Do I really NEED to go Full frame?

[GHP]

Hello all.
I currently have the following gear:
Nikon D7000 (with grip)
12-24mm DX
35mm f1.8G DX
35-70 f2.8 (Soon to become a 24-70 f2.8)
50mm f1.8 G
85mm f1.4
105mm f2.8
80-200mm f2.8

All the lenses are Nikon.
I am looking towards doing mostly portrait work, although the question of me doing a couple of weddings in the future has been raised.
I have no intention of starting on the wedding scene until I have done a course (Which I have booked) and 2nd shooting/assisting a few.

My question is in the title really. I am about to buy another body. Should I either:
a) buy a D300s/another D7000 as a second body or
b) buy a D700 (or maybe, depending on funds available, a D3s/D800) (which would become my main body),as most of my lenses are pro grade FX lenses (apart from 2). I know I would need a wide zoom for FX.

I know about the low light capabilities of FX, but is that the main reason the pro's use FX?
Is there any reason portraits/weddings cannot be done solely with a Dx setup?

I would appreciate your thoughts/ideas.

Thanks for reading this.
Cheers,
Gary.

 

[boyfalldown]

I know about the low light capabilities of FX, but is that the main reason the pro's use FX?
Is there any reason portraits/weddings cannot be done solely with a Dx setup?

No reason weddings/portraits can't be done using a DX set up, although you will lose some low light capability - thats not the end of the world.

A lot of the big draw of FX is it (very subjectively before someone jumps down my throat) has a quality to the images thats not easily described and you can't get with DX

 

[HoppyUK]

No, you don't need to. But you know you want to and it would undoubedly be a move in the right direction.

If a D800 is within budget, that's perfect. Terrific camera of course and you can also use your DX lenses on it and effectively have the same as a D7000

 

[GHP]

A lot of the big draw of FX is it (very subjectively before someone jumps down my throat) has a quality to the images thats not easily described and you can't get with DX

I'm glad you said that. I agree, when I look at a lot of the work of others whom I admire, they do seem to have been taken on FX, although, as you say, I can't say why exactly.:shrug:

No, you don't need to. But you know you want to and it would undoubedly be a move in the right direction.

If a D800 is within budget, that's perfect. Terrific camera of course and you can also use your DX lenses on it and effectively have the same as a D7000

Hoppy, you can read me like a book !!
As I see it, a good condition low count D3s is about the same cost as a D800. I'm not sure I really need the resolution of the D800 for portraits, but the low light performance is the key for me I think, which of course the D3s is also known for.

Any other thoughts?

 

[HoppyUK]

I'm glad you said that. I agree, when I look at a lot of the work of others whom I admire, they do seem to have been taken on FX, although, as you say, I can't say why exactly.:shrug:



Hoppy, you can read me like a book !!
As I see it, a good condition low count D3s is about the same cost as a D800. I'm not sure I really need the resolution of the D800 for portraits, but the low light performance is the key for me I think, which of course the D3s is also known for.

Any other thoughts?

It's early days, but Nikon seem to have done something remarkable with the D800 sensor in the noise vs pixels debate. See the review just up on www.DPReview.com Main advantage of the D3s seems to be frame rate.

 

[gramps]

It's early days, but Nikon seem to have done something remarkable with the D800 sensor in the noise vs pixels debate. See the review just up on www.DPReview.com

Interesting that we are seeing a lot of reviews reiterating the need for 'good technique' and 'good glass' in order to realise the potential of the D800.
I wonder if this is why we are not seeing a load of D800 images being posted ... or have I missed them ... or aren't there enough D800's out there yet?

 

[HoppyUK]

Interesting that we are seeing a lot of reviews reiterating the need for 'good technique' and 'good glass' in order to realise the potential of the D800.
I wonder if this is why we are not seeing a load of D800 images being posted ... or have I missed them ... or aren't there enough D800's out there yet?

There aren't many about yet. Some orders placed when it was announced are still outstanding.

But there are a few, and it's very true how hard it is to realise 36mp resolution. Then even when you've done that, you need to look very closely at prints more than 30in wide to see it.

I was looking at a comparison the other day with a Canon 5D3 (23mp) and the difference was there, but marginal. Then I worked out I was looking at a section of a print almost six feet wide!

 

[mark1616]

I use FF and love it for the ability to get shallower DOF and also that is uses the lenses I want the way they were designed (if that makes sense). My theory is you can do what you need then why change, if you want to be able to do something new and it is going to be a benefit then make the jump. For me I wouldn't want to be shooting less than FF for the majority of my work.

If you don't need video and crazy res then I would be looking D700.

 

[simonblue]

If your going to start wedding,your going to need a 2nd body,so why not buy a FF,then you can see how it goes,to see if you would like to go full FF

 

[GHP]

I use FF and love it for the ability to get shallower DOF and also that is uses the lenses I want the way they were designed (if that makes sense). My theory is you can do what you need then why change, if you want to be able to do something new and it is going to be a benefit then make the jump. For me I wouldn't want to be shooting less than FF for the majority of my work.

If you don't need video and crazy res then I would be looking D700.

I know what you mean about the shallower dof, and as for the lenses being used as they were designed, I half agree, as when using FX lenses on DX, you are only using the centre of the image circle, therefore less edge aberrations etc. And the obvious extra reach. (I like long lens portraits.)

As for the D700, the only downside to it IMHO is the single card slot. I'm not yet convinced I need the mega-resolution of the D800, and I don't need video.

If your going to start wedding,your going to need a 2nd body,so why not buy a FF,then you can see how it goes,to see if you would like to go full FF

Agreed totally with the 2nd body. At the very least I would get another D7000, or a D300s if I decide to stay totally DX.
Chances are I will go FX, I think.

 

[POAH]

Better IQ at low and high ISO compared to a crop that's really it.

 

[specialman]

Cost-wise, going FX means your money goes a lot less than if you were sticking with DX but as you've pointed out, you have en extensive range of lenses. As you also say, some replacement is going to be necessary, which would cost more than going for the DX equivalent but it's kind of evened out by no needing the 12-24mm. Your long lens (the 80-200mm) will lack the reach you currently have but on the flip side, a 24-70 will be plenty wide enough....

I truly believe that as an all-round format to balance IQ against cost, DX is better than FX but like you, the imaging advantages of FX are ultimately very attractive, especially the ability to get paper-thin DoF respective to the field of view and the way FX strode well ahead of DX in controlling high ISO noise.

The problem with Nikon's DX line-up at the moment is the form factors are not keeping up with the advance of the FX bodies; where we've had the excellent D3 series, D700 and now the D800, there's been nothing of comparative quality in DX. The closest is the D7000, which you already have, so if that doesn't fit your bill in terms of sensor performance, then it seems obvious that a move to FX has to be made. Yes, there's the D400 to come but no one knows when....

 

[kevshore]

The only input I can give here, is that I bought a D300 new when they came out. Loved it. I then added a D3 to my kit, still keeping the D300. I then bought a D3s, still keeping the D300. I now have a D4 on it's way.
The D300 very rarely gets a look in. It's low shutter count and feels rejected. But I can't help myself. FF all the way for me. There is something that just draws you in. Yes the iso etc is amazing, but it's everything about it for me. The quality is consistently top notch. Assuming the user is capable.
trouble is, do I replace the D300 with a D3s or wait and see what Nikon are up to with the D300 replacement. Or just get a D800. See, it never ends!!

Kev.

Oh, one more thing. I bet if I was nearer to you and I let you use my D3s (if I still had it), you would answer the question yourself.

 

[cuthbert]

i'll also just reiterate that there is an aesthetic quality you get with fullframe that isn't there with a crop sensor. it's especially apparent with wide aperture lenses. call it a 'pop' or a '3d' feel, i'm not sure.

when you see it, you will know. the viewfinder is also much bigger, brighter and clearer.

 

[POAH]

i'll also just reiterate that there is an aesthetic quality you get with fullframe that isn't there with a crop sensor. it's especially apparent with wide aperture lenses. call it a 'pop' or a '3d' feel, i'm not sure.

when you see it, you will know. the viewfinder is also much bigger, brighter and clearer.

Call it bad eyesight lol