Full Frame worth it for me?

Discussion in 'Nikon Cameras' started by RDenhardt, Jan 26, 2016.

  1. RDenhardt

    RDenhardt No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2014
    Messages:
    135
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    CT
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Honestly, I hate these types of threads for the most part, but im trying to decide between upgrading to a D7200 or a D610. But I have been researching for the better part of 6 months to try and decided whether it is worth it for myself to go Full Frame. Im looking to upgrade from my D3200 as I feel it sometimes can hold me back with its somewhat low usable ISO range and other things.

    I like the idea of the crop body as I do a lot of sports photography, as well as having a small selection of DX series lenses(I know they will work on the 610 as well). Im looking to expand my lens selection and get some faster glass, and the normal AF glass which is slightly older but more affordable for the hobbyist like myself, so I am going to be a body with a built in focus motor. The D7200 is honestly where im leaning as its cheaper and it will be a substantial upgrade from my current rig, but im really hoping that after I buy that I wont be wanting to go full frame in the next few years... They are relatively close on price with the D610 being about $300 more locally. I know people say to buy refurbished gear as I would probably be able to get a 610 for the price of a new 7200, but I like to know what stuff like this has been through in its life and thats worth the extra for myself.

    I shoot about 80 percent sports and the other 20 percent landscape.

    I know there is a ton of info on here about both of these cameras and i'd like to think I have read a lot of that but I just think I need secondary opinions on my personal situation. Sorry for the long read but I do appreciate it.


     
  2. Trever1t

    Trever1t Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2010
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    2,700
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    there's also the D500 to consider.

    Crop body's offer no advantage for sports. The Field of view is smaller, there's NO EXTRA REACH.

    That said, a full frame offers little advantage over a crop body (sports shooting) except for much better iso response due to the larger sensor and sometimes much better electronics in the full frame bodies.

    I went from DX to FX and it was day and night for me. I shoot portraiture primarily, landscape secondly.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. dennybeall

    dennybeall No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    May 13, 2014
    Messages:
    2,308
    Likes Received:
    439
    Location:
    OTOW - Ocala, Florida
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    One thing to consider is that full frame cameras and lenses are just generally better machines. If you can afford it you want to go with full frame. As far as capturing photos it's the same old story - 80%, or more, of the shots you want can be made with any decent camera while just a small percentage will REQUIRE the full frame camera with fast glass. If you go to certain specialties, like Night Clubs, church weddings or indoor sports, the percentages change.
     
  4. coastalconn

    coastalconn Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2012
    Messages:
    3,594
    Likes Received:
    3,633
    Location:
    Old Saybrook, CT
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Well, here are my 2 cents, for what they are worth. You actually don't mention what "sports" you shoot, but you do mention ISO performance and the D7200 isn't really leaps and bounds above the D3200, maybe 1/6-1/3 of a stop. If you want the most bang for your buck, you should be looking at a D800. You can find good used ones in between the D7200 and the D610 like $1250 used with 15K clicks on it. You have already been shooting at 4 FPS with your camera, you can do 5 FPS with the 1.2x crop mode or 6 FPS in DX mode with a grip and the right battery. The 20% landscape you do will greatly benefit from the D800, plus you are getting great build quality, a "pro level" camera and a good buffer. But I guess if you have to buy new as you say, then it is your loss...

    You also don't mention what you are using for glass and glass will make a much bigger difference than the body if you are using slow lenses..

    OTOH I have shot with the D600 (same sensor as the D610) and the IQ is very good. The D7200 will give you better AF than the D610 which could be beneficial in sports.

    You also don't mention if you are shooting in raw and extracting the most info possible out of your files?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Gary A.

    Gary A. Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2014
    Messages:
    22,357
    Likes Received:
    7,532
    Location:
    Southern California
    I have never owned a Nikon digital camera, so I probably shouldn't be jumping in here ... but here are some general thoughts on FF versus APS-C versus MFT and it is presented under the category of food for thought:

    For me, when I try to think objectively in photography ... I generally end up thinking in terms of significance. In this case, the question will be "Will a full frame significantly improve my sports and landscape photography?" For additional clarity, I will define significantly in term of success ... "Will a full frame make my images more successful than a different format?"

    For sports the difference between a FF and an APS-C is insignificant. For landscape, potentially yes, but with a caveat. That caveat being that you are already capturing exceptional landscape images, already pushing the crop sensor to its limits.

    The other day, while messing around my camera store, the store people had my web site up and we were discussing my images ... Then it dawned on me that it really wouldn't matter what camera system I was shooting, Canon FF, Nikon FF, Olympus MFT or Fuji APS-C ... I pretty much would have captured the same images with pretty much the equal success/impact. I really believe that with the high baseline IQ of most all modern digital cameras that cameras are really quite equal (up to a 11x14 or 16x20 and under ISO 3200).

    I like Fuji ... Well ... Because I like Fuji. It is a bit of a niche camera, they are beautiful cameras, they are well built cameras, but the Fuji images are not significantly better, (in terms of IQ), than Canon or Nikon or Oly, et al. Years ago, during the early days of digital dSLR's, there were significant differences between sensor, cameras and IQ between the various manufacturers and significant IQ differences between sensor formats especially at elevated ISO's. But now, the playing field has quite leveled out in regards to IQ unless you're printing quite large and/or at very high ISO's.

    At 100% you will see a difference between FF/APS-C/MFT ... But if you need a computer to see a difference, then there are no differences at all.

    (Qualifier: For what I shoot and how I shoot. YMMV)

    I am not a Nikon guy. But I have heard that Nikon's DX stuff, from cameras to lenses, is a notch or two down quality-wise from their FF stuff. So another question is how serious are you about your photography? If you shoot a ton, if you shoot a ton in less than friendly environments/climates, then it probably makes sense to go FF just for the better build and better inside stuff. But if you're a semi-serious, happy as a hobbyist type of photog, then the DX should be fine. But the problem is that sports is an extreme photographic challenge requiring top notch lenses (long and fast), in order to consistently capture the exceptional image. So for sports you gotta go FX lenses if you want to consistently capture pro level images. So if you're spending top dollar going FX lenses you might as well spend a little more and go FX body as well. If you're happy with your DX sports images, if you have no desires to consistently capture pro level images, then stay happy ... all the way to the bank.

    But, once again, I really haven't any expertise with digital Nikon cameras, I'm just giving some general information/opinion. (But I do have Canon FF, Fuji APS-C and Olympus MFT cameras and lenses.)
     
  6. coastalconn

    coastalconn Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2012
    Messages:
    3,594
    Likes Received:
    3,633
    Location:
    Old Saybrook, CT
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    You do make some valid points, but I disagree with some of the stuff I quoted. What you have heard is probably because Nikon chose not to release a Pro DX Camera since 2007 with the D300 (and a minor upgrade in 2009 with the D300s) So time has marched on and anyone that kicks the snot out of their gear like I do was forced into either a D800 series or the D4 series. With the impending release of the D500, that changes the playing feel a lot. Now there is finally a Pro DX that is built to shoot in crap. As far as lenses, anyone shooting sports would have a "FX" lens anyways as there really are no pro DX lenses designed for Sports. What I put in bold is Jabberwocky, IMHO. A good photographer can consistently produce "pro level images" regardless of DX or FX as long as they have a camera that is not hampered in AF or Frame rate. Matched with the right glass in daylight sports, the DX can do just fine. Of course if we are talking indoor sports then the ball goes back into FX's court. And I have shot Nikon, D5000, D90, D300,D7100, D800, D600, D3s for bird photography that requires much of the same criteria as sports...
     
  7. Gary A.

    Gary A. Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2014
    Messages:
    22,357
    Likes Received:
    7,532
    Location:
    Southern California
    With all due respect, Maybe I was clear, but I was addressing "sports" photography in particular. I believe that most modern pro level sports photography is generally highlighted by the use of long lenses with big apertures for subject isolation. I do not believe you'll be able to consistently replicate that feel with DX lenses. As you have the expertise in DX shooting, I will defer to that expertise and I guess I am wrong, thinking that a DX camera armed with DX lenses actually is equal to a FX camera with FX lenses in consistently capturing pro level sports images.

    BTW- In my opening remarks I did say "... For sports the difference between a FF and an APS-C is insignificant." when addressing FF and APS-C in general.
     
  8. hamlet

    hamlet No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2013
    Messages:
    2,894
    Likes Received:
    435
    Location:
    Belgium
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    As a fellow d3200 user i can say that the d7100 or d7200 will be a major upgrade, i love mine. I know that money can be tight, but if i was you i would find a way to get some more cash and buy the d500. If i could do it over again that's the one i'd get, the thing blows many full frame camera away.

    the advantages of full frame really show in the wide angle lens selection for landscaping. crop cameras (in comparison to full frame) have really been neglected in the quality department. I would really love to see a more modern version to the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 and i would never have a reason again to go full frame. But i do believe that a art version is coming out since Nikon and Canon seem to be taking the crop market much more seriously.
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2016
  9. Ihatemymoney

    Ihatemymoney No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2013
    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    25
    Location:
    nevada
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I don't shoot much sports and I have never owned a Nikon camera.

    I have one major regret when I started off in photography.
    And that is I didn't buy a Full Framed camera to begin with ....
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. PaulWog

    PaulWog No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2013
    Messages:
    1,153
    Likes Received:
    188
    Location:
    Canada
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    If you're buying new and you shoot sports a ton, consider the D750 for the significantly better AF. If money is an issue, the D610 obviously is still a capable and excellent camera.

    I upgraded from a D5200 to a D750. The difference is quite significant. For a lot sports, a shallower depth of field, and better high ISO performance are definitely two important things. Most lenses don't really utilize the pixel density on a crop sensor, so that "crop factor" (the "amazing" 50% extra reach!) quite often will not translate into any extra detail over cropping an image from a full frame camera with the same lens.

    If you're doing sports and you're shooting between f6.3 and f11 and you need to top out at ISO 6400 or ISO 12800 for your desired shutter speeds, then full frame and a 150-600 (or 200-500) might be a way to go. If you are topping out at ISO 3200 or very occasionally ISO 6400, and you don't want a shallower depth of field, then maybe stick with crop.
     
  11. goodguy

    goodguy Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2012
    Messages:
    5,555
    Likes Received:
    1,120
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    The D7200 is a good sports camera, or maybe I should be more specific and say its doing very good sports onsidering its more of a general use camera and not a sports dedicated camera like the D500.

    If low light performance is important for you then there is no substitute to full frame but as you know you are loosing the 1.5 crop factor.

    The AF on the D610 is not as good as the D7200 but its still plenty good and is a whole level better then the one on your D3200, if you found the AF working good for you on the D3200 then the one on the D610 will be enough too.

    I don't think I can tell you what is the better choice for you, you are the only one that can decide what is the way to go, I think from reading previous post on this thread you got plenty of good info so you should take this info, process it and decide.
    I would go with FF, it was my dream till I got it and now I own DX and FX and the difference in low light performance (which is very important for me) is very big, well worth the the investment ni my eyes but that's me.

    Good luck
     
  12. Solarflare

    Solarflare No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    Messages:
    2,898
    Likes Received:
    394


    The D610 is a poor choice for a sports camera, since its AF module is slow. Then again you've been happy with a D3200 so far, so you probably wont notice, or rather think the opposite. But for good sports AF you would definitely want a D750. Maybe a used D3 with not too much of a shuttercount if you really want to be cheaper. The D700 would definitely be very cheap and its AF module would be fine, too, but its high ISO is not as good as the one of the D3 (they use the same sensor, but its differently tuned).

    Also, the ability of Nikon FX cameras to use Nikon DX lenses is mostly a marketing gimmick, not really anything anybody wants to actually use. If at all, one wants to equip a DX zoom lens and zoom it to whatever range it will cover the full FX frame (many DX zooms have such a spot, for example the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 can be used as a 16mm f2.8 pseudo-prime on FX, or the AF-S 12-24mm can be used as a 18-24mm, etc). Even some primes can be kind of used (the AF-S 35mm f1.8 DX can be used in 4:5 or 16:9 crop or likewise, on FX).


    Say what now ? Of course there is extra reach. Thats the practical consequence if you only use the center of the image circle. Thats what "crop factor" stands for.

    Using a Nikon 1 camera with a Nikon F lens will give you even more extra reach, though it might challenge many optics because they arent sharp enough even in the center for such small pixels.


    It lacks in fps. They gave it the top AF module of that time though and the lack of buffer issue was also resolved.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

apsc vs full frame sensor