Full Frame d700

If you want to find out what the 35mm focal length equivalent of a DX lens just times the focal length by 1.5. So 17x1.5=25.5. So a 24-70 is slightly wider than a 17-55.

I don't have a D700, but I play with it A LOT...I mean A LOT. (B&H FTW) But the noise reduction is terrific on the D700. ISO 6400 is completely usable even without any noise reduction.

I would love one except it doesn't have 100% viewfinder coverage. I want a D3s for Christmas :(
 
Last edited:
The benefits with full frame are low light performance, higher Mega pixel, and actual 1:1 representation of the lens focal length. So if you have a 10mm it will really be 10mm not 17mm as it is now with your DX camera. You also shouldn't really use DX lenses with a FF camera, it will only use part of the sensor. This is the limit of what I know about FF.
 
You also shouldn't really use DX lenses with a FF camera, it will only use part of the sensor.

Yeah you're right. If you use a DX lens on a FF like the D700, D3, and D3s, you essentially are only using 6 of the 12 mp.
 
If you want to find out what the 35mm focal length equivalent of a DX lens just times the focal length by 1.5. So 17x1.5=25.5. So a 24-70 is slightly wider than a 17-55.....

.....So if you have a 10mm it will really be 10mm not 17mm as it is now with your DX camera.
Two wrongs won't make it right. Your focal length is your focal length and that does NOT change. What DOES change is the Field of View (FoV) by 1.5 in Nikon's case for FX versus DX.


You also shouldn't really use DX lenses with a FF camera, it will only use part of the sensor.
That is correct. You can mount a DX lens on the D700, but instead of using the entire sensor to record, you only get ~5MP image.

OP said:
but i was looking at a flickr account and noticed a guy doing self portraits and he looked like he was able to fit more of his body in the picture but still look close up.
This can be done with a wide angle lens on a cropped body. It doesn't necessarily have to be an FX body.
 
Here's an example for you. Hey, don't laugh at the subject or composition, they obviously weren't taken for that reason. :D These were taken using a tripod in the same exact position, using the same exact lens and the same exact settings. ISO200, f/4, 1/60s. The only change was from a D300 to a D700 body.


D300 - 35mm f/2
35mm-DX.jpg



D700 - 35mm f/2
35mm-FX.jpg



Why does the EXIF read focal length = 35mm on the D300 shot instead of 52.5mm? Because the focal length does NOT change. But please notice the difference in FoV. You'll also notice the DoF changes slightly between the two.
 
Why does the EXIF read focal length = 35mm on the D300 shot instead of 52.5mm? Because the focal length does NOT change. But please notice the difference in FoV. You'll also notice the DoF changes slightly between the two.

The EXIF on my camera lists both actual and equivalent.
 
Yes, but the EXIF equivelent focal length value is actually describing FOV, but in terms of equivelent focal length.

The actual focal length of the lens, is the actual focal length of the lens, is the actual focal length of the lens.
 
The benefits with full frame are low light performance, higher Mega pixel, and actual 1:1 representation of the lens focal length. So if you have a 10mm it will really be 10mm not 17mm as it is now with your DX camera. You also shouldn't really use DX lenses with a FF camera, it will only use part of the sensor. This is the limit of what I know about FF.


The first 2 are completely incorrect. Full Frame doesn't automatically give you better low-light performance or higher mega pixel count...

Now I don't know about Nikon...but on Canon cameras you can't even use crop-sensor lenses (EF-S) on full-frame bodies (EF). It's because the connector is slightly different, but I always assumed it was the same thing for Nikon.

The D700 *IS* great at those things though (great low-light performance and pretty high mega-pixel count...the latter of which is really unimportant for the most part)...but that's just a consequence of being in the pro-line of Nikon cameras.
 
The benefits with full frame are low light performance, higher Mega pixel, and actual 1:1 representation of the lens focal length. So if you have a 10mm it will really be 10mm not 17mm as it is now with your DX camera. You also shouldn't really use DX lenses with a FF camera, it will only use part of the sensor. This is the limit of what I know about FF.


The first 2 are completely incorrect. Full Frame doesn't automatically give you better low-light performance or higher mega pixel count...

Now I don't know about Nikon...but on Canon cameras you can't even use crop-sensor lenses (EF-S) on full-frame bodies (EF). It's because the connector is slightly different, but I always assumed it was the same thing for Nikon.

The D700 *IS* great at those things though (great low-light performance and pretty high mega-pixel count...the latter of which is really unimportant for the most part)...but that's just a consequence of being in the pro-line of Nikon cameras.

"completely incorrect???" LOL, that's a massive overstatement.

99% of the time a lager sensor will have better low light performance, and they do allow for a higher pixel count. There is a direct correlation between these two things and sensor size.

Also, the d700 can use dx lenses, but the resoltuion of the images is reduced to only 5.1 megapixels when shooting dx lenses.

As for the TS comment on the portrait taken with the d700, that's a result of a wide lens, not the camera. Full-frame cameras, like the d700, don't really take wider photos then crop sensor cameras--with the same lens the shot will be wider, but wider lenses are available in dx format so it evens out.

One benefit of full-frame that is often overlooked is DOF, because you aren't using as wide of focal lengths you get a much tighter DOF then with crop sensor bodies.
 
Here's an example for you. Hey, don't laugh at the subject or composition, they obviously weren't taken for that reason. :D These were taken using a tripod in the same exact position, using the same exact lens and the same exact settings. ISO200, f/4, 1/60s. The only change was from a D300 to a D700 body.


D300 - 35mm f/2
35mm-DX.jpg



D700 - 35mm f/2
35mm-FX.jpg



Why does the EXIF read focal length = 35mm on the D300 shot instead of 52.5mm? Because the focal length does NOT change. But please notice the difference in FoV. You'll also notice the DoF changes slightly between the two.

You'll also notice that the full frame one has some vignetting while the crop sensor one does not.

Pretty much all lenses cause some degree of vignetting, you never see it on a crop sensor though.

Not really a big deal, doesn't bother me...
 
Last edited:
Ive recently got a d700 and the noise reduction is great, il attach a pic shot at iso3200 and it has had no noise reduction pp done at all to it.

you ccan use dx lenses and turn off ' DX crop' so you will still use the full 12 mp
but when you zoom out you will get some severe vignetting
with my 18-55 dx lens, when i zoom out to about 22mm i get vignetting, at 18mm the 4 corners are totally black.
but at about 24mm it seems to be wider than it was on my d50 at 18mm.

iso 3200 at f5.6
no noise PP done to it.

DSC_8604.jpg
 

Most reactions

Back
Top