Planning on going full frame.

[Markw]

The D7000 is a brilliant camera. Unless you HAVE to have the FX, for some odd reason, I wouldn't sell that to switch over. I would definately use it for a second body. It'd be a shame to lose the 1.5x mag for your macro lens, and you'd have to sell the 35/1.8 and Sigma UWA. To replace these for FX, you're looking at easily $1.5k.

Mark

 

[molested_cow]

So you haven't explained why YOU want to go full frame.

 

[chaosrealm93]

i suppose because all the pros shoot FF and OP wants in...

 

[ultimadrift]

Been busy at work lately...I want to shoot FX for wide angle. It just doesn't seem as though I can get everything in the frame with DX. Even with the sigma 10-20mm. The quality of the images aren't up to par...However I've seen people use the 35 on FX and it works. Just a little vignetting at the corners but it works.

 

[Markw]

You will have to put your FX camera in DX mode to use the 10-20 with it. This will cut the MP in half, and you will still get the same photo and image quality basically. The 0-20 is like a 15-30mm lens on FX. You could sell e 0-20, and will still hve to put out around $900-1200 for an equally wide lens for an fx camera. Instead, just get the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro. It has almost NO distortion, unbelievably sharp photos, a constant 2.8 aperture, and is built like a tank. It is the beat Ultrawide made, DX OR FX. I will save you a lot of unnecessary money spent to buy that, rather than a camera.

Mark

 

[D-B-J]

bokeh is nicer and you can shoot better in low light. better performance overall. my reasons i want to go FX....

Please do some research.. Bokeh has NOTHING to do with the sensor size; it has to do with the build quality of the lens, such as the glass, the number of elements, etc etc. And why can it shoot better in low light? Because there is a larger sensor area, or because the sensor itself is better? Just some things to think about.


Regards,
Jake

 

[2WheelPhoto]

This is one of those threads

 

[Moe]

Wow. I'm thinking you have no idea what you're getting into.

As stated above, the only way the 10-20 will work on FX is if you put it in DX mode, which actually brings it down to 5-6 MPs. So, even worse than the D7000. You need to do some research before opening your wallet. Sigma makes an 8-16 for DX cameras. The widest non-fisheye for FX is the Sigma 12-24 (which would be about the equivalent of 8-16 on DX.) You could consider a fisheye.

What in the heck are you trying to shoot that won't fit in at 10mm?

So, to recap: put your wallet away. you're not gonna be any wider by buying FX.

 

[ultimadrift]

I know the 10-20mm would not work on FX...Of course I would sell that as well. As for better bokeh its actually somewhat true. If you use a 50mm on DX to take a headshot the bokeh would be less creamy rather than on an FX body with the same lens since you can get much closer to blur out the background.

 

[djacobox372]

bokeh is nicer and you can shoot better in low light. better performance overall. my reasons i want to go FX....

Please do some research.. Bokeh has NOTHING to do with the sensor size; it has to do with the build quality of the lens, such as the glass, the number of elements, etc etc. And why can it shoot better in low light? Because there is a larger sensor area, or because the sensor itself is better? Just some things to think about.Regards,Jake

That's a bit misleading, a larger frame allows you to get closer to the subject while using the same focal length which compresses the dof--giving you a blurrier background which some may refer to as better bokeh.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

bokeh is nicer and you can shoot better in low light. better performance overall. my reasons i want to go FX....

Please do some research.. Bokeh has NOTHING to do with the sensor size; it has to do with the build quality of the lens, such as the glass, the number of elements, etc etc. And why can it shoot better in low light? Because there is a larger sensor area, or because the sensor itself is better? Just some things to think about.Regards,Jake

That's a bit misleading, a larger frame allows you to get closer to the subject while using the same focal length which compresses the dof--giving you a blurrier background which some may refer to as better bokeh.

Exactly. That's one of the reasons I shoot medium format. With my mamiya, the image area is 3 times the size of full frame, with the 80mm, I can take a full body shot of someone and the background is just destroyed. Bigger formats mean longer lenses which mean narrower DOF and more obvious bokeh.

 

[freeze3kgt]

Does it really matter why one would want to go to fx or dx? I say if u want a full frame Go for it! If you can't afford it then wait till you can. Just because some people can't justify it themselves doesn't mean you can't... Hell I'm a crappy photographer and I went and got a d700 ... It doesn't make my pictures that much better than my d90 but it sure is to be able to compensate for some man parts

Seriously though if u want it get it... Do your homework and dont worry about what nay sayers tell u... I don't know any photographer if given the choice between a d7000 or a d700 would choose a d7000 doesn't make much sense to me

 

[o hey tyler]

i thought canon's "full frame" is still a 1.3x crop sensor..

If you thought that, then you don't understand what constitutes a full frame camera.

 

[o hey tyler]

bokeh is nicer and you can shoot better in low light. better performance overall. my reasons i want to go FX....

Please do some research.. Bokeh has NOTHING to do with the sensor size; it has to do with the build quality of the lens, such as the glass, the number of elements, etc etc. And why can it shoot better in low light? Because there is a larger sensor area, or because the sensor itself is better? Just some things to think about.


Regards,
Jake

I lolled. Jake, this is just totally wrong bro.

 

[Markw]

I know the 10-20mm would not work on FX...Of course I would sell that as well. As for better bokeh its actually somewhat true. If you use a 50mm on DX to take a headshot the bokeh would be less creamy rather than on an FX body with the same lens since you can get much closer to blur out the background.

Well, as it seems money Isnt that big an issue here, there are certainly things you can do to compensate for this. If you want creamier Bokeh with the same FOV, get an 85mm 1.4 or 1.8. Shoot with that, and you will get creamier Bokeh with the same FOV, if you position yourself right. Shoot at it's widest aperture, and you're good. OR use your Sigma macro to shoot super close at its widest aperture. OR get another super dooper fast prime like the Nikon 200mm f/2. Shoot, you could even get the 50/1.2 and get all the Bokeh you'd like.

And there are reasons why you would want to keep a DX camera over an fx one. Take me, for example. I shoot basically all macro and wildlife work. The extra crop factor allows me to get in closer on both accounts, which is a great thing to have. Also, it allows you to buy smaller lenses that do the same thing, for example, the Nikon 80-200/2.8 averages about $1k new. To get this same FOV and aperture on an fx camera, you would have to go for the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8, which values for roughly $3.2k. DX cameras are generally smaller, allowing less of a burden to carry them around, and more space in your bag, due to the smaller lenses and smaller camera. It's clear that, on most accounts, fx cameras give better low-light performance, but that doesn't necessarily mean faster shutter speeds. Because of the sensor size, the aperture has to be stopped down smaller(larger number) to get the same dof as you would on a DX camera. So, there are reasons to keep a DX over fx.

Mark