DX format vs FX format "bodies"

[kylebybee]

<p>I currently use a D7000 and don't have any complaints, but I'm getting into portraits and event shooting and was wondering if the APS-C size sensor would be limiting in any way in IQ versus the 35mm sized sensor format. I can't afford to switch right now but before I invest too much more in DX lenses I was curious about the difference. My current lenses are Tamron 70-300 vc usd (oddly an FX lens), Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, Nikon 35 f/1.8. I understand that these aren't ideal for portraits, but hence the question at hand.</p>

<p> </p>

[kylebybee]

<p>Oh, I do have lighting wish list already in mind.</p>

[lwg]

<p>I personally think FX is a better system for portraits. The choices for prime lenses is greater, you have more options for shallow depth of field (if you want it) because the prime lenses are faster, and the longer lenses for the same field of view limits depth of field. Then they are generally nicer to use because of the larger view finders. So there is a difference. I don't know if it will make a difference to your images; a lot depends on your style.</p>

 

[Marcus Ian]

<p>LG is correct (IMO), but don't forget that FF (I use Canon, not Nikon) can entail an additional cost in lenses. IMO, if you are satisfied w/ your output, I wouldn't upgrade if it means you'll have to use lower quality glass. Practically, to upgrade, you are looking at the cost of <em>both</em> a FF body, <em>and</em> (at a minimimum) a Tamron 28-75/2.8.</p>

<p>Also, if your budget is limited (and who's isn't?) I would worry about the lighting <em>first</em>, as it has a <em>much</em> larger practical impact than the difference between a crop and FF unit.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I'd take that even one further: Lighting first, lenses next, and then the body.</p>

<p>The D7000 has a pretty terrific sensor. Image quality wise, it leaves little to be desired. Yes, there is an advantage to FX, as LG and Marcus said. But given that you currenty have no really fast lenses on the long-ish end, I doubt whether your style has a lot o very-shallow-DoF work. <br />Now, if that is exactly the thing you find missing in your creative arsenal, I'd start with getting faster long lenses (i.e. 85mm f/1.8G, or a 70-200 f/2.8) before moving to a FF camera. Especially for event shooting, a longer faster lens will be useful.Those longer lenses are nearly all FX lenses anyway, so not much concerns there.<br>

At the same time "investing in DX lenses"... don't be afraid to get those, EVEN if you may go to FX some day. At the short end (<35mm), they're simply better choices usually (both more practical in terms of focal length, and priced nicer). If it's a good lens, it will keep its value well enough (and no, DX is not going to go all that soon). Sell them off when you go to FX, until then, use a lens that does what you need it to do. For longer lenses, the advantages of APS-C optimised lenses (being smaller, lighter and cheaper) are a lot less outspoken. Hence, for long lenses, getting FX capable lenses is not necessarily much more expensive.</p>

[kylebybee]

<p>Thank you guys, good point Wouter about needing longer, faster lenses.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Yes, lighting first. Except that you also mention event shooting. And that calls for a second body, as a backup. You can't have people re-do their event when you can come back with a camera that works. If your main camera fails, you have to have a backup when shooting events (especially paid events).<br /><br />Whether having an FX body that you use with a limited range of FX-friendly lenses while also being able to use it in DX mode along side your D7000 and sharing DX lenses ... depends on your priorities. Or, a second, cheap DX body (a D3200, etc) as a fall-back during events. But when you start doing event gigs, you <em>must</em> think about redundancy in your gear (including lighting and lens overlap, along with the usual storage and battery considerations). <br /><br />Just be thoughtful about where your bread is being buttered, here. If event shooting is likely to make more money move around than portraiture, think about how to (reliably) rig yourself up for that.</p>

[wmervine]

<p>If you are doing events I'd say prioritise a 2nd body. Not only do you need a backup but having 2 bodies with different lenses is very handy. Maybe consider a 2nd D7000 or a D7100. Use 1 with the 17-50 and maybe a 85 f/1.8G on the other. Good combination and good range for portraiture. I like the 85 and 35 combo for portraiture. Shooting at f2 gives you a really thin DOF even on DX.</p>

[lwg]

<p>I also agree that a second body is a requirement if you are making a living with your photography. I also think DX can be used very well for portraiture, just that FX is better. In an ideal world you would get an FX system, but if I were in your shoes I would get another D7000 or a D7100 and a 50mm and 85mm f/1.8 G lenses (maybe gettin the 50mm f/1.4 would be best since I bet this will become a heavily used lens for portraiture). These will work well for portraiture on your DX cameras and still be useful on FX if you ever go there. I'm not a professional, but the few times I took the 70-200mm (on a DX body) into a group of people I found it too long and I hated the size of the thing, hence my recommendation for the prime lenses.</p>

[kylebybee]

<p>My wife happens to have a D7000 also, so if I ever need it I can use it. Maybe I can make enough to get a D7100 or D600 in the future. I am looking to do this for income, but I don't need it to be my only source of income, just to help pay for the toys. Who knows what will happen in the future.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>I don't think FX vs DX matters at all until you have the lighting down completely. Also, how large are you printing?</p>

[kylebybee]

<p>Thus far I haven't printed any portraits yet, nor have I even purchased my lighting wish list. I do a lot of research before I buy anything. I think that the most popular size anyone would want would be no more than 16X20 or what ever is close to that. I have printed some landscape stuff that size and the D7000 does well with the Tamron 17-50.</p>

[kylebybee]

<p>I got my lighting stuff "Paul C. Buff busy bee kit", went to visit my parents for Mothers Day and here is a one light portrait using the 47" octabox with grid and a window as second source of light on left. Oh I used my Tamron 70-300 @ 80mm</p><div></div>

[starshooter]

<p>Being a pro entails being somewhat paranoid about your gear. You wife has a camera. Is this instantly available when you might need it? I absolutely would not worry about sensor size. Nobody cared what kind of a typewriter Hemingway used to type his stories. The end result is the only important thing. You should have backup lights, cords if you use them, lenses Your job is to get it done, not make excuses.<br>

The best one I ever heard -- this goes back in time -- a photog said the photos would not be forthcoming because the door fell off the darkroom. ANY excuse is as lame as that.</p>