Upgrade to FX

First you need to identify exactly what it is that buying a FF body will do that your D7000 isn't accomplishing. Do you really need extra resolution? I've seen great landscape images from 12MP and 16MP cameras.

sherbs79 said:
I have two main lenses for my landscape work, I use a Tokina 11-16 2.8 and a Nikon 17-55 2.8
Click to expand...
 
southernjessie said:
First you need to identify exactly what it is that buying a FF body will do....
Click to expand...
First you need to get away from the idea that a full frame is an upgrade. FX and DX bodies are just different tools which are suited to different jobs. If you look at what you get if you spend similar amounts of money on DX and DX bodies, FX is likely to give you better noise handling and better dynamic range, whereas DX is likely to give you a better spread of autofocus points and a faster frame rate. Which is better for you depends on what you're trying to do with it.
 
Thanks for all the comments folks, got some research to do and then make my decision! All this talk of photography is making me want to get out but the weather is crap!! [emoji107]
 
I have Nikon FX and DX. I'm not using the latest FX but I'm more than happy with my DX (d7100). I like the generally smaller and lighter lenses (all f2. 8's like my FX kit) and the quality looks good enough to me. I'd suggest that whether FX is worth it depends on the subject matter, ISO and lighting levels. The difference is not always noticeable. I print to A3plus and I'm quite happy to use DX. FX of course can always have the advantage on quality but isn't always the best tool for the job. Consequently to get the shot I often find myself dumping DSLR's and using Fuji X cameras which are small and the same sensor as DX. Utmost quality isn't always the only factor.
 
I enjoyed my Nikon DF a lot, Files were a reasonable size and the photo output from the 35mm sensor was sublime. With current prices of SLRs it seems a bit silly to buy a high end DX over a FX unless you absolutely must have the fastest AF for that particular pricepoint.
At the time i purchased a Nikon FX and a M4/3 which solved the small lenses vs output situation. Of course its just an excuse to buy more gadgets, but i'm an enthusiast after all! Hope you enjoy your new purchase!
 
I shoot portraits primarily.
I've got the d300s and d810. I'd happily use either in most situations. I moved from canons X0D range of crop cameras and L glass. I personally find the AF better and skin tones more to my liking, or easier to attain in photoshop. The dynamic range is better in my Nikons. The dynamic range and amount you can get out of the shadows in the D810 is constantly amazing.
I look back at my work in the form of A3 prints on my first digital camera - the canon 20D with 24-70 f2.8 and was/am happy with that.
If you like, I could take a random shot in the park with both cameras and let you see the raw files. Or if you are popping over to Edinburgh at some point, bring your camera and spare SD card and we could try the same scene with different gear. PM me if you are interested.
 
Deadlock said:
I shoot portraits primarily.
I've got the d300s and d810. I'd happily use either in most situations. I moved from canons X0D range of crop cameras and L glass. I personally find the AF better and skin tones more to my liking, or easier to attain in photoshop. The dynamic range is better in my Nikons. The dynamic range and amount you can get out of the shadows in the D810 is constantly amazing.
I look back at my work in the form of A3 prints on my first digital camera - the canon 20D with 24-70 f2.8 and was/am happy with that.
If you like, I could take a random shot in the park with both cameras and let you see the raw files. Or if you are popping over to Edinburgh at some point, bring your camera and spare SD card and we could try the same scene with different gear. PM me if you are interested.
Click to expand...

Thanks Deadlock that's a very kind offer, I still don't know what to do to be honest, I've got a few slower lenses that I never use so I'm going to offload them first and get some cash for them, hopefully by that time I've decided DX or FX
 
Ok so after much thought i think I'm going to stick with DX but try and upgrade from my D7000 to something a bit more pro, I have some decent lenses for my DX body but the equivalent for FF is just way out of my budget, If I trade in my body and a decent lens I could probably just about do a swap for a new D7200 or do I add some cash on to that and go for something with a bit more oomph? obviously not the top DX but probably something in between the D7200 and the D500?
 
Last edited:
sherbs79 said:
Ok so after much thought i think I'm going to stick with DX but try and upgrade from my D7000 to something a bit more pro, I have some decent lenses for my DX body but the equivalent for FF is just way out of my budget, If I trade in my body and a decent lens I could probably just about do a swap for a new D7200 or do I add some cash on to that and go for something with a bit more oomph? obviously not the top DX but probably something in between the D7200 and the D500?
Click to expand...
There's no camera that sits between the D7200 and the D500 in the current line up.
 
sherbs79 said:
So is the D7000 the last in the range before the D500 with regards to spec?
Click to expand...
Nope the D7200 is. The D7000 was replaced by the D7100 which was replaced by the D7200. These are all classed a 'consumer/enthusiast' APS-C cameras. The D500 is classed as a pro level APS-C camera, the long awaited replacement for the D300s.
 
snerkler said:
Nope the D7200 is. The D7000 was replaced by the D7100 which was replaced by the D7200. These are all classed a 'consumer/enthusiast' APS-C cameras. The D500 is classed as a pro level APS-C camera, the long awaited replacement for the D300s.
Click to expand...

Ok thanks, bit of a price difference between the two, pretty much the difference of buying one new and one 2nd/3rd hand
 
sherbs79 said:
Ok thanks, bit of a price difference between the two, pretty much the difference of buying one new and one 2nd/3rd hand
Click to expand...
2 reasons for the price difference. One is that the D500 is newer than the D7200, but as I said the D500 is a 'pro spec' which means that it will be built like a tank. Also, you've got all the new tech like crazy frame rate, new super duper AF system, and a few other bits and bobs. It's the same with full frame cameras, if you look at the D7200 FF equivalent, the D750 it's around £1400, yet the pro body (D5) is over £5k. In FF you do have something in between, the D810, but it's still £3k cheaper than the D5.
 
snerkler said:
2 reasons for the price difference. One is that the D500 is newer than the D7200, but as I said the D500 is a 'pro spec' which means that it will be built like a tank. Also, you've got all the new tech like crazy frame rate, new super duper AF system, and a few other bits and bobs. It's the same with full frame cameras, if you look at the D7200 FF equivalent, the D750 it's around £1400, yet the pro body (D5) is over £5k. In FF you do have something in between, the D810, but it's still £3k cheaper than the D5.
Click to expand...

I think the D7200 will be more than plenty then, I just can't justify spending that on a body!
 
The followup to the D7200 will probably be out in the next 6 months.
 
Some really good shots on your Flickr :)

To change and get better you'll need to go D810 and the 14-24 f2.8, or at least the D750 - so unless you have £3,000+ you don't need then the £600 D7200 is the way to go (I use the Tokina 11-16 on this too)

I use this 'consumer' camera professionally (its hugely better than some of my previous 'Pro' cameras and a fraction of their cost !!!), and I have no plans anytime soon to change to FX either for my Landscapes or Weddings, but if I did it'd purely be for cleaner high ISO

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
Some really good shots on your Flickr :)

To change and get better you'll need to go D810 and the 14-24 f2.8, or at least the D750 - so unless you have £3,000+ you don't need then the £600 D7200 is the way to go (I use the Tokina 11-16 on this too)

I use this 'consumer' camera professionally (its hugely better than some of my previous 'Pro' cameras and a fraction of their cost !!!), and I have no plans anytime soon to change to FX either for my Landscapes or Weddings, but if I did it'd purely be for cleaner high ISO

Dave
Click to expand...
Why would a D810 or D750 improve his shots?
 
frod said:
The followup to the D7200 will probably be out in the next 6 months.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but I'm not sure. I think the D810 and D750 will get updates first as they're just over 2yrs and just under 2 yrs respectively compared to the D7200 which is just under 1.5 years old. There's no sign of a D810 or D750 replacement as yet, although photokina is only a month away.
 
snerkler said:
Why would a D810 or D750 improve his shots?
Click to expand...

Largely they won't, but these cameras do have a (slightly) higher DR, certainly my pal with the D750 can pull more out of the shadows than I can - but then he needs to as he's crap at getting his exposures right :D

More specifically, the 14-24 is better, so the bench-testers say, than the Tokina 11-16

Would he, anyone, notice a difference in quality if both set-ups shot a similar field of view at the same time with the same exposure? Maybe, but no-one ever does that so no-one really knows

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
Largely they won't, but these cameras do have a (slightly) higher DR, certainly my pal with the D750 can pull more out of the shadows than I can - but then he needs to as he's crap at getting his exposures right :D

More specifically, the 14-24 is better, so the bench-testers say, than the Tokina 11-16

Would he, anyone, notice a difference in quality if both set-ups shot a similar field of view at the same time with the same exposure? Maybe, but no-one ever does that so no-one really knows

Dave
Click to expand...
The D7200 actually has more DR than the D750,... by a whopping 0.1ev if you believe DXO ;) But how this translates into shadow recovery I don't know. The D750 is insane in this area for sure (y)
 
Ok that's all my gear packed up and awaiting collection on Tuesday from MPB......in exchange for a brand new D7200, my first new body (always bought second hand). Hope I've done the right thing [emoji52]
 
I went from a D7000 with Tokina 11-16 f2.8, Nikon 18-55 and Nikon 55-300mm lenses to a D810 with Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 and Nikon 70-200 f2.8 - I was a reasonable photographer at that point I'd say, but something clicked upgrading to full frame and my results improved drastically. The D810 teamed with high quality lenses and a good technique delivers beautiful files, far better than anything I achieved with the D7000 and the lenses listed. A major advantage of full frame is the better dynamic range, you can pretty much do away with grad filters with a modern Nikon FF. I now use a D750 which is almost as good as the D810 but better value for money and lighter. I reckon the D750 has to be one of the best cameras on the market actually. Anyway I don't think you'd regret switching to a full frame system, you just have to work out if the cost is worth it. Whatever you decide you can still produce outstanding landscape photos with the D7000
 
sherbs79 said:
Ok that's all my gear packed up and awaiting collection on Tuesday from MPB......in exchange for a brand new D7200, my first new body (always bought second hand). Hope I've done the right thing [emoji52]
Click to expand...

Just seen this! Sure the D7200 will be a nice upgrade. Which lenses will you be using with it?
 
Scirocco_09 said:
Just seen this! Sure the D7200 will be a nice upgrade. Which lenses will you be using with it?
Click to expand...

I've got a tokina 11-16 2.8 and a 17-55 for my landscapes, looking at getting a 70-200 2.8 once I have enough cash
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top