Beginner Quality between entry level and advanced cameras.

Just to throw another option into the mix, if you really do think FF is the way forward for you (and there is not doubt that the ergonomics and Viewfinder of FF bodies are often superior, as well as ISO handling, etc), then spending £1k on a S/h D800 + £1k on S/h FF lenses is probably a better option than splurging the lot on a new D810.
 
Sorry if it sounded patronising, it wasn't meant to. My point was that in my view, and after having spent thousands of pounds on full frame camera gear I no longer own, it is better to create memories worth photographing than thinking buying more expensive cameras will get you better results. Cambodia was just my example of what I find interesting, you obviously have other interests but we weren't to know that. If you have the luxury of doing both then great but we hadn't established that as yet.

FWIW I personally think buying full frame lenses 'just in case' you go full frame is pretty daft because the focal lengths of FF zoom lenses are generally different to those of a crop sensor. This is so that you can get the same field of view using the same types of lens. E.g. a crop 18-55mm kit lens gives the same field of view on a crop body as a 28-80mm lens on a full frame. Stick that 28-80 lens on your body will give you just that, a 28-80mm lens but the field of view will be much narrower and for me, 28mm isn't wide enough for general usage on a crop camera. Add to that FF lenses are much bigger, heavier and more expensive it just doesn't stack up.

If you buy and sell on the used market then you can switch between crop and FF with minimal cost incursion and have the benefits of the system you have at the time, not a compromise between the two. This is especially true of wide angle lenses, a very good 10-20 lens for a crop sensor is quite nice and small and relatively affordable, a FF equivalent will be big and expensive and generally wont be wide enough to be properly wide on a crop body.

I have 3 cameras, the Canon1DsII, the Canon 1D2N and the Canon 40D, and almost all my lenses are FF.

The 1Ds MKII is FF, the 1D2N is 1.3 and the 40D is 1.6 crop.

Almost all my lenses are designed for FF and all fit my other cameras.

I find that there is virtually no difference in quality between the 3 cameras, when used normally, but the 40D allows me to crop less and also gives excellent results on any lens.

All these cameras were bought on here in the classifieds as were the lenses.

So perhaps the best thing for the OP is 2 cameras, crop and FF, and all FF lenses.

And likely to be the cheapest option in the long run.
 
Last edited:
It's the Sigma I'd been looking at Phil, you've saved me 2k on a camera though so it makes the lens seem very cheap!:)

I had the Sigma 12-24mm for years and it's an amazing lens that has to be used to be believed.

I used it first on my APS-C Canon 20D and then on my FF Canon 5D. On the 5D it goes much wider and lacks the reach it had on APS-C but I'd still recommend it to anyone looking for a wide angle on APS-C or something really wide on FF.

Just a quick comment on the whole £2k camera / are they worth it / can you see the difference issues... I was happy enough with the image quality I got from my APS-C 20D and with a second hand FF 5D but I wanted smaller and lighter so started to move to mirrorless and when the FF mirrorless Sony A7 came along I bought one and it's the most expensive camera I've ever had. I justified the cost to myself by getting all misty eyed and thinking that I wanted to take the best pictures of my family and GF that I could possibly take without spending mega bucks. The A7 is about at the top of what I'll allow myself to spend and it does take nice pictures and I can see the differences if I go looking for them.

When looking at gear I like to start at the end result and work back keeping in mind the result I want and how I can get it. For me the end result is what I consider to be good enough quality to potentially print at A3 and think "That's nice" so for me anything between Micro Four Thirds and FF is good enough but the A7 adds the icing on the cake of being able to look closely and still be happy. The A7 whilst being at the top end of that ability spectrum also allows me to use old lenses at their original field of view which is a big draw for me.
 
One thing that hasn't been mentioned here (I think) is the size & weight difference between the two cameras you've mentioned.
It's oft said that the best camera you have is the one you have with you.
I've got a 5D3 and love it for the handling, low light ability, AF etc. but often find myself reaching for my entry level 1100D and 17-50 lens over the 5D3/24-70 combo due to wanting to take more than just a camera and a couple of lenses with me (sometimes a coat or hat is handy ;) )

So whilst the D810 and large FF lens may well be technically the better performer, you might find it stays in the cupboard unless you're going out on a dedicated day of shooting.

(I've just checked, the D810 body is about 40% larger in volume than the D5300 - 980g. 146 x 123 x 82 mm vs 480g. 125 x 98 x 76 mm)
 
Just an addition as I am a newbie too. As the OP mentioned for example a 35mm FF compared to her DX 35mm, the picture will be different (the quality perhaps different). The full frame lens will be cropped so it will become like a 50mm lens (or whatever equivalent). It will be a narrower lens once cropped by the smaller sensor. Please correct me if I am wrong.
OK, I'll bite. You are wrong.

A 35mm FF lens has the same focal length as a 35mm DX lens. In both cases the focal length is 35mm. If you mount both lenses on the DX camera, the pictures you get will be the same.

It is true that if you mount a 35mm (FF) lens on a FF camera, you won't get the same results as if you mount a 35mm (FF or DX) lens on a DX camera. The field of view is narrower on the DX camera. But that's not what the OP was asking about.
 
Thanks again for all the replies, there's too many to comment on individually but I really appreciate them.

You've all convinced me I don't need to upgrade, a few have mentioned the weight and it's something I was a bit apprehensive about, at camera club a couple of weeks ago they handed a D750 round which felt considerably heavier than mine and only had a small lens on, I already feel a bit bogged down with mine + 3 lenses and my tripod when I'm on a walk so I reckon with much heavier gear I'd be leaving lenses at home.

I'll keep mine and buy a wide angle lens plus save some cash along the way so in a couple of years when mine's past it's best I won't need to have it on finance.
 
Just seen this thread with interest. A friend's daughter saw some of my pics and said that she wouldn't be able to get the same pics without a "big" camera (I used a D800)

I own 3 cameras (D800/D750 and film medium format bronica) and my daughter has a D90 (i started with a D90 as my first proper camera!).

I, like Phil, said that its more about the vision you have and the light. I found some old film point and shoot pics the other day which are more "wall-worthy" than some of the pics I've taken with much more pricey/capable kit.

So at some stage, we are going to do a side by side comparison of the D90 and D800 to see if we can still get some good pics. I may post the results if I get a chance.

I'm not for one minute suggesting that the D90 is a better camera than the D800 - that's absolute nonsense! However, by concentrating on other factors, she should be able to save a lot of money and still get some good pics!
 
A little late to the thread, but one of the most common suggestions made when people ask about upgrading is to know what they want to make better before they can decide what is needed to acheive that.

I used a crop sensor camera for a couple of years before moving to full frame: I did it because the crop was limiting certain aspects of what I was doing, and the FF helped solve some of those issues. I still use the crop camera.
 
I remember having the same questions and getting advice about upgrading me not the camera
I really enjoy shooting people, and have enjoyed realising it was good advice
Going to a few studio tutorials, watching hours of creative live, joining a camera club, learning from people better than me and generally searching out the Internet for styles I liked and finding out how they achieved it was far more beneficial than buying a new lens or body
I've had the d700 for around four years, and the 24-70 is my normal go to lens, both of which I bought so I could shoot in challenging light at weddings, parties etc with good fast focus results
It's been great fun learning studio lighting, how to pose subjects, learning photoshop and Lightroom which helps average shots become decent
In short I'd suggest deciding your main photographic target, then learn how to emulate what you like
This place is like a university full of helpful people if you choose to ask and act on advice. It's also like a school playground at times with arguments and willy waving which I now try my best to ignore
 
You stated that you tend to favour/use your 35mm prime most of the time and not your zooms if I'm correct ?
That being the case I would suggest you try shooting with some of your other lenses why not just go out local with the 18-55mm much maligned kit lens?
Once your back home or even while you are out and about you will soon find out what is lacking i.e. I need to go wider because even backed up to a wall I can't get everything into the frame I want?
The same with your tele/zoom I can't get close enough:(
You have a excellent kit already capable of capturing great images.
Advice i have always given out is don't fill your bag or load yourself down with kit.
Don't purchase that ultra wide or superfast telephoto until you have found yourself in real need of the extra wide or reach. (More than just once)
Working and shooting with you existing kit will help develop your photographic skills far more than just adding kit and weight to your bag and outings.
OK:)
The time has come and you really find yourself wanting something wider or longer ?
Now are you sill happy with shooting DX ? or do you still want that top spec FX full frame camera?
If its the later look for the best quality lens you can afford that will be future proof for your FX acquisition at a later date.
But be aware a full frame ultra wide 14-24mm 2.8 or the 16-35mm f4 will give you a narrower field of view on your current DX camera body.
So you will not get as wide a view on your camera as you would with a DX 10-20mm lens.
Enjoy what you have right now :)
Check out your exif data you will soon find out your most used or preferred focal length ;)
A lot of those awesome shots we see are down to post production skills in PS LR software.
 
Last edited:
@Phiggys I was right with you there, some great advice, till it came to this bit...

A lot of those awesome shots we see are down to post production skills in PS LR software.

The number of awesome shots I've seen that are due to PP is tiny (usually composites), the vast majority are down to an understanding of the subject, mixed with knowledge of lighting and composition.
 
@Phiggys I was right with you there, some great advice, till it came to this bit...



The number of awesome shots I've seen that are due to PP is tiny (usually composites), the vast majority are down to an understanding of the subject, mixed with knowledge of lighting and composition.

Every few years I'll revisit one of my favourite successful old photographs with my very latest camera and my latest wonderful lens and my latest post-processing skills to see how much better an image all that money and hard work adds up to. It's a very usefully sobering exercise. Quite often not only can I not improve the shot, I can't even match it. Oh yes, I can easily get a slightly higher resolution image which will print nicely at A3 instead of A4 because twice as many MP on the sensor and a better lens will get you that. But quite often there is some magical quality to the light on that old photograph which I simply don't understand well enough to be able to duplicate, something like a partially clouded sun in the right place which will only happen at the right time for a few weeks in the year if the weather happens to co-operate.
 
Sigma do some fast crop lenses which are worth looking at, and will give you good depth of field on a crop camera.

I bought a Sony A7 which is probably the cheapest full frame digital camera you can get, after initially buying the crop A5100. The leap in image quality wasn't all I imagined it would be, which was a bit of a let down initially. I like the A7 and there are benefits to it though. My main intention was to use old manual focus lenses adapted to it, but I made the mistake of buying a cheap Fotga Canon FD that wouldn't allow infinity focus. I ended up buying an LA-EA4 adapter which allows me to use Minolta lenses with a reasonable level of autofocus, which are what I now mostly buy. I just got a used 17-35mm f/2.8 - f4 for £110 on ebay, the equivalent Sony native e-mount lens is over £900. I needed to be patient though as the same lens is usually on ebay buy it now for upwards of £200. I'm sure the image quality and focusing are much better with the Sony, but couldn't justify the cost.

I subsequently bought an old used Minolta film camera to try out as I can use the same lenses and experiment with film, and an enlarger to try printing. I didn't expect that to be better than digital, but I thought it would be fun to try out considering 35mm film cameras can be had for next to nothing on ebay. I can go out without worrying about the camera being dropped or stolen, and being stuck to 36 images with each costing money, sort of pushes you to try look for the picture rather than hit the shutter and pray. The real expense is the film, paper, and chemicals though. If you think you'll stick with Nikon in a move to full frame you could buy an old used FX mount 35mm film camera and then you have a good excuse to be buying FX lenses.

I was initially a bit unsure about buying used lenses thinking they'd be scratched/rubbish. Most of them have been perfect. I've only had one that was fit for the bin.

Whatever you do have fun:woot:
 
I bought a Sony A7 which is probably the cheapest full frame digital camera you can get, after initially buying the crop A5100. The leap in image quality wasn't all I imagined it would be, which was a bit of a let down initially...

I think that maybe we only see "better" when pushing the boundaries of what the kit can do such as when shooting at very high ISO's, when printing large and viewing closely or cropping and viewing or printing large and possibly also when boosting the exposure when the less good cameras can introduce more noise. In normal shooting which for many of us is ISO 100-1600 or and for normal viewing of whole images or light crops I think that we'll have to look closely to see image quality differences.
 
One thing I have learned taking photographs at a purely amateur level is that the most important aspects seem to be what you are taking a picture of and how much light you have available.....in my opinion.

Ive got a 6D now which is awesome in low light but over Christmas I was trying to take some shots of our Dogs in the living room.
Even at 12800 ISO and F4, I was struggling to get anything in focus due to how quick they move!

Realistically the only option I had at the time was to bring in more light so I could get the shutter speed up.

A wider lens may have helped a little but not enough to compensate for the lack of light I had originally.

What I am saying is that even with a £1k FF Camera and Lens, the amount of light available simply couldn't get me the shots I wanted.

Why do I have a FF camera and L lens? Because I can afford to but I don't for a minute think it 'ALWAYS' gets me better images because it doesn't.
 
I already feel a bit bogged down with mine + 3 lenses and my tripod when I'm on a walk so I reckon with much heavier gear I'd be leaving lenses at home.

This one of the reason's I sold my Nikon gear, and went over to the Olympus mirrorless camera, so much better for me.
 
I always find I am high on enthusiasm but not matching that with talent.. yes I know, it's called a learning curve. Despite having a FF professional camera and some stonking lenses, my results so often disappoint me
but that is what makes me strive even harder.
I think my point is that any reasonable camera will do to climb that learning curve and posting results and getting any good CC from forums such as this is the best motivation.
I am now retired so I am lucky enough to have more time for the hobby.
 
Thanks again for all the replies, there's too many to comment on individually but I really appreciate them.

You've all convinced me I don't need to upgrade, a few have mentioned the weight and it's something I was a bit apprehensive about, at camera club a couple of weeks ago they handed a D750 round which felt considerably heavier than mine and only had a small lens on, I already feel a bit bogged down with mine + 3 lenses and my tripod when I'm on a walk so I reckon with much heavier gear I'd be leaving lenses at home.

I'll keep mine and buy a wide angle lens plus save some cash along the way so in a couple of years when mine's past it's best I won't need to have it on finance.

That sounds like the right thing to do. I don't have a lot of equipment but what I do have has been researched and saved up for, and I think it makes me respect it more.
 
@Phiggys I was right with you there, some great advice, till it came to this bit...



The number of awesome shots I've seen that are due to PP is tiny (usually composites), the vast majority are down to an understanding of the subject, mixed with knowledge of lighting and composition.
Once again, uncle Phil hits the nail on the head.
Understanding the principles, and being able to put them into effect is key.
My daughter did a 3-week safari in S Africa with a basic entry camera and (within limitation of the lenses) got some lovely images.
 
Just an update, I went ahead and bought a wide angle lens (Sigma 10-20) and although I like it I couldn't get the idea of an upgrade out of my head so I decided to save up any spare cash with a plan of having another 12 months out of my D5300 then moving on, however at the weekend my Mom told me she'll buy the camera as a gift!

I don't have it yet as I'm looking for the best deal and since my last post have decided that I don't need the extras that the 810 offers and prefer the look of the D750 especially as it wins most tests on noise which is something that I will appreciate as a lot of my photos are taken indoors and in low light and the noise does bother me. From all the responses I'm realistic about what results I'll get so wont be disappointed that the quality isn't 4x better but I do think that I'll see the benefit in better noise handling plus it's waterproof and in the last few weeks I've had several times where I've had to pack up early or miss shots as it's raining hard and my camera isn't waterproof.

I could now do with advice on full frame lenses but will start a new thread as it's a different topic.

Thanks again for all the replies.
 
What a mam! Great stuff and Good Luck with it :D

Just on noise, I find a couple of things really help... expose to the right if at all possible and back it off post capture and realistically resize the image for final viewing.
 
Thanks Woof, she's very generous plus she's enjoying seeing all the photos of her granddaughters!

Thanks also for the exposure tip, I always shoot manual and set it so the meter is bang in the middle so ill give that a try, print wise the majority are 5x7 album fillers and A4 for the monthly camera club comps but I would like to go to A3 occasionally.
 
Thanks Woof, she's very generous plus she's enjoying seeing all the photos of her granddaughters!

Thanks also for the exposure tip, I always shoot manual and set it so the meter is bang in the middle so ill give that a try, print wise the majority are 5x7 album fillers and A4 for the monthly camera club comps but I would like to go to A3 occasionally.
Hate to do this, but it's my hobby horse.

you're just wasting time and effort shooting M and centering the meter. Your meter gets fooled by light or dark scenes, and the point of Manual is to be 'in control' you're fooling yourself if you're slavishly following the meter.

Move to using aperture priority and invest your saved time and effort into learning what'll fool the meter, then you'll know when its appropriate to use Manual mode.
 
If you keep full sized pictures and either delete any resized pictures or save them with a different name you'll always have the full sized picture to go back to.

I have A3 pictures taken with my (long since sold) Canon 20D which was 8mp and I'm pretty sure you'll be able to resize pictures taken with a modern camera and get good A3 prints.

Personally I use aperture priority mostly and only switch to manual when the light drops and the camera selects too slow a shutter speed.

Typed as Phil posted.
 
I used to shoot in only aperture priority but found I kept wanting to change the shutter speed, then a local photographer who organises photo walks which I attend said we should be fully manual so I switched and did find it forced me to learn how to set each setting to expose correctly (or so I thought) so am now confused! I'll go back to aperture mode and see how I get on.
 
The thing with digital is it's easy to try different things and see the effect straight away and decide what works for you and what doesn't.

As per Phil I don't see the point in manual unless there's a specific need. Personally I'd recommend aperture priority as I seem to think in depth of field and tend to want to set the aperture for the dof I want first but when using aperture priority you also need to keep an eye on all of the other settings in case the shutter speeds gets too low or the ISO gets too high.

I'd definitely recommend experimenting with exposing to the right and resizing for final viewing.
 
I used to shoot in only aperture priority but found I kept wanting to change the shutter speed, then a local photographer who organises photo walks which I attend said we should be fully manual so I switched and did find it forced me to learn how to set each setting to expose correctly (or so I thought) so am now confused! I'll go back to aperture mode and see how I get on.
Well he had a point, but I believe he made it badly. Fully Manual allows you control, but you're giving it away by just following the meter.

If you're shooting AP and the camera chooses too low a shutter speed, simply switching to M won't fix it, if you're happy that your aperture is right, you'd need to up the ISO to get a faster shutter speed, oddly that'd work exactly the same whether in AP or M.

When you get the D750, select AP and auto ISO, then in the menu, set your 'auto ISO min shutter speed' to 1/250, then concentrate on what your meter is telling you.
 
Yeah the reason I liked aperture priority is my obsession with blurred backgrounds, before I owned a camera I knew it was the first thing I wanted to achieve but as my main subjects are kids and dogs I was getting a lot of blurred ones so wanted more control over shutter speed.
I'll definitely try again though, it's been a few months and I only took it up in March so it'll be interesting to see if I get better results now I've got more knowledge with the other aspects of photography.
 
Thanks Phil, that makes a lot of sense, ISO is my last resort at the moment, not deliberately but it's just last on my mental checklist probably because of the order I learnt the various settings.
 
Thanks Phil, that makes a lot of sense, ISO is my last resort at the moment, not deliberately but it's just last on my mental checklist probably because of the order I learnt the various settings.
Auto ISO on modern cameras is excellent.

Before I had a usable Auto ISO, I was basically in 'film' mode, and I set ISO first based on the light levels.
 
If you're shooting AP and the camera chooses too low a shutter speed, simply switching to M won't fix it, if you're happy that your aperture is right, you'd need to up the ISO to get a faster shutter speed, oddly that'd work exactly the same whether in AP or M.

When you get the D750, select AP and auto ISO, then in the menu, set your 'auto ISO min shutter speed' to 1/250, then concentrate on what your meter is telling you.

I suppose what settings you start with and which you give priority to depends on how your mind works.

1/250 may not be required for some shots and if not then any acceptable reduction could give more flexibility on aperture and/or ISO. I suppose it also depends on how the camera works and how easy the various settings are to change as time spent fiddling with the camera may matter.

What works for me with my Sony A7 is setting the aperture and shutter speed and letting the ISO float whilst dialling in exposure compensation as required by simply turning a dial. My Panasonic cameras don't allow exposure compensation with auto ISO in manual so the aperture and shutter must be set and the scene brightness can then be altered by manually changing the ISO which is a matter of pushing a button and then turning a dial, slightly more of a faff on.

I don't know how Nikon's work but my point is to think about the settings that matter most and balancing them all to achieve the most preferred result. To me 1/100 may be preferable to 1/250 if I can get away with 1/100 and if so I can use the latitude to either get a better DoF or lower the ISO. Everyone else's mileage may vary.
 
I used to shoot in only aperture priority but found I kept wanting to change the shutter speed, then a local photographer who organises photo walks which I attend said we should be fully manual so I switched and did find it forced me to learn how to set each setting to expose correctly (or so I thought) so am now confused! I'll go back to aperture mode and see how I get on.

There is no "should" - only "could"
 
I used to shoot in only aperture priority but found I kept wanting to change the shutter speed, then a local photographer who organises photo walks which I attend said we should be fully manual so I switched and did find it forced me to learn how to set each setting to expose correctly (or so I thought) so am now confused! I'll go back to aperture mode and see how I get on.

Modern camera auto and semi-auto modes are pretty smart these days. There's no point in not using them when appropriate. It's silly not to use them if they get better results than you on fully manual. If they are getting better results than you trying to be "fully in control" then you can use them to learn how to improve your skills to be as good as the camera.

I am a very skilled fully manual photographer because I learnt my photography way back in the last century before automatic modes had been invented. I still have some ancient (but rather good) lenses without any auto features so I have to use them manually anyway. But apart from those old lenses I very rarely use the camera in fully manual mode. I mostly use aperture mode, quite often shutter mode, and if I have the time will usually use exposure compensation to adjust the settings the camera is choosing. "If I have the time" is the key phrase there. I could easily shoot all the time in full manual, but despite my decades of skill and technical familiarity with manual camera settings I quite simply can't adjust the camera in full manual as quickly as the camera and I can do it in one of the semi-auto modes with exposure compensation.

Autofocus is the same. I use it most of the time, but when I have the time I always check it. It doesn't always get it right, and there are some situations in which it's impossible for it to get it right.

My camera has some weird modern features which the old fashioned "fully manual" enthusiasts sneer at, but I find very useful. For example it has a shadow lifting tone mapping function which I leave on auto all the time because it often does just what I would have wanted. Just in case it doesn't I always shoot in RAW+jpeg, so I if it doesn't get it right enough I can into RAW and take full control of it. About 80-90% of the time the jpegs, with slight tweaks in post processing, are quite good enough, and I don't bother with the RAW. I find auto white balance so good that I always use it unless I'm doing difficult stuff like flower portraits or photographing paintings. Hand-held panorama stitching has saved me on a number of occasions when I found I needed a much wider angle lens than I had with me. The in-camera HDR turned out to be so surprisingly good that I now often use it in scenes with very high dynamic range rather than do it myself the hard and rather tedious way.

Always using a modern digital camera if full manual mode all the time is like having a Swiss Army knife and only using the knife blade. Sometimes the scissors are what you need, and will do a much better and quicker job than the blade.
 
Back
Top