Which full format Nikon should I buy

<p>Kim, with "full-frame" FX, I don't think any of your issues are going to go away.<br /><br />That said, they can be mitigated by the fact that you get an extra stop or so of low light sensitivity, and it's VITALLY important not to under-expose when you are shooting in low light, because when you do post processing it just magnifies the noise.<br /><br />also, some de-noising software might work well, but go easy on that.<br /><br />f2.2 on anything but a wide lens is going to be a problem when more than one person is in the frame, f4 is way way better.<br /><br />All that said... not a terrible shot there! How are these images being used? Printed? How big? That matters a lot, too.</p>

<p>Kim - your sample shot is fantastic. I don't know what Kent meant by "not THAT bad." Maybe he is joking.</p>

<p>For your intended purpose (portraits and wedding) I think it makes sense to try FX if you have the budget. It won't necessarily be a huge difference in a lot of situations (FX versus DX) but I think FX will tend to help you in (a) low light situations with high ISO, and (b) controlling DOF when you want shallow focus and nice background blur. If your sample shot is a good indication of your style, I think FX is a reasonable upgrade. </p>

<p>Right, Kim's sample image is better than a lot of portraits I see on photo.net. The backlit situation in that particular setting is challenging. If one is serious about portrait and wedding photography, it makes a lot of sense to move into FX for:</p>

<ul>

<li>between high-ISO results. Yes, the D500 is quite good at higher ISO, but FX gives you are lot more sensor real-estate and gathers more light. It is hard to overcome that physical advantage.</li>

<li>You get more selection on higher-end lenses designed for FX. Nikon still has no good portrait lens for DX, and people need to compromise with either a 50mm or 85mm. For FX, you have a number of 85mm and 105mm (and 135mm) choices at different price points.</li>

</ul>

<p>I think the D750 is a good start for the time being. A few years down the road, the D750 can be the backup body when Kim upgrades again to something better and newer.</p>

<p>Personally, I wouldn't buy a new D810 at this point. I am actually a bit surprised that Nikon hasn't announced an update at the Photokina. Its whole design is kind of dated as a new AF system is already available on the D5 and D500, so is radio controlled flash. The D750 is of course also a bit dated, but it is a lower-end body and will probably stay current for a little longer.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You get more selection on higher-end lenses designed for FX. Nikon still has no good portrait lens for DX, and people need to compromise with either a 50mm or 85mm. </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I certainly got more selection of VERY high end lenses for D800E--about $6,000 worth. As for no good portrait lens for DX, I disagree. The Nikon 58mm f1.4G works very well! (I bet you forgot that one.) :-)</p>

<p>The biggest difference for me was not camera related, but learning how to use software better. And I was kidding around a bit about the posted photo. An FX will do nothing for that shot. The Nikon 58mm f1.4G, maybe.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Nikon 58mm f1.4G works very well! (I bet you forgot that one.) :-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I didn't forget about that one at all. A few years ago when Nikon introduced that lens, I talked to their tech rep over a conference call. At the time Nikon's top DX body was the D7100 @ $1200. And he was describing that $1600 lens designed for night photography would be a good choice for a portrait lens for DX. I didn't tell him but I felt like "you've got to be kidding me."</p>

<p>Personally, I found an 85mm on DX working perfectly fine for headshot photos. People may argue it's too long, but it's all down to preference. It's not a physics law that a portrait lens must be 85-90mm eq. of 135 film. Longer or shorter may work equally well.<br>

The 60mm f/2.8 Macro, or possibly alternatively the Tamron 60mm f/2 Macro, on DX would make a more sensible priced alternative to the 58mm f/1.4G. Personally, if I could free up the money for the 58mm, I'd get it right away but many people feel it's heavily overpriced as the lab test results are not as good as some other lenses. We all have our different priorities, I guess.</p>

<p>I also err on the long end for portraits - partly because I'm often shooting candids (so I'm usually further away), partly because if I'm losing the background, a longer lens with a smaller aperture will keep more of the subject in focus for the same amount of background isolation, and partly because the longer lenses tend to be optically better (with judgement reserved on what the 85mm Art can do).<br />

<br />

At the risk of quoting Hypnoken, he claimed that people "remember what people look like when they're 15 feet away", so this tends to be what doesn't look too distorted or flattened. I'd not take that as a remotely solid rule (and possibly not even a solid derivation), but at 15', the long edge of a (full) frame covers about 6' with an 85mm lens (in the right ball-park for a full-body portrait) and abaout 4' with a 135mm lens (the ball-park for an upper body crop). Other than being lenses that were reasonable to make in large apertures, I assumed that had something to do with the conventional wisdom for "portrait lenses". That said, I - and Joe McNally - often use a 200mm f/2 in portraits, and people doing model shots will quite often go further into the supertelephoto territory. So long as f/2.8 will do you, I claim a 70-200 covers most of the range quite nicely for FX, though if you start wanting to include groups then the 24-70 (or something in that range) starts being relevant.<br />

<br />

Being 50% further away on DX doesn't feel like the end of the world. For a long time people got pointed at the 60mm f/2 Tamron macro for wider DX portraits, but I can't believe the difference in field of view is all that huge if you were just to use a 50mm on DX. The old HSM 50mm f/1.4 was (is?) really good on DX (the FX corners never appealed to me); there's the Art if you want more, or a 55mm Otus...<br />

<br />

Of course, these are big lenses and possibly not the most appropriate options on a DX body. But then I do have an E-series 50mm f/1.8 for when my D810 needs a body cap, and I have to think it (or the 45mm AI-P if you don't have an AI-follower tab) would be a good enough portrait lens on DX. I never really understood why Pentax have a monopoly on pancakes. (Mmm, pancakes.)</p>

<p>Thank you for your kind words Chip and Shung. I really do love shooting with back light, it's a huge part of my style, and why my clients hire me.<br>

This might me a "rookie" question here, but is my 35mm not the right lens for shooting groups that are more than 4 feet away? Is this part of my problem perhaps? Do I need more zoom? I rented an 85mm for a wedding and found it was sometimes too much zoom. <br>

The main reason I posted this question initially, is because I have a few clients that say my work looks amazing online, but doesn't print sharp and looks blurry. I am trying to do some damage control to make those clients happy and prevent this from recurring in my upcoming shoots.<br>

To me, the photos almost looks low res when I zoom in and sharpening and camera shake edits just make this worse. I can't figure it out.<br>

I have reset my camera and plan to do tests on my lenses to make sure they are focusing properly this weekend.<br>

Most importantly, I just need to figure out why there is even an issue so I can provide my clients with tack sharp photos both online and printed.<br>

I'm attaching a screen grab of one of my images at 300% in Photoshop. You can see what I mean about the lack of clarity and sharpness. </p>

<p>How do you print your photos? Do you get it done professionally or get it done yourself? I find that some of the companies that do prints do horrible jobs, while some are great <br>

Do you also use VR lenses, or a tripod? Both can do wonders for camera shake, and VR lenses are worth a look at</p>