Upgrading to an FX body

[2WheelPhoto]

for what you upgrade you camera? are you profesional photographer? if yes, yup you must have a FX camera,

Why must a professional photographer have an FX camera? It's that kind of unsubstantiated thinking that causes people to upgrade camera bodies expecting a huge difference in their image quality. QUOTE


My definition of a Pro is someone who does something for money.
I use Professional equipment because it gives me more good pictures quicker.
However, those with a D70 used to make more money than I did with a D1.
And now they use a D7000 (DX) instead of the D3 (FX) because their investment is much lower.
It is only the top end Studio Professional that needs a D3x or Hasselbad.

Surgeons can use a butter knife too, but most prefer the best tools/technology available.

 

[jriepe]

Why must a professional photographer have an FX camera? It's that kind of unsubstantiated thinking that causes people to upgrade camera bodies expecting a huge difference in their image quality. QUOTE


My definition of a Pro is someone who does something for money.
I use Professional equipment because it gives me more good pictures quicker.
However, those with a D70 used to make more money than I did with a D1.
And now they use a D7000 (DX) instead of the D3 (FX) because their investment is much lower.
It is only the top end Studio Professional that needs a D3x or Hasselbad.

Surgeons can use a butter knife too, but most prefer the best tools/technology available.

Insinuating using a DX bodied camera for photography is analogous to a surgeon using a butter knife for surgical procedures in my opinion is somewhat of a stretch. But then many people do have a tendency to exaggerate when trying to get a point across. Or did I misinterpret this quote?

Jerry

 

[2WheelPhoto]

I wasn't comparing to a DX body, was just stating many INSIST on using the very best, second best won't do. No ill will intended. But my D80 compared to my D700 is a butter knife vs. a surgical knife LoL

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Hmm.... Too bad.

 

[nickzou]

Depends what DX bodies you are comparing. I will agree the D700 craps all over the D80. But comparing the the D7000 to the D700, the gap narrows. While I will say I prefer the D700 overall, going back to my D7000 after two weeks of FX-bliss wasn't all that bad. Things I don't like going back to, tiny DX-body grips, what I consider a pitiful AF system, and button-placement. On the D7000 the ISO, QUAL, and WB, buttons are overlaid on top of the back LCD screen buttons and it is a pain in the ass compared to the D700's version where they sit on top of the mode dial, great design! While shooting a fight, I LOVED that the D700's AF system, 90% of the time it was perfect and fast (though not flawless, it still tracked once in a while), and the grip just feels right.

Things I didn't like, I thought my 50 1.4 D was my perfect lens, the bokeh looks nice, its sharp as all hell and nice and compact. Most of that is still true on the D700 but I noticed that after I had uploaded the images onto the computer how ugly the edges were, which was not a problem on my D7000. And I knew this would be an issue, I know the differences between DX and FX but I just didn't internalize it so I was kinda shocked at the colour fringing. Almost makes me want to mount medium format lenses on the D700 just to compensate. Also the focal length was not what I was used to. I was used to the 50 being more like a 75, which was close enough to an 85 to make it a great portrait lens. The 50 on FX, not quite as great. But that's easily remedied with a thousand bucks. I didn't care for the "big bright" viewfinder everyone kept telling me about, I didn't really notice it. And in my opinion the noise performance on the D700 is WAYYY overstated. As far as I can tell it's only about half a stop better than my D7000. ISO 100-800 is virtually indistinguishable, its at 1600 that the D7000 actually really starts to show the effects of noise on image detail and dynamic range. The D700 was noticeably better and at 3200 the gap just continues to widen. However, comparing images shot at 1600 on the D7000 and shots at 3200 on the D700, the cleaner images are still the D7000 at 1600 so I'm guessing 3200 on the D700 is somewhere like... ISO 2400 on the D7000. It's still a noticeable difference, just not the black-magicery I built up in my head. And that for me is the difference between comparing the D80 and the D700. When I had the D80 I was constantly frustrated with the ISO performance. Personally I didn't think it was much better than my old Rebel XT. So when I made the jump to the D7000, I was like wwhhhhaaooooo what witchcraft is this?! Going from the D7000 to the D700, my reaction was not as profound.

Sadly I had to give the camera back to my photography prof. I might try her D3S next. At this point I'm still kinda on the fence, I do want to go FX, don't have money nor the desire for the D-single digit line. Even the D700 is slightly big for my tastes. But I LOVE LOVE LOVE its AF. I want to see what the D800 is, it is rumoured to be smaller than the D700 which is a huge incentive.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Depends what DX bodies you are comparing. I will agree the D700 craps all over the D80. But comparing the the D7000 to the D700, the gap narrows. While I will say I prefer the D700 overall, going back to my D7000 after two weeks of FX-bliss wasn't all that bad. Things I don't like going back to, tiny DX-body grips, what I consider a pitiful AF system, and button-placement. On the D7000 the ISO, QUAL, and WB, buttons are overlaid on top of the back LCD screen buttons and it is a pain in the ass compared to the D700's version where they sit on top of the mode dial, great design! While shooting a fight, I LOVED that the D700's AF system, 90% of the time it was perfect and fast (though not flawless, it still tracked once in a while), and the grip just feels right.

Just the difference in focus speed and looking through the viewfinder and the knobs/layout caused me to sell my D7000 immediately, and I really haven't missed anything about it. Not that the camera isn't any good, its just a huge gap for me and I didn't see me using it again.

Yeah I may jump on the D800 or D700S or whatever omes around too if its really all that =)

 

[Balmiesgirl]

Your equipment doesn't make you a pro! Producing consistent high quality work does!!!! Behaving in a professional manner, being responsible ( liability insurance), dependable and delivering the advertised product in a timely manner.... Are all indications of a pro. It's when it's your business not a hobby!
That said, having the correct equipment or tools to do the job makes it easier!!!! In these days of digital most hobbyists don't even make prints larger than a 4x6 ...if they do at all! They would gain very little by having a larger sensor. As a professional I make 24x36 prints on a regular basis. With prints that size a full size/fx sensor DOES make a difference!

 

[DaveO]

I only see 5 reasons for you to switch from DX to FX:<br>
1. You came from Film camera and cannot get used to DX<br>
2. You shoot mostly (Landscapes and Portraits) wide.<br>
3. You want/need higher ISO performance.<br>
4. You want/need features that are in the latest &amp; greatest "Pro" body.<br>
5. You need the weather sealing and durability of a "Pro" body.

<br>
<br>
You forgot to add one<br>
<br>
#6 It produces files that your clients expect.<br>
<br>
<br>
If file size/sensor size is irrelevant then why do most big time fashion/magazine shooters use hassys and the likes??

<br><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Those 2 1/4 mf digital cameras are not really 2 1/4. If you look at the specs they are like 55mm or so or less. I think it is more like 45mm.&nbsp; For less price you might be better off with a Nikon D3x or wait for the D4 if you are a fashion photographer.<br>
<br>
Because it is what they have developed their techniques with. Most of them have moved from 2 1/4 film to 2 1/4 digital. Same lenses etc. etc.

If you look at the specs of these digital 2 1/4 cameras, the sensors are much less than 6cm in size. More like 45mm or so. Besides that, they are $ 20,000 or more except for the Pentax D645 which is around $ 10,000.
The Pentax or Nikon D3x might be a better deal for them, less money.

DaveO

 

[DaveO]

I only see 5 reasons for you to switch from DX to FX:&lt;br&gt;<br>
1. You came from Film camera and cannot get used to DX&lt;br&gt;<br>
2. You shoot mostly (Landscapes and Portraits) wide.&lt;br&gt;<br>
3. You want/need higher ISO performance.&lt;br&gt;<br>
4. You want/need features that are in the latest &amp;amp; greatest "Pro" body.&lt;br&gt;<br>
5. You need the weather sealing and durability of a "Pro" body.

&lt;br&gt;<br>
&lt;br&gt;<br>
You forgot to add one&lt;br&gt;<br>
&lt;br&gt;<br>
#6 It produces files that your clients expect.&lt;br&gt;<br>
&lt;br&gt;<br>
&lt;br&gt;<br>
If file size/sensor size is irrelevant then why do most big time fashion/magazine shooters use hassys and the likes??

&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Those 2 1/4 mf digital cameras are not really 2 1/4. If you look at the specs they are like 55mm or so or less. I think it is more like 45mm.&amp;nbsp; For less price you might be better off with a Nikon D3x or wait for the D4 if you are a fashion photographer.&lt;br&gt;<br>
&lt;br&gt;<br>
Because it is what they have developed their techniques with. Most of them have moved from 2 1/4 film to 2 1/4 digital. Same lenses etc. etc.

<br><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

Double post, sorry.
DaveO