I am deeply poisoned by full frame cameras...

[FrozenRiver]

I've used D90 for one whole year now (coupled with 18-105 for about 1 month, with 18-200 for about another 2, and with Tamron 17-50 and Tokina 11-16 ever since.). I think I've found an excellent combination in terms of performance/price ratio. I have been always satisfied with the IQ produced by this last combination (even though straight out of the camera, pictures are a bit soft; after a little sharpening in pp, I was happy.) Also, I've been shooting fairly extensively (and intensively). I go to Paris (as I am living in suburban area of Paris right now) on weekends to make random shots; I've also taken D90 with me for all trips that I've made here in Europe. I am pretty confident in using D90 now, and think that I have digged deep into the capabilities of D90. (The hidden lines here are that I think I am ready to utilize and dig into a higher level equipment. Sorry for my self-boasting. )

This is the case until I seriously examined a few sets of photos produced by full frame cameras (D700 and 5D Mark II). They looked so much cleaner, even at ISO 200... If zoomed in to 100%, the noise level become so apparent (and bothering) on photos produced by D90. Suddenly I feel that D90 cannot record detail to a level that I would deem satisfactory...

However, I also know that I would pay substantial amount if I were to buy a full frame, let alone lenses (which are necessarily the best ones, since otherwise I would be wasting money invested into a full sensor.)

On the other hand, I am still a student... I have to save for the vacuum in between my graduation and my first job... So I am looking for an antidote against my full-frame-syndrome... In other words, I need your help, guys...

 

[pinholecam]

Cure for you :

Don't pixel peep.


The noise is not going to affect you in any real way unless you always print A3, A2 or have a wall sized monitor for viewing the photos.

 

[Cowseye]

The true capability of iso for full frame is at higher level. At 200, DX and FX shouldn't have much difference. The real poison comes at 1.6k and above...

 

[UncleFai]

The true capability of iso for full frame is at higher level. At 200, DX and FX shouldn't have much difference. The real poison comes at 1.6k and above...

Yeah, I would use FF for landscape and wide angle stuff, as well as for portraits and high ISO. I would use the DX for birding (due to reach) and casual (due to weight).

 

[willdoang]

it's a want not a need, maybe once u get ur first job u can justify to fulfill ur want, for now just be satisfied in what u hve, D90 is a very capable beast itself

 

[giantcanopy]

Like others mentioned, no zoom, no noise too visible.
Remember after getting ur FF body, your previous DX lenses may need to be upgraded as well which may often cost even more than the body.

Ryan

 

[frederickykfoo]

Being a student, having a DX DSLR with so many lenses is already a big thing to be proud of.
Just make full use of what you have and work around the corners, since you know how to handle the output.
Using it and learn as much as you can on photography and move onto FX when you start work.
Using FX as a treat to yourself for getting a job after graduation.
Enjoy taking picture with what you have rather than feeling sad for what you do not have and frustrated with what you have.

 

[wmayeo]

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.

 

[daredevil123]

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

 

[Reno]

The true capability of iso for full frame is at higher level. At 200, DX and FX shouldn't have much difference. The real poison comes at 1.6k and above...

No, there is really a difference between the two even at iso200.....

 

[UncleFai]

No, there is really a difference between the two even at iso200.....

http://www.ayton.id.au/gary/photo/Dig_sensors.htm

The larger sensor has larger photo sites. That gives rise to better dynamic range and high iso performance. The "bucket" for collecting light for a single pixel is larger, hence collect more light and more information.

 

[magicianhisoka]

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 !

 

[UncleFai]

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 !

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

 

[Ben Ang]

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)

 

[bruggink]

I've used D90 for one whole year now (coupled with 18-105 for about 1 month, with 18-200 for about another 2, and with Tamron 17-50 and Tokina 11-16 ever since.). I think I've found an excellent combination in terms of performance/price ratio. I have been always satisfied with the IQ produced by this last combination (even though straight out of the camera, pictures are a bit soft; after a little sharpening in pp, I was happy.) Also, I've been shooting fairly extensively (and intensively). I go to Paris (as I am living in suburban area of Paris right now) on weekends to make random shots; I've also taken D90 with me for all trips that I've made here in Europe. I am pretty confident in using D90 now, and think that I have digged deep into the capabilities of D90. (The hidden lines here are that I think I am ready to utilize and dig into a higher level equipment. Sorry for my self-boasting. )

This is the case until I seriously examined a few sets of photos produced by full frame cameras (D700 and 5D Mark II). They looked so much cleaner, even at ISO 200... If zoomed in to 100%, the noise level become so apparent (and bothering) on photos produced by D90. Suddenly I feel that D90 cannot record detail to a level that I would deem satisfactory...

However, I also know that I would pay substantial amount if I were to buy a full frame, let alone lenses (which are necessarily the best ones, since otherwise I would be wasting money invested into a full sensor.)

On the other hand, I am still a student... I have to save for the vacuum in between my graduation and my first job... So I am looking for an antidote against my full-frame-syndrome... In other words, I need your help, guys...

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.

 

[markyen]

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.

 

[magicianhisoka]

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!

 

[edutilos-]

Cure for you :

Don't pixel peep.


The noise is not going to affect you in any real way unless you always print A3, A2 or have a wall sized monitor for viewing the photos.

I have had many photos that didn't look good large, but looked really good printed on S8R in terms of sharpness and noise.

Especially at low ISOs, the crop frame and full frame gap is so close. At high ISO, currently FF does still have an edge, but it is narrowing by the day.

 

[edutilos-]

This is the case until I seriously examined a few sets of photos produced by full frame cameras (D700 and 5D Mark II). They looked so much cleaner, even at ISO 200... If zoomed in to 100%, the noise level become so apparent (and bothering) on photos produced by D90. Suddenly I feel that D90 cannot record detail to a level that I would deem satisfactory...

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.

 

[wmayeo]

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.