Which full frame? for certain work etc

[sam_clay]

<p>hiya, I was asking about flash yesterday and it looks like I am going to get a sb-700 and trade in my 400. Also, I am upgrading from the D3100.<br>

I would like a full frame pro level item with budget of £1500.00/£2000.00 I will be doing mainly commercial work, but I enjoy macro and landscape photography. I have the suitable len's but maybe I will have to sell my 10-24 nikon DX ?? any thoughts on this lens ? its great on my d3100 and will work on an FX (apparently) but probably wont cut the mustard.<br>

I have been looking at Full frames, but was hoping for any further advice from you guys becuase the technical know-how on this site is always very helpful.</p>

<p>thanks </p>

<p> </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Sam, full frame is not a requirement for commercial work, that can be done equally well with APS-C (DX). What are the exact reasons you want to move to a FX body? Which advantages does this format bring you?</p>

<p>You really should be asking yourself this first, as FX overall is a more expensive system, so first thing should be whether you actually gain any benefits from it. I've got both a DX and FX body, and for much macro work, I prefer the DX body for its larger depth of field; for landscape work (f/8 with a decent lens on a tripod) I really cannot tell DX apart from FX.... simply put, FX isn't always better. You will find plenty professionals on this site making money on APS-C because the extra cost for FF simply does not generate any extra income for them (=bad business investment).</p>

<p>The 10-24 is a DX lens and even if it covers the whole FX frame (no idea if it does), the corner performance will be extremely mediocre. If you get a FX camera, get FX lenses. Which other lenses do you currently have?</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>P.S. I understand this isn't exactly the kind of answer you look for, but without understanding your actual needs better, it's hard to say whether a D4, a D800 or D600 makes the most sense (and that's neglecting the tight budget), especially if the D7100 would fullfill your needs better than either of those.</p>

[sam_clay]

<p>thankyou - a useful response as ever !...I am actually moving into the professional game these days (albeit, I have to get my head around a lot of the technical things), but my composition and "eye" as it were has attracted interest for local business in the area which is amazing and I really can't take it for granted - which is very cool, becuase I have only been doing it a year. I understand I maybe "technically" out of my depth, but my photos seem to carry it, even if my technical know how needs work.....which is why I love this site. <br>

I have the 85mm Nikon which is fx lens.....the telephoto 55-200 (i dont think that is, but would have to double check), the 60mm macro which is fx AND DX 10-24......obviously the standard 18-55.<br>

i like using the portrait 85mm BECUASE its so damn sharp and the shallow field is so cool for corporate and commericial work - it seems to have the professional look etc...HOWEVER, I recently did a shoot and I had to stand WAY back to get everyone in....I want to be able to stand closer. I do know pro's in the area and I won't lie to you, they all rock up to jobs with these fat full frame cameras etc.....I will admit I am not keen on much of their work, (i also now have freelance work for the press), but I feel prejudice at work slightly because people look toward the big cameras and not towards me despite my yelling.....In honesty, I do believe my camera is good enough to carry the jobs, and I value your thoughts.....<br>

I guess, its really beciase I have never held a full frame and many pro's have them and its something i am now being offered work for (which I am truely thankful for and very humbled)....<br>

i understand what you are saying though.... i have attempted to attach some photos I did recently. On my profile there are others, but I dont like them....I only put them on after I just started last year.<br>

thanks for your help as ever :).....its a hard one to call - sorry, I dont know how to properly upload from here, but maybe these links work ?<br>

so perhaps my photos may help you think about the camera I should look for ? or maybe I will take your advice and stick with the D3100 which I love.....<br>

http://i1251.photobucket.com/albums/hh558/nikster78/natwestedit46_zps2fb7c892.jpg</p>

<p>http://i1251.photobucket.com/albums/hh558/nikster78/natwest21_zps706c3e86.jpg</p>

<p>http://i1251.photobucket.com/albums/hh558/nikster78/natwest41_zps474888b0.jpg<br>

http://i1251.photobucket.com/albums/hh558/nikster78/877fb277-d434-46c5-9f30-b0f60ff034c6_zps9bd2a4ae.jpg</p>

 

[AJG]

<p>Wouter is right--DX can do the job quite well most of the time. Most clients care a lot more about the quality of the work delivered than the equipment you bring to the job. If your portfolio is good, I wouldn't worry about the FX/DX question until you get to a point where you can't get the results you need. Also, you can rent equipment for specific jobs rather than buying until you really know what will work best for you</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Remember that a big part of commercial work is being prepared. Which is to say, having backup equipment in case something goes wrong while you're on someone else's time (and budget). So when you think this through, truly consider a DX body like the D7100. That will leave your existing body as a backup that can use exactly the same lenses at the same working distances.<br /><br /> Use the difference (in cost, between the D7100 and something like the D600) to add a good fast prime at a shorter focal length - so you can avoid that big working distance issue you're having with the 85mm under some circumstances. <br /><br />If I were in your shoes, I'd go for the D7100, perhaps a vertical grip for it, a fast prime somewhere in the 35mm range, and not one, but two flashes. Again, think about never having to apologize on site while you're working because the only one you have of some piece of gear has died on you. Cameras are cheap, but happy customers are very valuable.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Another vote for the D7100. The image quality is most of the D600's, it's got better autofocus, and it's a huge step up in handling from your D3100 (so try one in a shop before you buy in case you don't like it!)<br />

<br />

The 10-24, 18-55 and 55-200 are all DX lenses, and won't give you good image quality to the edge of the frame on an FX camera, at least at all focal lengths. If you're budgeting for replacing all of those, I suspect the D800 (already around £2000) is out. Honestly, I doubt you'd cover that range with FX glass with the change from a D600 or D700 either. The D7100 would make proper use of all of these lenses (though it may show up that they're not always very sharp); if you want to save more money, the D7000 is also a very capable camera.<br />

<br />

With the change, you could easily get a 28 f/1.8 or Sigma 35 f/1.4, and quite possibly the Sigma 50mm f/1.4. As Matt says, flashes might be a good purchase too. Good luck!</p>

[sam_clay]

<p>thanks so much everyone - its really valuble input.<br>

I shall definatley look into the D7100 then....however it is DX.<br>

So whats the big deal with FX then ? Its much more costly (i understand thats its larger sensor etc)...I was looking at the D600 for my upgrade but if its not much different form the D7100 the i would be wasting money. I simply dont understand what the deal is. Excuse my naivety, I have only held the D3100 for one year and have never looked through a full frame - HOWEVER, I do want to take this seriously now so I do need to upgrade at some point. The D3100 is a great camera mind, and its great for beginners...I love it.<br>

any views on the D600 ? is it worth much more ?<br>

I am definatly looking at the D7100 based on your opinions though, so thank you :)</p>

[AJG]

<p>Sam--Matt is right about back up. When I was shooting film for commercial work I always felt more comfortable having 2 or 3 less expensive but good bodies rather than one top of the line professional camera body. The old cliche about professional photographers is that they deliver useable pictures rather than excuses for why things didn't work out. It's still true.<br>

The big deal with FX over DX is partially image quality, but also the bigger brighter viewfinder that you get with these cameras. When I compare the Pentax K 5 finder (the DX format cameras that I use for my professional work) with the Pentax LX film cameras that I used to use, there is a huge difference, and the early 1980's designed LX is much better for manual focusing and composing than the current (and quite good by comparison with other DX DSLRs) K 5. Is it worth it to you right now? If I were you, I would rent a D 600 and a D7100 for a day or a weekend and find out. If nothing else, this would help you establish a relationship with a rental house so that you don't have to buy that 600 mm lens that costs a lot and gets used 1 day per year.</p>

[sam_clay]

<p>Thanks Andrew ! Its well worth keeping my d3100 then. thanks for your help. :)......</p>

[dan_south]

What is it that your D3100 cannot do? Instead of spending money on new gear, consider spending time and effort learning more about

the gear that you already have.

 

For commercial work, lighting is extremely important. A pair of SB-910s and a couple of light stands (with adapters for your flash heads)

would give you more flexibility than any new comers body. Learn how to use multiple light setups. Learn about lighting modifiers. Learn

more about your camera and how to post process images. All of this will be critical for commercial projects.

[dcstep]

<p>I like your work and what you've presented lends itself well to full-frame. However, given your budget limits, I'd suggest standing pat until you can afford the investment in a D800. If the pro side of your plan works out, then you'll be investing in the best bodies and lenses that fit your business. </p>

<p>Make a one-year plan for your photography business, including revenue goals, training and capital expenditures.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>So whats the big deal with FX then ?</blockquote>

<p>Assuming that your lens has enough coverage, an FX sensor, being 2.25x the area (1.5x each way) of a DX sensor, gets a bit more than twice the light from it at the same f-stop - about a stop better performance. This means about a stop better performance in low light, and relates to why FX viewfinders are bigger and brighter.<br />

<br />

At the same field of view and the same f-stop, an FX lens is 1.5x longer (or, put differently, you need a lens that's 1.5x longer to get the same field of view out of an FX camera as you would out of a DX camera). With the same relative aperture (f-stop), the absolute aperture (focal length x f-stop) is therefore 1.5x larger. This gives you the same depth of field as if you shot at an aperture 1.5x faster (just over one stop). If you want a reduced depth of field in order to separate your subject from the background, that's good.<br />

<br />

If you've used a teleconverter, DX is the equivalent of having a perfect 1.5x teleconverter attached to an FX camera. Good if you want reach from small lenses, not necessarily good if you want a wide angle or fast apertures.<br />

<br />

You can achieve roughly the same thing as a 50mm f/2 lens on FX with a 35mm f/1.4 lens on DX (shooting both wide open and with the DX lens at a 1.5x smaller ISO) - the focal length and apertures both vary by roughly 1.5. The benefit to FX is that it's much easier to build a good quality lens with a slower aperture; this sometimes means you can get the same effect but the image quality of the FX version is better, and sometimes means that the DX equivalent lens simply doesn't exist. For example, there is no 35mm f/0.95 that can give the same depth of field on a DX camera as the 50mm f/1.4 can on an FX camera. It also means there's no equivalent to the "pro zoom set" (14-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8, 200-400 f/4), though the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 and 120-300mm f/2.8 make good substitutes for a couple of these.<br />

<br />

In addition, the mirror box of a DX camera means that ultrawide lenses have to be more retrofocal than their FX camera equivalents, which impacts their quality (though many aren't bad). At the same resolution, the increased pixel density of a DX camera is appreciably more demanding of lenses than an FX camera, meaning that images tend to be somewhat softer.<br />

<br />

In contrast, the D7100 is a bit smaller and cheaper than the D600, has better autofocus (same as the D800 except covering more of the frame because it's DX), and it gets a bit of sharpness back by losing the AA filter. It's a very good camera. It lacks a couple of features of the D800, but so does the D600. Unless you spend a lot of time in low light, it'll do most of what the D600 will do, and a few things better. I love my D800, but in your position I'd find the D600 a hard sell, good though it is.<br />

<br />

Now, from your images it's possible that you <i>would</i> benefit from the increased low-light handling and subject separation of an FX camera. But depending on what's happening with your images, I might also suggest a D800 (for resolution and handling) in the longer term, and working up to it for now. If you plan to go FX in the future, just ensure that the next few lenses you purchase can still be used on FX.</p>

[sam_clay]

<p>An amazingly thorough answer Andrew, thank you ever so much - thats very helpful. I have a lot to think about so thanks to everyone. Its kind of you to offer your wisdom. Thank you ! :)</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Glad to help, Sam. Good luck with your product selection!</p>

[James G. Dainis]

"<I>Assuming that your lens has enough coverage, an FX sensor, being 2.25x the area (1.5x each way) of a DX sensor, gets a bit more than twice the light from it at the same f-stop - about a stop better performance. This means about a stop better performance in low light, and relates to why FX viewfinders are bigger and brighter.</I><P>

 

Unless I am reading something incorrectly, that is wrong. At a given f/stop the same amount of photons would fall per square mm. of sensor or film. If an exposure meter calls for f/8 at 1/60 sec. it doesn't matter if one is using FX, DX, medium format, or large format. Else, one would have to buy a different exposure meter for each format camera that one uses. <P>

[h._p.]

<blockquote>

<p>At a given f/stop the same amount of photons would fall per square mm. of sensor or film. If an exposure meter calls for f/8 at 1/60 sec.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's the size of it. F-stops are simply the ratio between the focal length of a lens and the size of the hole through which the light is passing. The reason for using the f-stop system, is that it provides a constant value of the light intensity falling on the sensor, for any lens/aperture/image size.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote><blockquote>Assuming that your lens has enough coverage, an FX sensor, being 2.25x the area (1.5x each way) of a DX sensor, gets a bit more than twice the light from it at the same f-stop - about a stop better performance. This means about a stop better performance in low light, and relates to why FX viewfinders are bigger and brighter.</blockquote>

 

Unless I am reading something incorrectly, that is wrong. At a given f/stop the same amount of photons would fall per square mm. of sensor or film. If an exposure meter calls for f/8 at 1/60 sec. it doesn't matter if one is using FX, DX, medium format, or large format. Else, one would have to buy a different exposure meter for each format camera that one uses.</blockquote>

 

<p>You're correct that at a given f-stop the same amount of photons (per unit time) would fall per square mm. However, because the sensor is 2.25x larger for FX vs DX, the total amount of light falling on the <i>whole sensor</i> is correspondingly greater. Hence, if you make an image out of the whole sensor area for FX and DX, the larger sensor produces a less noisy result. (The same applies with film - enlarging a small area produces bigger film grain, analogous with using a faster film that has bigger grains in it.) If you take an image with an FX camera but crop the area out of it which corresponds to a DX camera, you get exactly the same result (give or take pixel density differences between the sensors) as you would if you'd actually used a DX camera.</p>

 

<blockquote>That's the size of it. F-stops are simply the ratio between the focal length of a lens and the size of the hole through which the light is passing. The reason for using the f-stop system, is that it provides a constant value of the light intensity falling on the sensor, for any lens/aperture/image size.</blockquote>

 

<p>To clarify, it provides a constant value of the light intensity falling on the sensor <i>per unit area</i> (i.e. flux). Hence the same type of film with the same ISO will require the same exposure however large an area of it you're using - and you don't need to adjust the lens (obviously) just because you're cropping the image. However, if you want the crop to have the same noise characteristics relative to the image size and the same depth of field as the whole image, and especially if you want the same field of view, you have to start multiplying and dividing by the crop factor in a few places. Note that ISO is specified in terms of flux (x time), which is why larger sensors are better at the same ISO than smaller sensors, and you don't have to adjust for that. Arrange exactly the same image in terms of DoF, field of view and exposure, and format makes very little difference. Though one could make some arguments about the dynamic range advantages of larger photosites as well.<br />

<br />

I hope that helps. The Wikipedia page on "sensor size" is scarily detailed at the moment, and gives more information than I could. Sorry if I caused confusion.</p>