Full Frame vs Crop Sensor Question

[molly_park]

<p>I have started working as a second shooter and have already found a need for a second body. However, I am a few months away from being able to buy the D600 that I want. Should I go ahead and get a used D90/D300 instead of the full frame to build up my skills/portfolio? Or wait until I can get the D600? <br>

Thanks!</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Which lenses are you using or planning to have when you get the second body?</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>Yes! If you don't have adequate coverage w/ FX capable lenses, and have a limited budget, adding a FF unit is often a mistake, though not as much with Nikon since they can usually(?) shoot in DX 'mode'. This can be somewhat limiting, but is a good 'catchall' that I often wish Canon implemented. </p>

[charlestonphotos]

<p>I agree, using a Full Frame will involve buying much more expensive lenses. You can use DX lenses on a Full Frame but you will not be able to take advantage of the Full Frames superior sensor doing so. Better off to learn on the D90.</p>

[molly_park]

<p>I am trying to shoot mainly with primes but I realize I have to add in a zoom at some point. I currently work with the 35mm, 50mm, 85mm and 17-50 tamron. So it seems like I should just get a second DX body... thanks for your help! Very useful. </p>

[molly_park]

<p>My next question would then be: D90 or D300? </p>

[charlestonphotos]

<p>When it comes to specifications, the D90 edges out the D300. When it comes to price there is no contest</p>

[john_deerfield]

<blockquote>

<p>When it comes to specifications, the D90 edges out the D300</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What specification might that be? In any event, why not look for a used D7000? The D7000 gives you a cleaner ISO 1600 and a useable (in a pinch) ISO 3200. For wedding work I really prefer dual memory card slots which can be found on the D300<strong>s</strong>, the D7000, or the current D7100 and of course D600. Of all the cameras listed, only the D300 uses a compact flash memory card; don't know if that influences any decision.</p>

[charlestonphotos]

<p>John - This may help with the answer to your question. "What specification might that be?"</p>

<p><a href="http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon_D300-vs-Nikon_D90">http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon_D300-vs-Nikon_D90</a></p>

[wmervine]

<p>At this point Molly a 2nd hand D7000 would make more sense than either of those 2. The extra stop of usable high iso is very useful in that context. And it shares batteries and most of the control layout with the D600. I went with a D300 because it's got a better control layout and better autofocus, but I don't do events. The only reason to consider a D90 would be cost, and I wouldn't consider it a good investment.</p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>Roger, I am not familiar Snapsort, however I am <em>very</em> familiar with the D90, D300, D300s, D7000, & D600 (and a couple other models over the years). There is no specification where the D90 exceeds the D300. For starters, they use the same sensor. So how they can conclude that image quality and high ISO is better in the D90 is beyond me. The D300s uses the same sensor but with updated processing that <em>might</em> eke out a better image, but in real world use, the D90, 300 & 300s from an image quality standpoint are identical. From there the comparison just gets worse: 51 focus points vs 11; virtually every control you might need is on the camera body, you don't have to jump through menus; built to take far more abuse (I am not advocating abusing cameras!); more robust in-camera focusing motor (based on my experience using the 80-200 f/2.8); bracketing controls/options; 1/8000th top shutter speed; and the list goes on. Many of us in the Nikon camp still dream of a replacement for the D300. The D7100 is nice but it isn't in the body of a D300!</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Roger, please do realise that getting a DSLR based on the kind of comparison that Snapsort does is extremely tricky. Especially when recommending to people asking for a camera for professional use - as it is a very consumer oriented site, it will get the priorities all wrong, probably. In this case, it does. Snapsort takes the simplistic approach that less weight is better, having video is better and so on. But, as John correctly points out, some of the core specs that make the D300 a very dependable workhorse camera are left out of the comparison.<br>

Given what the OP asks, those are exactly the specs that matter.</p>

<p>In low light conditions (which a wedding/event photographer faces enough), the D300 AF alone is worth the extra money spent on it. The D90 doesn't come close to it.<br>

The build quality and ergonomics - sorry, no comparison there. The D90 is solid and has a decent amount of direct external controls; the D300 is a tank which can be fully operated without looking away from the viewfinder. The D300 is heavy, yes, and relatively large - but that is not a real problem as it balances nicer with heavy lenses as a 70-200 f/2.8.</p>

<p>For frequent professional use, the D300 is your best choice if you cannot stretch to get a D7000.</p>

[molly_park]

<p>I already have a D7000 but I am looking for a second body. I think that I am going to go with the D300 - use, of course. </p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>If you have a D7000 now, you are far better off getting a used D7000 for your 2nd camera. For starters, the D300 is going to use CF cards, not SD cards (the D300<strong>s</strong> uses both CF and SD cards). This just means more money spent on CF cards (not a huge deal but a factor). And the D7000 uses TWO SD cards! The D300 uses a different battery than the D7000. For my money, I like to keep as much thing interchangeable between cameras as possible. You could have three batteries and that third battery will fit either camera... provided the camera uses the same battery. And then there is the ergonomics. Don't get me wrong, I love the D300 ergonomics, but it will be different (there's that word again) than the D7000. Things like placement of the WB button, the ISO button and so on; it is simpler easier to work within the same layout. Finally, if you do upgrade to a D600 (which I imagine will be "current" for the next couple of years), the D600 uses the same battery and SD cards!</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>"If <em><strong>you have a D7000</strong></em> now, you are far better off getting a used D7000 for your 2nd camera."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sage.<br />+1 . . .<br>

<br />For all the technical, operational and back-up reasons John has listed.<br />And for the reasons Wayne has previously mentioned the D7000, makes sense anyway.<br>

In addition: I especially underscore simplicity of working with the same camera: considering that you have just started out as a Second Wedding Shooter, my advice is that you need to keep all the logistics as simple and as redundant, as possible.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[studio460]

<p>William said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I especially underscore simplicity of working with the same camera . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree. The benefit of working with two <em>identical</em> bodies, especially under pressure, cannot be overstated. That said, I would still strongly advocate an eventual move to FX bodies, and the D600 would be a great first step toward that goal (two used D700s would be another option).<br /> <br /> Also, not all FX glass is expensive. Nikon's new 28mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8 FX lenses are two excellent photojournalistic focal lengths, plus they're both fairly fast, and affordably priced. With two D600s (or, two used D700s), with the 28mm mounted on one body, and the 85mm on the second, not only would you be ready for almost anything without having to change lenses, you'd have a noise floor about one-stop cleaner than even the latest DX-sensored camera.</p>

[savagesax]

IF, a big emphasis on IF. I'd suggest a dual card camera if you are serious about photography. There are some very good deals on used, almost new dual slots cameras. Check out KEH. In case a card craps out on you the second card will save you. Nothing worse then telling the bride and groom opps the card crashed.

 

Most of these pro cameras will last a very long time. They are built like tanks. For example the shutter should last around 300,000 clicks, often more, 500,000 clicks. In a year or 2 video will be the big thing. Buy a new camera then that does stills and video. I really can't ever remember not owning a dual slotted camera. A camera that holds 2 memory cards.

 

If you are not that serious of a photographer right now go with some sort of full frame, due to the quality of Nikon glass. Then if you begin to love photography, not just weddings, but all sorts of styles. Experiment with nature of course, product design, corporate events, portraiture, animals, schools, pretty much anything you can think of that beings out inner powerful passion. Then add lenses as needed to cover the job. Don't go crazy as a second shooter, but keep a close eye out for advancing your gear at a professional level.

 

I've been telling photographers just starting out to get a camera and a quality zoom lens as a second shooter. Something around 24X105. You can do a whole wedding with that one lens and get really great results.

 

I have a bucket full of prime lenses, however for weddings I pretty much stay with zooms. With a zoom lens you can cover a vast array of distances.

 

People often say that a zoom isn't as sharp as a prime. I have to agree. However most brides aren't models and a forgiving lens helps a lot. For closeup work I actually use a Zeiss Softar 1 filter. It's a very forgiving filter. I can't begin to tell you how great this filter is.

 

It is also my personal and professional opinion that correct lighting makes and breaks a wedding. So don't forget to study lighting techniques. I think my lighting gear is almost as expensive as my camera gear.

 

I guess I'm saying to keep things simple and as you become a great photographer buy and rent whatever you need to ace the job you were hired to do.

 

How long does it take to become a great photographer? You could already be one. It's how you see images. Your creativeness. That special gift. That passion to bring what you see to real life.Then you buy gear to make your art come true.

[john_deerfield]

<blockquote>

<p>If you are not that serious of a photographer right now go with some sort of full frame, due to the quality of Nikon glass.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not exactly sure what that means, but I can say that for most wedding work, and especially just starting out, you don't need a full frame cameras for weddings. I might even go so far as to say I prefer cropped sensor cameras for the added DoF. If buying new, you have a D7100 with a 17-55 lens... what is that, around $2500 give or take? Or a D600 with a 24-70... what is that, $4000 give or take? $1500 buys a lot of essential gear and the only thing you get with the D600 outfit is a shallower DoF. OK, potentially more dynamic range, maybe a tad better high ISO but for real world use the big difference will be the shallower DoF.</p>

[molly_park]

<p>Thanks to everyone who contributed! For now I am going to get a second D7000 body and work my way up from there. </p>

[studio460]

<p>Molly said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For now I am going to get a second D7000 body and work my way up from there.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A prudent choice, Molly. Now, you'll have two identical bodies, making switching bodies completely transparent.<br /> <br /> That said, I only recommended investing in FX early on based my own experience. For every dollar I spent on DX-only glass, or a "better" DX body, if spent differently, I would've been that much closer to building a better FX system. For example, very soon after I bought my D7000 (although I bought it primarily to shoot video), I also bought a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 DX wide-angle. That's $1,199, plus $699, for a total of $1,900 . . . i.e., within a stone's throw of a refurbed D700. Later, I added a refurbed Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G, then a used Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 DX (i.e., "70-200mm equivalent" focal-range for DX).<br /> <br /> So, now I had a D7000, plus a complete "DX Trinity" set of f/2.8 zooms. That's $1,199 + $699 + $1,000 + $500, for a total DX-investment of $3,400. Oh yeah, I almost forgot to add the $200 or $300 (or, whatever I spent), on the MB-D11 grip. Now, a similar FX set-up in the same focal lengths is arguably considerably more, but in retrospect, I would much rather have that $3,700 or so invested in FX gear instead. I now own two Nikon D3s bodies (one refurb, one used), a fair amount of FX glass, and a complete DX system, which I almost <em>never</em> use (even on vacation, I've been taking a full-frame, Nikon D800E, instead of a DX body).</p>

[fotografz]

<p>There are some good comments here.</p>

<p>The FX verses DX debate has been going on for some time now. However, the scale seems to be tipping toward FX full frame cameras in terms of what the big camera companies are bring to market that would be of interest to a wedding photographer ... and the price gap is closing.</p>

<p>The biggest consideration is the lens coverage ... the standard zoom for wedding work is a FX 24-70 or 24-105 ... and trust me, the 24mm end gets used more than most would think. Those standard lenses on a DX camera are not wide enough. If you get a DX lens that provides a similar field-of-view, it either cannot be used on FX camera or it truncates the FX sensor and loses the resolution you paid for. The notion is to think ahead, since cameras come and go, while lenses tend to stay and are our biggest investment.</p>

<p>The greater relative depth of field of a DX camera is a two edged sword ... using a standard f/2.8 max aperture zoom on a DX camera makes it a bit more difficult to get the subject separation/isolation from the background at the long end of the zoom (70mm or 105mm). </p>

<p>Another thing FF does is provide a bigger, brighter viewfinder experience, and given the same level of sensor technology and similar megapixel count, the FX camera will provide better image quality because the pixels are larger.</p>

<p>Nothing wrong with DX, but it seems the future is in FX cameras and the lenses that work on them. </p>

<p> </p>

[john_deerfield]

<blockquote>

<p>The FX verses DX debate has been going on for some time now. However, the scale seems to be tipping toward FX full frame cameras in terms of what the big camera companies are bring to market that would be of interest to a wedding photographer ... and the price gap is closing.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know about tipping towards full frame. The price gap might be closing a little, but there will always be a significant gap. It's simply a matter of yields, a cropped sensor is always going to be substantially cheaper to produce than a full frame sensor. Even if full frame drops below $1000, cropped sensor would be below $500! The choice simply becomes a D600 for $1000 or a D7100 for $500. $500 still buys a lot of gear. And I don't think lenses are going to get any cheaper. Meaning the 24-70 is still going to cost more than the 17-55 no matter how it's scaled. <br>

I would agree that regardless of format, lens angle of coverage is a big consideration! And I agree that 24-70/105 on a cropped sensor isn't nearly the same as the same lens on full frame. But then again, that is why we have cropped sensor lenses! 24-70 vs 17-55. Very little difference in terms of FoV. It seems that there is this undercurrent that one will always want to "upgrade" to full frame, so don't invest in a lot of DX glass. I don't think that is accurate. For the "standard" body, I am always going to want my DX w/ 17-55 vs FX with 24-70. Always. <br>

Is the DoF a two edged sword? If it is, I prefer the edge with greater DoF. First 55mm DX vs 70mm FX isn't going to be a huge difference in isolation. If I want subject isolation, I need to control my distances and use the proper lens & aperture (distance is alway first, lens selection and aperture follows depending on what I want). FX will have the advantage insomuch as I can have a closer working distance. But it's really a matter of knowing how to achieve what you want. I can get subject isolation using DX. On the other hand, lets say I am doing table shots. I can't control my distance. I am in some terrible lighting. I would rather have the DoF of DX at that moment. And that train of thought carries over to a lot of "run & gun" shooting. Group of four people laughing at a joke... click. I would rather have more DoF than less. So what I guess what I am saying is that for the "standard" combo I like DX. Then, when I want to get creative, I am going to need to know how to get what I want whether I am using DX or FX. <br>

From a client standpoint, I doubt any bride could point to an image and tell me DX or FX. I doubt I could simply look at an image and say DX or FX. FX does give you the ability to have that shallower DoF, but again, subject isolation can be accomplished on either format. <br>

What I think will be interesting is how larger formats come into play. Not much more than a decade ago, professional wedding photographers sneered at those wannabes shooting with a SLR. If you were are <em>professional</em> you were shooting medium format (ok that might be a bit of an exaggeration!). And for much the same reasons we debate DX vs FX! Now the MFDSLR will jump in and say FX simply can't produce the work of MF. True. But then again, I wouldn't want to grab a quick frame of 4-people laughing with MF any more than I would want to do it with FX!<br>

For me, I love the ability to shoot both DX and FX. And between a $2500 vs a $4000 set up where the only possible person that could perceive any difference is going to be another well educated photographer, I will always have far better ways to spend the difference in price.</p>

[charlestonphotos]

<p>For wedding photography I use one FX and one DX (D7100) camera. The FX is the D600 (the D800 is just too many megapixels for workflow). Canon MK5D III would have been in the running, but not quite good enough and the killer is no dual cards, an absolute must if doing wedding photography. The FX with the Tamron 24-70 is awesome for reception. For the ceremony I do not like to get into the brides face so shoot with zooms which are a darn site cheaper for the DX. I still have my D700, can't quite give up my old trusty friend.<br /> <br />When it comes to images, the D600/Tamron 2.8 24-70 VC just blows the D7100 images out of the water. Plus there is hardly any post processing in Lightroom 4.<br /> <br />Which brings me to another point. If Molly does not have the latest version of Photoshop or LR then she will be forced to upgrade to the creative cloud edition ($29 per month first year, $50 thereafter) if she upgrades to the D600. It is not supported by PS 5.5 or earlier.</p>

[molly_park]

<p>I did not know that! Thanks for that input, I am using CS5 right now. </p>

[fotografz]

<blockquote>

<p>"Canon MK5D III would have been in the running, but not quite good enough and the killer is no dual card ..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>Incorrect.</strong> The Canon 5D-III has dual card slots for parallel recording. One of my second shooters uses a 5D-III, and the 22 meg RAW files are more than good enough for any wedding application or beyond. Seems good enough for world renowned wedding photographer Jeff Ascough. <br>

<br>

</p>