[rajb3125]

Originally Posted by shajufx

To avoid any confusion, my thoughts were based on moving to a full frame body. There is a huge saving on Canon if one is comparing the following:

1) Nikon D700, 12-24, 24-70, 70-200 and a 50mm 1.4
2) Canon 5D M-II, 12-24, 24-70, 70-200 and a 50mm 1.4

Other than a better higher ISO performance, I cant justify the Nikon for a higher weight on my wallet. Its purely an end-user opinion, dont connect it too much on the technical view point. According to my short listed interest lines, I should be happy with a 12-24, 50mm and 70-200 that covers all my hobby needs.

If moving to Full Frame is affected by price then one doesn't need Full Frame yet.

Moving to Full frame, price is the last thing one considers.

Also if we are talking about lenses, Nikon has one of the best (arguebly the best) UWA 14-24mm f2.8

[shajufx]

Originally Posted by rajb3125

.....Moving to Full frame, price is the last thing one considers........Nikon has one of the best (arguebly the best) UWA 14-24mm f2.8

How many hobbyists you know personally, using a FX body ? About the Nikon quality, it better be best when you are paying around a lakh. No brand can sell a cheap quality thing for a premium, competition is so high, it can spoil the whole brand image, specially when third party products are coming out with equally matching quality.

[rajb3125]

Originally Posted by shajufx

How many hobbyists you know personally, using a FX body ? About the Nikon quality, it better be best when you are paying around a lakh. No brand can sell a cheap quality thing for a premium, competition is so high, it can spoil the whole brand image, specially when third party products are coming out with equally matching quality.

Personally about 6 guys i know are using FF bodies and are hobbyists, professionally is a different story.

What I meant by quality is Nikon compared to Canon and others. In this thread alone, it has been said more than once about Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 being used on Canon bodies using G adapter.

I have used lenses from Canon/Sigma/Pentax/Olympus/Nikon/Tamron/Sony/Zeiss and none beat Nikon in UWA segment.

About Nikon's quality, well Nikon is the major lens producer for Arri/Red for Telephotos while its widely popular myth, that canon has best Telephoto glass.

I don't want another Canon vs Nikon debate as there are many all over the internet. My point is for someone going FF, price is the last thing, there are just way too many factors before price even comes up.

And for those with price as a big issue, well they still use film for FF stuff.

[thelightening]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

Built in AF motor? 550D has no built in motor. Canon lenses have motors.
USM motors make much lower noise(but USM lenses are expensive).

There is built in focus motor in 550D. This will help us to get descent pics when we use less priced lenses.

Canon 550D vs Nikon D3100

I have read the same in some other websites also, not able to remember.

[amitk26]

Originally Posted by rajb3125

If moving to Full Frame is affected by price then one doesn't need Full Frame yet.

Moving to Full frame, price is the last thing one considers.

I don't find any logic in this , If suppose two equivalent equipments are available then price is definitely a factor to consider, be it Nikon - Canon or Airbus -Boeing.
He is not saying that he is drastically cutting budget surely there has to be some minimum to move to FF , but for longer term view the system which works cheaper is better specially when they are equal in capability for most purpose.

There are few very special cases when there is no alternative and you need to forget the money like in the case of MP-E 65 macro from Canon or this 1200mm F5.6 Canon L telephoto which you can lease for only 4068 US $ a month. from B&H

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...mm_f_5_6L.html

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by thelightening

There is built in focus motor in 550D. This will help us to get descent pics when we use less priced lenses.

Canon 550D vs Nikon D3100

I have read the same in some other websites also, not able to remember.

No there is no focus motor in 550D, or for that matter 350D, 450D, 500D, 550D, 600D, 60D, 7D.
In Canon world the "LENSES" have focus motors.
In Nikon world, some lenses have Focus motors and some lenses don't.
so if you have a lower end Nikon, it cannot Autofocus non motor lenses.
If you have high end nikon, it will AF both AF-S and AF-D lenses, i.e. with motor and without motor lenses.

speaking of the link, I can make a web page which shows that canon 550D has a burst rate of 5 million shots/second and can take picture of any place without being there.

[kkr2k2]

Originally Posted by rajb3125

......My point is for someone going FF, price is the last thing, there are just way too many factors before price even comes up....

and the D700 and 5DII are from different categories!! One designed for fast action photography and another for landscapes apart from other uses!!!


PS: I dont use either of the above, its just what I got know from fellow photographers and online material!!

[rajb3125]

Originally Posted by amitk26

I don't find any logic in this , If suppose two equivalent equipments are available then price is definitely a factor to consider, be it Nikon - Canon or Airbus -Boeing.
He is not saying that he is drastically cutting budget surely there has to be some minimum to move to FF , but for longer term view the system which works cheaper is better specially when they are equal in capability for most purpose.

There are few very special cases when there is no alternative and you need to forget the money like in the case of MP-E 65 macro from Canon or this 1200mm F5.6 Canon L telephoto which you can lease for only 4068 US $ a month. from B&H

Canon Super Telephoto 1200mm f/5.6L EF USM Autofocus 2527A001

Well for that 1200mm f5.6 case, you can get pentax made 800mm f4 lens which came with converter to make it 1200 f5.6, so you see its not that of a unique case but pentax lens is more usable.

Now for what Shaju said, D700 vs 5D mk2, well those are 2 seperate bodies for completely seperate purposes, 5D mk2 is a great landscape camera and it does great video but D700 on the other hand doesn't even have video and is an all rounder camera. Completely different sides, yet they both are entry level FF bodies. If someone wants same all rounder features and AF speed then 5D doesn't cut it, they have to go 1D series and still remain without FF or go 1Ds series and have FF. Now the cost of Nikon vs canon changes dramatically.

When I first came into FF it was solely for slim DOF and high ISO and Nikon won but I also had a bag full of Nikon lenses and my work partner also had Nikon, so price was the last thing, same goes for many others.

And without being rude, normally one ends up with certain focal length and sticks with it, as its there style unless one is a pro and need the full kit, even I do weddings and corporate photography and I havn't touched my 14-24 for well over 2 months. My style only requires me to have 24-70 and maybe 70-200 for extra shallow DOF (usually at 200mm).

[rajb3125]

Originally Posted by kkr2k2

and the D700 and 5DII are from different categories!! One designed for fast action photography and another for landscapes apart from other uses!!!


PS: I dont use either of the above, its just what I got know from fellow photographers and online material!!

You guessed it right, there's no comparison between them

[amitk26]

Originally Posted by rajb3125

Well for that 1200mm f5.6 case, you can get pentax made 800mm f4 lens which came with converter to make it 1200 f5.6, so you see its not that of a unique case but pentax lens is more usable.

Well looked up on Google Pentax 6X7 format is entirely different but anyway this is not a point , I was indicating to any specialized use where you do not have an alternative may be this is not right case but lets get back to the point.

Originally Posted by rajb3125

Now for what Shaju said, D700 vs 5D mk2, well those are 2 seperate bodies for completely seperate purposes, 5D mk2 is a great landscape camera and it does great video but D700 on the other hand doesn't even have video and is an all rounder camera. Completely different sides,

That is interesting fact , Can you please provide some more details on how landscape FF camera and allrounder camera are different ? I mean Can we not do potraits with 85mm 1.8 lens as many fashion photographers do ? Or the wildlife photography. I do not have much idea on this and right now no plan to move to FF but would like to know more.

Originally Posted by rajb3125

And without being rude, normally one ends up with certain focal length and sticks with it, as its there style unless one is a pro and need the full kit, even I do weddings and corporate photography and I havn't touched my 14-24 for well over 2 months. My style only requires me to have 24-70 and maybe 70-200 for extra shallow DOF (usually at 200mm).

Well on a contrary as a hobbyist I would imagine that only hobbyists would need full range as they don't really know / care for the genere or style where as a professional will stick to particular focal length suitable to his genre which brings him money like 24-105 and 70-200 dual kit for photo journalists , professional bird photographers to 400 - 500 mm , Wild life photographers shooting mammals to 100-400.
Fashion Photographers to 85 - 100 mm , entomologists sticking to 1:1 or beyond 1:1 macros etc.

May be I am wrong in this thinking but would like to understand.

[shajufx]

Originally Posted by rajb3125

Personally about 6 guys i know are using FF bodies and are hobbyists, professionally is a different story........And for those with price as a big issue, well they still use film for FF stuff.

Thats an impressive number of FF body hobbyists in your circle ! Frankly, I do not have a single friend who is using a FF body for hobby. Whoever has a full frame makes their bread through it as a 100% field of work. As I might have mentioned in my old posts, I do not have any commercial aspect to my photography. But that does not make me constrained to a budget. I want the best not as a 'show off' but as a long lasting body and lens in my bag which will make me ignore all my "upgrade" craves and the never-ending mental calculation of the focal length whenever I see or use one lens.

Originally Posted by rajb3125

.....5D mk2 is a great landscape camera and it does great video but D700 on the other hand doesn't even have video and is an all rounder camera. Completely different sides, yet they both are entry level FF bodies. .....

So as a natural choice of beginner level FX bodies, D700 and 5 D M-II came into consideration. They have similarity mainly on the cost front, not much on a technical part. I have been chewing brains of as many friends as possible whoever use a D700 or 5D M-II. Both are very good in its own ranking. When D700 excels on the low light performance, 5D attracts with its almost double mega pixels and excellent video capabilities. Its not an easy choice at all when it weighs very similar on the wallet ! I hope life will be easy when Nikon launches its expected D800

[pawan_pullarwar]

Originally Posted by kkr2k2

and the D700 and 5DII are from different categories!! One designed for fast action photography and another for landscapes apart from other uses!!!


PS: I dont use either of the above, its just what I got know from fellow photographers and online material!!

Full frame are not only for landscape photography but they are good for low light photography compare to cropped one. Even I dont have personal experience but that is what I saw on net.

Originally Posted by shajufx

5D attracts with its almost double mega pixels and excellent video capabilities.

I would prefer to have video capabilities FF DSLR as per my experience. After owning DSLR with video recording, I started using it for wide angle landscape and macro shoot.

[badri]

Guys,

My two cents..

It is generally accepted that the most expensive equipment is not needed to make good pics..

Here is an interview of renowned Landscape photographer Guy Tal.

Insights : An Interview With Guy Tal « Landscape Wizards

Check his photographs in this link and check the question on whats in his bag. He uses a Canon 5D Mark II, 17-40 zoom, 24-105 zoom, and 70-200 zoom.

The 17-40 zoom is one of the cheaper pro lenses and infact has been rated low by photozone.de

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 USM L (full format) - Review / Test Report - Sample Images & Verdict

But if this is good enough for guy for his landscape pics, it should be good enough for 99% of us, irrespective of whether there are more expensive 16-35's , 14-24's or a host of other superior primes.

If someone has deep pockets, the extra stop or two that the more expensive lenses have may help in tricky situations though.

[shajufx]

Originally Posted by badri

......the most expensive equipment is not needed to make good pics......If someone has deep pockets, the extra stop or two that the more expensive lenses have may help in tricky situations though.

I am replying to this just to clarify my stand, may be a confusion that can crop up here due to having no clarity on what is discussed. An FX Vs DX discussion has nothing to do with better images one can get by upgrading. If you can create good images with your mobile cam, you can make better images with a DSLR. It will not become a "WOW" transition by moving to FX. This post is for newbies who are coming to this field and checking this thread for infos.

I have over a dozen friends who are seriously shooting weddings, events and other family functions with a cropped body as their side income. Browsing through those images, there is never a chance to even think about what camera is used. Its all about the ability to create appealing images regardless of the gadget involved.

So a full frame upgrade has nothing to do with image quality nor an immediate jump in the wow factor. Its more of a technical reasoning behind it. So, if anyone is considering my online images as 'very good', it will remain very good even after upgrade, if it is 'pure crap', it will definitely remain as it is even after possessing an FX body spending over a lakh. Hope the point is clear

[badri]

Originally Posted by shajufx

I am replying to this just to clarify my stand, may be a confusion that can crop up here due to having no clarity on what is discussed. Hope the point is clear

My intention of sharing the above information and the links is not to undermine some one who is moving higher up in the equipment hierarchy.

I just wanted to share some info which can be thought provoking as well as useful for hobbyists who would be looking to upgrade from their mid range zooms to the top end ones. Going through this phase myself, I now understand that my capabilities have not reached anywhere near the limits of the mid range equipment that I have. This realization has helped me to move on in a learning path rather than on a " upgrade equipment and hope for the best" path. This is specific to me and maybe some people out there who may be in the same boat. I'm not generalizing all the photographers who are on the upgrade path here.

no offence intended ..