To Full Frame or Not to Full Frame

[cwcaesar]

I went from a D7k to the D600. Yes, the FPS is slightly lower and you only have 1/4000 of a second shutter instead of the 1/8000 on the D7K. But, ISO performance is WAY better. Usable images at 6400; very little noise at 3200. In my experience, it has been at least a stop better for ISO performance, maybe a bit more than that. Plus, it is Full Frame. Shallower depth of field advantage. No math to figure out focal length. I recommend the D600 or 6D if you are even considering full frame. to me the good outweighs the other. If you intend to use it for video, the Canon may be more to your liking, but to me, I prefered the still image capabilities of the Nikon.

 

[michels287]

Lookey what I found:

Canon 5D MKII MK2 HD Video DSLR Bundle - $1250 (Reading)

I've never shopped on craigslist though. I'd be hesitant buying something there - no warranty, what if it isn't what it's supposed to be, what if there's some damage to the unit, it breaks, etc.

I would def be interested in video on a full frame when not shooting stills - does Canon tend to have an edge in that way?

My Best Buy does have a lot of entry level slrs. They have only one full frame, the Nikon D600. I loved the difference when compared to their crops. I spent a lot of time fooling with all of the cameras throughout many visits. I feel I can get used to any of them really.

And this is open for discussion too - but I enjoyed the SLTs from Sony. However if I consider full frame Sony SLT, I'd have to look at the A99, which seems spectacularly loaded. I stopped at a Sony store a few weeks ago to test out the A77 also - loved it. Too bad they didn't have the A99 on display. I would have loved to hold that.

However, my concern would be glass. I know I could use Minolta lenses - if I can find them. So maybe it really isn't much of a concern.

Any thoughts on Sony's Alpha line? Anyone here have experience with them?

Of course, then I was introduced to Sony's NEX line at Best Buy. They seemed inviting, but still I cannot imagine it would have the same potential as a loaded full frame slr?

So this response is loaded with questions. I'd appreciate any feedback.

 

[Derrel]

GLASS? Nikon has tons of it. The D600 can use a LOT of older lenses. There is a HUGE supply of used manual focus macro, wide-angle, and telephoto Nikkor lenses all across the world. There is a huge supply of used Nikkor AF, AF-D, and AF-S and G-series lenses all across the world. SONY Alpha and Minolta AF lenses?? Not much of a supply on the used market. Pretty tight supply actually.

I dunno...I can see the D600 as a great starter camera in FF...good MP count, 24 MP. Good metering, decent AF, decent build, nice size, not too big or heavy. Nice sensor performance--better than "nice"...simply excellent in terms of dynamic range and color depth and low-light high-ISO performance.

Nikon's got plenty of good lenses for "people" work...and the used AF-D models will not "break the bank", nor will the used AF-S models. The Nikkor primes have been refreshed quite well, and the 16-35 f/4 VR Nikkor is one of the sharpest zooms one could want, at a fair price--and the best thing is it has a truly ***useful*** FL range in the real world.

 

[nycphotography]

I do like the cinematic look and feel of images and video.

I guess that cannot be achieved as well even if a crop sensor with a wide lens?

Thanks for your comment.

Considering that cinema was shot ACROSS the 35mm film (24mm wide) and 35mm cameras shot ALONG the 35mm film (24mm tall)... the cinema cameras essentially were an APS-C format.

You can get the EXACT same DOF as film using an APS-C sensor with cinema lenses.

 

[Solarflare]

The Sensor of the D600 is so good, I wished it would be available with a more powerful environment (D800 AF/metering, no AA filter like the D800E, flipscreen, U3,U4,U5 quick access user modes and ability to set U modes to "readonly" so they dont get overwritten).

 

[Sarmad]

Get either the Nikon 600 or Canon 6D, both full frame, amazing cameras and about 1000$ cheapper then their full frame pro grade sisters the Nikon D800 or Canon 5D Mark III
I wish I could afford one of them :hail:

Buy a used one :greenpbl:.

 

[greybeard37 9]

It isn't a simple answer as there are people on both sides of the pro/armature line using both formats. I don't think it is rocket science to figure out that a crop frame sensor needs a shorter focal length to get the same perspective as a full frame sensor. And that bigger sensors with their longer focal lengths will have a shallower depth of field. For instance, 50mm on FF needs a 35mm on a crop frame. 28mm on a FF needs a 18mm on a crop frame, (you get the idea). One advantage crop frame has over FF is with telephoto lenses. A 200mm on a crop frame gives you the same perspective as a 300mm on a FF. For that reason, some wild life photographers like to stay with a crop frame. With a crop frame you have even more lens choices because FF lenses will work just fine on a crop frame but crop frame do not work so well on a FF. IQ between the 2 formats is a no brainer. FF with its bigger sensor is going to win most of the time but, you will have to some do serious enlargement and or cropping or high ISO shooting to really take advantage of this. Most people can't see any difference at lower ISO levels. You have to shoot at ISO 1600 and above to really see the difference. (at the current state of technology) I shoot at ISO 6400 with my D7000 (crop frame) with a 105mm at 2.8 all the time at dance competitions. I'm very satisfied with the results but, I'm sure a D800 or even a D700 would do better. So, you have to ask yourself, will the added expenditure of FF pay you any dividends given the type of work you intend to do with it? Given your level of expertise, I do recommend that you get at least a top of the line entry level camera like a Nikon D7000, Canon 7D, or Pentax K5. These cameras have most of the features of a full professional piece of gear. In my case I just can't justify the added expense of FF yet although I'd love to have a D800 and the GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome) is getting worse daily......lol

All shot at ISO 6400....105mm @ f/2.8 1/400 Nikon D7000

 

[goodguy]

I shoot at ISO 6400 with my D7000 (crop frame) with a 105mm at 2.8 all the time at dance competitions. I'm very satisfied with the results but, I'm sure a D800 or even a D700 would do better. So, you have to ask yourself, will the added expenditure of FF pay you any dividends given the type of work you intend to do with it? Given your level of expertise, I do recommend that you get at least a top of the line entry level camera like a Nikon D7000, Canon 7D, or Pentax K5. These cameras have most of the features of a full professional piece of gear. In my case I just can't justify the added expense of FF yet although I'd love to have a D800 and the GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome) is getting worse daily......lol

All shot at ISO 6400....105mm @ f/2.8 1/400 Nikon D7000

Well said, I also bought the Nikon D7000 simply because for 1000$ I got a fantastic camera and while I would love to get a full frame camera like the D600 I really couldnt justify more then doubling my investment when I am but a novice, I think if I will ever get to a point where I will really need a full frame I will get one then for now the D7000 is perfect for me.

Funny but I find even shooting with my Canon G15 in low light with 3200ISO I still get very good pictures with very little noise so if a small sensor like the one I have on the G15 is working fine then a much bigger sensor on a cropped frame will defenitly be excellent in low light.