Will switching to FF and primes make me a better photographer?

<p>I am in an equipment quandary here, and could use some help. I currently have a D7000, Tokina 11-16mm, Nikon 16-85mm, Sigma 30mm 1.4, and a 180mm 2.8 AIS. I am happy with all of it, especially the awesome Tokina, because I love wide angles. I often shoot landscapes and scenic shots, but hope to shoot more pope in the future. I travel often and bring my camera with me, but have no problem bringing a decent sized camera with me :)</p>

<p>I am considering flipping my gear to full frame and all primes (particularly Canon 5d, Canon 20mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, and 100mm 2.8 macro) a D700 would be nice, but the equivalent gear in Nikon exceeds my budget, and I do not foresee being at all unhappy with the 5d in any way.</p>

<p>My goal here is to become a better photographer. I feel zooms make me lazy, and that primes would make me think more about my photography. Full frame because I LOVE that cinematic shallow depth of field look, and I just can't get the right combination of focal length/blurry background I'd like. </p>

<p>I'm sure this has been asked many times before, but any recommendations would be helpful.</p>

<p>Thanks you for your responses<br>

- Richard</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Will switching to FF and primes make me a better photographer?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In a word, no. But it might improve some of the technical aspects of your photographs.</p>

<p>Hi Richard,<br>

Not to be sarcastic but no amount of $$/"better equipment is going to make you or anyone a "better photographer". IMHO you won't find anyone that will make that statement. The late GREAT photographer Galen Rowell shot many award winning photos with a compact Nikon 35mm body and a "GASP..." consumer lens. If you are shooting landscapes, you are going to be shooting on a tripod stopped down anyway. Even I suffer from GAS from time to time, but I have a 3 year old midsize digital body with a fast WA zoom 17-50 and a fast tele zoom 70-200 2.8 and a single 50 1.8 prime, a polarizer filter and a decent tripod. This is what I use 99% of the time and feel like I am successful. Check out my gallery to see my work<br>

Seriously if you are going to spend money, spend it on a photo vacation (even if only hours from your current location)<br>

To claim that "zooms" make one lazy in my opinion is BS. If a zoom allows you to "get the shot" vs digging thru your bag trying to find the perfect lens and you miss the shot.....one should not be proud of that.<br>

Truthfully, when was the last time someone in your family or close friends said "Great shot, but hmmmmm you cheated because you used a zoom"<br>

In closing, you have a GREAT selection of good gear, take your camera everywhere and shoot as much as possible. Go somewhere that you haven't. Shoot stuff you never had before. Keep your money in your wallet, and most of all........Have Fun!<br>

I seriously wish you well!<br>

Mark</p>

<p>Hi Richard,<br>

Not to be sarcastic but no amount of $$/"better equipment is going to make you or anyone a "better photographer". IMHO you won't find anyone that will make that statement. The late GREAT photographer Galen Rowell shot many award winning photos with a compact Nikon 35mm body and a "GASP..." consumer lens. If you are shooting landscapes, you are going to be shooting on a tripod stopped down anyway. Even I suffer from GAS from time to time, but I have a 3 year old midsize digital body with a fast WA zoom 17-50 and a fast tele zoom 70-200 2.8 and a single 50 1.8 prime, a polarizer filter and a decent tripod. This is what I use 99% of the time and feel like I am successful. Check out my gallery to see my work<br>

Seriously if you are going to spend money, spend it on a photo vacation (even if only hours from your current location)<br>

To claim that "zooms" make one lazy in my opinion is BS. If a zoom allows you to "get the shot" vs digging thru your bag trying to find the perfect lens and you miss the shot.....one should not be proud of that.<br>

Truthfully, when was the last time someone in your family or close friends said "Great shot, but hmmmmm you cheated because you used a zoom"<br>

In closing, you have a GREAT selection of good gear, take your camera everywhere and shoot as much as possible. Go somewhere that you haven't. Shoot stuff you never had before. Keep your money in your wallet, and most of all........Have Fun!<br>

I seriously wish you well!<br>

Mark</p>

<p>Hi Richard,<br>

Not to be sarcastic but no amount of $$/"better equipment is going to make you or anyone a "better photographer". IMHO you won't find anyone that will make that statement. The late GREAT photographer Galen Rowell shot many award winning photos with a compact Nikon 35mm body and a "GASP..." consumer lens. If you are shooting landscapes, you are going to be shooting on a tripod stopped down anyway. Even I suffer from GAS from time to time, but I have a 3 year old midsize digital body with a fast WA zoom 17-50 and a fast tele zoom 70-200 2.8 and a single 50 1.8 prime, a polarizer filter and a decent tripod. This is what I use 99% of the time and feel like I am successful. Check out my gallery to see my work<br>

Seriously if you are going to spend money, spend it on a photo vacation (even if only hours from your current location)<br>

To claim that "zooms" make one lazy in my opinion is BS. If a zoom allows you to "get the shot" vs digging thru your bag trying to find the perfect lens and you miss the shot.....one should not be proud of that.<br>

Truthfully, when was the last time someone in your family or close friends said "Great shot, but hmmmmm you cheated because you used a zoom"<br>

In closing, you have a GREAT selection of good gear, take your camera everywhere and shoot as much as possible. Go somewhere that you haven't. Shoot stuff you never had before. Keep your money in your wallet, and most of all........Have Fun!<br>

I seriously wish you well!<br>

Mark</p>

<p>Hi Richard,<br>

Not to be sarcastic but no amount of $$/"better equipment is going to make you or anyone a "better photographer". IMHO you won't find anyone that will make that statement. The late GREAT photographer Galen Rowell shot many award winning photos with a compact Nikon 35mm body and a "GASP..." consumer lens. If you are shooting landscapes, you are going to be shooting on a tripod stopped down anyway. Even I suffer from GAS from time to time, but I have a 3 year old midsize digital body with a fast WA zoom 17-50 and a fast tele zoom 70-200 2.8 and a single 50 1.8 prime, a polarizer filter and a decent tripod. This is what I use 99% of the time and feel like I am successful. Check out my gallery to see my work<br>

Seriously if you are going to spend money, spend it on a photo vacation (even if only hours from your current location)<br>

To claim that "zooms" make one lazy in my opinion is BS. If a zoom allows you to "get the shot" vs digging thru your bag trying to find the perfect lens and you miss the shot.....one should not be proud of that.<br>

Truthfully, when was the last time someone in your family or close friends said "Great shot, but hmmmmm you cheated because you used a zoom"<br>

In closing, you have a GREAT selection of good gear, take your camera everywhere and shoot as much as possible. Go somewhere that you haven't. Shoot stuff you never had before. Keep your money in your wallet, and most of all........Have Fun!<br>

I seriously wish you well!<br>

Mark</p>

<p>Hi Richard,<br>

Not to be sarcastic but no amount of $$/"better equipment is going to make you or anyone a "better photographer". IMHO you won't find anyone that will make that statement. The late GREAT photographer Galen Rowell shot many award winning photos with a compact Nikon 35mm body and a "GASP..." consumer lens. If you are shooting landscapes, you are going to be shooting on a tripod stopped down anyway. Even I suffer from GAS from time to time, but I have a 3 year old midsize digital body with a fast WA zoom 17-50 and a fast tele zoom 70-200 2.8 and a single 50 1.8 prime, a polarizer filter and a decent tripod. This is what I use 99% of the time and feel like I am successful. Check out my gallery to see my work<br>

Seriously if you are going to spend money, spend it on a photo vacation (even if only hours from your current location)<br>

To claim that "zooms" make one lazy in my opinion is BS. If a zoom allows you to "get the shot" vs digging thru your bag trying to find the perfect lens and you miss the shot.....one should not be proud of that.<br>

Truthfully, when was the last time someone in your family or close friends said "Great shot, but hmmmmm you cheated because you used a zoom"<br>

In closing, you have a GREAT selection of good gear, take your camera everywhere and shoot as much as possible. Go somewhere that you haven't. Shoot stuff you never had before. Keep your money in your wallet, and most of all........Have Fun!<br>

I seriously wish you well!<br>

Mark</p>

<p>Hi Richard,<br>

Not to be sarcastic but no amount of $$/"better equipment is going to make you or anyone a "better photographer". IMHO you won't find anyone that will make that statement. The late GREAT photographer Galen Rowell shot many award winning photos with a compact Nikon 35mm body and a "GASP..." consumer lens. If you are shooting landscapes, you are going to be shooting on a tripod stopped down anyway. Even I suffer from GAS from time to time, but I have a 3 year old midsize digital body with a fast WA zoom 17-50 and a fast tele zoom 70-200 2.8 and a single 50 1.8 prime, a polarizer filter and a decent tripod. This is what I use 99% of the time and feel like I am successful. Check out my gallery to see my work<br>

Seriously if you are going to spend money, spend it on a photo vacation (even if only hours from your current location)<br>

To claim that "zooms" make one lazy in my opinion is BS. If a zoom allows you to "get the shot" vs digging thru your bag trying to find the perfect lens and you miss the shot.....one should not be proud of that.<br>

Truthfully, when was the last time someone in your family or close friends said "Great shot, but hmmmmm you cheated because you used a zoom"<br>

In closing, you have a GREAT selection of good gear, take your camera everywhere and shoot as much as possible. Go somewhere that you haven't. Shoot stuff you never had before. Keep your money in your wallet, and most of all........Have Fun!<br>

I seriously wish you well!<br>

Mark</p>

<p>Let me explain a bit further. I'm not approaching this from the technical angle of "my photography isn't what I want it to be, must the equipment" angle. I am a strong believer that just about any modern equipment can produce great results. What I'm asking is if I make this switch, will my visualization skills, and overall photography improve?</p>

<p>Rather than grab a zoom and hope for the best, will i choose the appropriate prime and really think about my composition? I have a fear that the missing convenience of a zoom might be detrimental, but I really don't know.</p>

<p>I'm particularly asking advice from anyone who has done this, or considered doing this.</p>

<p>Thanks again,</p>

<p>- Richard</p>

<p>Why is there 4 copies of the same post on this thread ?</p>

<p>I don't think switching to full frame has anything directly to do with becoming a better photographer. The closest it comes to affecting anything other than technical image quality is that there is a wider range of lenses available that are designed to be used in particular ways on full-frame cameras. For example, the reason 35mm and 50mm primes exist is that they were for a long time the common "normal" and "wide angle" lenses for full-frame film cameras. 85mm and 105mm are considered "portrait" lenses because of how they work on full-frame cameras. With DX, these lenses behave a bit differently because the smaller sensor loses over half of the image, keeping only the central portion, resulting in a much narrower field of view. For extreme wide-angles, especially, the range of options for DX is quite limited.</p>

<p>Zoom lenses can indeed tempt you to be lazy, to just shoot from wherever you happen to be, zooming to get the framing you want, rather than moving around and exploring different perspectives. But much the same is true of all the automation in modern cameras. Autofocus encourages you to be lazy too, and leads to people thinking that it's the camera's fault if a picture comes out poorly focused. Auto-exposure encourages laziness by implying that there is one "correct" exposure for a scene and that the camera knows what it is. Even digital technology encourages a sort of laziness by making it cheap to shoot dozens or hundreds of pictures quickly, without thinking, and allowing you to make an almost unlimited range of corrections in PP rather than getting pictures right in the first place.</p>

<p>So my suggestion, if you really want to be a better photographer, is to pick up an inexpensive used all-manual film camera, something like a Nikon FM2, and a limited set of manual-focus Nikkor AI or AI-S prime lenses (say, 24mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4, and 105mm f/2.5 to start with, to give you options without drowning you in them) and shoot with that setup for a few months to see what you learn from it. The specific lenses I mentioned all have 52mm filter threads, so you can experiment with different color correction filters and B&W contrast filters without having to buy them in multiple sizes or use step-up rings. Try different films to see which give you results you like. You don't have to go to the extreme of setting up your own darkroom as long as there's a competent lab in your area (Walgreen's does not count, and anyway they only process color print film, which I would recommend avoiding because modern minilabs scan your film and do digital PP on them for color balance, exposure, etc. before printing, at which point you might as well be shooting digital to begin with).</p>

<p>no</p>

<p>I find that one of the unsung virtues of a FF body (having grown up with 35mm and then 6X6) is.....No math! A 50mm is still a 50 and likewise for all the other focal lengths. The last thing I want to do, when shooting for enjoyment, is to start calculating conversion factors in my head.</p>

<p>I guess the big things that had me thinking were these:</p>

<p>1. Primes will make me think more. I like that.</p>

<p>2. Real fast lenses, especially on the wider end. For example, There is relatively inexpensive and high quality 28mm 1.8 for canon and nikon. There is just no such option for DX.</p>

<p>3. Perspective seems more natural. I just can't get over the fact that a 50mm gives the angle of view of an 85mm on DX, but the perspective/compression of a 50mm. It seems unnatural to me.</p>

<p>4. No wide angle primes. I can get a 20mm prime for ~$400 on FF. DX, there is no such option.</p>

<p>Film is a bit out of the question for me, i used film PLENTY during my time as a photo major at school. I KNOW the hassle is detrimental to my process, and I am a digital/photoshop nerd by profession. I just feel more comfortable with digital, and I know my process is far more successful that way.</p>

<p>Perhaps it is GAS, perhaps not, thats what I'm trying to figure out here.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A 50mm is still a 50 and likewise for all the other focal lengths.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

As it is on whatever format you use.</p>

<p>A better photographer? No. A better equipped photographer for the photographs you like to make? Perhaps. If shallow DoF is important to you, then you can get over a stop shallower DoF with a FF outfit.</p>

<p>The zoom vs. prime debate comes up a lot. There's one thing that a zoom can do for you that a collection of primes cannot. A zoom is a compositional tool that lets you juxtapose the foreground and background proportions exactly the way you wish. Sometimes, albeit rarely, a photo demands two elements in exact proportion, which dicatates and exact focal length that will do what you want. If you don't have a prime of that exact focal length, you're out of luck.</p>

<p>Contrary to popular propaganda, a zoom is not a tool of the lazy. I work far harder with a zoom than I ever did with a prime, because I'm sneaker-zooming and ring-zooming all over the place to compose my images the way I want. I might be situated where the foreground is framed perfectly, and then I start backing waaaaay off from the subject to zoom in and get the background larger. With a prime I wouldn't have this option and would simply snap the pic where I stood.</p>

<p>I think you'll find that the more versatile photographers have both zooms and primes in their arsenals, for their respective uses. There are times to use both, and curiously the compositional latitude of zooms is never discussed.</p>

<p>Of course if your thing is to blur out backgrounds until they are indistinct, foreground/background relationships might not be important to you.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>3. Perspective seems more natural. I just can't get over the fact that a 50mm gives the angle of view of an 85mm on DX, but the perspective/compression of a 50mm. It seems unnatural to me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because it isn't true. The perspective and sense of compression of a 50mm lens on DX is identical to what you would get on FX with a 75mm lens. This is purely a matter of angle of view. DOF is a bit different because you have to enlarge a DX image more than an FX image to reach the same viewing size, but perspective and compression result directly from the angle of view, not the focal length as such. Angle of view, in turn, results from the combination of focal length and sensor or film format.</p>

<p><a href="http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/07/23/critical-focus/%20%20">http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/07/23/critical-focus/</a><br>

Heres an example of the look I'm looking to achieve. I understand there are a million other great qualities to these photographs besides shallow DOF, but you get the point...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I work far harder with a zoom than I ever did with a prime, because I'm sneaker-zooming and ring-zooming all over the place to compose my images the way I want.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, but that's because you've learned to do both. People who have only ever used zooms tend to sneaker-zoom much less, because it seems so easy to just let the lens do all the work.</p>

<p>PS I'm gonna go out and shoot.</p>

<p>Funny thing abut photography: We all know the less distractions we have the better, but we often distract ourselves with finding ways to remove distraction.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am in an equipment quandary here, and could use some help. I currently have a D7000, Tokina 11-16mm, Nikon 16-85mm, Sigma 30mm 1.4, and a 180mm 2.8 AIS. I am happy with all of it, especially the awesome Tokina, because I love wide angles. I often shoot landscapes and scenic shots, but hope to shoot more pope in the future. I travel often and bring my camera with me, but have no problem bringing a decent sized camera with me :)<br>

I am considering flipping my gear to full frame and all primes (particularly Canon 5d, Canon 20mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, and 100mm 2.8 macro) a D700 would be nice, but the equivalent gear in Nikon exceeds my budget, and I do not foresee being at all unhappy with the 5d in any way.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>First off, no amount of money or gear will make <strong><em>you</em></strong> a better photographer. What makes a better photographer is what you get out of the gear you have. It sounds like you have the start of a pretty good kit where you are. I'm not sure why you'd want to switch wholesale over to Canon. Unless there is something about Nikon you really don't like, I think you'd be better off slowly evolving your kit until you can afford the Nikon FF camera.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My goal here is to become a better photographer. I feel zooms make me lazy, and that primes would make me think more about my photography. Full frame because I LOVE that cinematic shallow depth of field look, and I just can't get the right combination of focal length/blurry background I'd like.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>30 years ago, there were technical issues that made zooms inferior to almost all primes, but that's not so much the case today. Excellent zooms can be had, and to beat them technically, you have to spend a lot on the highest quality primes. </p>

<p>But why do you think zooms make you lazy? Because you don't have to walk somewhere to frame the shot? Because you don't have to tote around 4 primes to cover the same range? Walking around with one prime certainly makes you think about shots, but you may also miss shots because you can't get close enough or even far away enough, or something, where a zoom may have let you get the shot.</p>

<p>I'm not down on primes at all. I just think that in this day and age, a quality zoom rivals many primes in a lot of applications, and I don't believe that zoom users are necessarily lazy. If you're always shooting in a narrow range of focal lengths, then a prime may be more appropriate, or if you need/want a larger maximum aperture, etc. There are many good reasons to choose a prime lens. But in the mean time, your zooms may be able to help you work out <strong><em>which</em></strong> prime(s) you need!</p>

<p>As for shallow depth of field, there is more to it than just using a full frame camera and sticking on a wide aperture lens! I get plenty of depth of field (though not necessarily all the time) with my 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L lens, which spends most of its time at apertures smaller than f/5.6, on my crop-frame EOS 7D. Distance to your subject, distance from your subject to what is behind them also play an important part in putting things out of focus in the background or foreground. Work with what you have, and lear its strengths and weaknesses.</p>

<p>Don't get bogged down in gear-itis. Cameras, lenses, flashes, etc. are all the tools of the photographer, like the chisel and the lathe to the carpenter, or the brush and the easel are to the painter. It's up to the photographer or carpenter or painter to bring their vision out into the world. Yes, sometimes - as you get better - you need a new piece of gear, but the gear isn't what makes you better.</p>

<p>Today? No. </p>

<p>Tomorrow? Yes.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Today? No. <br /><br />Tomorrow? Yes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nope, not tomorrow either.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I find that one of the unsung virtues of a FF body (having grown up with 35mm and then 6X6) is.....No math! A 50mm is still a 50 and likewise for all the other focal lengths. The last thing I want to do, when shooting for enjoyment, is to start calculating conversion factors in my head.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Unless one carries both types of camera around with one, why on earth would one bother "doing the maths" if shooting with a crop camera? I shot with one or another Minolta 35mm SLR for years, but when I picked up my 7D, I never gave the conversion a moment's thought! It only took me a couple shots with a 50mm on a crop to know what that's about, but now, I just take what's in the viewfinder, and don't worry about actual vs effective focal length.<br>

<br>

Of course, I suppose if it were important to one, one could take a label printer and print the crop focal lengths for all their lenses... "Canon EF 160-640 f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM", perhaps...<br>

<br>

I'm not knocking full frame, but if one works exclusively with a crop, there's really very, very little reason to be concerned on a daily basis about what the effective focal length is.</p>

<p>That is, until one wants to upgrade... ;-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nope, not tomorrow either.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>LMAO!</p>