Picking A Camera - So Confused.... Suggestions?

[RickyD]

Okay, I'm going a little crazy figuring out which camera to get. I have been looking at the Canon T6i/s, Canon 6D, and Nikon D600. I was just about set to buy the T6s (I'm going to buy refurbished with whatever model I go for) and pair it with the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens (I have read that it is most similar to the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L). Then I found a YouTube source (for some reason I can't find it now) that indicated this Tamron lens is best for full frame cameras. If paired with an APS-C camera (in Nikon terms "DX"), I will lose quite a bit of that aperture rating (it would bump to something like a 5.6). That's when I discovered the Canon 6D and Nikon D600. Both are a bit more in price, but I'm willing to go there if I find one of those is the camera I am looking for (I really didn't want to be deep into the $1,000 range, but I can be persuaded.... I am far from rich, though).

What really attracts me to the Canon cameras are their WiFi abilities. I like that I can mirror the cameras POV on my phone for self-portraits/group shots. In terms of photo quality between these cameras I am completely neutral. Though, it does seem the Canon 6D is better at higher ISO's. However, the Nikon D600 has 100% field of view in the viewfinder. But overall, between the Canon T6i/s and 6D and Nikon D600, I find the quality to be fantastic. The big question is, is full frame what I really want? (I am shocked at the difference between the two types) I also have no lighting equipment and is something I want to invest in. So having money around for that and 1 or two nice lenses is also a priority (I currently have a nice Tamron Tele-Macro 70-300mm 1:4-5.6 lens, so maybe just one other lens would do for portraiture/walking around tourist photos)

Now I am not the photographer I want to be quite yet. So to better get an idea of what I want to accomplish as a photographer, I have collected photos that represent an idea my ideal skill level. I'll post a link here of those photos so maybe someone can help me make this choice between APS-C cameras ("DX") and full frame.

Link

A little more background on who I am as a photographer: I took a class 10 years ago in high school and absolutely loved it! I was actually the last class at my high school to use the dark room, which was a brilliant experience. I ditched my hand-me-down film camera for a bargain price on a Sony Alpha 200 back in 2008 (I really wanted my first DSLR before my trip to Costa Rica). Though due to "life" I haven't been able to have fun with this hobby, but recently a former co-worker and friend of mine said she would love to model for me. That has me really excited and is motivating me to get back into this wonderful hobby. Then suddenly my dad decided he wanted to get married and now I am going to be taking photos for him (it's not a very typical wedding. Just a reception and it's a brunch at a golf club. I'm really not nervous about it.) So now I have two nice opportunities lined up to kick start my re-discovery and love of photography.

 

[The_Traveler]

Ricky,

It's not the camera that gets these photographers to be really good. Camera and lens are important but they are only tools and there are hundreds of thousands of photographers (maybe millions) with cameras equal to those people - and their pictures are crap.

All that being said whoever said this

If paired with an APS-C camera (in Nikon terms "DX"), I will lose quite a bit of that aperture rating

is a person to ignore because it is wrong.
What you do lose is the shallowness of depth of field.

Honestly, if you haven't much experience now, there are lots of reasons to get into it as cheaply and easily as you can because you may find:

• you don't like the effort
• you can't handle the ongoing expense
• you just aren't any good at it.

You seem to be committed to shooting your dad's wedding.
That's far from the first occasion I would choose to learn on and you need to be real clear with your dad that not a single picture might be great and if he wants photos he should hire someone with experience.

Your budget must include a lens or multiple lenses. Memory cards, maybe flash.
And you'll have to decide what to use to do your post-processing with.

So what's your time line and your budget?

 

[robbins.photo]

Ricky, you've got some pretty bad info mixed in there. No, the 2.8 tamron will work fine on an aps-c sensor camera and it will still be 2.8 - You don't lose aperture by mounting it on an aps-c camera.

Also, if low light is your concern the nikon d600 is the best choice in that regard, it will give you much better hi iso low noise results than the canons will.

Note you can get a WiFi adapter for nikon that will do the same as the built-in WiFi, but if that's a big selling point I'd go with the canon, small adapters like that can be a pain.



Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

 

[PaulWog]

Just to further clarify some practical differences between crop and full frame.

Full frame +/-:
+ Capable of a shallower depth of field
+ Better in low light
+ Better viewfinder than most crop cameras
+ Better high-end glass options for the most part
- More expensive body, more expensive lenses

Crop +/-:
+ Cheaper body, cheaper lenses
+ Crop factor can be useful for nature photography, although the benefits are over-exaggerated by most (the lens is the limiting factor, so a 1.5 crop factor on most lenses won't result in 1.5x the detail on a far-away subject)
+ Usually a lighter overall package
- See the positives for full frame
- The viewfinder on most crop bodies is so bad that it's difficult (and uncomfortable) to frame up shots... this isn't true for all crop cameras

As for how a 28-75 f2.8 will behave on a full frame camera, and on a crop sensor camera, here's my thoughts:

On full frame, you will get the intended results. The wide end is 28mm, the long end is 75mm, and the widest aperture is f2.8 throughout the range. You will utilize all of the glass (not just the center-most portion); this means that on a full frame sensor, the image will be sharper. When I first started shooting, I heard people say "Crop cameras use the best part of the glass, the sharpest part, the center." While the center of glass tends to be better, there are limitations. In the case of full frame lenses, using all of the glass on a full frame sensor will result in a sharper image than just using the DX crop portion of the glass. There are some exceptions to this for wildlife photography on very very expensive lenses, where a DX lens will help get more detail on a further subject.

On a crop camera, the focal length will appear as 42mm - 114mm. The aperture will be the same (f2.8). However, the depth of field (the blurry foreground/background effect), will appear similar to f4 on full frame. For example, if you shot at 28mm on crop at f2.8, the shot would look almost identical to 42mm and f4 on full frame. I can clarify further if this sounds confusing.

Overall:

Either format could serve you well. It just depends on your budget. If I were on a budget, I would look to maybe a D610 (not a D600 -- I don't like having to deal with mail-in replacements), and a used/well priced Nikon 24-85 f3.5-f4.5 VR (not to be mistaken with similar older models). I would pick up a Tokina 16-28, or something in a similar price range with similar performance. Alternatively, if I were on a tighter budget than that, I might look at a D7100, a Sigma 17-50 f2.8, and a Tokina 11-20mm f2.8 Pro. If I wanted telephoto for wildlife, I would look to the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary for DX or FX. If I wanted to do portraiture, I would look to the 100mm f2.8 Tokina lens, or the 85mm 1.8G Nikon lens for either full frame or crop.

A couple noteworthy lenses that you can use on crop that you can't on full frame include:
Sigma 18-35 f1.8 Art (The price-performance alternative for full frame is Tamron's 24-70 f2.8 VC)
Sigma 50-100 f1.8 Art (The price-performance alternative for full frame is Tamron's 70-200 f2.8 VC)

 

[Solarflare]

Why full frame ? Or why not ?

Honestly the main reason many more engaged hobbyists use full frame is because the lens selection is so much better - much more options, and higher quality. Especially with Nikon you can also get extremely high quality lenses for ultra cheap because they are "old" and "only manual focus". But they are also full metal and can last you a lifetime. My AI 300mm f4.5 lens for example will probably do so, but it cost me only $200. Given the $1800 price tag of a current AF 300mm f4 PF VR, thats really impressive. Yes the current model has autofocus and image stabilization, which you actually might want for certain things (such as wildlife/birds), but its not optically superior.

You can get the same lens quality for APS-C there is Fuji X. However Fuji X at the moment has no used market of old stuff thats still as good as it was when published. Otherwise they might be the best "standard" lens maker in the market right now, even beating Nikon and Canon.

Besides I do not agree with others that Fuji X lenses, as new lenses, are expensive. Many are surprisingly cheap for what they offer. Nikon and Canon have many such expensive lenses, but they often cannot keep up with what Fuji offers. Fuji is basically offering you a system with Zeiss lenses, except they are cheaper and can do autofocus, zoom and image stabilization.

The real issue with Fuji lens prices is that Fuji only offers two TC lenses which are plastic, dark and cheap, like many Nikon and Canon offers. The rest is XF lenses which are metal.


High ISO is also better with full frame, though at least the Nikon D500 challenges this now quite aggressively.



Low light / High ISO

Canon is definitely not better than Nikon in lowlight, sorry. On the contrary the main issue of Canon is right now that their sensors cannot keep up with the competition. ALL the competition, not just Nikon. Thats because Canon insists on making their own sensors, while the competition largely now depends upon the de facto monopolist Sony. Especially with dynamic range this is really noticeable in practice. You cant raise the shadows on a Canon as much as with a Nikon.



Focal Length, Aperture, Depth of field etc

Optical parameters such as:
- [absolute] focal length
- focus / distance to focus plane
- [absolute] aperture (f-stop)
- depth of field (depends upon the previous three parameters)
- transmission (T-stop, how much light the lens will shine on the sensor; this is always less than the f-stop)
- image circle (this specifies how large the sensor can be; larger sensors will be dark in the corners)
- flange distance (distance between lens and sensor, a wrong value here means you cannot focus to infinity or can focus beyond infinity but lose close focusing ability)
etc are all, as stated, OPTICAL and thus are exclusively controlled by the lens ONLY. The sensor cannot change anything about it at all, ever, no matter what voodoo you're trying.

And if you have a hypothetical 20 Megapixel full frame ~36x24mm sensor and a 9 Megapixel APS-C ~24x16mm sensor of exact same technology, the pixelsize is about the same and the data of the APS-C sensor can be created by the 20 Megapixel full frame sensor simply by cropping the center 9 Megapixel. Thats because APS-C is 45% of the area of the full frame sensor. Thats also what will happen with any full frame lens you use on the APS-C sensor, the center of the image frame is recorded and the rest wasted.

Theres people who write stuff like "a 24-70mm f2.8 lens is a 36-105mm f4 lens for APS-C" but what they mean that in order to create the same field of view on full frame that an APS-C does with said lens, you would need a hypothetical 36-105mm f4 lens. Meaning you have to multiply the focal length by 1.5 (the socalled cropfactor of APS-C) for the same angle of view and have one stop less aperture (f4 instead of f2.8) for the same depth of field. However the absolute values of the lens are constant; the lens itself still is 24-70mm f2.8 even if you use it on an APS-C lens.

Again: ALL thats really happening is that you only use the center potion of the available image area. But your 50mm f2.0 lens still has the focal length of 50mm and the depth of field of a 50mm f2.0 lens.



WiFi

AFAICS WiFi on current camera simply sucks BIG TIME. Slow connection, very poor functionality. You can slowly upload JPEGs in a more or less complicated way, and you get some limited remote functionality, but thats it. No lifeview on your phone or direct backup of all RAW files to your phone or even the cloud in realtime etc. I have no clue why I would care about WiFi in its current state.



100% viewfinder

Having a 100% viewfinder is really irrelevant. Many good cameras dont have it and still work wonderful. And besides, no optical viewfinder is actually perfectly giving you the framing you get. Thats the priviledge of electronic viewfinders; or on DSLRs the monitor in lifeview.



Camera setup

Attempt for a setup for the images you presented on the basis of "make it as cheap as in any way possible" but at very high image quality:
- Used Nikon D700 as the cheapest available entry into full frame (*), about $600 in good condition.
- AI 24mm f2.8, the legendary wide angle lens; manual focus only (**). So good its still in production even today; used prices are around $130.
- AF 60mm f2.8 micro as normal and macro lens; this is also a great reproduction lens(***), used around $250.
- AF 85mm f1.8 for telephoto and shallow depth of field such as in Cat 2, used around $300 (****).
- Nikon SB800 flash (used ca $150) plus Nikon SC-17 TTL flash cable (IIRC around $20 used).
- Good sturdy tripod.
- You probably also want a polarization filter for landscape work, especially for the AI 24mm f2.8.

(*) The Canon 5D is technically even cheaper, but Canon doesnt have as cheap used lenses.
(**) Definitely dont worry - wide angle doesnt really need autofocus as much as longer focal lengths, especially not stopped down.
(***) Reproduction lens means it has little if any field curvature and is very sharp at close focus distances.
(****) Unfortunately shallow depth of field isnt cheap to get.



Tamron 28-85mm

Sorry, I dont know anything about this lens, neither good nor bad. Normal zooms simply dont interest me much because (a) they are the hardest to design zooms, (b) prime lenses near the normal focal length (50mm for full frame, 35mm for APS-C) get the biggest bonusses (such as having a lot more maximum aperture and thus light and shallow depth of field than zooms) and (c) you can almost always "zoom by feet" in this focal length area (which often isnt possible with wide and telephoto angles).

 

[nerwin]

You could save yourself a little bit of money by picking up a Nikon D5300 + 18-55 and a 50 1.8G for portraits.

 

[spiralout462]

If possible, I would get to a store and put some cameras in your hand before buying anything.

You can buy something with the best "specs" on the market but if it's not comfortable to use, you will hate it.

 

[beagle100]

Okay, I'm going a little crazy figuring out which camera to get. I have been looking at the Canon T6i/s, Canon 6D, and Nikon D600. I was just about set to buy the T6s (I'm going to buy refurbished with whatever model I go for) and pair it with the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens (I have read that it is most similar to the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L). Then I found a YouTube source (for some reason I can't find it now) that indicated this Tamron lens is best for full frame cameras. If paired with an APS-C camera (in Nikon terms "DX"), I will lose quite a bit of that aperture rating (it would bump to something like a 5.6). That's when I discovered the Canon 6D and Nikon D600. Both are a bit more in price, but I'm willing to go there if I find one of those is the camera I am looking for (I really didn't want to be deep into the $1,000 range, but I can be persuaded.... I am far from rich, though).

What really attracts me to the Canon cameras are their WiFi abilities. I like that I can mirror the cameras POV on my phone for self-portraits/group shots. In terms of photo quality between these cameras I am completely neutral. Though, it does seem the Canon 6D is better at higher ISO's. However, the Nikon D600 has 100% field of view in the viewfinder. But overall, between the Canon T6i/s and 6D and Nikon D600, I find the quality to be fantastic. The big question is, is full frame what I really want? (I am shocked at the difference between the two types) I also have no lighting equipment and is something I want to invest in. So having money around for that and 1 or two nice lenses is also a priority (I currently have a nice Tamron Tele-Macro 70-300mm 1:4-5.6 lens, so maybe just one other lens would do for portraiture/walking around tourist photos)

Now I am not the photographer I want to be quite yet. So to better get an idea of what I want to accomplish as a photographer, I have collected photos that represent an idea my ideal skill level. I'll post a link here of those photos so maybe someone can help me make this choice between APS-C cameras ("DX") and full frame.
A little more background on who I am as a photographer: I took a class 10 years ago in high school and absolutely loved it! I was actually the last class at my high school to use the dark room, which was a brilliant experience. I ditched my hand-me-down film camera for a bargain price on a Sony Alpha 200 back in 2008 (I really wanted my first DSLR before my trip to Costa Rica). Though due to "life" I haven't been able to have fun with this hobby, but recently a former co-worker and friend of mine said she would love to model for me. That has me really excited and is motivating me to get back into this wonderful hobby. Then suddenly my dad decided he wanted to get married and now I am going to be taking photos for him (it's not a very typical wedding. Just a reception and it's a brunch at a golf club. I'm really not nervous about it.) So now I have two nice opportunities lined up to kick start my re-discovery and love of photography.

right, the Canon 6D is better at high ISO levels (and image quality) and a better and more varied lens selection but go to a store and check them out - remember, leave room in the budget for quality lens !