Should I trade in my sensational D7000 + 17-55mm 2.8 combo and get D600 + 50mm 1.4?

[Janmc]

Derrel, you have nailed exactly what I am talking about here.
This is the main reason I would like a full frame camera, UNLESS there is a magical lens/camera combination that gives me this ability on a crop.
I didn't really think about this technical difference in the past, and searched pretty much in vain for the fastest primes and things like that to achieve portraits like the one I posted. I didn't realize that they are shot with full frame cameras.

This is the main reason I want to get the D600, even though I am torn. But if there is no way to get these types of shots with a crop, there may be no other choice.

 

[Derrel]

I think she wants wide-angle, or wide-view shots with very out of focus backgrounds. If a person wants that look, the easiest way to get it is to switch to a full-frame camera and some fast-aperture primes, like the 35/1.4, 50/1.8, or 24mm/1.4 or 28mm 1.8.

Just moving up to the larger FF capture size will allow shallower DOF when using wider-angle lenses.

The thing is...with a CROP-body camera, using a 100mm lens means the photographer MUST, I repeat MUST, move "wayyyyyyy back" to get the SAME, identical angle of view, and the same-sized "person" on the capture, compared to a shooter using a full-frame D-SLR or a medium-format rollfilm camera. The increased DISTANCE, the distance, the distance,the distance--is what brings the deep depth of field!!!!

In other words, the smaller sensor size forces the photographer to shoot from a longer distance--and that increased distance brings with it much,much,much more depth of field! In a word, the smaller sensor size being used, and the increased distance, combined, create a NET GAIN in depth of field. The increase in focal length is more than offset by 1) the increased distance and 2) the smaller capture size which 3)boosts the depth of field per-angle-of-view.

Again...85mm lens at 20 feet with full-frame camera....34.5 feet with 1.6x crop-body camera...the full-frame shot has a pleasantly defocused background...the crop-body shot has...a much more in-focus "look" to the background. There is a real reason that full-frame d-slrs are favored by the majority of full-time professional "people" shooters...it is a different FORMAT than APS-C. It shoots differently, looks different, and uses different lens lengths to make each image.

 

[Janmc]

You just don't have the right lens. A 17-55 is way too 'wide' for general portraiture work. Look into getting something 100mm+.

430sparky, with a 100mm and a crop, I'd have to stand 3 miles away from the child (exaggerated, but I'm sure you know what I mean) to get the entire child to fit into the shot. And at that distance, the background will not be so blurry, even with the lens wide open. That's my dilemma.

 

[Derrel]

You just don't have the right lens. A 17-55 is way too 'wide' for general portraiture work. Look into getting something 100mm+.

430sparky, with a 100mm and a crop, I'd have to stand 3 miles away from the child (exaggerated, but I'm sure you know what I mean) to get the entire child to fit into the shot. And at that distance, the background will not be so blurry, even with the lens wide open. That's my dilemma.

Jan, your post describes EXACTLY the scenario that APS-C cameras create when the photographer really wants SHALLOW depth of field. Your observation about the behavior of APS-C format cameras illustrates precisely why full-frame cameras like the Canon 5D series, and the Nikon D3 series, and the Nikon D700, and D800, are so popular with wedding photographers and portrait artists. Combined with wide-aperture prime lenses like the 24/1.4, 28/1.8,35/1.4,50/1.4,and 85/1.4, these larger-format cameras allow people photographers to create very SHALLOW depth of field effects, even with wide angles of view, in real-world homes, offices, churches, and studios.

 

[tirediron]

sorry, didn't mean to break any rules (I did maintain their source/copyright info)
...

Just as an informational aside Jan, including source information, citations, acknowledgements, etc, do NOT negate the requirement to obtain permission from the owner of the copyrighted work for it's use.

 

[nycphotography]

To be fair, a 17-55 DX is equivalent to an 82.5 FX when zoomed all the way in.

80mm or 85mm lenses in AIS or MD format were bread and butter portrait lenses for years.

If it's f2.8 @55 then it's fine for portraits. He just needs to shoot fully zoomed and wide open most of the time.

 

[nycphotography]

For anyone who has 2 cents to spare on my dilemma, what would you advise?
If you were shooting child portraits, or events (weddings or other), and also wanted to have a great combo for just shooting everyday things, what would be your preferrence?
Any insight?

You can get the d600 w/ the prime since it does things for you that are specific to what you want/need.

In response to your "omg, what am I going to do about the $2grand to get a workable midrange zoom"..... I offer this suggestions...

Nikon's BEST KEPT SECRET -> Nikon 35-70mm f2.8 AFD zoom.

I bought mine many years ago when I had finally built a good working relationship with one of the old guys who had been at Adorama since forever. I was lusting over the AFS lens... and he said... "let me show you this... not many people know about it, but it's professional glass in an AF package." I bought mine for maybe $550. They go for much less now... often under $400.

That should give back the flexibility you're afraid to give up w/ the D600 and a single prime.

 

[Janmc]

WOW!!!!! Thank you for that amazing tip!! The price of the 35-70mm is certainly a lot more doable.
As I said, if I "could" get these shots with a crop, I would - I've tried for years to no avail to find a way to get them, until I learned about the inherent nature of the full frame format.
Certainly the thought of the price of the zoom for the FX had me thinking, and I had no idea about this option.
This will certainly help! Thanks bunches!

 

[480sparky]

To be fair, a 17-55 DX is equivalent to an 82.5 FX when zoomed all the way in.

80mm or 85mm lenses in AIS or MD format were bread and butter portrait lenses for years.

If it's f2.8 @55 then it's fine for portraits. He just needs to shoot fully zoomed and wide open most of the time.

It's equivalent in FOV ONLY. It will NOT have the same optical properties as an 82.5mm. 55mm is 55mm is 55mm is 55mm.

 

[480sparky]

430sparky, with a 100mm and a crop, I'd have to stand 3 miles away from the child (exaggerated, but I'm sure you know what I mean) to get the entire child to fit into the shot. And at that distance, the background will not be so blurry, even with the lens wide open. That's my dilemma.

Just find another location that's condusive to using your gear.

 

[nycphotography]

To be fair, a 17-55 DX is equivalent to an 82.5 FX when zoomed all the way in.

80mm or 85mm lenses in AIS or MD format were bread and butter portrait lenses for years.

If it's f2.8 @55 then it's fine for portraits. He just needs to shoot fully zoomed and wide open most of the time.

It's equivalent in FOV ONLY. It will NOT have the same optical properties as an 82.5mm. 55mm is 55mm is 55mm is 55mm.

I just said equivalent, not identical. Outside of DOF, what other differences are important?

 

[Mach0]

I just said equivalent, not identical. Outside of DOF, what other differences are important?

Out of focus rendering is different and aside from the d3x ( if I'm not mistaken) the higher ISO low light performance is much better.

 

[480sparky]

I just said equivalent, not identical. Outside of DOF, what other differences are important?

Darrel's post (#17) on distance-to-subject.

 

[nycphotography]

I just said equivalent, not identical. Outside of DOF, what other differences are important?

Darrel's post (#17) on distance-to-subject.

Ironically, I think we all missed the point... we're hacking away at each other about the 55 on a DX for portraits, and he's looking to replace it with a 50 on a FX.

 

[Derrel]

Decent suggestion nycphotography, on the 35-70 f/2.8 Nikkor AF or AF-D zoom...I see these going for $300-4325 these days, and they are usually in good shape!!! They were a RUGGED, pro-grade zoom when they were top-line, and hence were really built well! For the money spent, the 35-70/2.8 is a lotta lens for not that much money, and on full-frame, 35 to 70mm is really QUITE useful for people work. I often use the 35mm f/2 AF-D for parties and such indoors...it's a really handy lens for people pictures in social situations. I was watching on-line the Creativelive.com sessions with noted glamour portrait shooter Sue Bryce, whose FAVORITE lens for portraiture is...wait for it..wait for it--the Canon 35mm f/1.4-L on her 5D Mark II...she noted that she LOVES the 35mm lens, shot at f/2.8, for all types of portraiture. Anyway...

I was never 100% happy with APS-C and prime lenses...the focal lengths are not quite 100% "right" when the capture format is cut down so far in size.