Full Frame worth it for me?

[astroNikon]

I shot a lot of my kids soccer sports. And also indoor soccer.
I started with a d7000 and upgraded to a d600
I absolutely love the d600 for both indoor and outdoor. Outdoor when games start in the evening it essentially is no problem for a good FF but a problem for a DX.

I use the same lenses as I used on my d7000 too.
I'd say make the jump to FullFrame esecially with your indoor hockey.

One big issue I had with my d7000 was on the sideline if the action got too close, I had to move back (80-200/2.8 lens). On the FF I didn't have to do that as much.

The d7x00 or d6x00 or higher FX overall Focusing system will blow your mind compared to your d3300 especally for sports.

 

[RDenhardt]

Thanks again for the replies guys. I know for sure the D7200 will without a doubt be a huge improvement over my current camera, I just don't want to be back in this situation again come another year or two. The D750 seems like its an extremely popular choice according to the people on here as well as all the folks I talked to down at the camera shop. They suggested the 750 over the 610 as it is newer and other things, but its hard to tell with shops as they are trying to make a dollar which I can understand.

 

[astroNikon]

Thanks again for the replies guys. I know for sure the D7200 will without a doubt be a huge improvement over my current camera, I just don't want to be back in this situation again come another year or two. The D750 seems like its an extremely popular choice according to the people on here as well as all the folks I talked to down at the camera shop. They suggested the 750 over the 610 as it is newer and other things, but its hard to tell with shops as they are trying to make a dollar which I can understand.

I'd upgrade to the d750 if I had the $$$
but the d6x0 is a modern FF nonetheless and brings all the advantages of one too.
It all boils down to your budget.

I was nearly going to upgrade a few months ago but my primary lens got damaged and I had to have it fixed which killed my savings for the d750. Maybe next year.

 

[Braineack]

FALSE. A crop body only decreases the field of view. IT DOES NOT GIVE TELESCOPIC advantage IN ANY MANNER. Please see this chart here linked.

http://www.nikonhq.com/images/2008/07/FX_DX_sizes1.jpg
or this one
http://sowrongbutfunny.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/FXvsDX-960x640.jpg

or am I misunderstanding that you are misunderstanding me?

you cant say a crop body doesn't give you extra XYZ, because it only does ASD and not PQX.

define reach. Did anyone say reach was a telescopic advantange or merely the relative size of the subject in relation to the size of the frame? Is a decrease in FOV not extra reach? I dunno. What exactly is reach?

 

[Solarflare]

A crop body only decreases the field of view. IT DOES NOT GIVE TELESCOPIC advantage IN ANY MANNER.

And the difference in practice is what exactly ? The pixels are smaller, thus you have more details.

 

[JacaRanda]

FALSE. A crop body only decreases the field of view. IT DOES NOT GIVE TELESCOPIC advantage IN ANY MANNER. Please see this chart here linked.

http://www.nikonhq.com/images/2008/07/FX_DX_sizes1.jpg
or this one
http://sowrongbutfunny.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/FXvsDX-960x640.jpg

or am I misunderstanding that you are misunderstanding me?

you cant say a crop body doesn't give you extra XYZ, because it only does ASD and not PQX.

define reach. Did anyone say reach was a telescopic advantange or merely the relative size of the subject in relation to the size of the frame? Is a decrease in FOV not extra reach? I dunno. What exactly is reach?

I really wish I could come up with some clear and clever way to explain this so that a newbie would understand exactly what we are saying (some probably do anyway).
If ever, it should become a TPF sticky.

OP, decisions decisions decisions. If I could start all over again, I would buy nearly all used lenses and probably bodies too.
I think it's all been said in one way or the other in the previous posts; there are advantages and disadvantages with either way you go. When money is an issue, it could make your decision easier, or tougher.

Good luck.

 

[RDenhardt]

A quick search on my local craigslist has yielded a D7200 with 80 shutter actuations for $700, that certainly is within my budget haha

 

[goodguy]

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.

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

I guess that is for the user to decide if 6-7 FPS is fast enough or not.
As I said its a general use camera that is good at doing sports but its not a dedicated sports camera.
If 6-7 FPS isn't enough then only camera that can cut it in Nikon arsenal is the D500 which should be out soon and will cost a lot more then a D610 or D7200

 

[astroNikon]

I guess that is for the user to decide if 6-7 FPS is fast enough or not.
As I said its a general use camera that is good at doing sports but its not a dedicated sports camera.
If 6-7 FPS isn't enough then only camera that can cut it in Nikon arsenal is the D500 which should be out soon and will cost a lot more then a D610 or D7200

and the recently released D5
and the old D700 with battery pack
d300S .. the D3s, D4s etc

 

[Braineack]

did we ever determine what sort of "sports" we are talking about yet?

 

[RDenhardt]

did we ever determine what sort of "sports" we are talking about yet?

Yeah... 75 percent motocross and 25 percent indoor ice hockey

 

[Braineack]

I dont see the D610 having any issue here as far as the AF is concerned and will have better IQ over the D7200 espeically at the indoor hockey events.

The D7200 will definitely have a reach advantage. *GASP*

 

[Trever1t]

A crop body only decreases the field of view. IT DOES NOT GIVE TELESCOPIC advantage IN ANY MANNER.

And the difference in practice is what exactly ? The pixels are smaller, thus you have more details.

That makes no sense and isn't relevant to the conversation but to argue the point my d810 has more detail and is full frame

 

[Trever1t]

FALSE. A crop body only decreases the field of view. IT DOES NOT GIVE TELESCOPIC advantage IN ANY MANNER. Please see this chart here linked.

http://www.nikonhq.com/images/2008/07/FX_DX_sizes1.jpg
or this one
http://sowrongbutfunny.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/FXvsDX-960x640.jpg

or am I misunderstanding that you are misunderstanding me?

you cant say a crop body doesn't give you extra XYZ, because it only does ASD and not PQX.

define reach. Did anyone say reach was a telescopic advantange or merely the relative size of the subject in relation to the size of the frame? Is a decrease in FOV not extra reach? I dunno. What exactly is reach?

Reach is defined as zoom. Crop forces you farther away from subject to get same frame as fx. Fx allows you to be closer. Jeesh, it's really not that hard to understand.

 

[astroNikon]

The D7200 will definitely have a reach advantage. *GASP*

This kind of REACH ??