Worth Upgrading to Full Frame

[Rashkae]

maybe u'd like to enlighten me with the lens where there is no FF equivalent?

i can name a few lenses without aps-c though.

Things like the 18-250mm.

 

[Snoweagle]

maybe u'd like to enlighten me with the lens where there is no FF equivalent?

i can name a few lenses without aps-c though.

Maybe should put it as not usable for FF. AFAIK now, all Sigma DC series, Tamron Di II series (with the exception of 11-18 and 10-24) and Canon's EF-S series, not very sure abt Nikon and Tokina as i don't take note.

 

[Tokyoexpress]

Considering the D700 but wonder worth spending on the $3500 body?

I do lots of Macros , getting Full Frame means my Macros won't be as close to the object?

The 18-200VR that I have is very useful when it comes to travel ,on full frame there isn't an equivalent. I find it very usefull when I take parades as the 200mm = 300mm on a DX.

My friend who bought a 5D Mark II said that pictures taken are worst than his 40D because Full Frame cameras have more noise & in terms of picture quality , there is no improvement.

Yeah, Nikon D700 is a wonderful FF camera. Its worth an upgrade if yr funds allows. Many pple using in Japan. Get it!!

 

[Melee]

This is off Thom Hogan's site (http://www.bythom.com/) --> scroll down the page to "Quick Links and Comments --> July 13 --> "Where to Spend US$2000":

"The FX Lust. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most people lusting after FX are using excuses to justify wanting it, not showing real need. Can you really say that you're hitting diffraction, ISO, isolation, or viewfinder brightness limits with DX? Right, most of you can't. Most of you would be better served by the D300's cover-the-frame AF, frankly. DX has advantages, too--cost being a huge one--so don't overlook them."

And a bit further down the article...

"So, here's my formula: upgrade the photographer first. Once you're comfortable that you really know what you're doing and that you're optimizing what you can get out of your current equipment, then upgrade your lens and/or support system. When you find you're shooting with a body three generations behind the current state-of-the-art, then you can consider upgrading the camera..."

Food for thought, from a widely respected photographer and teacher... :think:

 

[Snoweagle]

Yeah, Nikon D700 is a wonderful FF camera. Its worth an upgrade if yr funds allows. Many pple using in Japan. Get it!!

D700 to Nikon is similar to what 5D is to Canon. An affordable FF DSLR in a compact package, sure to attract crowds from the D3/1Ds series.

 

[n0d3]

So do we take photos for the image quality or the content itself? Unless you do this for a living and need the resolution for large prints, I don't see the difference in purchasing a FF camera or one with a crop factor. If you got the money, why not? You don't need other people to justify your own purchase. Sometimes I wonder if everyone here is just a gear head (I wanted to use the m-word but I guessed it wouldn't be very nice), lots of gear but no photos.

 

[Cartman2000]

Yeah, Nikon D700 is a wonderful FF camera. Its worth an upgrade if yr funds allows. Many pple using in Japan. Get it!!

Many people using 5D2 in Singapore too:bsmilie:

 

[calebk]

How about the Nikkor 18-200mm? I know Sigma has one but is a digital lens. I don't know if Nikon have a FF equivalent for this.

The Nikkor is also a DX lens.

 

[bengchiat]

Things like the 18-250mm.

right,

but canon has the 28-300L
close enough, n its L!

 

[bengchiat]

Maybe should put it as not usable for FF. AFAIK now, all Sigma DC series, Tamron Di II series (with the exception of 11-18 and 10-24) and Canon's EF-S series, not very sure abt Nikon and Tokina as i don't take note.

? thought we r searching for one w/o FF equal?

11-16 2.8 comes short when compared to 16-35 2.8,
10-24? well, 17-40?

find me a aps-c dedicated TSE lens

 

[lamergod]

right,

but canon has the 28-300L
close enough, n its L!

isnt all full frame lenses in canon L???Thats what i heard from my canon friends:dunno:

 

[ardnirun]

isnt all full frame lenses in canon L???Thats what i heard from my canon friends:dunno:

EF lenses are for FF in Canon..

L lenses are their "up" abit line..but there are some lemons inside..although not much..1 or 2 only..

stick to crop uh if its confusing you too much..different sensor sizes has its merits and disadvantages..

 

[photatographer]

isnt all full frame lenses in canon L???Thats what i heard from my canon friends:dunno:

Man ... This is a very expensive misunderstanding ...

 

[Snoweagle]

? thought we r searching for one w/o FF equal?

11-16 2.8 comes short when compared to 16-35 2.8,
10-24? well, 17-40?

find me a aps-c dedicated TSE lens

What i'm referring to are lenses not for FF.

 

[Snoweagle]

isnt all full frame lenses in canon L???Thats what i heard from my canon friends:dunno:

Your Canon friends are only partially right. L is only a series of Luxury lens from Canon. As u can see all of these are only EF and TS-E designated as EF are made for BOTH FF and cropped, while EF-S are ONLY for 1.6x.