- Messages
- 10,055
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- No
That doesn't have Auto-ISO though
You're right but if it did, it would still be a manual camera which I'd have to make a decision on what aperture/shutter speed to use :0)
Thinking of going full frame...
- Thread starter DanJenks
- Start date
You're right but if it did, it would still be a manual camera which I'd have to make a decision on what aperture/shutter speed to use :0)
Yes ... I don't think we're disagreeing ... but the point is that with digital (certainly on Nikon, no idea if Canon, etc are the same but I assume so); set it to Auto-ISO and Manual, and you have full control of shutter and aperture (within limits due to light levels and the range of ISO you feel gives good results) and the camera sets the exposure level automatically.
So set 1/125th; f/2.8 and the camera sets ISO 140
Or set 1/1000th; f2.8 and the camera sets ISO 1100
- Messages
- 10,055
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- No
We're definitely not disagreeing :0). My point was that the D800 doesn't have an 'Auto' setting. Cameras that do have Auto take all control off the photographer and act as a point and shoot that you have no decision over.
Shooting with Program Auto just means that the photographer has the choice to change the aperture or shutter speed and the camera decides the other. Shooting in Manual means that the photographer has to choose both the Aperture and Shutter speed so have the option to massively over-expose or under-expose if they want (creative decision) and on some cameras, has the option to handover control of ISO to the camera to balance the third corner of the triangle.
Agree ... Auto or Green Square mode. Auto mode will take control of things like the built in flash as well ISO sensitivity, focus modes, metering mode, etc.
Program Auto is just like S or A really; but the default is the camera sets BOTH shutter and aperture. You can then "Shift" the exposure to increase shutter speed while opening the aperture further (or vice versa) though you are restricted so (for example) I just picked my camera up and P set 1/50th and f/1.8 with ISO set to 125. Because it had shifted the ISO from its default 100, the camera wouldn't let me shift the settings. Pointed out the window I could get 1/100 f/5; shifted to 1/50 f/5.6 or 1/125 f/4.5.
- Messages
- 23,745
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
Sorry was a typo, I did know thatHe is a SHE ... but apart from that thats exactly what I mean ...
That doesn't have Auto-ISO though
- Messages
- 23,745
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
Sorry to keep disagreeing with you but you're wrong, in program mode the camera DOES change aperture and shutter by itself as it would in any auto mode, and you can leave it as this. The only difference is that you CAN manually override it if you choose to, otherwise it acts as an auto camera. The real reason why it is not a true auto mode is that you have to select the AF mode and metering, as well as choose when to use flash, In full auto I believe all of these are fully automated. So you are right in that program is not FULL auto, but it certainly IS full auto in regards to exposure.
Exactly what I was referring to earlierread the D800 manual page 118
first section says
So I respectively suggest members read the manual before commenting
I assume you mean respectably rather than respectively ... so I would respectably add that what Nikon write there isn't the whole story - at least if it works the same on D800 as on the D750 - as you can still "Shift" the programmed settings (as I said above) to increase the shutter speed while opening the aperture (or vice versa). Its not full control, but in some situations its a good option as you'll never get a situation where you have set a too high shutter speed for the lens' widest aperture (for example).read the D800 manual page 118
first section says
So I respectively suggest members read the manual before commenting
Mr Badger
Didymus
- Messages
- 7,457
- Edit My Images
- No
I can't even begin to think why you'd ever use auto if you understand exposure, even for snap shots
Speed, if grabbing shots as they happen! I leave all my multi-mode cameras on full auto as a default starting position, so I'm ready to grab the camera and blast away if necessary. I think this is a good habit to get into... as the Scout motto goes, be prepared!
Have you (or a photographer friend of yours) never made a pig's ear of some shots, or missed them completely, because the camera settings have been left where they were from the last time the camera was used (lens set to manual focus, or exposure comp left + or - 1.5 stops, or aperture set to f1.8 and the camera won't fire as it's run out of shutter speed... or the self timer setting left on for that 'nothing's going to happen now for 10 seconds' experience!)?
Reset everything and leave it on full auto each time you've finished playing, and you'll rarely miss or louse up a 'grab shot'!
Last edited:
- Messages
- 23,745
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
TBH I have the habit of returning the settings to 'default' before turning the camera off, so if I've used bracketing, HDR or anything like that I always turn them off. I'd honestly be more concerned about missing a shot due to the camera not focussing on the right part of the frame if I was using auto. Each to their own I guessSpeed, if grabbing shots as they happen! I leave all my multi-mode cameras on full auto as a default starting position, so I'm ready to grab the camera and blast away if necessary. I think this is a good habit to get into... as the Scout motto goes, be prepared!
Have you (or a photographer friend of yours) never made a pig's ear of some shots, or missed them completely, because the camera settings have been left where they were from the last time the camera was used (lens set to manual focus, or exposure comp left + or - 1.5 stops, or aperture set to f1.8 and the camera won't fire as it's run out of shutter speed... or the self timer setting left on for that 'nothing's going to happen now for 10 seconds' experience!)?
- Messages
- 5,474
- Name
- Terry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Ren Kockwell was talking about Program shift.
A little different from normal Program.
But he's a dork so move on.
A little different from normal Program.
But he's a dork so move on.
- Messages
- 10,055
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- No
Aren't they the same thing?
- Messages
- 5,474
- Name
- Terry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
No. Hence the "a little different" phrase
- Messages
- 5,474
- Name
- Terry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Program, as I understand it is when the camera sets the "ideal" shutter speed and aperture.
Program shift normally allows you to bias the auto setting towards either faster shuutter speed and wider aperture or vice versa.
Program shift normally allows you to bias the auto setting towards either faster shuutter speed and wider aperture or vice versa.
- Messages
- 10,055
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- No
From this thread I'd say they're the same thing. If you don't touch the control dials, the camera just sets an aperture/shutter speed to get an 18% grey average exposure. If you then adjust the control dial you 'shift' the aperture or shutter speed.
- Messages
- 3,194
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- No
As interesting as some of the debate hasn't been ...
The Tamron would work fine on FX, though it would appear "shorter" as you lose the crop.
Not sure what style of camera body you have, you only say the are old, if they are D100, D2, D200 type then going down the D700, D8xx route would be a fairly easy switch as the layouts are still similar. Likewise, if it is a D70, D60 type body going down the D6xx or D750 route would have similar layouts. In reality, whatever you choose in FX will give the opportunity for better IQ but then so would a much later DX body. tbh I'd avoid the D600 simply down to the oil issues, the D610 is generally fine (I've had both). The D750 rightly gets a lot of praise as does the D810. I was never a fan of the D700 as I never quite got on with it (me at fault, it is a fine camera) and if 12MP is ok for you then there are some good examples to be had. Likewise used D800 or D800e can be had for sensible money and these are outstanding imo.
Dan, assuming you are still interested ... I'm guessing the Nikon 35mm is the DX version, if so it won't be great on FX (it will work but vignette badly) and as Steven has already said the Siggy is a DX lens too.
The Tamron would work fine on FX, though it would appear "shorter" as you lose the crop.
Not sure what style of camera body you have, you only say the are old, if they are D100, D2, D200 type then going down the D700, D8xx route would be a fairly easy switch as the layouts are still similar. Likewise, if it is a D70, D60 type body going down the D6xx or D750 route would have similar layouts. In reality, whatever you choose in FX will give the opportunity for better IQ but then so would a much later DX body. tbh I'd avoid the D600 simply down to the oil issues, the D610 is generally fine (I've had both). The D750 rightly gets a lot of praise as does the D810. I was never a fan of the D700 as I never quite got on with it (me at fault, it is a fine camera) and if 12MP is ok for you then there are some good examples to be had. Likewise used D800 or D800e can be had for sensible money and these are outstanding imo.
- Messages
- 25,348
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Manual mode with auto ISO is an oxymoron.
Having control of 2/3 of the exposure triangle isn't 'manual' anything, its auto as the camera is fixing your exposure.
I appreciate it's a further diversion, but it's a bete noir
OP
- Messages
- 94
- Name
- Daniel
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thank you to everyone who has replied, there are certainly plenty of things in here to look into and consider!
Hi Paul, thanks for your reply
I should have probably mentioned in my OP, I currently have a Nikon D3000 and a D5100.
The issue with the 35mm probably isn't too much of a problem as I'd be looking to swap that for a nifty fifty I would however need to look for an alternative wide angle as I use my Sigma all the time when doing my rig shots, so that is something I would need to consider.
I've had a quick look at the D800 you mentioned and that looks exactly like the kind of thing I am looking for, as does D700 which I know others have suggested. I know there are other things to consider and not just the MP but I notice there is a big MP difference between the two. Do you know how much of a difference the extra MP would make compared with the D700?
As interesting as some of the debate hasn't been ...
Dan, assuming you are still interested ... I'm guessing the Nikon 35mm is the DX version, if so it won't be great on FX (it will work but vignette badly) and as Steven has already said the Siggy is a DX lens too.
The Tamron would work fine on FX, though it would appear "shorter" as you lose the crop.
Not sure what style of camera body you have, you only say the are old, if they are D100, D2, D200 type then going down the D700, D8xx route would be a fairly easy switch as the layouts are still similar. Likewise, if it is a D70, D60 type body going down the D6xx or D750 route would have similar layouts. In reality, whatever you choose in FX will give the opportunity for better IQ but then so would a much later DX body. tbh I'd avoid the D600 simply down to the oil issues, the D610 is generally fine (I've had both). The D750 rightly gets a lot of praise as does the D810. I was never a fan of the D700 as I never quite got on with it (me at fault, it is a fine camera) and if 12MP is ok for you then there are some good examples to be had. Likewise used D800 or D800e can be had for sensible money and these are outstanding imo.
Hi Paul, thanks for your reply
I should have probably mentioned in my OP, I currently have a Nikon D3000 and a D5100.
The issue with the 35mm probably isn't too much of a problem as I'd be looking to swap that for a nifty fifty
I would however need to look for an alternative wide angle as I use my Sigma all the time when doing my rig shots, so that is something I would need to consider.I've had a quick look at the D800 you mentioned and that looks exactly like the kind of thing I am looking for, as does D700 which I know others have suggested. I know there are other things to consider and not just the MP but I notice there is a big MP difference between the two. Do you know how much of a difference the extra MP would make compared with the D700?
- Messages
- 3,194
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- No
To some the difference doesn't matter, it really depends on usage. Each has some pros and cons which only you can decide which matters more. The D800 will be more demanding on lenses than the D700 for example. The file sizes are much larger so your pc/mac may need an upgrade, but the upside of that is you get more data to work with!. The D800 uses newer technology too so has IQ improvements over the D700 - but that doesn't mean the D700 IQ is bad, far from it. Both are built well.Thank you to everyone who has replied, there are certainly plenty of things in here to look into and consider!
Hi Paul, thanks for your reply
I should have probably mentioned in my OP, I currently have a Nikon D3000 and a D5100.
The issue with the 35mm probably isn't too much of a problem as I'd be looking to swap that for a nifty fifty
I've had a quick look at the D800 you mentioned and that looks exactly like the kind of thing I am looking for, as does D700 which I know others have suggested. I know there are other things to consider and not just the MP but I notice there is a big MP difference between the two. Do you know how much of a difference the extra MP would make compared with the D700?
If you ever intend to print large then the D800 offers more scope, as it does for cropping into the image. Using the D800 in DX mode will give you around a 15mp file too, so equivalent to your D5100. The D800 also has two card slots if that is important to you.
For the types of work I do the D800 makes sense, and given the relatively low cost of good used ones, it is great value too. Studio and landscape work benefit greatly from the extra MP's imo/e.
As for wide angle lenses,then the latest 18-35mm afs is extremely good both in terms of IQ and value for money (don't get the older versions), even on a D810
- Messages
- 9,612
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 1,984
- Name
- nik
- Edit My Images
- No
what a bete noirI had to look that word up Phil,i thought it was a moron from Oxford
- Messages
- 23,745
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
In simple terms MP only really matter if you plan on cropping heavily or printing very large. But even if printing large many would argue that 12mp is enough as in theory if the image is that large then viewing distance will be further.Thank you to everyone who has replied, there are certainly plenty of things in here to look into and consider!
Hi Paul, thanks for your reply
I should have probably mentioned in my OP, I currently have a Nikon D3000 and a D5100.
The issue with the 35mm probably isn't too much of a problem as I'd be looking to swap that for a nifty fifty
I've had a quick look at the D800 you mentioned and that looks exactly like the kind of thing I am looking for, as does D700 which I know others have suggested. I know there are other things to consider and not just the MP but I notice there is a big MP difference between the two. Do you know how much of a difference the extra MP would make compared with the D700?
I agree it's an oxymoron ... but it's very useful (IMO).
Yes it's not "manual" in the truest sense, but you have complete control over the creative choices for shutter and aperture and can be confident of getting a good exposure. As @snerkler commented, it's good for wildlife where you want to ensure the shutter speed and aperture both stay static, but you still want correct exposure as you move from the light, to shadows and back again.
- Messages
- 25,348
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
It's not the 'correct' exposure though, it's the cameras guess at a correct exposure.
Whereas 'manual' ought to be the photographers guess at a correct exposure.
- Messages
- 23,745
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
But don't you use the light meter to guide you to the 'correct' exposure anyway, or do you still base it on the sunny 16 rule? But in the example above you wouldn't have time to be constantly calculating exposure in your head and be changing ISO as you pan.
- Messages
- 25,348
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm aware of when it'll get it wrong,
and AV with auto ISO and a minimum SS will give similar functionality, allowing for EC too. (Many Canons don't allow EC with Manual, as it's a counter intuitive requirement until you add auto ISO)
Mr Badger
Didymus
- Messages
- 7,457
- Edit My Images
- No
Was she the one that used to make the hot pot in the Rover's Return pub in Coronation Street?what a bete noir
Last edited:
- Messages
- 9,612
- Edit My Images
- Yes
No that was Dick Turpins sister BettyWas she the one that used to make the hot pot in the Rover's Return pub in Coronation Street?
Mr Badger
Didymus
- Messages
- 7,457
- Edit My Images
- No
Oh.... so is she getting a full frame Nikon then?No that was Dick Turpins sister Betty
Joking aside, I moved to a full frame SLR a couple of years ago and the first thing I noticed was the difference in depth of field and 'bokeh'. Much more like the old days of 35mm film SLRs and a real improvement in my opinion. I sold any lenses that wouldn't work with my new full frame camera (along with my old SLR) and put the money towards buying some that did. I'm still building up my range of lenses, but I'm glad I switched and have never regretted it. Best of luck choosing a camera, and I hope you enjoy the switch.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 1,546
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Ah! The bitter words of a Canon owner, where auto ISO isn't really!
- Messages
- 19,461
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Pretty much what this young man said
I'd say the difference in my photographs compared to before FF is negligible. Really.
My D750 is a great camera.
On reflection I wish I'd have been bolder and spent the money courses/togging holidays.
Good luck but make sure you upgrade for the 'right' reasons
Cheers.
- Messages
- 8,035
- Name
- Bazza
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Just a fraction of the camera functions
Last edited:
- Messages
- 1,546
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I can still remember the thrill of seeing my first photos from my D3 when I upgraded from D300. However I also bought good glass, Nikon 200-400 f4, in this case. I think to get the benefits from FF you will need good glass. The main benefit I get is low light ability. In good light the only benefit to me usually is the improvement in isolating the subject, but again fast glass is required.
- Messages
- 23,745
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
I prefer the whole FOV/bokeh thing with FF too. One thing I rarely see mentioned is the perspective. With FF and the same FL length you have to get closer with FF to frame the same as crop body. Not only does DOF reduce as you get closer but the perspective changes and you get less 'compression', i.e. the background looks further away from the subject.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Erm, not really. ..
Why would you change formats but use the same focal length? That's what the crop factor is all about. Anything you want to do with framing and perspective can be done just as easily with either format.
- Messages
- 23,745
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
It was just another example of the difference you get with sensor size, but unless I'm missing something crop never looks fully the same as FF when you're shooting with shallow DOF. If you want the same perspective/compression you have to be the same distance from the subject. On a crop body this means using a shorter focal length to get the same framing and the shorter focal length results in a larger DOF. So you can get same framing and same DOF, but resulting in different perspective/compression, or same framing and same perspective/compression but resulting different DOF.Erm, not really. ..
I guess it boils down to preference and/or what you're used to. I started out with crop, and now have FF and m4/3. My personal preference is FF.
- Messages
- 2,691
- Name
- Andrew
- Edit My Images
- Yes
When I changed to a nikon D7100, I held back from going FF, Because of lenses,extra cost etc, 2 years down the line and I changed to FF Nikon D750, I do quite a bit of low light photography, the results are outstanding. I should have done it on my last camera change and saved some money on later trade ins.
Your Sigma 10-20mm will not be a full frame lens, and your Nikon 35mm maybe, it is easy to see, it will have DX on it. You can pick up a low shutter count Nikon D750 for around £1200 with a warranty. Go for it you will not regret it. You can use your DX lens on a FF, but will be taking 'cropped' images. You should be able to change the 35mm for a 50mm f1.8 FF for very little outlay.
I am not by any means a pro or consider my self an advanced photographer, but am glad I made the change.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
We're getting deeper in 'equivalence' here, but you can replicate an image on either format by changing focal length and adjusting aperture one stop - framing, perspective and DoF will then be the same. If you then also adjust ISO one stop, then that should restore noise and dynamic range as the actual light/photon capture will be the same, too (assuming similar sensor performance).
This comparison works out pretty well in practise, though there's one factor that cannot easily be equalised, and that's lens sharpness. The smaller sensor demands higher resolution, therefore image contrast goes down and it doesn't look as sharp.
Good article on equivalence between formats here https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care