Quote:
Originally Posted by mattyande
Congrats on the full format! The more I think about it, the more I want to make the upgrade. I definitely need to wait a while considering I just bought my D90 in January... If I stick with it and continue to learn and get better, I'll probably buy a full format body in a couple years...
|
If I had a D90 now instead of a D70s, then I would probably stick with the D90 for a while. I've had the D70s for like 4 years and the tiny screen, among many other things, just isn't doing it for me anymore. So it was time for an upgrade. I don't want to buy camera bodies very often at all (I would prefer it last like 5 years), so I was looking at what will be the best investment in the long term. To me that meant going full frame and investing in quality full frame lenses. So the biggest reason I decided to go big is because I'm hoping this will be a better long term investment overall instead of say a D300 and its DX size sensor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJF_41
What are you getting for the extra price? I don't know much about full format...
Do you take photographs for a living or for fun?
|
I just take pictures for a hobby. I debated buying the D700 for months and it was still a hard decision to make given its cost. However, like I said above, I'm looking at the long term. Here is an explanation between crop sensor digital SLR cameras (branded DX by Nikon) and full frame digital SLR cameras (branded FX by Nikon):
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/dx.htm
Basically the D700 is comparable to the D300 and the only really big difference between those 2 cameras is the D700 is full frame and the D300 uses a crop sensor (DX). Both of those cameras are a step above cameras like the D90 mostly in build quality and the layout of the buttons. The D700 and D300 have metal bodies and are weather-sealed. The D90 and similar cameras are mostly made out of plastic to save on weight and cost. The D300 and D700 also don't have "scene" modes that are used by amateurs because they expect that the person using the camera knows exactly what settings they want to use for each shot. The D300 and D700 also have buttons for specific settings like single/continuous focus modes for example where on the D90 you have to go into one of the camera's menus to change. So the D300 and D700 (and cameras above them) are made specifically for people who have a strong grasp on what all the camera settings are for and when to use them appropriately.
Now the reason to get a D700 instead of a D300 is because the D700 is full frame like we've been saying. All of Nikon's best lenses are made for full frame cameras. You can use full frame lenses on DX cameras, but you won't be using the entire image area of the lens.
Another thing is low light capability of the D700 over the D300. So the D300 and the D700 have the same number of megapixels, but by now you know they have different sensor sizes. The digital sensor of the D700 is physically larger than the D300. So given that they have the same number of pixels, but the D700 has a larger sensor size, that means that the pixels on the D700 are also physically larger to cover that larger sensor size. Because the pixels on the D700 are physically larger, they are capable of capturing more light than the smaller pixels of the D300 (D90). As you might know, as you increase the ISO in your camera to make it more sensitive to light (so you can get faster shutter speeds in bad light), you get more noise in you image. Well since the D700 is better at capturing light than the D300 (D90) because of its larger sensor area, that means it can go to higher ISO levels with much less noise in the image. So from what I've read, the D700 can go up to like ISO 3200 with very good results whereas the D300 might only be able to go up to like ISO 1600 with the same quality results. That means the D700 is much better in low light situations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattyande
I think of it like a formatted movie vs. the theatrical release. When you use your 50mm, there is a portion (and I think it's pretty substantial) of the image that the lens can see that you won't. With a full frame, you get the whole thing...
I know someone in here just bought the Tokina 11-16, and I'm thinking that's my next purchase...
I was also looking at the sigma fixed 30mm because I've been told shooting with prime lenses really helps you advance your photography technique. I think it will be different enough from my 50mm to still make it worth the purchase. Anyone have any thoughts on that?
|
A 50mm lens on a DX camera is the same as a 75mm lens on a FX camera. There is a 1.5x factor on DX cameras.
I was the one who bought the Tokina 11-16mm. It's a great wide angle lens for DX cameras. I bought it in June and now that I just decided to go to full frame, I can no longer properly use that lens since it is made for DX cameras. So given how hard that lens is to find (I've only seen it available new once in the last 4 months and that was when I bought it), would you be interested in buying it? I've honestly only used it probably a dozen times. I used it on a trip I took to Chicago (pictures were posted earlier in this thread with it) and just a handful of times since then. PM me if you're interested and I can give you more information and pictures of the actual lens if you want. I will end up selling it on ebay most likely if you're not interested.