Go full frame for weddings?

<p>I currently have a D60, 2 kit lenses plus the 50mm 1.4G. I am about to purchase a second camera and am considering the following two routes:<br>

Crop (D90 or D300) with Tamron 17-50 2.8VC, or<br>

Full frame (D700) with no additional lens (unless I can get a 24-85 cheaply)<br>

With my current lineup in consideration, I'd be interested to hear what you think based on your own experience. If I go full frame I will use the 50mm, otherwise I will keep it on the D60. For the record, I'm currently only assisting at weddings.<br>

Any comments at all would be appreciated, even if somewhat unrelated to my particular situation.</p>

<p>Simplest solution: just go with the D90 or D300 and have a second camera.</p>

<p>But, since you are eyeballing the D700, and it will take some financial commitment, you might consider selling off the D60 and both kit lenses to make it possible. Those kit lenses won't work at all on the D700, meaning the only lens you'll have is the 50. It's a fine lens, of course, but only having one focal length will drive you back to using the D60 for everything (defeats the purpose, right?).</p>

<p>The D60 and D700 are as incompatible as two Nikon cameras can be. The D60 uses AF-S DX lenses only. The D700 uses FX lenses, both AF and AF-S. I'm not saying you shouldn't have a DX/FX system, I'm just saying that if you choose to, you ought to have lenses that are compatible either way. Those kit lenses have to go. I only suggest ditching on the D60 as well because it will make it a little more possible to get the right lenses for the D700. Having one camera with the right lenses is better than having two cameras and lenses that aren't suited to either.</p>

<p>Last year I shot a picture of 50 people on a D80. <br>

On a 16x20 print you can see eye detail- the people were about 25 feet away. <br>

How much more do you need? <br>

If you have the 18-55 VR kit lens, keep it. It's very good. The build may be relatively cheap, but the $1,000 lenses are not 5 times better in terms of performance.<br>

The Nikon primes haven't been upgraded since the mid 90's, so there's no point buying a full frame body to use them. </p>

<p>Were it me -- D300 + lens.</p>

<p>Thanks guys for your comments.<br>

I don't intend to sell anything. I need the D60 as a backup body and agree the 18-55 is a good performer in decent light.<br>

A friend has told me that a D90 + 17-50 is one step up in quality and light performance to my current kit, but a D700 coupled with my 1.4 prime would blow them out of the water. That's what got me thinking about whether I should this opportunity to really step it up. And let's face it, the D700 has really come down in price so is within reach.<br>

Has anyone else come to the same crossroads? Which way did you go and did you look back?</p>

<p><em>> "On a 16x20 print you can see eye detail- the people were about 25 feet away. <br /> How much more do you need?" </em></p>

<p>+1</p>

<p>I don't know of anyone making poster-size prints of wedding photos. A DX-size sensor should be good enough as far as resolution is concerned. Then there's low-light performance. I suppose you have to decide if that's worth the cost of full-frame.</p>

<p>I have the non-VR version of the cheap 18-55 kit lens, and I agree that it's surprisingly good optically. It has actually made me dissappointed in some prime lenses, which turned out to have more noticeable distortions.</p>

<p >I think a lot of photographers, myself included, dream of more and more resolution, dynamic range, etc, etc. I find for my work, the norm is 8x10 or 11x14. When I do need a 16x20 or 20x30, I use MF film or my Canon 7D. I don’t do that many 20x30 prints, so really, any 15mp sensor or greater is going to do a great 16x20. I find the 12mp sensors in Nikon FF bodies to be ever so slightly light on resolution at 16x24. That’s me. I’m anal as can be.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >The D300 will be great. As will a Pentax k7, Canon 7D, D700, 5D2, etc, etc. Even a 35mm film scan of Reala 100 or Fuji Pro160S is going to be able to handle 8x10 or 11x14 prints with no problem. Heck, I’ve done 16x20 prints from Nikon 9000 scans of 35mm that worked great.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Don’t worry about the rez of the DSLRs in question….they’re all perfect for what you’re after.</p>

<p>Full frame and the D700 is much better for weddings. But it's a BIG investment because you'll eventually have to buy new lenses as well. I shoot a combination full frame and DX sensor at weddings, D3 & D300. I find that I shoot 90% of the images with the D3 because it does everything better than the D300. Everything. <br>

When I first had my D3 I had two lenses that would work on it, the 70-200 and the 50 1.4. I would use the 17-55 on the D300 and then switch between having the 70-200 and the 50 on the D3 and the 70-200 and the 17-55 on the D300. It's a reasonable kit, but if I was only buying one lens for the D3 for weddings it would hands down be the 24-70. I use that almost all the time and then switch out between the 70-200 and a WA zoom on the D300. <br>

Getting to any of those setups from where you are is expensive. But shooting with the 50/1.4 on the D700 and the kit lens on the D60 is a viable option until you get money together for another lens. The 50 on FF is fabulous. Sharp with great colors. I have shot whole weddings without taking that lens of the D3, but it depends on the venue. You can shoot most of the day with an 85 on the D60 and a 50 on the D3. Then if you need to go wider you can use the kit lens or invest in a 28 mm prime. </p>

<p>Depends...is this a business or hobby?<br>

If it is a business, you have to ask yourself, 'What/How will this help me make more money'.<br>

I can tell you I have considered going full frame, I shoot w/D300, and make stunning 20x30 canvas prints, can count the blades of grass on the golf courses and see individual sequins in the brides dress. <br>

So, going to a FF camera will do nothing for me, the difference in albums, prints and such will be nil.<br>

If this is a hobby.....then get the FF, as money and making money is not the issue.<br>

To summarize: How will a FF camera make a better image, will you really 'see' the difference beyond your ego.</p>

 

<p >Very true Garrett,</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I’ve done landscape samples (far more trying than a portrait in terms of resolution requirements) on both a 7D and 5D2. At 16x24, there was no, and I mean no difference in prints at iso 100, 200, or 400. On luster paper, you could see a very slight difference in noise at 800 and 1600 between the two….on photorag, virtually nil.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >There is a slight difference in apparent DOF, but having an f1.4 lens on both, you get a decent, shallow DOF. I have found that for weddings, the 7D is perfect. Most of my shooting requirements are 1600iso and less…normally 200-400. The OP needs to be honest to his own needs and really decide if he’ll see a difference. If we’re talking about 11x14 albums with lab or inkjet prints….I challenge anyone to see a difference.</p>

<p>I think you'd do just fine with the D300.</p>

<p>There's another weird consideration here, which seems pointless, but maybe isn't. Some of the "gearhead" pros will tell clients that you aren't as good because you don't shoot full frame. There is an excellent up-and-comer in my market who shoots a D300, and she got a few hatemails from jealous professionals telling her she has no business shooting a wedding on a crop frame camera. Some photographers will also tell their potential clients to ask whether other photographers shoot a full-frame camera. It's lame, it's stupid, and it's mean, but it does happen.</p>

<p>The pressure on the photographer got to be enough that she got a D700.</p>

<p>I think you'll be fine without upgrading to FF, but you should be aware that you might have to deal with a few (very few) hatemails. Best advice--scrub your EXIF data. Second best advice--if someone else doesn't scrub theirs, look at it. You'll learn a lot about their lenses, focal length and even their distance from the subject.</p>

<p>Forget about resolution for now.</p>

<p>D700 + 50/1.4 = seriously shallow dof.<br>

D300 + 17-50/2.8 = limited ability to use selective focus.</p>

<p>So, what's your style, what do your clients want.</p>

<p>One other factor, alluded to in a couple of posts above but not expressed specifically:</p>

<p>Full-frame = reduced pixel density.</p>

<p>I have a D80 (now retired except as a third-line backup) and a D700. I stopped shooting the D80 about two years ago when I realised that anything at ISO 1600 wasn't good enough for me to be comfortable sharing with clients. But the D700 can produce quality enlargements at ISO 4000 and higher.</p>

<p>There are a few technology enhancements with the D700, among them improvements in the pitch, size and spacing of pixel arrays that only come with full frame designs. If low-light work is important then full-frame could offer you a significant advantage - one that's perhaps more tangible and immediate than shallow DOF.</p>

<p>Even if you don't need high ISO, the D700 at ISO 400 is cleaner than the D80 at floor speed. So even daytime tripod shots look better with improved tones and sharpness.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>... the pressure on the photographer got to be enough that she got a D700.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's an unpleasant story. But, to be honest, any photographer who cares what other people think is probably in the wrong business. And any photographer who has the time and inclination to send hate mail is probably out of business.</p>

<p>While it's good to have input from other wedding photographers about their specfic experience and preferences, you realize that when it comes down to making the decision, it is all about you and how you shoot. My experience won't tell you much about how you shoot, if at all.</p>

<p>So my experience? I use both full frame and cropped sensor at the same time. As William W. will tell you, and has told many others, there are advantages to having a mixed format kit. But again--will <strong>you</strong> want to take advantage of the leverage? No one but you knows.</p>

<p>Of the two choices you present, I would say the first one, because it makes better use of your money <strong>now</strong>, and gets you a very good, fast, non-kit zoom. Nothing says you can't go full frame later--either all or partly.</p>

<p>Juanita--boy, your market must be riddled with gearhead pros. I've never heard such nonsense. Most of the pros posting here are very level headed. Hate mail about not being full frame? That's crazy.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=3688373">Arie Vandervelden</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"></a>, Mar 04, 2010; 02:05 p.m.</p>

 

<p>Forget about resolution for now.<br>

D700 + 50/1.4 = seriously shallow dof.<br />D300 + 17-50/2.8 = limited ability to use selective focus.</p>

 

<p>So, what's your style, what do your clients want.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Huh? Tell you what, a crop camera user can put a 30mm f1.4 lens and have a shallow DOF as well. To prove my point, how about:<br>

D300 + 30/1.4 = seriously shallow dof.<br />D700 + 24-70/2.8 = limited ability to use selective focus.<br>

Lets compare apples to apples, shall we?</p>

<p>Neil</p>

<p>If your competitors are trying to convince clients (who will meet with you later) that they MUST have a FF photographer then maybe it's not just a matter of being thin-skinned. I'm not saying that people should worry too much about what other people think, but on the ground it's hard. The fact is, her work (even on the D300) was well above reproach. And it's true, whoever sent the mail probably isn't very successful--a MWAC with a 5D2--but that doesn't change the fact that it happens and it can rattle even a successful startup.</p>

<p>Nadine</p>

<p>I think because I'm young and relatively new, I associate more with young and relatively new photographers. It's a mess out here on the front-lines. I don't think that's different in my market versus yours, I just think that some of the folks who've been in the game a little longer don't have to deal with this kind of garbage. People who are just getting a foothold have a harder time not feeling threatened.</p>

<p>Everyone</p>

<p>It's a different world for young photographers. At least ones who are starting to make a stir in their respective markets. If you've been successfully making a solid living in the business for over 5 years then you probably don't have to deal with the same issues.</p>

<p>Yes Dave, but the OP was not considering these lenses. He's trying to choose between two options.</p>

<p>Sure it is possible to squeeze selective focus out of a crop camera. When I stick my 200/2.8 on my 7D I get shallow dof. I'm sure the 30/1.4 blurs as well. That's beside the point.</p>

<p>Juanita - isn't it usually about education?</p>

<p>Clients usually arrive with preconceived ideas of what they want, which may or may not relate to what the photographer offers. The choice of equipment is a fairly unimportant dimension of the consultation. I don't know how you work, but I like to find out what the client needs and see how that aligns to what I offer. Clients make a decision on the work and the personality of the photographer, and often not in that order. It would make no difference to me how much doubt any competitor sowed in the client's mind because that's not what I'm there to address.</p>

<p>Is it a different world for young or starting photographers? Don't think so, or at least it doesn't have to be. I've only been in business a short time, and have figured out everything as I went along. In my experience it's as easy as you make it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=3688373">Arie Vandervelden</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"></a>, Mar 04, 2010; 04:52 p.m.</p>

 

<p>Yes Dave, but the OP was not considering these lenses. He's trying to choose between two options.</p>

 

<p>Sure it is possible to squeeze selective focus out of a crop camera. When I stick my 200/2.8 on my 7D I get shallow dof. I'm sure the 30/1.4 blurs as well. That's beside the point.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>With the money he saves not buying fullframe, he can buy the lenses. So, it's not beside the point.</p>

<p>Professional photography is about building up you're bank balance not you're muscles lugging more and more expensive equipment about, use what you have.</p>

 

<p>Juanita--if you say so. I can't deny your experiences and don't know the business climate in your area. I have been in business for a long time, it is true. However, I know some local young wedding photographers--up and coming--and as far as I know, no one has ever sent them hate mail or deliberately tried to lead them astray with erroneous information about gear or any other aspect of the business.</p>

<p>Cut throat tactics have increased along with the level of competition these days, it seems. I would add--don't let your negative past experiences or expectations influence your attitude to the point that you can't recognize good will when you see it. Not everyone is out to get you.</p>

<p>Matthew, it occurs to me that you should rent a D700 and an f1.4 lens and do your own tests. Then you'll know whether you are in love with it enough to forgo everything else just to get the body. The latter makes less business sense in a way, because it appears you are trying to work within a budget, and if you get the D700, you will not be able to get the yummy lenses to go with it--the lenses that will allow it to shine. On the other hand, there is merit to a plan that includes getting the body now that you really, really want. Again--it is going to be up to you, and others' experiences, while helpful to know, won't really matter toward your decision.</p>

<p>>Mike: "<em>I don't know of anyone making poster-size prints of wedding photos</em> ."<br>

You haven't met my nephew. LOL.</p>

<p>re: crop vs full-frame. I've read that is you're shooting telephoto crop is better. if you're shooting landscapes full frame is better. I dont know if that's fact but I found it a point of distinction that was interesting enough to remember.</p>