Thinking about moving up to full frame--Open to advice

[Lonnie1212]

Hi Folks,

Have been using a Nikon D3200 for four years now. Have enjoyed it tremendously. But now I am starting to notice a difference in the quality of the full frame camera pictures. I feel like I want to be able to take those same pictures that only a full frame can produce. Tomorrow I will have the chance to purchase a Nikon D610 with a 50 mm lens. The price will be about $650.00 which is fine with me. Today I looked at the price of new lenses that I might like to have for D610. I about fell over when I saw the prices. The cost of the lenses is double, triple, and four times the cost of the camera. Now I am not sure if I want to make this move.

Thanks for listening ,

Lonnie

 

[Strodav]

The Nikon D610 is a fine camera, but a bit long of tooth. I'd recommend you look at a D800 or D800E, which is a 36mp FF body and was the first of the new generation of sensors camera. I see them for about $750 in Excellent condition at KEH.com for example. I picked up mine used at a local camera shop and am very pleased with it and I think you'll find AF works better with 51 auto focus points with the D610 at 39 focus points. Another good option is the D750.

As far as glass goes, the more professional zooms are somewhere between $1k and $2k, but start with a couple of primes like a 35mm and 50mm, which are not too expensive, then look for a portrait lens. Again, buy used.

 

[jaomul]

Where are you comparing images or is it something you have read that FX is better overall?

What lenses do you currently have and what type of photos so you generally take?

It is probably agreed by most that fullframe is capable of better image quality, but sometimes fullframe may not be the best option for someone. I have a D610, it's a nice camera, you are happy with the price that includes a 50mm lens, probably an f1.8 lens, this combo would be capable of great shots no doubt.

If you look you can also get an 85mm f1.8 relatively inexpensive, you could get a 24-120mm f4 not too expensive, my point is there are affordable fullframe lenses also, but if you do not have good lenses on your d3200 you may not be getting the best out of that system.

I'll just finish with the point that although the d610 should be a better camera, it may (or may not) be the best upgrade for everyone, you'll get better advice if you give a little more info on your shooting style

 

[Soocom1]

Format is where its at, but size is not the only determining factor.
If your bitten by the FF bug, just wait until you hit Med. Format or Large Format.

Then, its over!

it really depends on what your after, and if the intent is superior imaging or because of something "newer" in style.

 

[Ysarex]

"I feel like I want to be able to take those same pictures that only a full frame can produce."

Only a full frame can produce? You want to make sure you're specific about that and sure of your facts and then put a price tag on it. The internet is a dubious source for info. Off the top of my head for every one good and accurate source on that topic the internet will dump nonsense on you at a rate of at least 10 to 1. To echo what jaomul said: What do you want to achieve specifically?

Joe

 

[RVT1K]

Any time I've upgraded my equipment it was much more about me wanting something "more better" rather than my equipment holding me back.

I've gone from a D40 to a D90 to a D7000 to a D3 to a D4 since I went digital but none of that was driven by frustration over results that I couldn't achieve.

Personally I feel your money would be better spent on better lenses. I think that there is the biggest potential for seeing improvement in your images by upgrading lenses first.

 

[Soocom1]

OK. So I am going to put out my schpeel here and express some of my opinion on what your asking:

Format size has many multiple advantages when going larger than before.

But, caution must be exercised. It is also open to more error, but also to more forgiveness of errors as well. The physical area that is recorded once taken becomes a permanent record of sorts insofar that once taken with a 16Mp sensor, you cannot enhance the pixel count to make it more refined. However, you can degrade the image to the point of near nonexistence. Ergo; dehancing the image down to say 8 bit compatibility will make the image unreadable.
The quality aspect is subjective for a host of reasons, but in this specific discussion falls to the concept of like sized resolution. Not necessarily Mp count, but physical size.

So for a moment assuming your shooting your image at a 1:1 square format (1500x1500 dpi post process). To exactly the same setup. Say a glass of wine.
For this example, we will use an iPhone 5 and Hasselblad h4 both released approx. 2012.

1. iPhone 5: 8Mp sensor with an actual pixel size of 1.4 microns. Actual sensor size: 17mm2
2. Hasselblad H4: 31Mp sensor with an actual pixel size of 6.7 microns. Actual Sensor size: 1977 mm2

The problem here is that the iPhone will have a finer resolution for its size over the Blad because of the pixel size. But the Blad will have a better overall image quality because of its physical sensor size which is actually 116 times larger than the iPhone. As well as a higher DR and closer enlargement ratio.

If brought to an apples to apples comparison:

Let’s say the iPhone’s sensor were brought up to the Blad's sensor size with the native pixel size of 1.4 microns, the iPhone sensor would be approx. 162.8 Mp.

If reversed, the Blad’s sensor would only be 50,000 pixles. Or 1/10 of 1 Mp.

So using the enlargement ratio argument, that being enlarging the actual final image to a specific size; assume a 6x6 inch square print. The Blad will smoke the iPhone because the enlargement for the Blad is far less.

Ergo: If enlarged to that 6x6 inch print, the iphone is being enlarged 227 times from original.

The Blad only 1.96 times.

So the resolution for the iphone is then lost to the Blad in final print quality because the actual resolution of the image pixle by pixel is enlarged as a result. (pixelation).

When fighting it out over APS vs. FF, the arguments fall into a different world because they are much closer in actual resolution.
In that case the difference (if like sized pixels,) is only 1.6-1.75 times.

So it becomes subjective.

 

[ac12]

Hi Folks,

Have been using a Nikon D3200 for four years now. Have enjoyed it tremendously. But now I am starting to notice a difference in the quality of the full frame camera pictures. I feel like I want to be able to take those same pictures that only a full frame can produce. Tomorrow I will have the chance to purchase a Nikon D610 with a 50 mm lens. The price will be about $650.00 which is fine with me. Today I looked at the price of new lenses that I might like to have for D610. I about fell over when I saw the prices. The cost of the lenses is double, triple, and four times the cost of the camera. Now I am not sure if I want to make this move.

Thanks for listening ,

Lonnie

WHAT specifically is this picture that only a FF can produce?

If you are using a mediocre kit lens on your D3200 and you are comparing to a pic shot on a D850 with a pro lens, that is a totally invalid comparison.

The lens is the first issue. If you simply put that EXPENSIVE, PRO grade lens, on your D3200, your image quality will improve a LOT. So the first alternative is GOOD, or at least better lenses.

I recently shot a class panorama of about 600 students, with a D7200, a DX camera similar but newer than your d3200, with a 70-200 pro grade lens.
It was a 2-shot "stitched" panorama, and you can easily see the faces of all the students.
This panorama shot proved that we did NOT need a FF camera to do that shot. Just a GOOD lens and technique.​

If you are shooting in LOW light, then the issue is not DX vs FX, it is which camera has the better sensor for low light. Your D3200 is a couple generations old, and today's sensor is better than the older sensors.

We went through this at school, replacing the older Canon T3 and T5 with the newer T7i. The T7i has a much higher high ISO capability for easier/better night and gym sports. The T5 maxed at ISO 6400, the T7i will go up to 25600.​

Welcome to the world of FF PRO grade gear. EXPENSIVE.
You have to "pay to play." If you buy used, you don't have to pay as much, but it can still be EXPENSIVE.

There are also less expensive consumer grade pro lenses, but the IQ is less than the pro lenses.
​

BTW, these pro lenses are also BIG and HEAVY.

 

[Dacaur]

It's already been said, but here it is plainly. In most cases, it's not the full frame sensor that's making those pictures so much better, it's the lense.
kit lense simply cannot compete with the ridiculously expensive lenses that are taking those pictures.
You would likely be better served simply buying a nice full frame lense and using it ok your crop sensor body.
The downside of going to full frame is your crop sensor lenses will not work with it, and you are basically losing a bunch of extra "free" magnification that the crop sensor gives you.
If you really want to go full frame definitely do it, but make sure you are actually doing it for a real reason....

 

[smoke665]

I went from a crop sensor Pentax K3ii (which I still have), to a full frame K1Mii, mainly because I wanted it, and there were some features not available on the K3ii. Frankly I wasn't disappointed with my K3ii never feeling like it wasn't doing the job which is why I still use it. Fortunately much of the glass I have is interchangeable with either body. Layout and controls are similar, which makes it easy to switch between bodies. Quality wise the file from K1 is of course larger but with the same glass, same shot you'd be hard pressed to tell them apart.

 

[Designer]

I feel like I want to be able to take those same pictures that only a full frame can produce.

There might be some valid reasons to purchase a FX camera, but bear in mind that much of the image quality (IQ) is due to the lens being used. My advice is to go slow, and get one or two very good lenses and use them on your D3200. After your bank balance recovers, then go for the FX body. Get the lenses used in very good condition, and if you trust your own shopping ability, maybe the FX body as well.

You can start with the 50mm 1.8 G and you'll have it early.

 

[Strodav]

So the conversation has morphed from whether to buy a D610 to full frame vs cropped frame. I use my D500 20.9mp DX body for wildlife, especially birding, and sports. It has a great AF system, clips along at 10fps, fairly good low light performance and the 1.5x crop factor really helps at longer distance subjects, but the color depth, dynamic range, and low light performance doesn't even come close to my D850 FX 45.7mp body. DxOMark rates the D500 sensor at 84 and the D850 at 100. BTW, the D3200 sensor gets a 81 rating and the D610 gets a 94 and the D800 is at 95 (D800E at 96). I get much better results with the D850 for portraits, travel and landscapes (cityscapes, seascapes), astrophotography, and macro photography. Yes, the glass makes a big difference, but I can get over 30 perceived mp on my D850 with good glass, where the best available Nikon glass for my D500 gives 16 perceived mp. If you are only showing your work on social media or 8x10 prints, then the resolution is not that important as long as it's above, say, 8 or 12mp. If you want to go to 13x19 or 22x27 or print panoramas, then higher resolution FF bodies will give you better results.

 

[Ysarex]

This is strictly anecdotal and just for fun. So I went over to PixelPeeper where you can look at samples of photos from different cameras. I looked at D610 samples and D3200 samples and tried to find some images that had some similarities (both flowers, both ISO 100, about the same field of view, etc.). Here's a close as I found. I re-sized them by less than half to be able to up load them here. You can look at the EXIF data to see which is which but before you do that look at them both and see what's different and what you'd rather have from one over the other.

Just for fun -- no control of what lens was used. One was surely tripod and the other who knows. Do you see an obvious difference? Do we have an in your face -- wow! -- I want that one?

edit: Even though I found them onPixelPeeper I figure I shouldn't post them directly. Here's links:

flower-1
flower- 2

 

[weepete]

This is strictly anecdotal and just for fun. So I went over to PixelPeeper where you can look at samples of photos from different cameras. I looked at D610 samples and D3200 samples and tried to find some images that had some similarities (both flowers, both ISO 100, about the same field of view, etc.). Here's a close as I found. I re-sized them by less than half to be able to up load them here. You can look at the EXIF data to see which is which but before you do that look at them both and see what's different and what you'd rather have from one over the other.

Just for fun -- no control of what lens was used. One was surely tripod and the other who knows. Do you see an obvious difference? Do we have an in your face -- wow! -- I want that one?

edit: Even though I found them onPixelPeeper I figure I shouldn't post them directly. Here's links:

flower-1
flower- 2

Looking at them I think 2 looks significantly more detailed but it's hard to tell if if just a better lens.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

Well you can compare performance as in *IQ* between cameras and use that to judge which is *best*.

But the point of a camera is to take pictures and people judge images by content, the way they relate to the subject and how it makes them feel. Past a certain point *IQ* becomes irrelevant in the success of an image.

So it makes little sense to me to judge cameras by the set of numbers that represents the arbitrary and technical measure of *peak performance*. As an aside I often scratch my head at some of the modern talk on photo forums where there are complaints about images becoming too *sterile* and looking to lens design to find a reason. But many of the same forum members never question their base assumptions that AF should be millimetre accurate, that aperture should be set to the sweet spot at the highest point of the graph, or that exposure should be calculated for the minimum signal noise ratio and maximum shadow detail. But then we will naturally try to equate processes to the metrics we understand so if we understand camera performance we equate images to our understanding of camera performance, and if understanding human relationships is our thing then we will try to equate images to that.

But I digress, again...

I was brought up on 35mm film and there's always been something about the format that has appealed to me. It's in the way that the peculiar set of design compromises combine that just makes visual sense. Hand held in real world light levels with real world lenses and their usable apertures and a host of other things just combine more visually in the 35mm format.

Now you may say that I am just clinging to a format I'm familiar with, but then I have no problem switching between my D600 and large format film. My first real digital was also a Rebel, and I never really liked it other than as a point and shoot. So I sold it to buy the D600 and my world was very happy again.

Now many will be able to point out and prove beyond any doubt that you can take pretty damn near the same *equivalent* shots with any other format and prove that all formats are essentially the same. Hell, if it's done well even I can't tell the difference in IQ between formats. That is if your understanding and metrics are governed by numbers and performance figures, and really only proves that it's largely irrelevant...

All I know is that the images I get from FF digital make far more sense visually to me and that I find it far easier to achieve more compelling photographs with FF than any other hand held format. And even if you can produce the same with other formats the unique set of compromises of design and available settings with FF means that they are generally right under your fingers. And of course if your aim is to extract maximum technical performance and compare that over content you may find your images getting sterile and the only recourse will be to switch to the old *character* lenses to remove that technical performance. I never stopped using them but only because I'm not really interested in IQ and not because they are better.

But with everything I'm talking about general photography, from 24-200mm mostly in available light. In situations where you control the lighting and have enough light then MF makes sense, if you shoot wildlife from a distance then a crop sensor and a long lens will give almost identical results.

@Ysarex, the D610 shot jumped out at me, quite clearly and before I checked the exif.