What is Full Frame? (D700)

Daveee

Daveee

Messages
296
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,
Been looking around a lot both here on tp and elsewhere over the D700. The consensus appears to be that it is a superb camera, especially for higher ISO.
My fear though is, the "Full Frame" concept. Not being a pro and with little advanced knowledge of tech stuff. Could someone try and explain this to me:help: Plus would it be a worth while investment and could I still use the lenses I have? For example my sigma 150-500?
Many, many thanks in advance.
Dave
 
Full frame refers to the size of the sensor, which is a "full" 35mm, the same as film as opposed to the D300 which is refered to a 1.5 crop, as its 1.5 times smaller than a 35mm frame.

Sigma lenses designated DG can be used on FF, Nikon lenses designated DX cant.

Going by your camera bag, the two primes, 85mm and 50mm will be fine, as will the 150-500. The 18-70 wont be. It will still work, but the camera switches to DX mode and crops off a lot of the frame and produces a 5MP image.

If you dont really know what it is, I would argue you dont need it. If you require higher ISO performance, the D7000 might be worth a look. You'll save a lot of money and will be able to use any lens you may already have.
 
Last edited:
Many thanks Tom,
Nice argument:bat::lol::lol: I currently use the D300, but I was reading an article and came across the D700 FF. Users of this camera were over the moon about it and I couldn't find any info on the difference between the "Norm" and FF. I am really digging around to find a replacement for the D300, (then my girlfriend gets herself a camera and I get a new one:lol:). As for the D7000, point taken, I'll certainly think about it, I'd prefer a little update though, if you know what I mean? If I understand it well, with FF it's better to get posters, prints etc as opposed to non FF?
I'm now a little wiser and it's good news about most of my lenses. (That's my next project, gotta save first though.)
Appreciate your time in explaining it for me Tom,:thumbs:
Dave
 
You can get just a good poster from a crop. I have a 40x30 inch print from a Canon 50D which is a 1.6 crop, and its amazing quality. Yes overal image quality is slightly better with FF, but I doubt you'd tell any difference from two large prints side by side.
The D7000 is considerably newer than the D700, so you could say its a better "update".
The D700 is a pro body, and comes with a pro build and features.

It sounds like you just want a D700, which I cant argue with! It certainly wont disapoint.
Just dont think it will sudenly make your pictures loads better, because it wont!

Also bear in mind you will loose a bit of reach with your lenses, so they wont seem as zoomed in as you may be used to. You will also need top quality glass (what you have so far is pretty good anyway) to make the most of the sensor. Bad lenses will really show up on a FF body, especially at the edges.
 
My, there's a lot to think about! It sounds like I want the D700 doesn't it:lol: I am keeping my options open though, I've heard the rumour about the D400, plus I've been looking at the D5100, do you have any thoughts on that one?
Don't worry, I'm not so naive that to think changing my camera will make better photo's:lol: Just don't want to waste my hard earned money, it's also possible I keep the D300 and my other half gets something cheaper, (don't tell her I said that). Just heard some good stuff about the D700 and was wondering about the FF.
I wouldn't mind your thoughts on the D5100 though.

Thanks
 
The D5100 is a fairly large step backwards really. It an entry level camera, and misses many features the D300 has, it also has a small and plasticy build. If its anything like my D3100, it takes great photos, but in terms of functions and build, the D300 wins outright.

The D5100 might be more suited to your partner if she isnt really much of a photographer, as its aimed more at the beiginner, but of course then you dont get a new toy!
 
Last edited:
TCR4x4 said:
The D5100 is a fairly large step backwards really. It an entry level camera, and misses many features the D300 has, the most being the small and plasticy build. If its anything like my D3100, it takes great photos, but in terms of functions and build, the D300 wins outright.

The D5100 might be more suited to your partner if she isnt really much of a photographer, as its aimed more at the beiginner, but of course then you dont get a new toy!
Click to expand...

Ok, thanks Tom.
We'll keep it as our secret;)

Seriously though, thanks again for your opinion and help, much appreciated.
Dave
 
Had a D700 for two and a half years, absolutely love it. I got it primarily for it's low light performance, and I can't fault it. However, if there had been a dx format camera that was anywhere near as good, I'd have got one instead and saved myself hundreds on the camera body, and then hundreds on upgrading the lenses. If i was in the same boat now, i'd go for a D7000 as while it's not as good as the 700, it's probably good enough for the kind of stuff I do.
 
I moved from Canon to the D700. I wanted good low light performance and great Auto Focus. It's been perfect for everything I shoot. Yes the lenses are expensive, every silver lining had a cloud !
Pretty much the perfect all rounder. (still want a X100 though)
 
Daveee said:
Hi,
Been looking around a lot both here on tp and elsewhere over the D700. The consensus appears to be that it is a superb camera, especially for higher ISO.
My fear though is, the "Full Frame" concept. Not being a pro and with little advanced knowledge of tech stuff. Could someone try and explain this to me:help: Plus would it be a worth while investment and could I still use the lenses I have? For example my sigma 150-500?
Many, many thanks in advance.
Dave
Click to expand...

full frame is what people incorrectly describe a 135 sized sensor. there are bigger sensors and bigger format film so 135 is not "full frame" have a read of the history of photography
 
I've never heard of FF being referred to as a "135 sensor"?

Googling 135 sensor doesn't bring anything related either?

Full frame simply replicates the same dimensions as the standard sized 35mm film frame, specifically, a sensor which is 36mm x 24mm.
 
Last edited:
POAH said:
full frame is what people incorrectly describe a 135 sized sensor. there are bigger sensors and bigger format film so 135 is not "full frame" have a read of the history of photography
Click to expand...

Full frame is the reference used industry wide for a sensor that is of similar dimensions to 35mm film.

Digital cameras with larger sensors are referred to as Medium Format.
 
odd jim said:
I've never heard of FF being referred to as a "135 sensor"?

Googling 135 sensor doesn't bring anything related either?

Full frame simply replicates the same dimensions as the standard sized 35mm film frame, specifically, a sensor which is 36mm x 24mm.
Click to expand...

135 was Kodak's original terminology for 35mm film
 
Oh!

Still, never heard of FF being referred to as a "135 sensor"??

FF is an industry standard in its own right as per my last post, I'm not really sure what POAH is on about but he does say some strange things...
 
odd jim said:
I'm not really sure what POAH is on about but he does say some strange things...
Click to expand...


He does, but they are generally entertaining...............:D
 
odd jim said:
Oh!

Still, never heard of FF being referred to as a "135 sensor"??

FF is an industry standard in its own right as per my last post, I'm not really sure what POAH is on about but he does say some strange things...
Click to expand...

At the risk of being labelled a racist I will add that POAH is from Scotland so maybe it's a language thing!!

Andy
 
POAH said:
full frame is what people incorrectly describe a 135 sized sensor. there are bigger sensors and bigger format film so 135 is not "full frame" have a read of the history of photography
Click to expand...

Thanks,
I'll certainly do that.
 
Thanks guys, Andy and Trevor,

Been listening to Tom about lenses and now you guys mention the costs of upgrading:bonk:
I was hoping, (and my mate Tom confirmed this), that I can make do with my sigma 150-500, I know it's probably not the ideal partnership with the D700, but for now. I know the lenses are a critical part of the process but that is also reflected in their prices. I was just contemplating the idea of upgrading the body and then saving up for the rest.
Would you agree that I'd be ok with the sigma should I decide to change?
 
Last edited:
I use a sigma 120-400 and its tack sharp on the D700, so no reason the 150-500 shouldnt be, although at 500mm it will be a bit soft as most zooms that long will be.
 
TCR4x4 said:
I use a sigma 120-400 and its tack sharp on the D700, so no reason the 150-500 shouldnt be, although at 500mm it will be a bit soft as most zooms that long will be.
Click to expand...

Thanks Tom,
Still haven't decided what I'm gonna do:bang:
 
scottthehat said:
used my sigma 50-500mm os on my d700 and its sharp as a sharp thing.
Click to expand...

Thanks Scott,

What "sharp thing"?:lol:

So, you and Tom have convinced me I don't have to worry about my lens.
Now I just have to decide and read up a bit more, pro's & con's between the 300 & 700.
 
Daveee said:
Thanks Scott,

What "sharp thing"?:lol:

So, you and Tom have convinced me I don't have to worry about my lens.
Now I just have to decide and read up a bit more, pro's & con's between the 300 & 700.
Click to expand...
:D, and the d300 is awsome but the d700 is just the same but better, af speed is slightly faster 2,
the only con for the d700 is no crop factor, that why i have both.
 
TCR4x4 said:
Sigma lenses designated DG can be used on FF, Nikon lenses designated DX cant.
Click to expand...
I thought Nikon DX lenses worked perfectly on FX cameras but forced the camera into a DX mode. I think it's only Canon that has the incompatibility.
 
Yes that's right I thought I put that. Must have been on another thread. The d700 DX mode is 5MP if I remember correctly.
 
odd jim said:
I've never heard of FF being referred to as a "135 sensor"?

Googling 135 sensor doesn't bring anything related either?

Full frame simply replicates the same dimensions as the standard sized 35mm film frame, specifically, a sensor which is 36mm x 24mm.
Click to expand...

135 is the original term for 35mm film hence why I said 135 sized not 135 sensor as the sensor is the same size as a 135 negative.


another example would be you have a pea sized Brain ;)
 
Last edited:
POAH said:
135 is the original term for 35mm film hence why I said 135 sized not 135 sensor as the sensor is the same size as a 135 negative.


another example would be you have a pea sized Brain ;)
Click to expand...

How are you getting on with your new job manning the phones for The Samaritans? :lol:
 
POAH said:
135 is the original term for 35mm film hence why I said 135 sized not 135 sensor as the sensor is the same size as a 135 negative.

another example would be you have a pea sized Brain ;)
Click to expand...

Eh? I have a pea sized brain??

Still, either way I've never heard full frame being referred to as '135 sensor' before!
 
odd jim said:
Eh? I have a pea sized brain??

Still, either way I've never heard full frame being referred to as '135 sensor' before!
Click to expand...

I never referred to it as a 135 sensor which kinda proves my point lol
 
POAH said:
I never referred to it as a 135 sensor which kinda proves my point lol
Click to expand...

I must be going mad.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top