Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 50 of 50

Thread: any recommendation upgrading to Full Frame Camera?

  1. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    3,350

    Default Re: any recommendation upgrading to Full Frame Camera?

    Quote Originally Posted by simranjits View Post
    I think "want" is overrated bro, everyone needs to take photos, and you should take photos with the best equipment you can afford. Honestly speaking , i think everyone "needs" a full frame, because then we can say digital has finally arrived and no more crop this crop that.
    Really, there aren't many people who really need to take photos. Those who need to are those who make a living from photography...the rest are doing it for fun, a hobby, or for personal fulfillment of some sort, as part of an experience in life.

    Off the top of my head, I can't think of too many people who died because they were not able to take photos. However, there were those who died (or get hurt) trying to take a picture.

    Having said that I certainly agree with you that if one were to go all out to take a photo and put full effort into doing so, then they should ensure they at least have the correct (if not the best they can afford) equipment for the envisaged shot. Luck can be an important factor in photography and the one who is short of either the necessary skill or equipment can miss that once in a lifetime shot.

    I think most of us can afford to produce a book of at least 50 blank pages, titled 'The Photos I Never Took'.

  2. #42

    Default Re: any recommendation upgrading to Full Frame Camera?

    To the TS, why do you feel its time for you to upgrade to FF? What is it that FF offers that your 400D cannot give you? Maybe if you can tell us that, it'll be easier for us to help you on your decision.

    Buying a FF camera doesn't mean just paying for the camera and the kit lens. You might even need to buy a whole lot of new lenses as FF cameras expose the mediocracy of cheap lenses very easily and obviously. You will need to change your lenses to decent ones, or even L lenses to enable the FF camera to achieve its fullest potential by matching the equipment. Ultimately whether the photos are nice or not still depends on the photographer and his skill. Someone with a 2megapixel old PNS can have better photos than one with a FF camera if one lacks practice, and lacks the creativity. The camera plays a part in your photos, but a small one.

    Also, most FF canon cameras produce files which are very huge and takes a powerful computer to process them efficiently. If you don't already possess a computer with sufficient processing power to process your photos, then you'll need to upgrade your computer as well, thus incurring extra costs. You will also need more/bigger and faster CF cards to store the huge files from your camera. Once again, extra costs. Maybe you'll also need to upgrade your harddisk to accomodate the ginormous files you're going to be collecting with your new FF camera. More extra costs.

    Canon FF cameras do not come with a built in flash, and thus you will most probably have to purchase a flash to go with your camera as well, and this, is another additonal cost to your expenditure.

    When you buy L lenses, especially f2.8 and above, you will definitely also want to pair it with a B+W filter to optimise the light going through the lens. And we all know here B+W filters are very good, but not exactly the cheapest things around. One more additional cost.

    If you get the camera, and because you have already spent so much on your lenses and your camera bodies, you'd want to purchase a dry cabinet to store them, and a good camera bag to protect your equipment while transporting them. All these are again, additional costs on top of your camera kit assuming you don't already have these.

    So as you can see, buying a FF camera is a huge capital outlay, and is more than just buying the camera kit alone. There're costs involved in maintaining, optimizing performance, post processing etc. And if you're taking photographs as a hobby, it is a HUGE investment with non-monetary returns unless you start taking jobs (and it'll take you a while to recover your costs).

    So aside from costs, the most important thing again, is WHY do you feel its time for you to upgrade to FF? Do you really NEED to upgrade to FF? OR do you even need to upgrade for the moment? The 400D is not a bad camera in itself.

    Just to share, I only upgraded my body after 3 years of shooting with my 350D, which has seen me through learning about DSLRs, to hobby shoots, to covering events, to covering paid event jobs, which eventually paid for my 5DMkII which i bought recently, for taking on more assignments. And of course, along the way, i collected a 17-40, a 24-70, a 50 1.4 and a 580EX, all paid for by taking on assignments with a 350D. Maybe you could spend the time learning/practicing/saving up/earning some money to finance your own equipment also. It gives you a sense of ownership and satisfaction when you finally exchange your own hardearned money for your new gear.

    Just my 2 cents worth. Quite worth it for you, because the post is so long. Haha!
    Last edited by vii_haven; 14th January 2009 at 04:24 PM.

  3. #43

    Default Re: any recommendation upgrading to Full Frame Camera?

    mm... dunno about canon...

    but I got a D700 and I think I can make to do with some not so expensive lens. I don't think u HAVE to get the latest f2.8 zooms to pair up with your FF. I have a prime setup 50mm f1.4, 105mm f2.8 and 24mm f2.8. Not too expensive but the quality is still there.

    my D700 comes with 12megpixels so I don't need to upgrade my computer....

    My D700 comes with useable ISO6400 and with 50mm f1.4 I don't need a flash indoor. and it comes with a built in flash anyway....

    I am still using my tiny 20L dry cabinet which fits my filters, D700, 24mm, 50mm, 105mm, SD14, 10-20mm sigma, HF100 video cam.

    I did not change my camera bag when I bought my D700....

  4. #44

    Default Re: any recommendation upgrading to Full Frame Camera?

    Quote Originally Posted by pisduck View Post
    mm... dunno about canon...

    but I got a D700 and I think I can make to do with some not so expensive lens. I don't think u HAVE to get the latest f2.8 zooms to pair up with your FF. I have a prime setup 50mm f1.4, 105mm f2.8 and 24mm f2.8. Not too expensive but the quality is still there.

    my D700 comes with 12megpixels so I don't need to upgrade my computer....

    My D700 comes with useable ISO6400 and with 50mm f1.4 I don't need a flash indoor. and it comes with a built in flash anyway....

    I am still using my tiny 20L dry cabinet which fits my filters, D700, 24mm, 50mm, 105mm, SD14, 10-20mm sigma, HF100 video cam.

    I did not change my camera bag when I bought my D700....
    Well, of course if you already have the items you won't need to buy them again. I'm assuming the TS does not already have some of all the abovementioned items.

    Sure you don't need the best lenses around to optimise the full frame, but i don't think you will do justice to the full frame by shooting with the lower range of canon lenses (eg. 50 1.8, 75-300 etc). Ultimately, it is the photographer that makes the difference, the equipment just helps a little.
    Last edited by vii_haven; 14th January 2009 at 04:51 PM.

  5. #45
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Kembangan
    Posts
    100

    Default Re: any recommendation upgrading to Full Frame Camera?

    I would guess one reason is going ff is the question of going up to the next level, whatever it might mean to each individual.

    I would think TS has his own set of EF and/or L lens with accompanying accessories like ext flash, filters and such of good quality. So the backend is more or less there, the question is the body itself.

    Does a 5D give more vibrant colours than a crop, plus the noise control is very good on a ff. An additional point is that L lens on a crop body makes it very narrow at 24mm so one might have to get a uwa to cover up the extra range required. So this question as to should one upgrade to FF, is more of getting feedback from those who have done so. I think TS has his reasons already, just wanting to know more before commiting fully.
    EOS 5Dmk2 | 16-35 f2/8 II | 24-70 f/2.8 | 70-200 f/2.8 II| 35 f/2.0 | 15-30 f/3.5-4.5 | 580EXII |

  6. #46

    Default Re: any recommendation upgrading to Full Frame Camera?

    Quote Originally Posted by fWord View Post
    Really, there aren't many people who really need to take photos. Those who need to are those who make a living from photography...the rest are doing it for fun, a hobby, or for personal fulfillment of some sort, as part of an experience in life.

    Off the top of my head, I can't think of too many people who died because they were not able to take photos. However, there were those who died (or get hurt) trying to take a picture.

    Having said that I certainly agree with you that if one were to go all out to take a photo and put full effort into doing so, then they should ensure they at least have the correct (if not the best they can afford) equipment for the envisaged shot. Luck can be an important factor in photography and the one who is short of either the necessary skill or equipment can miss that once in a lifetime shot.

    I think most of us can afford to produce a book of at least 50 blank pages, titled 'The Photos I Never Took'.
    Until time travel exists , i still believe i need to take pictures , its the only way i can relive memories , which are very important to me.

  7. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    3,350

    Default Re: any recommendation upgrading to Full Frame Camera?

    Quote Originally Posted by simranjits View Post
    Until time travel exists , i still believe i need to take pictures , its the only way i can relive memories , which are very important to me.
    Ah, that's true. Good reason there.

    Just to OT a little...prior to buying a second camera body (ie. another case of 'want'), I was looking into the A900 and 24-70/2.8 combo as well. Very pricey but potentially the most resolution for that amount of money, plus there were good reviews about the responsiveness of the camera, the large VF and excellent IQ at lower ISOs. How do you find the camera in use? Zeiss glass on a FF could be a dream I reckon. I've never really tried Zeiss glass but currently use Leica lenses on my camera and love the color rendition and sheer clarity.

  8. #48

    Default Re: any recommendation upgrading to Full Frame Camera?

    to many FFs = FFFFFF, = white

  9. #49

    Default Re: any recommendation upgrading to Full Frame Camera?

    Quote Originally Posted by fWord View Post
    Ah, that's true. Good reason there.

    Just to OT a little...prior to buying a second camera body (ie. another case of 'want'), I was looking into the A900 and 24-70/2.8 combo as well. Very pricey but potentially the most resolution for that amount of money, plus there were good reviews about the responsiveness of the camera, the large VF and excellent IQ at lower ISOs. How do you find the camera in use? Zeiss glass on a FF could be a dream I reckon. I've never really tried Zeiss glass but currently use Leica lenses on my camera and love the color rendition and sheer clarity.
    I have confidence that sony will address the noise on the high iso for a900, being their flagship and all , like they did for their a700.

    A900 to me is excellent for what you pay for, being able to use CZ AF lenses is a big plus, Viewfinder is the best available in its class or anywhere. The camera is extremely responsive and fast, read rates are even faster than d3x for CF cards, show how well it is designed internally. With the cz 24-70 it is rather heavy , but lighter than a d700 or d3. I like the button layout and design on the sony a700/a900. I never liked the handling of canikon bodies.

    However if you have 13-14k to spare , get a d3x instead. It seems to be the best at almost everything except low noise in high iso.

  10. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    3,350

    Default Re: any recommendation upgrading to Full Frame Camera?

    Quote Originally Posted by simranjits View Post
    I have confidence that sony will address the noise on the high iso for a900, being their flagship and all , like they did for their a700.

    A900 to me is excellent for what you pay for, being able to use CZ AF lenses is a big plus, Viewfinder is the best available in its class or anywhere. The camera is extremely responsive and fast, read rates are even faster than d3x for CF cards, show how well it is designed internally. With the cz 24-70 it is rather heavy , but lighter than a d700 or d3. I like the button layout and design on the sony a700/a900. I never liked the handling of canikon bodies.

    However if you have 13-14k to spare , get a d3x instead. It seems to be the best at almost everything except low noise in high iso.
    The A900 is an attractive camera indeed. If I had the money to spare it'd certainly be in my bag by now. Fortunately I've hardly been too fussed about noise and in the sample images on say, DPReview, the issue appears to have been blown out of proportion. A bit of chrominance noise reduction would certainly help and the luminance noise would hardly be of issue. Memory fails me, but if the camera is capable of doing bursts at 5FPS it's amazing for a 24MP camera.

    And with that amount of horsepower resolution in a camera it should be no problem to get images into a stock photography database for a long time.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •