Full Frame?

[daniel_horande]

<p>Hi Guys,</p>

<p>I already have a Nikon D200 with a 70-300 VR, sigma 30 1.4, sigma 10-20, and some alienbees..</p>

<p>The Question... When should i get a Full Frame, and Why all the Full frames From Nikon are so Expensive??? Canon has such a Cheap FUll Frame, but nikon they are over 2.5 the cheapest.</p>

<p>The Type of work i develope, is Weddings, Parties, Models, so i have no idea if i should get a Full Frame or just Upgrade to D300s...</p>

<p>Any Advance?</p>

[craigd]

<p>Full frame models are expensive because (1) manufacturing 36x24mm semiconductor devices is really expensive, with lousy yields, and (2) FF cameras are aimed at a higher-end market.</p>

<p>If you don't know why you should upgrade to FF... maybe you don't need to. Seriously, unless you're unhappy about some specific issue with regard to your current camera that can only be addressed by upgrading to FF, then why bother? The D300s is a fine camera, anyway.</p>

[garrick_fujii]

<p>i think you should go full frame when you feel that you are restrained by shooting DX. also, remember that if you go full frame, youll need FX lenses and will have to sell your DX ones, so the cost isn't just for the body, but for lenses as well</p>

[joshloeser]

<p>If you have to ask, it isn't for you (yet). </p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>What are you finding, Daniel, is giving you the most trouble, right now? You might benefit more from a faster mid-range zoom, or from a speelight like the SB-900 or SB-600 for your social shooting situations.<br /><br />A full-frame camera means buying lenses, as well. The difference in price between Nikon and Canon bodies is (for the moment) one thing to think about, but the real issue is lenses. Only your 70-300 would work on FX.<br /><br />If you're working in decent light, the D200 is a still a very viable camera. If you have identified a particular problem, let us know what it is - for some better insight. But don't upgrade just to upgrade.</p>

[daniel_horande]

<p>The worst Problem i am dealing with right now is the Noise on Images. For Weddings, i need to shot with a fast lenses, Even if I shoot with my Siga 30 mm 1.4, i have to set up the D200 to 400 Uso aprox, and i dont like that much of noise. I had to apply to 900 images noise reduc filter on photoshop batching them ..:-O</p>

[mark_sirota1]

<p>And which are the cheap Canon full-frame DSLRs? At B&H the Nikon D700 is $2400 and the Canon 5D Mark II is $2500. Is there a cheaper one I'm forgetting? (There is the original 5D, used, which would certainly be less.)</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The fact of the matter is that Nikon DSLRs are priced similarly as (rough) equivalent Canon DSLRs. What Canon has extra is an outdated 5D that is fairly cheap in the used market, but as usual, something is cheap for a reason.</p>

<p>The D200 is fairly out of date itself. If you move to a D300S, you'll get at least 1 more stop of high ISO result, much better (more accurate) AF for indoors, and dual memory cards for weddings.</p>

<p>Otherwise, it is a matter of time that the D700 will become an "old model" and go way down in price in the used market.</p>

[joshloeser]

<p>Shun, what people always seem to leave out about the D700 is that its full frame nature and its solid construction/autofocus capability (two things the 5D in both its incarnations is decidedly supbar in) will help keep its value relatively high for awhile. <br>

I don't see the D700 going "way down" for many years to come, primarily because its autofocus will be excellent, it will always be weather-resistant and it will always be full frame. I think it will fetch $1,500 in mint condition on the used market for at least a couple years after its successor is introduced.</p>

[karenf]

<p>Daniel, I am in a similar position to you, wondering what I should upgrade to from my old D200. I also want something that will give me the ability to up the ISO. I am seeing the rumours of replacement D700 and D90 coming very soon and the replacement for D90 having possibly a higher spec than the D300s (why I look at those rumour sites, I don't know). I like having the extra reach for my lenses that the DX body gives me and the D700 doesn't have the 100% view finder. Good dynamic range is also on my mind.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I am seeing the rumours of replacement D700 and D90 coming very soon and the replacement for D90 having possibly a higher spec than the D300s (why I look at those rumour sites, I don't know).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Karen, I too wonder why you read those sites; actually reading them is ok, but taking what they write seriously is not.</p>

<p>We have another current thread on those sites: <a href="../casual-conversations-forum/00WtzV">http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00WtzV</a> I cannot say it any better than <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=533353">Michael R. Freeman</a> there:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"NikonRumors (and their other associated sites) is the <em>National Enquirer</em> of the photo press. If you believe the moon landing was faked or that aliens live among us, then it's the perfect site for all your Nikon news. Otherwise it's suitable for entertainment purposes only ...."</p>

</blockquote>

[karenf]

<p>Shun, I try not take them seriously, it just adds to the confusion of what to do. It's almost as bad as googling medical things.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Karen, both the D700 and D90 are two years old; they are both due for an update. However, whatever replaces the D90 will continue to occupy the $1000 price section. (Initially it may be $100 to $200 more expensive than the D90 since it is new.) Otherwise, Nikon will have a big hole in that DSLR price range. If somehow that camera has more feagtures than the $1500 D300S, it'll certainly kill the D300S. Nikon is not going to be so stupid to shoot their own foot.</p>

<p>Whatever replaces the D90 may have a newer sensor and perhaps a few more mega pixels; it'll almost certainly have an improved video feature, but it is unlikely to match the D300S' AF system, 8 frames/sec, dual memory cards, 100% viewfinder, and metering with no-CPU lenses.</p>

[lachaine]

<p>Those "rumours" sites, review sites and forums like dpreviews and others where people post their comments about cameras will drive you insane. The impression they give is that every new model that comes out is "a game changer", and then once you have the game changer, you can read all about the faults it has. <em>Even assuming there is a game to change in the first place</em>, what you're reading is hype by hype generation factories, and comments by people whose only photography experience seems to be having bought, returned and exchanged an endless string of cameras based on review reading.</p>

<p>The truth is that there really isn't much difference between the old and the new or rumoured... at least nothing that actually has an effect on the resulting photography. This is the problem with digital, because unlike film where the camera itself is just a box which supports a lens and a piece of light-sensitive film, in digital, the camera itself is the medium... and since it's fixed as part of the camera, you're stuck with it, dead or hot pixels and all. The medium is not that $5 roll of film that you change every time, but it's that $1000 body... hence the endless owner anxiety about having the right camera. It's turning photography into a morass of iphone liner-uppers who all assume that photography is a endless upgrade cycle with a natural progression from so-called "amateur" or "entry-level" to what they should have as they gain experience in review reading. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.</p>

<p>To the full-frame upgrader, ask yourself this:</p>

<p>What would "full-frame" actually be if there had been no 35 mm film to base its size on?</p>

<p>Honestly, you should all just get yourselves a Smena 8 or something, with one, single focal length fixed lens on it, a few rolls of print film (B&W or colour), and start taking pictures. If you want to obsess about something, obsess about the subjects you choose to press the button at, and about how you choose to compose and expose them.</p>

<p> </p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>It seems to me that Nikon would replace the D700 first then the D300s then the D90 if there is to be a signifigant change. Creating a $1000 body that out preforms the D300s is like Shun mentioned. IMHO all of these bodies are very good if used within their limits. If you are concerned about new releases don't get a body that is two years old. If you need a body now then purchase which ever body meets your current needs. I was considering a D90 with a Voigtlander 20mm as a travel setup but it is still to heavy for long distance hiking and to close to my D700 weight wise.</p>

[m_allegretta]

<p>I am with Pierre. Just go out and and take pictures, film or digital, 35mm or rollfilm, ignore the hype and rumour mills - think independently, as individual thinkers are a rare commodity.</p>

<p>As to the question, full (35mm) frame digicams offer high ISO and lowest noise, so for Daniel's work, a low light gathering 35mm frame sensor DSLR will shine for weddings, parties, modeling where he will encounter difficult situations. If Daniel has DX lenses, they will vignette on the 35mm frame DSLR.</p>

<p>I am a film shooter. I just bought the Nikon D700 - my first DSLR. All the 35mm Nikkors I have are usable.</p>

[john_tran14]

<p>If you can afford it, why not? for a better deal buy a used one</p>

[teneson]

<p>Where's that cheap full-frame canon? I'd like to get one =) My 5D Mark II cost me $2400.</p>

<p>If you print no larger than 11x14, then you don't really need to go FF. The D200 is a fine camera for weddings.</p>

[simon_hickie1]

<p>Hi. Check out <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Lens-with-Camera">http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Lens-with-Camera</a> and compare the D700 with 24-120mm and D300 with 16-85mm at equivalent focal lengths. The D300 combo hammers the D700 combo on resolution. I'd wait for the D90 replacement before doing anything.</p>

[peter_nicholson]

<p>Simon-<br>

I think it was pointed out not too long ago that that test wasn't an accurate measurement of camera/lens performance. The 24-120mm isn't a particularly good lens, and shouldn't be used to judge how capable the D700 is. You are right in saying that the D300 does have higher resolution.</p>

 

[mark_sirota1]

<p>You can use dxomark to compare the D700 with 50/1.8D to the D300 or D300s with the same lens, if you want a better comparison. In that case the D700 wins for everything except vignetting and CA.</p>

[mike_jones15]

<p>While full frame can give lower noise images, and allows you to use a wider range of wide-angle lenses- for most the greatest benefit is a bigger viewfinder image. Pick up a full frame camera and see what I mean. Not only is this aesthetically more pleasing, it makes manual focusing a viable proposition. Camera manufactures try and hide this difference by quoting viewfinder magnifications for both types using a 50mm lens, however on a crop-frame a 50mm is a moderate telephoto!</p>