Team-BHP - The DSLR Thread

Quote:

Originally Posted by shajufx (Post 2290621)

The answer is very simple: more area and higher quality.

Shajufx,

Yes a FF camera does offer lower pixel density and a larger sensor and all that. I have discussed this with arguably the best photographer I know (Rudra Sen) and my niiece who photographs for a major national magazine.

When I was buying a camera I considered both FF and Crop. My niece, brother in law (wife's brother) and myself have compared the output of a few prosumer P&S cameras to the 40D to the 5D. We used 8x10 print (I would never print larger) and a 46" X series Sony TV to view the output. The Sony TV was fed via a Sony PS3 (JPG photos on a CF card).

The 40D blew away all of the prosumer P&S cameras. The difference between the 5D and 40D was not so obvious. Yes the 5D was better but unless you put them head to head the 40D was very adequate.

Then we put my requirement on it's head.

What do I shoot.
Indoors: family parties, school theater, and holidays
Outdoors: school sports

Lenses required: Fast zoom lens 28-105mm and 100-400mm (FF equivalent).
Pixel denisty and sensor size: 15x20mm (about the size of Nikon and Canon crop sensors).

Neither Canon nor Nikon had a IS/VR F/2.8 lens that could go from 28-105mm but the Canon 17-55/2.8 IS (about 28-80) came closest. For the long range the 70-300/4-5.6 were adequate. Since Canon had better low light capability I went with a Canon 40D (now 60D so I can shoot video and over the heads of people).

The FF option 5D+24-100/4 and 100-400/4-5.6 ($5000)would have cost me TWICE as much as a 40D+17-55+70-300 ($2500). Both cover the same range. Yes the 5D combo would be sharper (the 24-100 is a killer lens) but by how much?

Quote:

Originally Posted by alpha1 (Post 2291126)

^^
1. I've had current camera for many years, and now I want a change
2. I am dissatisfied with current D90
3. I have moolah, and want to spend on something new, which suits my tastes (technical as well as abstract).

All completely valid reasons, yet none of them qualify as real world reasons, except wasting moolah.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alpha1 (Post 2291126)

The most relevant reason for a non-pro can be that you want a wider field of view/capture. Using a 35mm lens on APS sensor is slightly telephotoic. Whereas in full sensor it is "normal" view.

There are wider lenses available to address this concern, eg 35mm on DX vs 50mm on FX. Shaju doesn't require/need/have Wide/Ultra Wide lenses in his kit and judging from the list of lenses he went through, he doesn't focus on Wider side and there is 17-55mm available to address 24-70mm walking lens area.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alpha1 (Post 2291126)

Another might be that you want lesser pixel noise which comes from larger sensors. Although in a double blind test can you actually identify which is which (large sensor vs cropped) - I have my reservations.

D90 has decent High Iso capabilities which have been further enhanced with D7000. This doesn't even come into play unless he plans to go D3s, which I highly doubt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alpha1 (Post 2291126)

Other points are more relevant to a photographer who make a living from it. But then as a hobbyist if you have the monies to spend, why should you compromise (refer point 3 above)

There is no reason to compromise but my point being, in this situation there is no compromise and Its more about changing bodies before reaching limits.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rajb3125 (Post 2291275)

Shaju doesn't require/need/have Wide/Ultra Wide lenses in his kit and judging from the list of lenses he went through, he doesn't focus on Wider side and there is 17-55mm available to address 24-70mm walking lens area.

My currnet Canon 60D kit (I am sure Nikon has equivalent lenses give or take a few mm).

10-22/3.5-4.5
17-55/2.8 IS
70-300/4-5.6 IS
28/1.8
50/1.4
100/2
420EX flash

This covers reasonably low light (@ ISO 800), fast motion (maybe not F1 but for kids and family it works) and a range from 16mm-480mm (FF equivalent).

Quote:

Originally Posted by rajb3125 (Post 2290964)

Ok my question is still unanswered, why do you need FX?.....You do not have UWA lenses in your kit, so extra area will not serve you any purpose. Even if you wanted UWA lenses, Nikon 12-24mm f4 is great .....

If I knew all the positives of moving into an FX body, would have added that to my bag long back :). Me being very particular about what I spend on, its not just an overnight infatuation or blind thought of upgrading that rule my mind. Therefore its openly asked here for guidance !

And about the UWA lenses, I had almost bought a Tokina 11-16 lens few months back, but this thought of FX upgrade ruled over it. None of the present UWA work good on a full frame except the Nikon 14-24, 16-35, 17-35 or 18-35 that are made for FX. Not ignoring the primes of 14mm, 16mm, 20mm and 24mm. DX body has many choices like Nikon 12-24, Tokina 11-16, 12-24, sigma 10-20, 8-16 and even Tamron 10-24. If I stick to my DX, will get one of these.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alpha1 (Post 2291126)

....Don't get me wrong Shajufx, but this was not to belittle your real concerns (which we don't know yet), however, most hobby ppl "upgrade" for these reasons.

I know and had done such purchases in the past but not anymore. Those overnight inspired buys are gone with the maturing process.

Quote:

Originally Posted by navin (Post 2291260)

....Yes a FF camera does offer lower pixel density and a larger sensor and all that. I have discussed this with arguably the best photographer I know (Rudra Sen) and my niiece who photographs for a major national magazine.....

Pros always use a full frame body and high quality lenses, unless the 'PRO' we know do it for side income apart from his major profession. We have many wedding photographers in Bangalore who are using cropped bodies. D90 and 550D are very common with them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rajb3125 (Post 2291275)

.....Shaju doesn't require/need/have Wide/Ultra Wide lenses in his kit and judging from the list of lenses he went through, he doesn't focus on Wider side and there is 17-55mm available to address 24-70mm walking lens area....... Its more about changing bodies before reaching limits.

Dont judge from the lenses I have gone through, fact is the need of a 10-20mm kind of coverage on a full frame which is equal to 15-30mm on DX. Choice of lenses are plenty, but now I need to look for a long term ownership than continuing with the buy and sell every now and then. No more extra dollars in the kitty unless I marry a landlady (with permission from my wife...:D)

Quote:

Originally Posted by shajufx (Post 2290423)

Agree, its a macro lens which was with me for over 6 months. Its also supposed to be a very good portrait lens, which in my opinion failed miserably due to its quality issues.

Somewhere I am starting to get what you are trying to convey :) To make it simple in layman's term, I am in a dilemma of moving to an FX body to satisfy my eye for sharpness and quality. I will be concentrating mainly on landscapes, nature, people and once a while macros. Choices before me are Nikon D700 (preferably the D800 which is expected this year) or a complete shift to Canon 5D MII (which might be more affordable with the MIII coming soon). Price wise D700 and 5D MII are face to face. I will remain as a hobbyist, highest stage would be selling some images online to buy some quality lenses or gadgets.

Question is: should I continue using my D90 and meet all my expectations without moving to FX body ? Present lenses are 70-200 f/2.8 and 50mm f/1.4. I also need a wide angle soon. In my self-preparation for FX body, I got rid of all my 6 DX lenses in the last few months. If I continue with DX, then Tokina 11-16 or 12-24 will be added.

Until I can understand your debates without asking questions :D

Well, I tend to agree with Rajb3125, the think that you will get with a FX when compared to a DX is quite simply put, as given below -

1. Lesser noise at high sensitivities - When I say higher ISO, I mean really higher ISOs - say 6400 +. In reality, we never need such extreme sensitivities. The noise control on crop sensored cameras, especially the Nikons and the Canons is very good as well.

2. Ultra-wide angle - Again, I cannot imagine this to be the only reason for choosing FX over DX. As such there are many wide angle lenses with extremely low focal lengths of late.

3. DoF work - A full format camera will always give narrower depth of field that a DX format camera - this is as per the laws of physics.

Having said that, you may choose an FX, if you feel that any of the above points are relevant to the photography that you indulge in.

Cheers
Prasad

Quote:

Originally Posted by alpha1 (Post 2291126)

1. Same here
2. D300
3. I don't have the moolah. When I have I will go for Medium Format 40MP camera, till then dream on!

Now why better camera.

1. Better and larger sensors give a smoother colour gradation. Most of the pros take to medium format because of this.
2. Larger sensors can take in wider field of view, a bonus for landscape shooters. On a cropped sensor you will have to stitch to get that width.
3. Though most of us do not crop, those who do, require a large real estate to get a reasonable resolution in a cropped frame.
4. Last but not the least a larger sensor area can give larger print at the same print density. So if you are onto posters or large sized exhibition prints a larger sensor is definitely an asset.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aburagohain (Post 2291581)

New full frame version of Tokina 116, priced slightly higher but initial reviews are only pouring in slowly

Good info, never seen this in any Indian seller websites. Waiting to know more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aroy (Post 2291966)

....I will go for Medium Format 40MP camera, till then dream on!.......So if you are onto posters or large sized exhibition prints a larger sensor is definitely an asset.

I dont have medium format in my wildest dreams :) even if a million dollar is won someday ! There are better ways to spend money ! About the printing part, yes thats one thing in mind, but no clear idea how an FX body can help. I love to have an exhibition of my works at the age of 60 (2032), inviting everyone in advance :D!
Hope tickling the artistic side of brain will sustain me till then !

Quote:

Originally Posted by shajufx (Post 2291412)

Well I am not too sure if nature and wild life photographers will agree to this. As even a 600 F4 is too short a majority of times when on the field. So I think a crop camera is a must have especially for them. OK people can argue that FF can be cropped to an equivalent field of view but still a crop camera such as D300 or a 7D with better than average AF is an indispensable tool for a majority of nature shooters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPARKled (Post 2292551)

.....a crop camera such as D300 or a 7D with better than average AF is an indispensable tool for a majority of nature shooters.

'Nature shooters' is a very common term. If you meant birding and animals, cropped body should excel as focal length gives the advantage, but for a hobbyist. A serious PRO will still go for a full frame body as I see only D700, D3s or 5D MII, 1Ds MIII etc with 600mm zooms coupled with Teleconverters and Gimball heads. Thats a deadly combination which made me shy away from shooting birds at few places :D. They walk around carrying the whole thing on their shoulder like military on war zone !!

You take any publishing bird shooters or wild life photographers and tell me how many are using a cropped body ? Other than hobbyists, you may not find any. Again that stops there, step into the 'serious hobbyist' category, you start seeing full frames all over. I am posting from the photographers I see on field and the best image exif datas seen online.

As Samurai san said quarter century ago, DSLR is a money pit. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by shajufx (Post 2292804)

OK I should have mentioned, wildlife and bird photography.
Whats needed by wildlife and bird photographers is superb AF (the more cross type sensors the better), reach(very important), fast FPS and good ISO performance. So Only D3s would make the cut among your mentioned cameras for the above mentioned applications unless someone is a landscape photographer. So the best wildlife and birding cameras IMHO are the D300s, 7D, 1D and not the 1Ds and only one FF camera i.e. the D3s simply due to the awesome AF and ISO performance.