Hi, a bit off-topic, but I am curious on whether the APS-C sensor on current non-FF DSLRs will contribute to a greater depth of field compared to a FF equivalent (lens being equal).
Bumping this thread up to gather more response. ^^
Also to know what's the view about the setup which I so mentioned in a previous post.
My view of your setup is that its the perfect dream setup for almost any photographer covering the whole range from wide to tele. Another view I have is that you must have struck the lottery because all these equipment is gonna cost you a fortune.. And for just starting out in DSLR it might be a bit much. Of course if you want to do it as a profession and dont wanna have frequent equipment changes i cant say anything.. but budget wise i feel it is smarter to buy something a little less daunting as the D3.. maybe get the D300 and familiarise yourself with the digital workflow first. More functions means more confusion. The simplicity of a manual Nikon cannot be underestimated.. just my opinion!
It depends on whether you're willing to pay for a full frame body. I have been shooting film for ages, and with DX I just use a shorter lens to achieve the same thing. The good thing about DX is that even though the lenses need to resolve better than a FF of the same MP count, you are using the centre portion of the existing lenses yo have to get the best sharpness. I won't be surprised to find that most of my film lens will not be as sharp on a FF body, especially the corners. Anyone wants to sponsor me a D3?Some also advised me to get a full-frame camera coz' I'm used to my Nikon FM2 and it's perspective.
Thus, my dilemma about DSLRs versus Full-Frame DSLRS.
Remember digital zoom? =p Sorta the same thing. heh.
I think the main advantage of FFs is their wide capabilities (more image data per shutter trip). But weighing that against cost and bulk, one would have to really consider one's needs. Even if I could afford FF, I would probably rather have a cropped sensor and some good lenses. This is because I seldom print beyond A4 (maybe A3 for presentations). The extra capabilities of FF would be basically wasted on me. Besides...lighter lenses and bodies? Why not =p
Again, pixel density is probably not a good way to gauge value. I mean...each pixel is delivered to you by sensors, and the quality of those sensors would go a long way towards providing you the image quality you desire.
For me, I seldom shoot wides so I would prefer cropped sensors. On the few ocassion that i need to shoot wide, if my 17mm is still not enough, I will use my old film camera. Nowadays its so easy to scan film into digital format. My problem solved as simple as that.
Other may differ becos if you shoot on the wide side more often, get the FF.
No point purchasing manual lenses only to have a new DSLR that can't run autofocus.
Will be saving for the lenses as of the moment and not the D3 as of yet; however, I feel that it's always good to plan in advance..
Especially when one is running on film and wanna use lenses for both SLR and DSLR.
Last edited by lsisaxon; 18th September 2007 at 09:19 AM.
Say me fickle if you would but..
I went down to John 3:16 at Funan today and chat with the people around.
Was given the news that I've no need for a full-frame DSLR as I'm not intending to print larger than A2 or so..
Should be able to make do with the DX crop.
Also another note is that going into prime lenses setup can also be done..
Carl Zeiss 85mm or Nikkor 85mm ?
Since D3 is only 12MP, there is not much advantage except your lenses might not need to be that sharp but then again, corner sharpness may suffer. If you want to look at FF sensor to give high resolution images, the MP count should be in excess of 20MP.
Just 2 examples :
1) DOF (same composition is achieved from same distance by a full frame but at a longer focal length and hence a shallower DOF is possible).
2) Details captured ........ as lens' ability to resolve is the limiting factor, a larger sensor will be able to capture more details when the actual image on the sensor is larger. It's not a pixel density or total no. of pixel issue.
These 2 are very evident when comparing a full frame DSLR and a tiny compact point and shoot camera (with as high as 12MP on a tiny 1/2.5" sensor and therefore a pixel density higher than DSLR).
Last edited by Clockunder; 19th September 2007 at 01:10 AM.
Sorry to dig out this tread. Just found some interesting article related to this FF vs Crop sensor. Hope this article can be useful.... esp for birders.