will mostly be the consumer D3000 and D5000 series cameras. I mainly pair DX with very long lenses where DX has a clear advantage. For portraits and especially indoor low-light situations, such as parties and weddings, FX's advantage is clear. Part of that is simple physics due to the larger sensor area; part of that is the availability of many portrait lens choices for FX, such as 85mm, 105mm, etc.</p>

<p>If you would like to get into wedding photography, photo.net has a Wedding Forum that is dedicated to that type of photography and the business side of it: <a href="/wedding-photography-forum/">http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/</a><br>

A lot of people can capture great wedding images, but the hard part for that business is how to market yourself and how to work with (difficult) clients. There are plenty of clients who may paid you $500, $1000 or $2000 and then feel that they are entitled to demand the moon from you.</p>

<p>If you are heading in the wedding photography direction, the best approach is to find an established photographer and work as an assistant/second photographer. That will gain you some real-life experience. You can gradually add more cameras, lenses, and lighting equipment as necessary. Again, person skills are more important than photo skills in that line of work.</p>

<p>The D7000 holds it's own quite well in low-light situations. But it sounds to me as if you're not real sure what you're doing with respect to lenses and exposure.</p>

<p>Since FX lenses can be used on a DX body, I'd suggest acquiring glass first and learning to use it. The body can wait, and you can still make money using a crop-sensor body. And frankly, talk of a D3 or D4 seems quite premature. A really expensive body is not going to make you an amazing photographer.</p>

<p>I agree with Gary completely. I have not made the move to FX from my d7100 but have continued to add good glass that is all FX compatible. When the time comes I will have completed half of my kit.</p>

<p>-O</p>

<p>While FX lenses can also be used on DX, the angle of view is different due to the smaller sensor size. For FX, popluar portrait lenses are usually 85mm or 105mm, which translates to 57mm and 70mm, respectively. The problem is the lack of dedicated portrait lenses in those focal lengths for DX (although the lens can be FX or DX), from Nikon or third parties.</p>

<p>When Nikon introduced the 58mm/f1.4 AF-S late last year, they tried to market it as a portrait lens for DX also. While the 58mm focal length is great to shoot portraits on DX and its bokeh seems to be great, the $1700 price tag isn't.</p>

<p>That was why I suggested the 50mm/f1.8 and 85mm/f1.8 earlier. Those aren't exactly ideal focal lenghts for portraits in DX, but they are somewhat close and can use on FX in the future, and they are affordable. Either one or both of them should be a good, but not perfect, starting point.</p>

<p>Just to support what Kent has stated, I shoot events often, after parties to the concerts I shoot. I've been very successful with two D300s Dx bodies, Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC, three SB600 flashes (one on each camera, a third on a stand when needed) each with a LumiQeust UltraBounce, and the best telephoto I've ever handled, a Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 HSM OS.</p>

<p>Just to show how well an SB600 can handle lighting, here's a shot I did in a rear corridor at the Biltmore Hotel in downtown Los Angeles just before a concert. </p><div></div>

As an aside, Sigma will update the 105mm macro for you so that you can use it with that camera. And Kent, it's not just a macro lens, it

can be used for portraits as well, but I agree that a zoom for weddings is obviously needed.

<p><strong>Shun</strong>, I totally agree with you! I am very serious about photography, I may not be very good yet, but I am working on it. One of the reasons I want an FX camera because it has a better tonal range and because the fast lenses I am planning on buying will provide their best results with the FX body. If I do have the money to spend on the equipment, why not? Thank you for the link as well, I will follow your advice. As for finding an experienced photographer to learn from, I found that many local pros are very protective of their business and would not take on an apprentice as they don't want to teach a potential competitor:o( <br>

<strong>Devon</strong>, what do you mean by updating my Sigma105? If you mean firmware it has been updated and the lens works fine with other bodies other than my D7000. Like I said, the issue is a misalighnemt of sensors and the fix is expensive, besides I would not have my camera for a while. So I decided I will be using this lens with my FX body.<br>

Reading everyones responses, though it looks like it is best for me to just buy the lenses and the lighting and decide on the FX body later. <br>

Thank you, everyone! </p>

 

<p>My experience is that with wide aperture lenses, FX cameras give higher quality and more reproducible results (any focus errors with DX will be magnified by 1.5X in enlargement relative to the same error on FX, in addition the higher end FX cameras have Multi-CAM 3500 which is better than the Multi-CAM 4800 in the D7000) and can be used in greater variety of lighting conditions than DX cameras with good results. Much of this has to do with the greater enlargement required to reach the same print size (both lens MTF and focusing accuracy is put to greater test on DX especially in the central area of the frame where most of the time the subjects in people and event photography are). Now, if you specifically want to obtain smooth, high quality out of focus blur, my recommendation is to do this with FX cameras. DX has advantages primarily in telephoto and macro work. FX wide angles tend to be higher quality and produce better results especially at wide apertures (between the 17-55 DX on DX vs. 24-70 Nikkor on FX, the quality difference at f/2.8 is considerable). DX also does not have the kind of fast wide angles FX has (to reproduce what 24/1.4 does wide open on FX, on a DX camera you'd need something like a 16/1.0 DX).</p>

<p>You can of course choose to buy the lenses (and lighting) first and FX camera afterwards, if you want. I would personally start with the camera (e.g. D800 and/or e.g. a lightly used D3s would be good choices for weddings) and 24-70/2.8 zoom, basically because that lens and your 105 macro can do pretty much anything that you'd need to do in a wedding, and do it well. You wouldn't get that kind of out of focus rendition that f/1.8 and f/1.4 primes do, but you would have the essentials covered to survive anything that the event might throw at you. Then, I would look at a couple of f/1.4 primes for the lowest lighting conditions and shallow DOF effects. My favorites are 35mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4, but since you have the 105mm, you might prefer 24mm and 50mm (or 58mm) to have a nice spacing between the focal lengths. The 24-70 will act as backup lens for your primes and vice versa, if something breaks down. Your DX camera and FX camera can be backups for each other in a similar way though I suspect you'd quickly end up wanting a second FX camera to replace your DX camera with, but that's just my personal opinion; some people like to mix formats, I do not as neither camera is a perfect replicate of the other's functionality.</p>

<p>Some people like to use longer teles such as 70-200/2.8 at weddings; I think this can be useful in the church but most of the wedding I would photograph with shorter focal lengths. I guess it is a matter of style. A fast telezoom like that can certainly produce the shallow depth of field effects that you're looking for, but I tend to prefer to photograph people in closer range. One of the older Nikon telezooms, e.g. the 80-200/2.8 can do the job but the VR 70-200/2.8 II is somewhat higher quality and has fast, very accurate autofocus and in a pinch, the VR can help obtain some shots you might miss otherwise. However, it is more expensive. </p>

<p>Lighting is in my opinion an entirely separate matter from cameras and lenses, and probably discussing it in the wedding and lighting forums on photo.net will help you more than asking about it here on the Nikon forum. I think lighting can be an extremely complex matter and can take some time to learn. Books such as light: science and magic, weblogs such as Neil van Niekerk's tangets blog, and other sources can help you with that, as well as generic books on wedding photography. In the past people at the wedding forum on photo.net have contributed enormously on this topic so you might do a search on past topics on lighting there.</p>

<p>Personally I have shot weddings with primes only, and it was not a problem at all (in fact half of them were manual focus on top of that...), but I'm used to photographing people with primes through many years of practice. I do think it is a lot safer to have the 24-70/2.8; you'll be less stressed, and you can cover almost anything that weddings present with it, in a pinch. Primes let you get less noise and better colours in low light, and they also give you shallower depth of field options and in many cases the out of focus blur is higher quality, more refined and smooth on a consistent basis, than zooms, which often produce somewhat less pleasing out of focus rendition (but with the 24-70 this is not a huge concern, just a matter of refinement; at some distances the blur could be nicer, while most of the time it is ok). When you end up with the reception in candle light or other very dim lighting, f/1.4 primes can let you work with available light even in the darkest of conditions. However, I think this is not where wedding photography starts! It is more important to get those key shots during the day with certainty than play in the dark. ;-)</p>

<p>The SB-600 can be a nice on-camera flash, you can bounce with it and get nice smooth lighting if there are white or only slightly off-white surfaces to bounce from. If there are no such surfaces, then it becomes more challenging to obtain perfect results. I personally prefer to go black and white with situations where the lighting is very difficult colour-wise, e.g. there can be blue skylight, green light from compact fluorescents, warm light from candles, and neutralish light from your flash. This can be a tricky situation. For lighting groups if you want nice, soft light, you probably need more lights than just the one SB-600. An umbrella on a stand can cover a lot of territory in portrait lighting but an SB-600 is not always powerful enough. </p>

 

<p>May be D610 will fit the bill and budget, with Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC, D600 is cheaper but those oil spouts and dust could be annoying. Do not listen those, who saying you can get the same results with DX camera, you can't, it is physics . For your stile of shooting, full frame better.</p>

<p>I have to both agree and disagree with Kent on a few things. You have the 17-55 which is to me the best DX zoom Nikon makes. Since you are this far into the DX format consider sticking with it. He's right, most people won't know the difference. You also abolutely need at least 2 bodies and I would argue a third one stuffed in a bag just in case. Doesn't need to be the latest, just something that will keep you going, a D200 or 300 maybe. If you want bokeh go for the fast 85 or give some thought to a manual focus 105/2.5. A little long but what a great portrait lens. I've covered weddings with monolights and they are nice for some stuff but unless you have some help they will be more trouble than I think they are worth. If you go that way I second the Alien Bees suggestion. Excellent product. I don't know though if the 7000 and 7100 have a synch terminal to plug in with, you will probably need a remote trigger system. I find for most of my wedding work that a single body/lens/flash will do 85% of the work and that will be the 17-55. Longer lenses are fine but I don't use them often. I've always wondered, and I'm NOT trying to make fun, what you can do to shoot 2000 images at a wedding. A lot of photographers do. I could be there all weekend and not shoot that many. I probably max out at around 700 on a busy wedding. Different approach I guess. My bottom line is to keep it simple. Two complete cameras with a light modifier like the Fong on one of them, extra batteries and memory and you're pretty well set.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

<p>I don't think the OP is about to capture some big-time wedding as a solo photographer any time soon. Therefore, I am afraid that all the discussion about getting multiple camera bodies, lots of lighting equipment, etc. is very premature.</p>

<p><br />In any case, the OP's question is about getting an FX body; perhaps she should get a lens or two first instead. I think it is better that we focus on that original question.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would love to have that creamy/dreamy bokeh in my images, but with the current setup I own doesn't allow it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The main reason for that seems to be that you do not have any large aperture lenses. Get a 50mm 1.4 lens (Nikon or Sigma) and shoot some portraits at f1.4 - f1.8 - concentrate on getting focus right where you want it - it wont' be easy.</p>

<p>Great, thank you to everyone who took their time to answer my questions, I appreciate it! </p>