How much sensor do you really need?

[Stradawhovious]

In most shooting situations you'd be pretty hard pressed to tell the difference between the shots I took with my D5100, my D5200, or my D7100 or now my D600.

That's a function of the photographer, not the cameras, right?

I agree. Going from my D7000 to my D3 in a studio situation is a dream come true. Going from my D3 to my D7000 in low light situations is a breath of fresh air. The fact is I know how to use them both, so they both produce really usable images... and yes, in most cases, without the exif data you'd be hard pressed to know which one I used for which shots.

 

[robbins.photo]

That's a function of the photographer, not the cameras, right?

Lol.. to a certain extent, sure. Look at it this way, I'm not sure if Michelangelo could have carved David using a spork - but if he could it would have taken a very long time and it would have really sucked. So why put forth all that effort to do it when there are better solutions available?

Me, I'm no arteest, not by any stretch of the imagination. But I can't get the kind of shots I want from a cell phone camera, or one of the super portable pocket cams. Sure I might be able to get something that barley rates on my acceptable scale with a ton of effort, but why bother when the tools I need to do the job much easier are readily available and well within my price range?

I agree. Going from my D7000 to my D3 in a studio situation is a dream come true. Going from my D3 to my D7000 in low light situations is a breath of fresh air. The fact is I know how to use them both, so they both produce really usable images... and yes, in most cases, without the exif data you'd be hard pressed to know which one I used for which shots.

Yup.. I can look through my flickr account and I can't tell what was shot with the D5200 vrs the D7100 - unless I check the EXIF. Heck I've even got some stuff in there that was shot with an old SX50 bridge camera and sometimes until I check the EXIF I'm not 100% sure that was shot with the bridge.

But my keeper rate with the bridge camera was horrific, and I didn't even bother trying to use it indoors because I don't think I ever got one shot I considered usable that way.

So yup, more power to the folks that want to produce art with a spork. I'm sticking with a good set of hammer and chisels, thanks.

 

[Stradawhovious]

So yup, more power to the folks that want to produce art with a spork. I'm sticking with a good set of hammer and chisels, thanks.

Bottom line. It's the craftsman not the tool.

Can you produce a quality widget with a sub par tool? Yes, as long as you are experienced and proficient in your trade.

Is it easier to produce a quality widget, and learn how to make quality widgets with higher quality tools? You bet your ass.

This is why I'm shooting with a D3 rather than a D3000. But what do I know? I'm to hung up on equipment to offer any rational opinion.

I do love this argument. It's one of the few CONSTANTLY BEAT TO DEATH arguments that I consistently participate in.

 

[robbins.photo]

This is why I'm shooting with a D3 rather than a D3000. But what do I know? I'm to hung up on equipment to offer any rational opinion.

I do love this argument. It's one of the few CONSTANTLY BEAT TO DEATH arguments that I consistently participate in.

Years and years ago when I was a kid we had one of those manual push mowers. Yes, you could mow the lawn with it, and when you were done it wasn't like people driving by would say, wow.. looks like that was done with a push mower... so no, you couldn't really tell the difference in the end result. But boy, once you got a chance to use a gas powered self propelled mower to do the same job, you really didn't want to go back to using that old manual push mower again.

Camera's are a bit different of course, there are some shots that I can get with my D600 under certain conditions that I just could not get using the D5100 under the same conditions, so yes there is actually some effect on the end result in certain situations.

But for me the real big difference is in overall usability, not so much in the end result. I can get the results I want much faster and easier using my D600 than I could with the D7100, or the D5200.. and in some cases I could not get the end result with those that I can get with the D600. No matter how skilled I am or what settings I chose I'm still dependent on light, and in many of the shooting situations I'm in I don't have the option of adding any. That's not as common for most as it is for me, but for me a full frame camera makes a world of difference.

 

[Braineack]

All that matter is that the camera has the ability to allow the photographer to control the exposure.

Load of $hit.

 

[JacaRanda]

 

[robbins.photo]

Jaca..stop that.

Eventually you'll wind up hurting the wall.

 

[JacaRanda]

Jaca..stop that.

Eventually you'll wind up hurting the wall.

True, but I have really cool imprints on my forehead.

 

[Braineack]

True, but I have really cool imprints on my forehead.

size of forehead doesn't matter, so long as you can manually control your exposure to wall.

 

[fmw]

Here is an image from a 18 year old Nikon D1. At 2.7 MP and HORRIBLY outdated, it should produce terrible images, correct?

View attachment 123341

I've said this before, and I will say it again.

Much like anything else in life, in photography what you have doesn't matter nearly as much as what you do with what you have. This camera, which is completely obsolete in every sense of the word, still takes what I would consider to be very usable images.

That said, it hasn't stopped me from getting a Nikon D7000 and a Nikon D3. yes, I realize those are dreadfully obsolete as well... but I know them, like them, and they produce fantastic images.

Buy what you like, learn to use you what you buy, and have fun.

Speaking of the D3, I just ordered one (12 mpx version) new old stock for $550. Hopefully the Amazon seller isn't lying. We shall see in about a week. If it is true then I will have to decide between keeping it or making some money selling it.

 

[Stradawhovious]

Speaking of the D3, I just ordered one (12 mpx version) new old stock for $550. Hopefully the Amazon seller isn't lying. We shall see in about a week. If it is true then I will have to decide between keeping it or making some money selling it.

Hell of a deal if there's nothing wrong with it. I got mine for just under a thousand and I still think it was a screaming deal.

 

[fmw]

Speaking of the D3, I just ordered one (12 mpx version) new old stock for $550. Hopefully the Amazon seller isn't lying. We shall see in about a week. If it is true then I will have to decide between keeping it or making some money selling it.

Hell of a deal if there's nothing wrong with it. I got mine for just under a thousand and I still think it was a screaming deal.

Yes, under $1000 is a great deal. Most D3's are selling for $1200-$1500 used. What I ordered seems like too good to be true and you know what that normally means. But if it turns out to be a bust, I can file an A to Z with Amazon. We shall see how it goes.

 

[Solarflare]

Well ... I dunno about beginners.

If I could travel back in time, I would tell my past self to get D700, 24-70mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8 VR2, back in 2009. (*)

And I would still use that today happily.


Other than that, I would state you should get the biggest sensor you can get, until
(a) the camera gets too expensive
(b) the lenses you want get too large



(*) And then flash: SB800, flash battery pack SD-9, flash sync cable SC-28, pocket wizards whenever they get introduced.
Also a prime trinity - Zeiss 18mm f3.5 zf, Zeiss 35mm f2 zf, Zeiss 100mm f2 macro zf, PN-11.

 

[table1349]

Sensors are like Bikinis, you need enough to cover the subject.

 

[fmw]

The cheap D3 was a scam by the way. The seller cancelled it. I reordered and he cancelled it again. Now I await the refunds from Amazon.