Beginner Full frame- a necessity in future? (follow on from my other thread)

Messages
67
Name
Conan
Edit My Images
Yes
#1
Hello everyone, I hope you are doing well.

In my last thread, I asked if any pro's used entry level gear, and learnt a lot regarding the more expensive camera bodies and lenses.

It was mentioned that some places of employment only accept shots taken on a full frame camera. This has me a little confused, I understand for example a 20MP FX sensor has a larger area per pixel, which I have been told allows more light to be captured by each pixel, a very basic example would be me lining up 20 buckets, and then 20 test tubes to catch water and the buckets will catch more.

I realise the difference in focal length compared to DX, apparently more pleasing Bokeh, but what else is there? In an ideal world, I would like to continue to use the DX format as I will be buying lenses for my D3500, and in say a year or two when I feel I need to upgrade the body, I will go for something equivalent to the D500 as it would be a flagship camera I could afford without remortgaging the house.

Unless I would be better off buying FX glass to use on my D3500, and go for a lower end FX model when the time comes?

I would like to also say this is only to make conversation and something to think about- I do not feel my camera is inferior, or will use it less because it is not FX or 'pro'.

Thank you all, Conan.
 

Nod

Krispy and Kremey
Messages
31,971
Name
Nod (NOT Ethel!!!)
Edit My Images
Yes
#5
I realise the difference in focal length compared to DX

A 35mm Dx lens on a Dx body will have exactly the same field of view as a 35mm Fx lens on a Dx body but a Dx lens on an Fx body will (almost certainly) show a fair amount of vignetting.

Unless you specifically want/need the slight weight saving that some Dx lenses have compared to their Fx counterparts or want/need something like an 18-200 for convenience, I'd follow the advice above and just buy Fx lenses (if you're definitely planning to make the jump in the future).
 
Messages
6,555
Name
Ned
Edit My Images
Yes
#7
Of course it’s not a necessity...

My view is buy second hand and buy the lenses that suit your camera, on DX a 24-70 lens isn’t wide enough as a standard zoom so I would always go for a 16 or 18-something.

Longer lenses are less of a compromise on useful length and if you want f/2.8 your only real options are FX lenses anyway.

Nowadays I think unless you need the ultra shallow DoF of full frame and fast primes then there is zero need for it, sensors are so good nowadays the arguments for needing bigger are diminished to the point of irrelevance.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
conanthewarrior
Messages
67
Name
Conan
Edit My Images
Yes
#8
@Nod , I may of explained incorrectly but I meant say for example I got a FX 50MM prime to use on my DX body, it would be around 75.5MM focal length. If or when I eventually upgraded to FX, I would be getting a 'true' 50MM length?

I don't need full frame, and @Nawty I did think that the APS-C (and other format) sensors had improved that it would be pretty irrelevant.

So sounds like I should get good FX glass when I need/want it, and when I do need to upgrade my body a high end crop sensor model should still be perfect.
 

Nod

Krispy and Kremey
Messages
31,971
Name
Nod (NOT Ethel!!!)
Edit My Images
Yes
#9
@Nod , I may of explained incorrectly but I meant say for example I got a FX 50MM prime to use on my DX body, it would be around 75.5MM focal length. If or when I eventually upgraded to FX, I would be getting a 'true' 50MM length?

I don't need full frame, and @Nawty I did think that the APS-C (and other format) sensors had improved that it would be pretty irrelevant.

So sounds like I should get good FX glass when I need/want it, and when I do need to upgrade my body a high end crop sensor model should still be perfect.

I thought you probably understood the distinction but some people still think that Fx and Dx lenses have different actual focal lengths rather than different image circle diameters.

Since I started on film and stayed with Nikon when I came over to DSLRs, all my lenses have always been Fx (other than a kit 18-70 and an 18-200 that lives on a 1 series CSC body), although I now mainly use a Fuji CSC system.

Yup, get decent Fx lenses and be future proofed, although the move (by Nikon) towards a new lens mount might make the F mount all but obsolete in the future.

The want/need equation is always subjective!
 
Messages
289
Edit My Images
Yes
#10
@Nod , I may of explained incorrectly but I meant say for example I got a FX 50MM prime to use on my DX body, it would be around 75.5MM focal length. If or when I eventually upgraded to FX, I would be getting a 'true' 50MM length?

I don't need full frame, and @Nawty I did think that the APS-C (and other format) sensors had improved that it would be pretty irrelevant.

So sounds like I should get good FX glass when I need/want it, and when I do need to upgrade my body a high end crop sensor model should still be perfect.
Do you do sports / bird photography. If not a D500 or high end crop body is just burning cash.
 
OP
OP
conanthewarrior
Messages
67
Name
Conan
Edit My Images
Yes
#11
Do you do sports / bird photography. If not a D500 or high end crop body is just burning cash.
I have tried some Bird photography, but I don't think it is something I will likely pursue. What would I want to look for in a body, apart from the controls being easier for me to access with the click wheels/buttons?
I know there are more autofocus points on a higher end body over my 11, and also weather sealing/tougher build. I wouldn't need super fast burst rates, or is this something I will know I need when the time comes?
 
Messages
1,855
Name
Glenn
Edit My Images
Yes
#12
Good glass is good glass irrespective of whether it's designed for crop or full frame format. If you're thinking that you may go full frame in the future, then purchasing good FX glass now means you can use it on your current DX body and also on an FX body in the future.

When you find your photography being limited by your gear, you'll find out which direction to go in terms of purchasing new lenses or bodies. Until then, I'd suggest using what you have already and push the boundaries.
 
Messages
11,565
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
#14
Something that no-one is mentioning is that the big makers of full-frame cameras are changing lens mounts, introducing lenses in their new mounts that will only fit their mirrorless cameras. IF the market shifts to mirrorless, which seems likely, then an investment in older DSLR lenses will lose a lot of value as people move across to the new format. IF you're going to invest in nice lenses then think very carefully about the whole outfit and where you might want to be in 5 years, possibly 10 years time. Remember though, that a camera which takes great pictures now will STILL take great pictures in the future provided it hasn't worn out.
 
Messages
1,180
Name
Tim
Edit My Images
Yes
#15
+1 for buying second hand. I’ve had good experience with that to build my collect of lenses. Change in mount for mirrorless is something to think about, yes. I’m planning on keeping my EF lenses and gradually changing over several years.
 

Nod

Krispy and Kremey
Messages
31,971
Name
Nod (NOT Ethel!!!)
Edit My Images
Yes
#16
What would I want to look for in a body, apart from the controls being easier for me to access with the click wheels/buttons?
I know there are more autofocus points on a higher end body over my 11, and also weather sealing/tougher build. I wouldn't need super fast burst rates, or is this something I will know I need when the time comes?

Make a note of anything that you even think you might quite like in any future body - higher frame rate, more focus points, better high ISO performance etc. and another list of needs (probably some overlap with t'other list!) so when the time for an upgrade arrives, you know what to look for in spec sheets when making a shortlist of candidates.

Taking Toni's point above (which I touched on in an earlier post), if you plan on sticking with DSLRs rather than heading down the mirrorless road, you MIGHT find that F mount prices drop, making them cheaper on the second hand market. As he says, a good camera will still be a good camera even when it's been replaced on the market by newer models.
 
Messages
289
Edit My Images
Yes
#17
Oh so my Fuji X-T3 is a waste of money:thinking:
Depends what you do with it because everyone if different.

Certainly many people have cameras that are over the top for themselves.

A 10 fps camera with 200 buffer and over 150 AF is totally unnecessary for most people.
 
Messages
6,555
Name
Ned
Edit My Images
Yes
#18
Depends what you do with it because everyone if different.

Certainly many people have cameras that are over the top for themselves.

A 10 fps camera with 200 buffer and over 150 AF is totally unnecessary for most people.
Any form of DSLR or mirrorless is unnecessary for most people, but then that’s true with every hobby.
 

Nod

Krispy and Kremey
Messages
31,971
Name
Nod (NOT Ethel!!!)
Edit My Images
Yes
#19
Messages
1,800
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
#20
All these answers have their merits but the Camera market is in a state of flux and no one knows if any of the manufacturers will still be around in a few years time or may have merged or be making different products. The best way is to buy secondhand whatever you need an sell it when you need or want something different.
 

StephenM

I know a Blithering Idiot
Messages
2,970
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
#21
The only thing I'd add (I don't think it's been pointed out explicitly before in this thread) is that simply because a crop sensor camera crops the image, you get less in, and this means that if you want an extreme wide angle then you may find that you can't source a full frame lens with a sufficiently wide angle of view on a crop sensor camera.
 
OP
OP
conanthewarrior
Messages
67
Name
Conan
Edit My Images
Yes
#22
I have seen the mirror less new mount for nikon, so does.make me feel a bit confused.
I dont want to spend a lot of money while it is tight (moving home) but also I do want a zoom in the 55-200 range or similar.

Maybe buying for DX now, just the one lens to cover up to 200 Mm (305 fx equivalent) will be an option if DSLR cameras indeed go the way of the dodo?

Then I wouldn't feel as bad losing a smaller amount, but then again is it likely nikon will drop the f mount in the foreseeable future and I will need to go mirror less with the new mount?

Of course a good camera is a good camera, and I could invest and eventually have a FX DSLR, but once tech evolves it would be nice to know if my camera breaks, I can get a new mirror less model which will likely be the higher end cameras.

It would be great if both are still made in the future, but I dont know :/
 

Phil V

Suspended / Banned
Messages
22,955
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
#23
Always look at buying lenses as a near lifetime investment and camera bodies as transitory.

Invest in FX lenses from the start, then you won't be crewed if you switch format.
Just about the only thing I disagree with Mark about. Whilst I agree that lenses are an investment - DX lenses are often the best tool for the job when using DX cameras. A 24-70 on a crop camera is what I'd describe as 'neither nowt nor summat', likewise a 50mm.
Invest in good lenses second hand - then you can sell them on for little loss.
 
Messages
1,035
Name
Mike
Edit My Images
Yes
#25
decent Fx lenses and be future proofed, although the move (by Nikon) towards a new lens mount might make the F mount all but obsolete in the future.
I was pondering that one too; it's a bit like being told that the Pope has decided to convert to Start-Trek-ism, that Nikon have, after what, seventy years?!?!!? FINALLY decided that the F-Mount 'may' be past it's prime (sic)... but still. I doubt that it will be rendered an utterly obsolete system in my life-time....

ANYWAY!, Conan... after trawling through the relevant threads.... STOP thinking so much!!!! You are letting your new found enthusiasm run rampant! Get it in check. Eg in last post on what next lens to get, you got all enthusiastic about Telephoto lenses, convinced that's what you 'needed', but actually were a little confused, not really knowing the difference between a 'Telephoto' lens, and a 'Zoom' lens.

You are darting hither and dither on random ideas confusing needs and wants and everything else along the way in the age old a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.... and rather than sticking to the safety of ignorance, getting ever more 'little' bits of dangerous knowledge making matters worse, not better.

Oh-KAY!

From comments in prior post; you have now admitted that a telephoto is a WANT not a NEED. And from your elaborations of what you are about, I actually suspect that a wide-angle is probably the more apt for the kind of casual walk-about cityscape type photo you describe, b-u-t.... whether you need it or no, you WANT a telephoto... cos... well, your fancy new camera has this interchangeable lens system, and you just HAVE to make use of that feature... and big zoom is an instant hit... [sigh]

LETS make this easy for you...... Go get the Nikkor 55-200, preferably second hand, because it is a peculiarly cheap and under rated lens, that will give you that must have new purchase fix.

They sell 7 billion quids worth of cameras in the UK each year; something in the order of 6 million cameras, or more, or one for every ten people in the country; and that's each year..... if a camera lasts approx 10 years, then every man woman and suckling infant will, by now, have one, or more!

There are approximately 50,ooo people in the country who can be described as 'professional' photographers, as in they get paid to take pictures.

How many of them actually make enough money to make a full time, life-time, living from it, is another question, but.... there's a heck of a lot of folk in the UK; there's a heck of a lot of cameras, and there are NOT very many 'professionals'. And of them that are, they don't actually have to be particularly great photographers, or have the bestest fanciest most expensive gear... they 'just' need to get paid for the job... and the earnings to be enough to cover their costs. Its a business, and as much or more than they need photo-taking skills they need business ones. What they buy and use then ISN'T going to be whats 'best' but what is most cost effective to do what they need to to get paid.

So, lets park these rather over optimistic ambitions and aspirations about becoming a professional, inspired by buying an beginners DSLR... the chances that you might ever actually get to that stage, are frankly lottery odds; meanwhile, if you ever do... its a business, and these ideas and fears about buying the kit the pro's use, to future proof your purchase are, frankly just more random. IF you get to that point where you might start getting paid for your photos, then what you get paid, buys the gear you need... if it don't, you are going to go bust... that's business. So back to the here and now needs and wants.

You WANT another lens, cos you have this interchangeable lens mount and nothing to interchange on it!
You WANT a telephoto lens, 'cos, well... its seems the thing to have, and you've tried zooming in on-screen, and the pictures gone all lego-like....
STOP at them two 'wants'
There's absolutely no reason to believe that you 'have' to progress to any other camera, let alone to a full-frame one, at this stage, and as said, chances of becoming a 'pro' are lottery odds... its just NOT on the cards at this stage.

The 55-200 is a DX lens; its best feature is that its 'cheap' ; approx £200 new, about half that, or less, used, and it delivers a lot for the money in comparison to a lot else.

It is NOT a pro-grade lens. It is NOT an FX compatible lens... its CHEAP. And IF you chase these aspirations and realise any of them, that price pretty much pales in comparison to the grander cost of upgrading to FX, or in getting anything in the pro-grade arena... it is to all extents and purposes 'disposable'.

In the meantime; it does the job... mostly of giving you that novelty fix of fulfilling your immediate aspirations, at least cost, least risk, whilst you maybe, under-pin some of this random exploration with learning and experience.

Stop over-thinking it all, and trying to cross bridges you haven't even reached!
 
Messages
6,423
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
No
#26
Always look at buying lenses as a near lifetime investment and camera bodies as transitory.

Invest in FX lenses from the start, then you won't be crewed if you switch format.
Sorry to pick on your post, I know it's not the only one, but I really cannot get on with the notion of buying the 'wrong' gear for the format you're using, just in case.

When you say 'won't be screwed', maybe not financially but you will suddenly have a bag full of lenses that give very different fields of view. If you've been enjoying the focal lengths before, you probably won't be now or if they make sense on FX, you've been putting up with inappropriate focal lengths for however long it may have been.

I hate the term investment when applied to lenses. Yes, there are some odd examples that might have historically shown to be safe places to keep money, but generally speaking these are still lumps of tech that can be bought, used, sold, dropped, swapped, superseded just like anything else. You're not tied to them any more than a camera body. And right now, with so many mounts emerging, I think you'd be crazy to view it any other way.
 
OP
OP
conanthewarrior
Messages
67
Name
Conan
Edit My Images
Yes
#27
@Teflon-Mike , I do apologise if I seem to ramble, or get ahead of myself. My way of thinking is a bit messed up, I tend to overthink things a lot and I DO get ahead of myself. I do not know if this is a result of my brain damage, or just how I would be anyway.

You are correct that I partly wanted a new lens as the lenses on my camera are interchangeable. The main reason was I wanted to be able to get images of what surrounds Canvey Island- being in the thames there are lots of things I can see from the sea wall- wether this be passing boats, the olympic cycle track in Hadleigh, Hadleigh castle, Southend pier etc.
I think I will get the 55-200 second hand as you suggest- to have fun with.

I realise the chances are slim of this in the future- but I can try. When I was in my early teens the likelihood of working in a recording studio was a dream, and I managed that, so if one why not two was my thinking? This is as long as I don't mess up like I did last time (I have had some issues that I do not hide, I ended up a down and out alcoholic). I have only fairly recently got a home studio back, let alone working in a dedicated, payed for studio.

I may never progress past where I am now, but as long as I enjoy what I am doing, I will be happy in life.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
conanthewarrior
Messages
67
Name
Conan
Edit My Images
Yes
#29
As for your original question?
When a camera as capable as a D750 is available at such a relatively low price - what's the point in looking at high end DX cameras?
I've been spending most of my time learning to use my camera- was definitely an experience learning what all the menus and settings actually do! I did kind of get a head start when I was about 20, I bought myself a Canon 1100D with kit lens, but this was when I started to go downhill health wise so became more focused on wrecking my life with booze than using the camera so sold it, but I did learn some basics did a fair bit of reading then.

Now I feel I've got the 'bug' so to speak, and again have been reading lots and watching tutorials that I can try to utilise.

I hadn't actually looked at many FX prices- mainly as they was beyond my current budget.

I didn't realise I could get a very capable camera like the D750 for the price.

When I can, I will likely get something like it, unless there is a newer model for the same cost. I like to have nice things if I can, and getting myself a nice camera body in the near future, even if it is overkill for my needs, will be nice.

I realise it isn't something I need , and am enjoying my D3500 immensely, I don't think I have left the house without it since owning it. I would rather spend money I can afford at the time than spend it on alcohol and drugs and end up in an early grave.
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,320
Name
Soeren
Edit My Images
Yes
#30
Depends what you do with it because everyone if different.

Certainly many people have cameras that are over the top for themselves.

A 10 fps camera with 200 buffer and over 150 AF is totally unnecessary for most people.
So where does that put FF cameras? ;)
 
Messages
1,320
Name
Soeren
Edit My Images
Yes
#32
Not sure what you are getting at. Just looks like you are being childish to me.
No its a simple question. if you see high end APSC as beinhg a waste of money except for sports and wildlife and most of us as having cameras that are over the top for ourselves and I admit to that then where does that put the 24X36mm format ILC's?
What I see is people buying based on best specs like in an arms race instead of based on needs.
Then there are those who are very committed to one brand or another, nothing wrong with that
Very few seem to think between the 2 extremes or at least seen from my screen as does the view that 24x36mm is where you eventually need to be if youre serious about your photography.
 
Messages
11,565
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
#33
I didn't realise I could get a very capable camera like the D750 for the price.
You can get a D600/D610 for about half the price of a D750 and get similar image quality & dynamic range, though with less effective AF and no flippy rear screen.

What I see is people buying based on best specs like in an arms race instead of based on needs.
Some change their camera systems more frequently than their underwear. The thing is, no-one will make a camera 'for wildlife', 'for motorsports' or 'for landscapes' so most cameras have aspects that a user will never touch. But along with all the 'useless' specs come things like eye-AF, which are genuinely useful for most people. There's no such thing as a camera that is more capable than the user, but there are aspects of some that are better suited to certain things, and crop format is beneficial to those who wish to photograph small things in the distance. They may also be advantageous to those who like a smaller camera body, but the top-end crop camera in question in this thread (D500 - this is Nikon-specific remember) is a 1kg lump designed for hard-core professional use.
 
Messages
1,320
Name
Soeren
Edit My Images
Yes
#34
You can get a D600/D610 for about half the price of a D750 and get similar image quality & dynamic range, though with less effective AF and no flippy rear screen.



Some change their camera systems more frequently than their underwear. The thing is, no-one will make a camera 'for wildlife', 'for motorsports' or 'for landscapes' so most cameras have aspects that a user will never touch. But along with all the 'useless' specs come things like eye-AF, which are genuinely useful for most people. There's no such thing as a camera that is more capable than the user, but there are aspects of some that are better suited to certain things, and crop format is beneficial to those who wish to photograph small things in the distance. They may also be advantageous to those who like a smaller camera body, but the top-end crop camera in question in this thread (D500 - this is Nikon-specific remember) is a 1kg lump designed for hard-core professional use.
There are cameras more capable than their users are able to exploit and bad pictures are seldom due to the gear but mostly to the users lack of knowledge and ability to use it properly + misunderstanding on what you can expect it to do and what is up to you as the photographer.
 
Messages
853
Edit My Images
No
#35
@conanthewarrior

It makes senses to buy FX lenses for your DX body. That way, you future-proof your gear because you can either carry on using your DX body or upgrade to FX body, as well as buying a FX body but keep the DX body as a spare camera, as the FX lenses can be used on either of them.

Otherwise if you by DX lenses, you would either be stuck to DX body, or when you upgrade to FX body, you also spend more money upgrading your DX lenses.

I would suggest you stick with buying FX lenses only, that way, when it comes to the DSLR itself, you only worry about staying with DX or upgrade to FX, without the extra worry about upgrading from DX lenses to FX lenses.
 

StewartR

Efrem Zimbalist Jr
Advertiser
Messages
11,988
Name
Stewart
Edit My Images
Yes
#36
It makes senses to buy FX lenses for your DX body. That way, you future-proof your gear...
Why not go further than that?

I suggest that, as policy on TP, we should recommend to Micro 4/3rds users that they should buy Medium Format lenses. That way, they future-proof their gear because they can either carry on using their Micro 4/3rds body or upgrade to a DX body, and then upgrade to a FX body, and then upgrade to a MF body. Or they could buy a DX body or a FX body or a MF body and keep the Micro 4/3rds body as a spare camera, as the MF lenses can be used on either of them.

It's the ultimate future proofing. You know it makes sense.
 

StephenM

I know a Blithering Idiot
Messages
2,970
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
#37
Actually, the ultimate future proofing would be to learn how to construct a batteryless wooden large format camera and master the wet collodion process to make yourself proof against discontinued batteries, electronics that can't be repaired because the circuit boards aren't available, and film companies all going out of business. :)

My take on the lens issue is that the focal lengths for full frame and APS-C aren't interchangeable in terms of field of view for a given focal length; and that the lens choices you make for your own way of seeing on one won't necessarily translate across a format size change. Plus, if extreme wide angle is your way of seeing, I think you'd probably get a wider field of view with an APS-C lens than a full frame one, just because they make them shorter.

It's probably worth adding as a disclaimer that I rarely use zoom lenses.
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,800
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
#38
Why not go further than that?

I suggest that, as policy on TP, we should recommend to Micro 4/3rds users that they should buy Medium Format lenses. That way, they future-proof their gear because they can either carry on using their Micro 4/3rds body or upgrade to a DX body, and then upgrade to a FX body, and then upgrade to a MF body. Or they could buy a DX body or a FX body or a MF body and keep the Micro 4/3rds body as a spare camera, as the MF lenses can be used on either of them.

It's the ultimate future proofing. You know it makes sense.
Or why not just hire stuff when you need it — I know you wouldn’t recommend that ;)
 
Messages
140
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
#39
The FX cameras and lenses are really heavy. Most people won't carry over 2lb of gear about on the off chance they will use it. A D3500 and kit lens is very light by comparison. The pictures are not quite so good but at least you get to take them.
 

Nod

Krispy and Kremey
Messages
31,971
Name
Nod (NOT Ethel!!!)
Edit My Images
Yes
#40
Plus, if extreme wide angle is your way of seeing, I think you'd probably get a wider field of view with an APS-C lens than a full frame one, just because they make them shorter.

For that, you want/need an FF body and lens. Yes, crop lenses are occasionally shorter BUT once you're at a 180° field of view (an 8mm fisheye on a full frame/35mm film body), you're pretty much at the limit.
 
Top