Upgrading to an FX body

[cnutco]

I upgraded to a full frame for the low light capability. Shooting sports in high school gyms needs a body that is able to shoot in low light and I also side shoot weddings and sometimes that seems like I am in a cave.

 

[bhop]

I don't think all pros want to use fx cameras.. sports photographers, wildlife photographers, can get a longer reach with dx... but I think if I were a pro fashion photographer, for instance, i'd make the switch.

 

[greybeard]

FWIW, in the Nikon line up, there is a huge difference in the FX and DX line. Focusing ability is near the top, and ISO performance isn't very far behind. No, you don't need an FX camera to be a pro, but there is a huge difference between the two line ups.

Agreed. I never said there wasn't a difference, there is a big difference. But if you can't articulate or work out the difference it will make in your work, you should save your money until you can. Because you'll likely be disappointed after plunking down for a D700/800.

Wow @ at this opinion.

Ok? So you've never seen the endless amounts of people talking about how they want a full-frame camera because they want to go pro? And being rendered silent when they're asked what for?

I'm using a DX body now with the 18-55 kit lens. It's ok but I grew up and developed my technique with a 35mm and bigger format camera. I will eventually go FX simply because it is the same size format as my old 35 and the lenses have the same DoF. I am perfectly happy with the image quality of the D5100 and will really miss the fold out screen as I find it extremely useful for low level close to the floor work. But, I've got 3 DX lenses that don't AF with the D5100 so I might just as well bight the bullet and go with a DX body when I get the funds and those are the reasons I'm looking to go FF.

 

[ceejec]

Get a 17-55 2.8, although its heavy, its meant for your style of shooting

 

[RRRoger]

Get a 17-55 2.8, although its heavy, its meant for your style of shooting QUOTE]

Why should anyone get a DX lens if they are planning on upgrading their body to FX?

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Interesting thread

 

[ceejec]

My point is to stick with DX. The OP stated that he's a kid and he's poor (so am I, student with a part time job).. So I don't see much use of spending $2000+ on body alone plus the money to spend for decent glass.

What i meant was to just stick with d5000 and get a decent lens like the 17-55 or it's alternatives (sigma/tamron) and stick with that until he feels that he can make the leap to FX. Although I'm just stating my opinion, the OP is free to do whatever he wants, but thats just for me. Deal with what I have for now, grow mature and knowledgable, and expand.

Personally, I had this same dilemma a few weeks ago. I shoot with D90, I wanted to get a D700 SO bad, but i had to justify spending almost half my yearly income in one go.. or go with what I have, spend a little on a great lens and gain experience, while at the same time saving up enough cash in case I outgrow the D90.

To the OP: The only person that can tell you when to switch to FX is yourself. If you feel confident with your knowledge, experience, wallet, go ahead and jump to FX, I'm sure you'll love it!

Best of luck

 

[Vtec44]

Don't skim on nice glasses. Buy it once and you can use them on FF in the future, whenever you decide to upgrade.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Why not just use a nice film camera like an F100? There's you're full frame + other huge benefits? Or is that cheap/easy?

 

[bhop]

Why not just use a nice film camera like an F100? There's you're full frame + other huge benefits? Or is that cheap/easy?

That's one reason I got my F100.. I was already shooting film anyway so it made sense, only cost around $2500 less than a D700. That can buy a lot of film.

 

[RRRoger]

Why not just use a nice film camera like an F100? There's you're full frame + other huge benefits? Or is that cheap/easy?

That's one reason I got my F100.. I was already shooting film anyway so it made sense, only cost around $2500 less than a D700. That can buy a lot of film.QUOTE


The cost of film and processing has gone up. I could never afford to go back now that I take thousands of pictures in a day.
And, I hated the dark room.
And I hated waiting for others to process my pictures just to throw most of them away.
I can now even review and edit my pictures in camera if I want.
Yes, I am hooked on the instant gratification of digital.

 

[bhop]

The cost of film and processing has gone up. I could never afford to go back now that I take thousands of pictures in a day.
And, I hated the dark room.
And I hated waiting for others to process my pictures just to throw most of them away.
I can now even review and edit my pictures in camera if I want.
Yes, I am hooked on the instant gratification of digital.

True on the costs, which is why I develop my own (color and b&w) and scan myself. Personally, I wouldn't want to take thousands of pictures per day.. too much work to go through them after. That happened to me when I took my d300 to the zoo a couple weeks ago..still editing those pics.

 

[RRRoger]

QUOTE]

True on the costs, which is why I develop my own (color and b&w) and scan myself. Personally, I wouldn't want to take thousands of pictures per day.. too much work to go through them after. That happened to me when I took my d300 to the zoo a couple weeks ago..still editing those pics. QUOTE


I shoot large fine JPEGs and try to get everything right in-camera.
I can process two thousand JPEGs in less time with ACDSee Pro 2 (yes I have Pro 5 and CS5) than a small roll of film.

And, shooting a FullFrame D3 really helps the keeper rate.
I will be upgrading to a D4 next month.
The FX Sensor seems to be much more "forgiving" of user error than DX.
And, Expeed 3, 100-12,800 ISO, FullTime AutoFocus, and improved CAM 3500 should help too.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Why not just use a nice film camera like an F100? There's you're full frame + other huge benefits? Or is that cheap/easy?

Digital/Film is another debate with its own unique set of parameters, but good to stir a thread

 

[RRRoger]

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.
Now they use a D7000 (DX) instead of the D3 (FX) because their investment is much lower.
And I use one because I can no longer hand hold the D3 for 8 hours at an Event.
It is only the top end Studio Professional that needs a D3x or Hasselbad.