New body or new glass?

JustJoe

JustJoe

Messages
414
Name
Joseph
Edit My Images
Yes
Were off to Amsterdam in September and I kinda do this every time I go away, I get a bit of gear lust.


Currently have D7000, 35mm f1.8 and a 55-200 Nikon zoom.

I'm either thinking of a used D600 and a 50mm f/1.8 AF. Or £300-400 on a lens.

Going full frame is probably overkill as I'm very much a hobbyist so I thought I would disable lurking mode for a second and get some opinions especially glass recommendations.

PS: the 35mm f1.8 seems to be very hit and miss, has anyone else experienced this? I seem to be more consistent with the 55-200 in terms of shots that are sharp.
 
Stick with the d7k and buy an 18-35 1.8 art sigma lens! It's best lens I've ever owned and on the one thing I miss since going FX
 
JustJoe said:
Were off to Amsterdam in September and I kinda do this every time I go away, I get a bit of gear lust.


Currently have D7000, 35mm f1.8 and a 55-200 Nikon zoom.

I'm either thinking of a used D600 and a 50mm f/1.8 AF. Or £300-400 on a lens.

Going full frame is probably overkill as I'm very much a hobbyist so I thought I would disable lurking mode for a second and get some opinions especially glass recommendations.

PS: the 35mm f1.8 seems to be very hit and miss, has anyone else experienced this? I seem to be more consistent with the 55-200 in terms of shots that are sharp.
Click to expand...
Why is going FF overkill, you don't have to be a 'pro' to shoot with FF you know. Is there a reason you're considering FF, I assume you know the pros and cons? You do realise the 55-200 is DX and not really suitable for FF?

Before I can comment on glass it would help if we knew what you intended to shoot with it?
 
Neither of those lens is full frame. I'm assuming the 35mm f1.8 is the DX version.

Full frame with the 50mm is a joy to shoot with. When I'm not doing paid stuff, I use 50mm most of the time on my vocation.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the reply's.

Yes both are DX and only plan to keep them if I stay with the D7000. If I go with the D600 I'll pick up the 50mm with it.

I mean, I think its overkill I just tend shoot family stuff/holidays, no sports or gigs etc.
 
On APS-C for in city shooting I'd go for something a little wider than 35mm, either a 18-50mm (or something like that) or a 20/24mm prime to give a FF equiv of something like 28 or 35mm or so.

On the whole APS-C v FF thing... unless you want to shoot in very low light or want to print the size of a barn does it really matter these days? I currently have a Sony A7 and a Panasonic GX7 and although the A7 files are gorgeous I do think that for 99% of my usage the GX7 is easily good enough.
 
woof woof said:
On APS-C for in city shooting I'd go for something a little wider than 35mm, either a 18-50mm (or something like that) or a 20/24mm prime to give a FF equiv of something like 28 or 35mm or so.

On the whole APS-C v FF thing... unless you want to shoot in very low light or want to print the size of a barn does it really matter these days? I currently have a Sony A7 and a Panasonic GX7 and although the A7 files are gorgeous I do think that for 99% of my usage the GX7 is easily good enough.
Click to expand...
Contentious issue but I genuinely believe FF images look different somehow. Some people see it, some don't. It matters to some and not to others ;)
 
Last edited:
Jayst84 said:
If you're considering a full frame camera with a 50mm lens, to replace your crop sensor camera and 35mm lens - I assume you're not actually missing anything. As those two combinations will give you practically the same results for most intents and purposes.

Save your money for weed and pilsner.
Click to expand...


I agree, all you're doing is upgrading the quality slightly, not actually gaining anything different and the quality of the 35mm on the D7000 is already very very very good.

The FF body will allow you much more scope for manipulation in post processing (recovering highlights and pushing shadows) but if you don't do much of that then there's not much point it the swap.

In your situation I'd probably buy the new 20mm f/1.8 wide prime which will work on your camera and should you ever upgrade.
 
JustJoe said:
Just an update to this thread.

I have a 50mm f1.8 G on the way from Rob on here and I have my eye on a D610 from Panamoz which I'll probably get at the end of the month/start of of august if all goes to plan,
Click to expand...

Joe if you can save a little longer the d750 price is dropping, currently just over £1000 and probably likely to drop a little further. It would be a fantastic camera and last you a lot longer before upgrading again. The d750 is better bang for buck compared to the older D610. The 2 recalls shouldn't be affected with a d750 from panamoz as it says on here they have already cleared affect stick and you can ask them to check the serial number before posting.
 
The 50 1.8G is a great performing lens and is so light. It depends what kind of stuff you shoot of course. I wish the 35 1.8 was a similar size and weight, but alas no.
 
snerkler said:
Contentious issue but I genuinely believe FF images look different somehow. Some people see it, some don't. It matters to some and not to others ;)
Click to expand...

As an engineer by trade I tend not to think that things are just because they are and tend to look for reasons and for me there is no magic here. If larger formats with lovely lenses are better than smaller formats with lovely lenses there are technical reasons for it and the question for us is will this betterness be visible in our pictures.

I've done a ton of side by side tests between MFT, APS-C and FF both shooting for best effect and with equalised settings (MFT f4, 25mm = APS-C f5, 30mm = FF f8, 50mm etc...) and I came to the conclusions I stated earlier. I can often see FF goodness when I'm pixel peeping but when viewing pictures normally or even at some magnification I often have trouble telling them apart and so do the people I've roped in. In fact no one I've roped in can reliably say what camera took what shot unless the shots are at the extreme of what's possible magnification wise or ISO wise.

Sometimes when I'm processing Panasonic G1 and/or GX7 pictures at the same time as A7 pictures I find myself marvelling at the quality the A7 can produce and then I realise I'm looking at a G1 shot :D

As you say it's a contentious issue but I do think that it's tempting to believe that FF has some magic quality which will shine through in our pictures.
 
woof woof said:
As an engineer by trade I tend not to think that things are just because they are and tend to look for reasons and for me there is no magic here. If larger formats with lovely lenses are better than smaller formats with lovely lenses there are technical reasons for it and the question for us is will this betterness be visible in our pictures.

I've done a ton of side by side tests between MFT, APS-C and FF both shooting for best effect and with equalised settings (MFT f4, 25mm = APS-C f5, 30mm = FF f8, 50mm etc...) and I came to the conclusions I stated earlier. I can often see FF goodness when I'm pixel peeping but when viewing pictures normally or even at some magnification I often have trouble telling them apart and so do the people I've roped in. In fact no one I've roped in can reliably say what camera took what shot unless the shots are at the extreme of what's possible magnification wise or ISO wise.

Sometimes when I'm processing Panasonic G1 and/or GX7 pictures at the same time as A7 pictures I find myself marvelling at the quality the A7 can produce and then I realise I'm looking at a G1 shot :D

As you say it's a contentious issue but I do think that it's tempting to believe that FF has some magic quality which will shine through in our pictures.
Click to expand...


This lies at the heart of consumerism, the reality is that when all subjectivity is removed people can barely tell the difference between tea and coffee, let alone the difference between camera sensors etc.

Most people react to that with some hostility (no honestly, I CAN see a difference) and used to bother me until I realised perception is much more important than reality and so is feeling good about yourself and those two things combined can greatly lift your experience to a level where differences do appear.

The analogy I use at work is hifi cables, some people will spend thousands of pounds on hifi cables and swear blind (he he) that the difference they hear is night and day; I know this, I used to be one of them (well, not thousands but still more than a sane man would). However, there has never been one properly objective test that has ever proved that cables make a difference, not a single one - and don't you think the industry would be shouting about it if they did? Does that mean people don't hear a difference? no it doesn't, they do, it's just that there actually isn't one.

Once I got my head around that then I stopped worrying about subjectivity (and words like "somehow different" and "pop") as the brain is far more powerful than we give it credit for and is responsible for all of our experiences, real or not, so does it really matter? Being primed with a piece of information (like "this was shot with FF") will impact a persons perception and even if you are aware it will affect your perception it still will, like it or not.

Of course, with cameras and sensor sizes / lenses you can at least measure a difference in areas that matter but that doesn't actually mean that with all subjectivity removed anyone can reliably tell the difference.
 
Last edited:
rob-nikon said:
Joe if you can save a little longer the d750 price is dropping, currently just over £1000 and probably likely to drop a little further. It would be a fantastic camera and last you a lot longer before upgrading again. The d750 is better bang for buck compared to the older D610. The 2 recalls shouldn't be affected with a d750 from panamoz as it says on here they have already cleared affect stick and you can ask them to check the serial number before posting.
Click to expand...

I can wait a a while longer but I do need somehing by the end of August.

My upper limit would probably be £900, I'm not sure the D750 would drop that low.
 
Whatever you purchase there is always going to be something better out or round the corner. Your camera will still be great. I guess hold out as long as possible then buy the best you can afford. Although personally i never have the patience and it probably burns me because of it!
 
Nawty said:
This lies at the heart of consumerism, the reality is that when all subjectivity is removed people can barely tell the difference between tea and coffee, let alone the difference between camera sensors etc.

Most people react to that with some hostility (no honestly, I CAN see a difference) and used to bother me until I realised perception is much more important than reality and so is feeling good about yourself and those two things combined can greatly lift your experience to a level where differences do appear.

The analogy I use at work is hifi cables, some people will spend thousands of pounds on hifi cables and swear blind (he he) that the difference they hear is night and day; I know this, I used to be one of them (well, not thousands but still more than a sane man would). However, there has never been one properly objective test that has ever proved that cables make a difference, not a single one - and don't you think the industry would be shouting about it if they did? Does that mean people don't hear a difference? no it doesn't, they do, it's just that there actually isn't one.

Once I got my head around that then I stopped worrying about subjectivity (and words like "somehow different" and "pop") as the brain is far more powerful than we give it credit for and is responsible for all of our experiences, real or not, so does it really matter? Being primed with a piece of information (like "this was shot with FF") will impact a persons perception and even if you are aware it will affect your perception it still will, like it or not.

Of course, with cameras and sensor sizes / lenses you can at least measure a difference in areas that matter but that doesn't actually mean that with all subjectivity removed anyone can reliably tell the difference.
Click to expand...
I agree with a lot of this, and I think if someone showed me a load of different images I probably couldn't say which were FF, crop, MFT (unless ISO was incredibly high), especially if using equivalent FL and apertures. That being said I can see a difference with my own images between my old crop, my current MFT and my current FF. What 'we' take from this I don't know, all I know if that the camera I grab first is my D750. It performs better, and I prefer the images from it. I do also believe it crops better and there's more manoeuvrability in processing. All in my head? Dunno and don't care ;)
 
Nawty said:
This lies at the heart of consumerism, the reality is that when all subjectivity is removed people can barely tell the difference between tea and coffee, let alone the difference between camera sensors etc.

Most people react to that with some hostility (no honestly, I CAN see a difference) and used to bother me until I realised perception is much more important than reality and so is feeling good about yourself and those two things combined can greatly lift your experience to a level where differences do appear.

The analogy I use at work is hifi cables, some people will spend thousands of pounds on hifi cables and swear blind (he he) that the difference they hear is night and day; I know this, I used to be one of them (well, not thousands but still more than a sane man would). However, there has never been one properly objective test that has ever proved that cables make a difference, not a single one - and don't you think the industry would be shouting about it if they did? Does that mean people don't hear a difference? no it doesn't, they do, it's just that there actually isn't one.

Once I got my head around that then I stopped worrying about subjectivity (and words like "somehow different" and "pop") as the brain is far more powerful than we give it credit for and is responsible for all of our experiences, real or not, so does it really matter? Being primed with a piece of information (like "this was shot with FF") will impact a persons perception and even if you are aware it will affect your perception it still will, like it or not.

Of course, with cameras and sensor sizes / lenses you can at least measure a difference in areas that matter but that doesn't actually mean that with all subjectivity removed anyone can reliably tell the difference.
Click to expand...

Excellent post. I always wondered about speaker cables and the like and how COULD they make a difference?! Possibly analogous to those wine buffs who were given two samples - an expensive wine and a cheap one - and could they actually tell the difference if they didn't know which was which? No they could not!

But as for FF/crop bodies, I do think there's a difference. Maybe not with uncropped images at low ISO's but once you start cropping and upping the ISO there can be a hell of a difference. From my own experience the files from my old Canon 5d2 and my 7d were like chalk and cheese beyond about 400 ASA.
 
Buy the D750 from panamoz or HDEW, that should make her more happy ;)
 
Nawty said:
The analogy I use at work is hifi cables, some people will spend thousands of pounds on hifi cables and swear blind (he he) that the difference they hear is night and day; I know this, I used to be one of them (well, not thousands but still more than a sane man would). However, there has never been one properly objective test that has ever proved that cables make a difference, not a single one - and don't you think the industry would be shouting about it if they did? Does that mean people don't hear a difference? no it doesn't, they do, it's just that there actually isn't one.
Click to expand...

I don't work too much now but years ago I used to sit staring at a scope all day and one thing that I can tell you is that cables can indeed make a difference and in fact most people would be staggered if they saw the difference that cables make to a signal viewed on a scope... of course the next question is can a human hear the difference and yet another question is what differences make the whole thing "better."

jerry12953 said:
But as for FF/crop bodies, I do think there's a difference. Maybe not with uncropped images at low ISO's but once you start cropping and upping the ISO there can be a hell of a difference. From my own experience the files from my old Canon 5d2 and my 7d were like chalk and cheese beyond about 400 ASA.
Click to expand...

I don't think that there's any magic in the size of the chip in and of itself that can't be explained by two things...

Firstly in the technology and specification the manufacturer builds into the chip and wider camera and secondly the lenses used and including the settings (the aperture setting and the size of the aperture) and the camera to subject distances etc. If we take a Full Frame image and cut the middles out that's a crop and it should be the same as we'd get from APS-C or MFT or any other crop system of the same technology and specification and that crop section should include all the magic it included when it was a part of the larger image. If we can't get that exact same magic from a smaller format then something has changed either with the camera, the lens or the settings. Of course we can probably never get two formats with identical technology but cutting the middle out of a FF image should tell us that the size of the format shouldn't take away the magic if the technology is truly identical.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top