I went full frame - and now having doubts!

C

Cheng

Messages
837
Edit My Images
No
Managed to get a most excellent condition D3 and 24-70 from the classifieds, upgrading from a gripped D300s. Some doubts I'm having now (and I never believed I would be in this situation):

1. Where are the reasonably priced ultra wide options? I thought it would be a LOT easier due to no crop factor, but apparently not :( For DX I had the Sigma 10-20mm, seems like the only option to get significantly wider is the Sigma 12-24 or 14-24...both heavy, non filterable and pretty pricey!

2. The weight is unreal! The body itself isn't much different from the D300 with magnesium grip, but the fact you have to use an FX lens that weighs almost the same as the body is actually making me consider how people can use this as a walk around lens without breaking their bodies! I am no stranger to weights as I go to the gym regularly, curls, bench presses etc. but after a while I can see this getting very tiring.

I LOVE the viewfinder and the 1.5 stops of high iso is very nice, but apart from that, the D300/Sigma 18-50 2.8 combo is lighter and much more carryable. The image quality difference isn't massive, and I'm struggling to get practical ultra wide lenses and something that I could enjoy shooting with for long durations. Can anyone suggest any nice reasonably weighted lens alternatives? Have I made a mistake?! I am going for a few weeks to Peru this summer and I can almost guarantee it will be the D300 and not the D3 that is coming with me...
 
So if weight's already an issue then I assume carrying both FX and DX bodies is out of the question? How about using something like a 35mm or 50mm prime on the D3 and carrying a small wideangle prime in your pocket? I love FX, but do prefer carrying a prime or 2 rather than a f/2.8 zoom for the reasons you gave.

I personally like D700 with 35/40/50mm and D300s with 10.5mm fisheye or 70-200mm as a sidearm ;)
 
The Sigma 12-24mm only weighs 600g. Sigma 10-20mm 520g. So its only like a big Mars bar different not that much really, Then when you consider a D3 is1390g the lens weight is not all that much really. But uf you really want form what I understand you can run a DX lens with the camera in crop mode.
 
I know Tamron do a 17-35 f/2.8-4 and I've seen them go pretty cheap secondhand. Checkout Misfuds, ffordes and Apertureuk, they usually have some FX primes on a regular basis as well.

I always thought FX lenses were more expensive than the DX counterpart :shrug:
 
Why didn't you look into all of this before you bought the D3?
 
Heavy? It's still a puny 35mm type body. Get out and shoot some medium format. As for wide? Bigger formats are harder to find ultra-wide lenses for, due to the size the lenses would have to be.
 
awp said:
Why didn't you look into all of this before you bought the D3?
Click to expand...

It's one of those things that you don't think will be important, as with other impulse purchases! ;)

1. Dream of D3.
2. See one for a good price.
3. Buy D3.

Not much time to think, lol. Plus I had the D300+grip which I knew not to be much different from the D3, so didn't think the extra 300g of the 24-70 would be much more...how wrong was I! Especially with the SB900 attached...ouch! :lol:
 
Zilog said:
The Sigma 12-24mm only weighs 600g. Sigma 10-20mm 520g. So its only like a big Mars bar different not that much really, Then when you consider a D3 is1390g the lens weight is not all that much really. But uf you really want form what I understand you can run a DX lens with the camera in crop mode.
Click to expand...

Ah OK, didn't realise it was that small. Will consider it now though...The difference between the Sigma 18-50 and ikon 24-70 is 500g though...!
 
mustanir said:
Heavy? It's still a puny 35mm type body. Get out and shoot some medium format. As for wide? Bigger formats are harder to find ultra-wide lenses for, due to the size the lenses would have to be.
Click to expand...

Didn't say the body, if you read. It's the glass that's heavy! :p
 
This isn't meant to get at the OP in any way, and I'm sure you'll get to love your D3 in time (believe me Canon kit is just the same). But it just goes to show that full frame is not a panacea and doesn't magically make you a better photographer. There are drawbacks, size and weight being one.

Years ago I moved from 35mm to medium format. It was great fun, and the quality was superb, but it cost a fortune for the kit and I found that half the time I just couldn't be bothered to cart it around. You're far better having a camera on you than one that's left at home. Think carefully before you jump to pro kit. It has definite advatages in lots of ways but it's not a free ride.
 
Bill Roberts said:
This isn't meant to get at the OP in any way, and I'm sure you'll get to love your D3 in time (believe me Canon kit is just the same). But it just goes to show that full frame is not a panacea and doesn't magically make you a better photographer. There are drawbacks, size and weight being one.
Click to expand...

Totally agree! For me, each time I jumped up a level, I found the gains massive. From D70,D70s,D200, D300,D300s, now finally D3. As I moved up each DX body, I really enjoyed it. The D3 is amazing, and I'm really enjoying it now with the 50/1.4 on, it's a nice weight and combo! But there will come a time (and I think I've reached it now) where the drawbacks will start to become more apparent.
 
Heavy? lol
Try carrying two D3 bodies and five lenses as well as two SB900's, spare batteries etc
...and don't even get me started on weapons, ammunition, body armour, helmet etc...

Suck it up and go take some photos...lol
 
Arkady said:
Heavy? lol
Try carrying two D3 bodies and five lenses as well as two SB900's, spare batteries etc
...and don't even get me started on weapons, ammunition, body armour, helmet etc...

Suck it up and go take some photos...lol
Click to expand...
Im with this man.
Yes its heavy,I know I have 2.But I love the weight and the end product.

Wouldnt change them(Well maybe for a D3s):clap:

Youll get use to them....
 
The image quality difference isn't massive,
Click to expand...

Isnt that the key? I print up to A4 on my d90 and the IQ is stunning. I have no need for anything better and FX doesnt feature for me. Better High ISO performance can help the pros so I can see a need for them, but for me as a hobbyist the cost cant be justified.

Probably the real thing is that ISO performance on the recent DX cameras has improved to the point where most are happy with it. If and when Nikon decide to get their finger out and produce a d400 I will probably upgrade to that and if the high ISO performance is better than the D300/D90, there will be even less need for me to go full frame.....

FX will always be better than DX, but its only of value if you really need that extra, on top of the really stunning IQ you get out of the current DX camera.....
 
i recently went FF from crop. not going as wide as you are and just got a 17-40 to replace my 10-22. do you really need to go down to 12mm. i know that 17mm on ff will be equiv to just over 11mm. Im no nikon expert, are there not any lenses in that range that may be lighter? the 12mm on FF = 8mm on nikon crop.
 
It's been suggested earlier, but let me add this if I may .. get yourself some good primes :shrug:

I avoided the D3 simply for weight issues, but I didn't want to cut back on glass; so, when the D700 came about, and at a good price, I went for one. Never looked back.

When I am not feeling too well, and the weight of the D700 and the 24-70 AF-S seem too much for me to lug around (nothing compared to a D3 and SB900 and batteries), I have an option from 20mm up to 300mm primes to choose from. Makes a world of difference.

A really good wide lens, the Voigtlander 20mm f/3.5; I just got mine a few weeks ago and it is taking up most of my time these days. Light, small, great image quality, and really wide on FX.
 
Arkady said:
Heavy? lol
Try carrying two D3 bodies and five lenses as well as two SB900's, spare batteries etc
...and don't even get me started on weapons, ammunition, body armour, helmet etc...
Click to expand...



You were lucky, we used to dreeeeeam of a D3.

Sorry..just made me think monty python....:lol:
 
Yes, the D3 is a brick, but thats why Lord Nikon came up with the (IMHO) far more desirable and practical Nikon D700.

I wouldn't carry a D3 + 24-70 for travel either. A D700 + Tamron 28-75 + 17-35 will cover 95% of the shots you need, and it'll be lighter than the D3 + 24-70 as well.

For you wide angle needs, I definately recommend the Tamron 17-35, its a super lens and for the £150-£175 you'll pay, a super bargain. It's also nice and light.
 
I think it is just the unfamiliarity of it. You'll soon get used to the weight and not find it an issue at all.

I was doing stag stalking this winter in the Highlands, near Crianlarich. I had to walk in, and walk back out at the end of the day. We covered 14.3 miles (I know, I took my Garmon GPSMap 76CSx with me - a chart plotter really, but with the OS maps in it, absolutely brilliant piece of kit.

My rucksack held:
spare D3
300 f2.8
70-200 f2.8
17-35
2x SB900s
1.4 TC
Rain top (poncho cape)
Flask and food for the day.

I had the other D3 with 24-70 mounted in my hands for immediate use with the stalker and the rifle. Changing lenses when we had a specific shot I wanted to set up.

The difference in weight you are talking about, between the two kits, is less than a bag of suger. You'll get used to it, just enjoy the extra quality.
 
Don't know what the fuss is about. I don't find it heavy at all. Get an Optech starp. That may help a bit. So I've heard.
The 24-70mm is on mine all of the time unless I'm out shooting Aircraft. Then its the
300mm or the 200-400mm. Then it starts to get heavy. But you get used to it.
Don't get rid of it yet. Give it time and get used to the weight and you will soon love it.

Kev.
 
Treat yourself to an Optech Pro camera strap, for me it makes life a lot easier when I'm walkabout with a Canon pro body, the strap makes the camera 'feel' lighter and much more comfortable.

Also, I tend to walkabout with primes, such as a 50mm F1.4 or 200mm F2.8, which have generally better IQ than comparable zooms, also lighter more compact.
 
another vote for the Optech Pro camera strap :thumbs: really makes a difference
 
the D3 really isnt so bad once you get used to it and its not really that heavy (though im used to MKIII )

ive found the 24-70 to be wide enough in the brief time ive had it, going out to 14mm is good but i think 24mm on FF is plenty
 
i am useing a d200 while my d700 is away to nikon

i hate dx if its 50mm i want it to be 50mm

as for wide angles never seen the point of zooms,i have a great 24mm and a 35mm.
was a time when 24 was considered wide enough [less distortion etc.]

quite whiling to swap cameras if it will help you out :D
 
If weight really is that much of a problem, do a trade with a D700 user, then replace your brick lens with a much lighter prime. Then get yourself a good camera rucksack to help spread the weight out. The Optech strap is also a good move.
 
I've had another play, and the combination is actually awesome. It has become somewhat lighter over the weekend...:lol: perhaps thats adaptation for you?!

puddleduck said:
For you wide angle needs, I definately recommend the Tamron 17-35, its a super lens and for the £150-£175 you'll pay, a super bargain. It's also nice and light.
Click to expand...

The 17-35 is no longer this cheap, save for the last Pentax mount version on misfuds :(
We're looking £350 + elsewhere...

I've had a thought though, with me shooting predominantly landscapes, I almost feel a Sony A900/Canon 5DII and Sigma 12-24 calling... argh!
 
Cheng said:
.......

I've had a thought though, with me shooting predominantly landscapes, I almost feel a Sony A900/Canon 5DII and Sigma 12-24 calling... argh!
Click to expand...

Keep reading more and more of what Puddleduck says, and you'll soon be on your way to A900-land :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top