Full frame recs for a digital dummy?

[earthmanbuck]

I’m considering upgrading to a better digital camera at some point in the next year or so. I currently have a Pentax K-50, which has been okay, but I’d like to upgrade to something full-frame. In truth, I shoot film a lot more than digital, but I think if I had a nicer digital that might not be the case. Because I’m more of a film guy, I don’t know a ton about digital cameras, and am looking for some general suggestions.

While I am open to brands, I’ve been looking mostly at Canon or Nikon, just because those seem to be the big ones, and there’s always a lot of lenses and such on the used market around here. I do have a Nikon 35mm and a few F-mount lenses, so that would be a plus for Nikon—but that said, I rarely use my old K-mount lenses on my K-50, so it’s also not a dealbreaker.

DSLR or mirrorless—I have no idea. I understand mirrorless is getting better all the time, but any light to be shed on this would be appreciated.

Ergonomically, I’d be after something not too gigantic. One of the reasons I went with the K-50 was that it seemed a bit smaller than a lot of other DSLRs. But at the end of the day, I’d sacrifice small size for good quality.

Sorry for the overly vague and broad question, any insight welcome!

 

[Designer]

Budget? Timeline? Any particular style of photography?

 

[earthmanbuck]

Budget? Timeline? Any particular style of photography?

Budget...not sure. I will probably see what's on the used market once I have a few models in mind. I'm no pro, so anything $5,000+ is definitely out, and realistically the less the better.

No real timeline, just want an idea of some models to check out.

I like shooting candid shots of people the most, but also take street and landscape pictures if I'm traveling.

 

[Designer]

DSLR or mirrorless—I have no idea.

The first hit I got on "full-frame mirrorless" was this page:

Full-frame Mirrorless | B&H Photo Video

This looks spendy to me, so in my world, I would be reconsidering my first idea.

 

[Designer]

I like shooting candid shots of people the most, but also take street and landscape pictures if I'm traveling.

In my opinion, for this type of shooting, I think a crop-sensor with good dynamic range coupled with a fast lens is what I would pick.

 

[Derrel]

For "value", used cameras are always the best. The Nikon D600 or D610 is around $600-$650 for 24-MP FX...very good image quality too. Cameras are smallish, and FX Nikon uses the older Nikon F-mount lenses with no crop-factor. The D600 or D610 are low-cost bodies, but high image quality. The used D800 is the best compromise for cost,features,and image quality; a used D800 for $750-$900 is a superb camera. It's not too big, not too small either. Sheer technical image quality of the sensors in the D600,D610,and D800 are amazing. VERY wide dynamic range, NO need to think about lens angles of view; they are the same as with a 35mm film camera. A fifty is still a fifty...an eighty-five is still and eighty-five.

 

[ac12]

I suggest you take your K50 out and SHOOT.
Find the things that are limiting you, so you KNOW specifically what you want to improve. Otherwise you are asking us to guess for you, with all our bias affecting the recommendations.

Weight

Weight is an important factor. When you take the kit out on an all day or multi-day shoot, the camera bag will get heavier as the day goes along. Take it on a 2 or 3 week vacation and that 15 pound bag will feel like 25 or 30 pounds after 2 weeks. This is fine when you are young and strong, but as you get older, you physically cannot carry the same weight.​

The FX Nikon D8xx series is a heavy camera. For comparison, the FX D810 is 17% heavier than the FX D750, 30% heavier than the DX D7200, 112%/2.1x heavier than the DX D5600, and 99%/2x heavier than the micro four thirds Olympus OM-D EM1 mk1.​

Lenses.

Pro glass is EXPENSIVE, even used.​

• IMHO, Nikon does not have a very good DX lens lineup. The DX lenses are primarily consumer grade lenses, with only a few high end lenses.

• Importantly for ME, Nikon does not have a DX equivalent to the pro line FX 70-200 f/2.8 or f/4 lens. The DX 50-200 is a consumer grade lens, and is not fast. The only DX equivalent to the FX 70-200, that I know of, is the discontinued Sigma 50-150 f/2.8. 70mm on a DX camera is too long for the short end. So to get the 70-200 (or equivalent) lens and shoot that focal length, you are forced to go FX.
  
• On the other hand, the Nikon 18-140 (and Canon 18-135) are GREAT general purpose lenses.

• I am a Nikon guy, so I cannot comment much on Canon's DX equivalent lenses.

• But I can say that the zoom on the Canon 18-135 is much smoother and lighter than the zoom on the Nikon 18-140
  
• Unlike Nikon, Canon does not have a low cost 35mm crop f/1.8 body lens. Their only 35 f/1.7 lens is a $550 lens.

FX lenses

• Both Nikon and Canon have pro line lenses in both f/2.8 and smaller/lighter f/4 for the major lenses; 24-70 (or similar) and 70-200.
  
• And both have a good GP lenses; Nikon 24-120 f/4, and Canon 24-105 f/4.

Mirrorless:

Camera:

• Mirrorless will get you a lighter smaller body, because the mirror box of the DSLR is not needed.
  • But for FF mirrorless, you won't see any savings on the lens size/weight.
• Some of the mirrorless cameras use contrast detect auto focus (CDAF). In general CDAF is not as fast as phase detect AF (PDAF). So CDAF cameras are not as well suited for fast action/sports.

Lenses:

• But the high end/pro lenses of a FF mirrorless is essentially the same size as a Nikon/Canon FF dslr pro lens. The optical requirements are the same, so the physical size ends up the same.
• You need to drop to the APSC crop sensor cameras or the micro four thirds, to get a smaller/lighter lens. But not all brands make a full line of APSC specific lenses. See my comment about the Nikon DX lenses above.

Budget

• A used kit of FF/FX D810 + 70-200 f/2.8 + 24-70 f/2.8 will run you about $5k +/-.
  • Top QUALITY is EXPENSIVE, even used. There is EXPENSIVE and LESS EXPENSIVE.
• YOU need to determine what level of quality you can afford, and what you are willing to compromise on.

 

[ac12]

BTW, I shoot with multiple systems.

I have a Point and Shoot (P&S) (actually 3 of them) for when I want a small compact camera.
I just got a Micro Four Thirds (m43) camera as a "tweener" between my dslr and the P&S.

• The reason for the "tweener" is, there are times when I want more quality than the P&S, but I don't want to haul around the heavy dslr.
• The m43 has the flexibility of being able to change lenses, which a P&S does not have.
  
• A low end dslr like the Nikon D3400 + 18-55 lens might also fill this role.

I have a DX dslr (Nikon D7200) as my primary top end digital camera.
I "might" get a FX dslr to use with specific FX lenses where I don't have an equivalent DX lens, like the 70-200 FX lens.

While this may sound excessive, I found that if I don't have the right gear, I may not shoot at all. So compromising on the gear to get an easier to carry/use camera makes the difference between shooting and not shooting. Each of the cameras above fit into a particular niche.

Example: I did not get a LOT of family pix when I was growing up, because I did not want to haul out the big 35mm camera, and did not have a P&S equivalent to do the "grab shots." Today the grab shot is what many people use their cell phone cameras for.​

When you find yourself leaving the camera at home, cuz it is too heavy/clumbersome, then you need to look at a smaller easier to use camera.

 

[Dave Colangelo]

I have both Nikon Film stuff and Nikon digital stuff. Depending on which F-Mount lenses you have you may use them more than you think on digital. Some of the late era film stuff is very useable on digital and for that matter so is some of the early era stuff. I use my Ai-s 300mm manual focus on my D3300 for birding pretty much exclusively, every summer. If you get a higher end body (D750 etc) you will also get the motor drive to drive the screw style focus lenses. This opens up a HUGE used market for Nikon glass that cannons simply don't have. But enough fan boy touting. In the end it does not really matter both cannon and nikon take great pictures and you cant really go wrong with either. In the end of the day you are buying into a system, if you know what you are doing (and it sounds like you do) you need a body and a healthy compliment of lenses, if you have some Nikon lenses already you have a leg up there but both Nikon and Cannon offer a full compliment of stuff. The D750 is a solid camera and if I were to get a new digital its what I would go for. However its been out for a while and logic may dictate a replace is impending, which could drive the used price down should something come out soon.

I don't have a mirrorless so I cant really comment on them bu everyone who owns them that I know is in love with them. Every so often I toy with getting an Fuji Xt-2 which gets great notes all around. The sony stuff is solid and pretty much the standard right now. If you can wait Nikon has rumored a mirrorless to be hitting the market soon.

 

[espresso2x]

Canon 5D 'Classic'.
IMO it really is.

I’m considering upgrading to a better digital camera at some point in the next year or so. I currently have a Pentax K-50, which has been okay, but I’d like to upgrade to something full-frame. In truth, I shoot film a lot more than digital, but I think if I had a nicer digital that might not be the case. Because I’m more of a film guy, I don’t know a ton about digital cameras, and am looking for some general suggestions.

While I am open to brands, I’ve been looking mostly at Canon or Nikon, just because those seem to be the big ones, and there’s always a lot of lenses and such on the used market around here. I do have a Nikon 35mm and a few F-mount lenses, so that would be a plus for Nikon—but that said, I rarely use my old K-mount lenses on my K-50, so it’s also not a dealbreaker.

DSLR or mirrorless—I have no idea. I understand mirrorless is getting better all the time, but any light to be shed on this would be appreciated.

Ergonomically, I’d be after something not too gigantic. One of the reasons I went with the K-50 was that it seemed a bit smaller than a lot of other DSLRs. But at the end of the day, I’d sacrifice small size for good quality.

Sorry for the overly vague and broad question, any insight welcome!

 

[earthmanbuck]

Thank you all for the suggestions and info! I'll keep doing my research and keeping my eyes peeled.

 

[Derrel]

Nikon D610....much better image quality than the Canon 5D
offers. I own a 5D "classic" and a D610... there's no comparison. The modern Nikon offers much better image quality in lower light or at higher ISO levels. Given the current $600 or so used price for a D610, it makes no sense to pay $400 for an aged low- end Canon FF camera that's over a decade old.