I am deeply poisoned by full frame cameras...

[FrozenRiver]

No way to compare a consumer dslr and a professional dslr. You can learn how to shoot with what you have, become a better photographer first.

Then when you start to earn monie, buy yourself a little gift then.

I was a poor NS guy (same applies for student) before too. i just couldn't afford Minolta DiMAGE 7. Thank God that i can own a dSLR today.

LOL man. Let's thank God together!

 

[FrozenRiver]

TS, maybe you want to look into noise reduction techniques and software. Look at software like Noise Ninja, Neat Image or the noise reduction sliders in Lightroom

Thanks for pointing that out. That's something I will be looking at, too.

 

[ortega]

Actually I have been poisoned by the way the noise looks on a d700 at hi iso and this is not pixel peeping. The noise reminds me of the film grain. Only old timers will know what I am talking about

 

[FrozenRiver]

here's a cure for you.

full frame is overrated at times. of course that is not to berate the optical quality that it can deliver. but you're staying in PARIS now. i'd gladly switch everything i had with you to spend some time there. the thing that sets you apart right now...are the sheer amount of photographic opportunities you have around you while i type this at an office computer

don't sweat the gear, make the pictures and upgrades will come!

De continuer à photographier, mon ami !

I guess you are right... I need to shoot more. I wanted to reply you in French. But I still cannot come out with a complete sentence. LOL. Thanks!

 

[FrozenRiver]

Hear! Hear! Some of my favorite shots were made during my compact camera (a.k.a. cheap skate, low class sensor) days.

I guess you don't pixel peep like me. Good for you! LOL.

 

[FrozenRiver]

I was in the same boat as you awhile back, had been shooting a d200 and really wanted to go FX for the sensor. heres my view on the biggest differences.

1) the full frame sensor. you get shallower DOF and you now get to use old glass that was designed for film on its intended format. these old lenses perform beautifully on the full frame sensor. this is the biggest reason i wanted to switch.

2) dynamic range. its incredible on the d700 and i can pull back even very very extreme shadows. i wasn t even aware of this, but the difference is huge and very very welcome.

3) noise is very very well controlled. this was not my main reason to switch, but it is pretty amazing shooting 'comfortably' at 3200

4) Viewfinder. its big! and make composition and manual focus alot easier. really enjoyed this part too. but.. its not 100% on the d700.

5) weight. while i hate to admit this(ego), the camera is substantially heavier. and i actually felt the difference btwn the d700 and d200.

IMHO, if your only concern is Hi ISO performance, you re probably better off looking at the d7000 or the d300 sucessor. also, do notice that probably no one(exp you) will view your pictures at 100% and thus its almost a not an issue at all. you seem to have alot of (consumer)zoom lenses.. my suggestion would be to invest in some really fast primes(or just good glass) instead as that will make a lot more of a difference to your photos as compared to simply going fullframe. I believe its the glass in front of the sensor that makes more of a difference(and the eye behind the viewfinder of course). here are some suggestions:

24 2.8 AFD (≈35mm so its a very nice focal length)
35 1.8 AFS (or 35 f2 just in case you go FX next time)
85 1.8D
135 f2 AIS (manual lens, but fantastic image quality)

Thanks for the suggestion. I will look at those lenses...

 

[FrozenRiver]

It is expected for the FX bodies to outperform against the DX bodies in ISO performance and I think there is no need to be too amazed by that. My advice is that if you don't make $$$ out of taking photos, then there is no urgency for you to upgrade to FX. Enjoy wat you have now and save some money to travel more extensively in Europe may be better options.

Yes, that's what I am doing right now... Thanks!

 

[FrozenRiver]

Never ending in comparison. But good to set a wish list or resolution to strive further in work or in life for better well being.

That's an idea... Thanks!

 

[FrozenRiver]

erm... just to share, heres one shot i feel really shows off what the d700 sensor can do:

out of camera:

and after running thru capture NX2. its pretty noisy in the shadows, but coming from the d200, i'm still amazed this is even possible.

used the 17-35 at f8, iso 200.

Thanks for the information!

 

[FrozenRiver]

Hahah, I believe it is always correct to say that good price is always for high quality, or it will be definitely a waste.
FF is the essence of photographing. why i say tt. Because the original photographing in film is 35mm, it is really a milestone for a digi-photographer to update to FF.
However, a APCS is good option for people who need to have a glimpse of the activity, before invest more resource on it.
As you have already fully utilized the potential of D90, it is nature for you to update to FF.

Go ahead playing with your new equipment and share your pics here:-')

Well... Since I am already poisoned, a little bit more pushing from you doesn't do much more harm... LOL.

 

[FrozenRiver]

yea... right. who said ff is the essence of photography?

i could had sworn there are large formats. does it mean ur gonna get a hassenbald digital back for it is the "grand daddy of photography" ?

if i dive even further, u will be trying to shoot with silver, chalk and a pinhole camera.


to TS. furbish ur skills first. equipment comes later, once u hit a big wall.

money is urs, u can spend it the way u want to, i wont bother. just sharing my 2 cents

Thanks. What you are saying is what I am doing.

 

[FrozenRiver]

Y are u pixel peeping ?

To look for ants?

Well... I guess I was just looking for reasons to upgrade. Not sure why I did that though.

 

[FrozenRiver]

If you are shooting Commercially and want to save a lot of time, a FX Cam like D700 is ESSENTIAL. Other than that DX format like the D7000 is good enough.

The Only diffrence I see is cleaner JPeg files on the FX. Thats all.

I still shoot at ISO 200~400 regardless of FX or DX with Strobes.

Medium Format is good not for the dynamic range only. Also because of its leaf shutter.

OK... Thanks for the information...

 

[FrozenRiver]

Don't try to pass on mis-information like its holy grail advice.

FF, what? FF 645? FF 35mm? FF 6x6? FF 6x7?
The term does not even represent 35mm format but any format that is not a crop of the original sensor/film.

A format is just that. No right or wrong. Just because 35mm format on film proceeded the APS-C format prevalent on digital does not mean it is unquestionably better.
Ever seen the macros taken by the folks using u4/3 or compact cameras + macro attachments in the Macro sub-section? The higher DOF can come as an advantage.
High DOF at fast apertures (ie. f2)? High DOF for hyperfocal distance street/candid shots? Yes, all very nicely achieved by a smaller sensor camera.
The photographer simply selects the right tool and format to make life easier (as he/she sees it) for the photography he/she does.





No, he/she should be drawing on limestone caves with powdered pigments

Thanks...

 

[FrozenRiver]

good quality glass poisons me a lot more than FF cameras :bsmilie:

What a fresh poison! Thanks. LOL.

 

[FrozenRiver]

Mate, I have both D700 & 7000 but I enjoy the 7K more because of the weight when I travel.

Go invest in good lenses, "bright" lenses make the difference or you can take my 700 since I'm selling it.

Thanks for your suggestions and offering... I am not upgrading right now. Thanks again.

 

[FrozenRiver]

i also thought about it for a bit. if you're concerned about ISO performance, a couple of primes will never hurt. in fact, i felt that the first serious prime i owned was what helped change my photos for the better. not in terms of technical perfection but in terms of composition.

and another adage holds true : a noisy photo beats no photo!

I was poisoned precisely by the low ISO performance of the FF camera...

 

[FrozenRiver]

Judgement of your skill level aside, I think you are imagining things, the D90 noise levels at ISO200 are not going to be that much different from a FF camera FOR SURE.

For detail, once again, at low ISO, there is not going to be so much difference. There will be, of course, but not much.

You are right. At this stage my skills (compositional, lighting, and pp) are the limiting factors. Thanks... BTW, low lSO performance of CF and FF are after all different. You can check out some online reviews.

 

[FrozenRiver]

Actually at ISO200, it depends on the lighting condition you shoot, example in a dark alley or a bedroom with dim lights... likely you get more noise shooting at this ISO200.

If you're on a daylight outdoor condition at ISO200, there's not much difference to see from your naked eye using DX or FX body.

Thanks for the information. I think you are right.

 

[Cowseye]

You are of course right to say that FF performs better than CF at higher ISO. But it is the same at lower ISO... You can checkout some online reviews, which compares images from D700 and that from D7000, both at ISO 200. The detail and color produced by D700 is superb...

I'm only stating the more significant part mah. That's the part that poisons me. Imaging shooting at 3200 iso on FX, attaining handheld-able shutter speed, but dun suffer so much penalty on image noise. To me, that's the real deal of a FX camera.