eys123 said:
not sure if anyone notices this...
This information is wrong, not all DX camera can't D lenses. TS's D80 is a cropped camera that has the motor drive that does AF those AF-D lens.
Full frame benefit
- Thread starter eatang
- Start date
not sure if anyone notices this...
This information is wrong, not all DX camera can't D lenses. TS's D80 is a cropped camera that has the motor drive that does AF those AF-D lens.
Perhaps I can share with you my own experience which I think is quite similar.
Please bear in mind what's written here is coming from a parent always with that many 'extras' to carry around.
As with most others, I started out with a PnS but was frustrated with all the miss-shots on my new born baby a couple of years ago.
I did some homework and was advised to get a DSLR hence I got myself a Nikon D90 with a few prime lens (35mm 1.8 & 50mm 1.8) for low-light shots & potraits, a wide angle zoom (12-24mm) for those party events or anything you can think of that needed a wide angle, and a light-weight/normal zoom (18-55mm) for those bright sunny outdoor shots. I was very happy with its performance and everything else except the weight (I only carry one lens at any one time, even during my long overseas trips and it's always the 35mm).
What happened next was (after 2-3 years with DSLR) I kept seaching for the next best/light-weight camera and got to know m3/4 but unfortunately the technology then has not quite matured yet.
A few months ago, I got to know Olympus OMD is a super highly rated mirrorless camera even by the pros. I bought it and found it to be a wonderful & great camera (also has superb video capability) until 2 weeks ago. It was a family outing at Brewerks @ Stadium sitted outdoor at night with very low light. What I then discovered was there's shutter lag (I took the shot, the frame I wanted was frozen for a second but the actual output shot came out was a frame late) in many of my shots (very low light outdoor with moving kids) even with the highly acclaimed Olympus Zuiko 12mm 2.0.
Since I have sold my entire DSLR setup, I'm now considering buying the Nikon D5100 (light-weight) with a 35mm 1.8 for those low-light fast moving kids shots.
As a parent myself, what I needed from my camera is for...
1. low-light situations (dinner shots at dimly-lit restaurants or outdoors, kids lantern festival walkabout, etc) and
2. fast moving kids (kids moving around and never sit still at dinner table)
becoz most other times there's ample light available so even my iPhone has produced a few keepers.
After weighing the pros and cons of a DSLR (heavy but great performance) vs m3/4 (light weight, still great performance but more restrictive usage) I would still go for anything light-weight and will most likely get a light-weight DSLR for those low-light fast moving kids shots (as I assumed it would only be used less than 5% of the time). But then again this is just me because I always believe a good camera is one that you always like to bring it around with you and not the one that has better technical capability or higher spec but becoz of its heavy weight it's always kept at home.
Anyway it's ok even if you changed your mind after you bought that FX or mirrorless camera becoz you can always sell it here easily at clubsnap.
Have fun in your journey..
Please bear in mind what's written here is coming from a parent always with that many 'extras' to carry around.
As with most others, I started out with a PnS but was frustrated with all the miss-shots on my new born baby a couple of years ago.
I did some homework and was advised to get a DSLR hence I got myself a Nikon D90 with a few prime lens (35mm 1.8 & 50mm 1.8) for low-light shots & potraits, a wide angle zoom (12-24mm) for those party events or anything you can think of that needed a wide angle, and a light-weight/normal zoom (18-55mm) for those bright sunny outdoor shots. I was very happy with its performance and everything else except the weight (I only carry one lens at any one time, even during my long overseas trips and it's always the 35mm).
What happened next was (after 2-3 years with DSLR) I kept seaching for the next best/light-weight camera and got to know m3/4 but unfortunately the technology then has not quite matured yet.
A few months ago, I got to know Olympus OMD is a super highly rated mirrorless camera even by the pros. I bought it and found it to be a wonderful & great camera (also has superb video capability) until 2 weeks ago. It was a family outing at Brewerks @ Stadium sitted outdoor at night with very low light. What I then discovered was there's shutter lag (I took the shot, the frame I wanted was frozen for a second but the actual output shot came out was a frame late) in many of my shots (very low light outdoor with moving kids) even with the highly acclaimed Olympus Zuiko 12mm 2.0.
Since I have sold my entire DSLR setup, I'm now considering buying the Nikon D5100 (light-weight) with a 35mm 1.8 for those low-light fast moving kids shots.
As a parent myself, what I needed from my camera is for...
1. low-light situations (dinner shots at dimly-lit restaurants or outdoors, kids lantern festival walkabout, etc) and
2. fast moving kids (kids moving around and never sit still at dinner table)
becoz most other times there's ample light available so even my iPhone has produced a few keepers.
After weighing the pros and cons of a DSLR (heavy but great performance) vs m3/4 (light weight, still great performance but more restrictive usage) I would still go for anything light-weight and will most likely get a light-weight DSLR for those low-light fast moving kids shots (as I assumed it would only be used less than 5% of the time). But then again this is just me because I always believe a good camera is one that you always like to bring it around with you and not the one that has better technical capability or higher spec but becoz of its heavy weight it's always kept at home.
Anyway it's ok even if you changed your mind after you bought that FX or mirrorless camera becoz you can always sell it here easily at clubsnap.
Have fun in your journey..
Last edited:
vino7272 said:
Saying it as being expensive is relative to d setup. Full frame sensor wif d Carl zeiss 35mm f/2.0 perfectly matched to d sensor giving outstanding IQ, Bokeh & Sharpness at a fraction of d price of a Leica M9 pair wif d summicron 35mm f/2.0.
After my recent experience with the OMD, I would only buy the RX1 if it really proved to perform like a DSLR in low light and fast actions shot. If it does perform as so then it's money well spent, however if it doesn't then even a $500 price tag is considered expensive to me as my camera needs are mostly for kids and family shots and not much more.
I like the Leica IQ and color rendition very much but I will never compare to Leica as that is not a camera that will meet my objective.
I like the Leica IQ and color rendition very much but I will never compare to Leica as that is not a camera that will meet my objective.
Last edited:
Hi,
I just joined recently and this my first post
Currently I use Nikon D80 and Tamron 17-50 f/2.8.
Mainly to take pics of my kids and when travel.
I'm thinking to get an upgrade.
I'm considering D7000 and D600.
Some friends recommend to take D600 since it's a full frame camera.
But what's the benefit of being full frame ?
What can be expected when shooting with full frame body compared to cropped body ?
Thanks.
I don't know if you received all the answers you wanted, but here is my take.
Going from the D80 to the D7000 will feel like a huge upgrade. The image quality, high ISO and the AF are just light years ahead of the D80. The D600 is even more ahead, but to get the benefit of the D600 considering the lens you are using now, you should at least get the 24-70/2.8, and that is heavy and expensive. The benefit of going to FX from DX is in the dynamic range (the ability to record shadows and highlights), the better high ISO and the better DOF control. In your case, going from the D80 to D600 the differences would be huge, but if you'd have the D7000 today than it would not feel that much better, except possibly in terms of DOF.
I have just recently entered the FX world from the D300s, and there is no looking back for me. The difference is huge between the D300s and the D800, which was my choice. I had the 16-85 as my travel lens, so I bought the D800 with the 24-120/4, which is an excellent lens. I have also a V1 dual zoom kit, but my travel camera is the D800 + 24-120/4 and the 50/1.4G. I have several other lenses as well, but I leave those at home if I travel without a car.
D800 maynot be the best solution for u as
1) the FPS is only 4 - more shoot u take will give u better chance of capturing the moment in photo
2) the high ISO required for fast action low night - u will need at least ISO6400
U may need a D3s or D4 that is still the king of hill for the above mention features. D800 is good for caputure strong details in product photography, studio photography with controlled light (with plenty of time to adjust in between shots) and travel landscape photopraghy that required details and high dynamic range. Have fun. Cheers
1) the FPS is only 4 - more shoot u take will give u better chance of capturing the moment in photo
2) the high ISO required for fast action low night - u will need at least ISO6400
U may need a D3s or D4 that is still the king of hill for the above mention features. D800 is good for caputure strong details in product photography, studio photography with controlled light (with plenty of time to adjust in between shots) and travel landscape photopraghy that required details and high dynamic range. Have fun. Cheers
D800 maynot be the best solution for u as
1) the FPS is only 4 - more shoot u take will give u better chance of capturing the moment in photo
2) the high ISO required for fast action low night - u will need at least ISO6400
U may need a D3s or D4 that is still the king of hill for the above mention features. D800 is good for caputure strong details in product photography, studio photography with controlled light (with plenty of time to adjust in between shots) and travel landscape photopraghy that required details and high dynamic range. Have fun. Cheers
Not really, D800 also has good ISO performance(esp when you downsize the image), just that D600 is slightly better. I shoot at 6400, no problem at all.
wow.. so you are saying D600 and D800 is better in ISO performance than D3s and D4?
in terms of ISO performance:
D4>=D3S>D600>D800... for my own personal views base on what i've seen on the test samples on the net. of cuz it's debatable...
and i did not say d600 and d800 have better ISO performance than D4 and 3s.
Last edited:
D3s is slightly sharper at 100% at high ISOs. But D4 have slightly more resolution. So when downsized, they are about the same.
daredevil123 said:
Ah, I see. I just viewed online reviews and pictures for this one. I still have not comprehensively handled a Nikon D4 yet. Now I know!
Cheesecake
Senior Member
by the way, slightly o.t, D4's price has slipped quite a fair bit. some place selling for less than S$6.7k!
might be WOLS but I do not keep abreast with pricing until I want to make a purchase. :embrass:
might be WOLS but I do not keep abreast with pricing until I want to make a purchase. :embrass:
Actually.... I would say the the opposite is true. That is if you are working with identical raw images in CNX2. Downsize the D800 images and is better at ANY ISO than the other cameras. You can also upsize the other cameras to the 36MP D800 size and the D800 would still be better.
