What to consider when switching from DX to FF

[pandasnpugs]

OK, I am a newbie here, but not to dSLR cameras entirely. I just find I have little time to study up. Any advice on what the switch from DX to FF truly means would be helpful. I have been using Nikon for 8 years, switched from Canon film, and have been very happy. Now, I am traveling the world and I almost feel like I need a bridge camera for my bridge camera lol. I currently have the D300s which I LOVE for outdoor sports. I do not like that it is no good in low light. I am using the d3300 (got it for a steal, new!) for my everyday stuff, ie kids, landscape, etc. So, now that I will be traveling a lot and shooting everything from desert conditions to rain forests, Mongolia to Johannesburg, people to action, I do not know WHAT to do. The 300s is not good enough for all conditions, IMHO, and it weighs a lot. The 3300 is good enough for daily but not the things the d300s does well. They kind of overlap in my area of want/need I guess. I am basically wondering if I should step up to the FF d750, or stay with dx and go with the d7000? And..what that change involves.

The lens I am using the most and love is the 18-300 3.5-6.3 VR. I love it to bits and only carry that and a super macro sometimes. So what I need to know is this....Should I take the leap to FF and spend the $2300 or stick with DX and buy the d7100, OR keep the 3300 and 300s, and lug both all over the world? It is seriously keeping me up at night! My biggest complaints about past photos are fuzzy upon enlarging (not huge, just household size), low lighting loss of everything, and weight. In my travels I would almost rather miss a shot altogether than have a blurry, fuzzy mess of one. I hate missing shots, but really wanna combine into one camera. Thanks in advance!

 

[Derrel]

Fuzzy shots and bad results in low light. SOme faster lenses would help alleviate that. The D300s has a decent AF system, but newer bodies do even better with slow-aperture lenses; some of the newer Nikon bodies can lock focus with f/8 lenses, even in fairly dim light levels. The D7100 is very low in price now that the D7200 has been introduced.

The change to FX involves DIFFERENT lens lengths for closer-range shooting. Indoors, the 35mm f/1.8, 50/1.8, and 85/1.8 are very USEFUL focal lengths in real-world situations, like living rooms, restaurants, parks, back yards, lobbies, etc.etc.. On DX, the fast 85/1.8 is useless until the shooting distance gets up to 25 feet or so...otherwise all it is a very narrow-angle 127mm equivalent telephoto good for tight head shots and half-body work...

FX makes 24-50-85 or 28-50-85 a POWERFUL three-prime lens set. One that can be used to great effect in actual, real places, all over the world. With the crop-sensor bodies, all of those lenses are "not quite right" for a lot of uses. On FX, something like the 16-35mm f/4 VR becomes an all-in-one utlra-wide-angle to semi-normal zoom. FX makes the 24-85mm VR lens an all-in-one choice of a wide,semi-wide,normal, and medium telephoto.

99% of all Nikkor lenses were designed for FX use. If all you have ever owned is a DX format d-slr, it might take you a while to come to get a feel for focal length and angle of view under the newer system, but once you do, you realize that the BEST lens choices really are for the FX bodies. The DX lenses are, for the most part, entry-level and mid-level choices. Still, a good system can be put together for DX, but the choices are more limited, simply because the great preponderance of the lens lineup was built for use with FX.

 

[goodguy]

Well I moved from DX to FX few months ago (D7100 to D750) and the first thing that was very noticeable was the low light performance, Nikons FX cameras are beasts in low light thanks to Sony wonderful sensors.
The D750 is no exception and does low light very well, slightly better then the D610 above 6400ISO.
But if you buy the D750 and stick a silly superzoom on it you are putting a VERY serious bottleneck so I would advise to put good fast glass on it.
putting a superzoom on the D750 is like putting a bicycle tires on a Porsche.

What would I rather have a slow super zoom on a D750 or a good fast f2.8 zoom lenses on D7100/D7200 ?
I would go with the D7100/D7200 with the good fast lenses hands down.
Lenses really does make a much bigger impact for my overall photography then my camera, the combination of good camera with good glass is truly an unbeatable combination!!!

 

[pandasnpugs]

Well I moved from DX to FX few months ago (D7100 to D750) and the first thing that was very noticeable was the low light performance, Nikons FX cameras are beasts in low light thanks to Sony wonderful sensors.
The D750 is no exception and does low light very well, slightly better then the D610 above 6400ISO.
But if you buy the D750 and stick a silly superzoom on it you are putting a VERY serious bottleneck so I would advise to put good fast glass on it.
putting a superzoom on the D750 is like putting a bicycle tires on a Porsche.

What would I rather have a slow super zoom on a D750 or a good fast f2.8 zoom lenses on D7100/D7200 ?
I would go with the D7100/D7200 with the good fast lenses hands down.
Lenses really does make a much bigger impact for my overall photography then my camera, the combination of good camera with good glass is truly an unbeatable combination!!!

Thank you! so goodguy, you'd say stick with the current lens, put it on the 7100 ? then perhaps mess around with the differences between the two before making the switch? I mean good grief the 7000 bodies are like $500! That is insanely low. when you say superzoom you mean the macro? or is my other lens a superzoom as well? not sure what the parameters of the term are lol.

 

[pandasnpugs]

Well I moved from DX to FX few months ago (D7100 to D750) and the first thing that was very noticeable was the low light performance, Nikons FX cameras are beasts in low light thanks to Sony wonderful sensors.
The D750 is no exception and does low light very well, slightly better then the D610 above 6400ISO.
But if you buy the D750 and stick a silly superzoom on it you are putting a VERY serious bottleneck so I would advise to put good fast glass on it.
putting a superzoom on the D750 is like putting a bicycle tires on a Porsche.

What would I rather have a slow super zoom on a D750 or a good fast f2.8 zoom lenses on D7100/D7200 ?
I would go with the D7100/D7200 with the good fast lenses hands down.
Lenses really does make a much bigger impact for my overall photography then my camera, the combination of good camera with good glass is truly an unbeatable combination!!!

Thank you! so goodguy, you'd say stick with the current lens, put it on the 7100 ? then perhaps mess around with the differences between the two before making the switch? I mean good grief the 7000 bodies are like $500! That is insanely low. when you say superzoom you mean the macro? or is my other lens a superzoom as well? not sure what the parameters of the term are lol.

Oh, forgot to ask --can the 7000 really compete against the 750 or is that like stepping into a whole different world? The Porsche/bike tire thing?

 

[pandasnpugs]

Fuzzy shots and bad results in low light. SOme faster lenses would help alleviate that. The D300s has a decent AF system, but newer bodies do even better with slow-aperture lenses; some of the newer Nikon bodies can lock focus with f/8 lenses, even in fairly dim light levels. The D7100 is very low in price now that the D7200 has been introduced.

The change to FX involves DIFFERENT lens lengths for closer-range shooting. Indoors, the 35mm f/1.8, 50/1.8, and 85/1.8 are very USEFUL focal lengths in real-world situations, like living rooms, restaurants, parks, back yards, lobbies, etc.etc.. On DX, the fast 85/1.8 is useless until the shooting distance gets up to 25 feet or so...otherwise all it is a very narrow-angle 127mm equivalent telephoto good for tight head shots and half-body work...

FX makes 24-50-85 or 28-50-85 a POWERFUL three-prime lens set. One that can be used to great effect in actual, real places, all over the world. With the crop-sensor bodies, all of those lenses are "not quite right" for a lot of uses. On FX, something like the 16-35mm f/4 VR becomes an all-in-one utlra-wide-angle to semi-normal zoom. FX makes the 24-85mm VR lens an all-in-one choice of a wide,semi-wide,normal, and medium telephoto.

99% of all Nikkor lenses were designed for FX use. If all you have ever owned is a DX format d-slr, it might take you a while to come to get a feel for focal length and angle of view under the newer system, but once you do, you realize that the BEST lens choices really are for the FX bodies. The DX lenses are, for the most part, entry-level and mid-level choices. Still, a good system can be put together for DX, but the choices are more limited, simply because the great preponderance of the lens lineup was built for use with FX.

Thank you! So making sure I understand the last part--if I step up to the 750, but with dx lenses, there will be a learning curve and eventually I'd probably want to switch to the fx lenses? In your opinion, with the lens I have on a 7100 body am I still going to have issues in low light?

 

[jake337]

I guess it depends on what you mean by low light. Everyone has a different idea of low light. I have been using a Df for just over a year now. About mid december my Df got slammed on the floor by my daughter and needed some repair. The store that I bought it from, National Camera Exchange, gave me a loaner to use during the 8-10 week repair process. Then initially gave me a D7100 as a loaner. I took about 20 pictures and just wasn't happy with the IQ. So I called back to see if they could let me use a body that was closer to the Df. The best they could do was a D610. I could still see a noticeably difference in the IQ at anything above Iso 1600 especially when I needed to underexpose and bring up the shadows in post. I noticed more banding in the D610 and less dynamic range when I needed to push the ISO or the exposure in post. I couldn't wait to get my Df back. The D4 image pipeline is just fantastic.

Now I'm not sure what your budget is but there is a sale going on for refurbished D4 for $2,995 which is awesome. Man if I my D90 would have held up for another year I would have a D4 in my hands right now instead of the Df.

Available now refurbished Nikon D4 camera for 2 995.95 Nikon Rumors

 

[DarkShadow]

IMO it makes no sense go FF and put DX glass in front of it,defeats the purpose. Blurry Fuzzy photos are usually the result of the camera not focusing enough in low light and the shutter releases anyways or user error, the light is two low for hand holdable shots and need the use of tripod and remote cable or wireless shutter release,self timer etc.There is also the possibility of just bad hand held techniques. Image noise is a different story all together,thats where FF and fast glass make all the difference in the world at focusing in low light and getting better results from high iso noise degrading the image quality,but again,if the light to low for hand holdable shots you still can have blurry fuzzy photos with a FF camera but just with less noise.

 

[goodguy]

First superzoom lenses are known to be softer then even kit lenses and defintly softer then good expensive fast glass, just like everything else in life its a compromise, they are super comfortable to use as you are getting one lens that can do it all but it is not as sharp as better non superzoom lenses which dont have same focal lengh range.
If you want all in one then superzoom is fine but you pay with softer images.
Another problem with all superzoom is that they are slow, that means they dont bring as much light as faster lenses with a constant F2.8 zoom lenses.
Also optics on these constant F2.8 optics is much better and will deliver a much cleaner and sharper images.
On my D750 I use 95% of the time only 2 lenses

Nikon 24-70mm 2.8G
Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 VC
These are big, heavy lenses but the results are Sooooo worth their higher price and sharpness.

So if you can afford it get the D750 and fast glass, you can get used glass which will make the sting in your pocket much easier.
Another option is to start get some prime lenses, these are excellent and very affordable but will not give you the comfort and flexibility of a zoom lens.

Should you get a D7100 ?
Thats you call, now that I own an FX camera I just cant see myself going back to DX, low light performance is simply not enough for me on DX, I got spoiled and I love the overall flexibility that full frame camera especially a good one like the D750 brings to the table.

 

[Dave442]

I carry my old D200 with a 35mm f/1.8 prime all over the place, dusty dirt roads, rain forests, nice for travel. As mentioned a FF body can make a difference for low light, but need to include lenses in the budget. The D7100 is small and good for travel and can use your current lenses.

Not sure what household size pictures are 8x10, 16x24, the side of a house

 

[pandasnpugs]

Thanks to all for your generous help! I will continue to research, do a few borrow/rentals and be ready to make a decision. Much appreciation to all and thanks for making my first q&a a successful one!

 

[The_Traveler]

IMO, if you are traveling a lot, the last thing you want to do is step up to a larger, heavier camera with huge lenses, however entrancing that might be.
I'm not saying a small dslr with a super zoom is the answer either.
I discarded my superzoom, and eventually my larger cameras, because the lens quality in the zoom wasn't what I wanted and carrying all that heavy equipment got to be too much.

So, now that I will be traveling a lot and shooting everything from desert conditions to rain forests, Mongolia to Johannesburg, people to action, I do not know WHAT to do.

If portability is a big thing, look into mirrorless cameras.
You don't say what your budget is - and that is crucial - but if portability is a big issue.
I suggest you can look at any picture I've posted in the last 10 months. Each of them was taken with either an Olympus 4/3 or a Sony A7.
My entire kit goes in a messenger bag and weighs less than my FF Nikon and 24-70 zoom.
For day shooting I carried a Sony A-7 with 24-70 and Olympus OMD 5 with 35-100 (a 70-200 equivalent) and never changed lenses out in the dust.
I'm in the process of printing a large number of them and the pictures look terrific at 16 x 20.

 

[astroNikon]

I'm with Lew here ... look at a Mirrorless.
You mention weight. If you go up to a FF your body will be BIGGER and HEAVIER. Then if you move up to Pro FX Lenses the weight will go way up.

I shoot a d7000 and a d600 with Pro Lenses, and yes they are heavy but I'm fine with it. Would I love to cut the weight by half and still have everything, but I do too much sports and need that AF, etc.

If you look at Mirrorless you can get alot in the Sony A7's which are also FF.
NOTE: I do not own a Mirrorless but have researched them before .. seems to be a good option especially if you want low weight.

But on the other hand I'm a fan of the d750 and my cameras too.

 

[JoeW]

Lew has a really good point here. Look, part of the reason you like the D3300 is that it's smaller and lightweight--both positives when traveling a lot. It's smaller and lightweight b/c it doesn't have an AF engine in the body (but anything above the D3XXX series you go to will). You will not find a DSLR that is a small and lightweight as the D3XXX series unless you look at stuff like mirrorless or point-and-shot options.

Every body is a compromise--you're giving up one element for another...no body does everything perfectly. Most of us don't mind getting bigger or heavier. But for Lew, he'd prefer smaller and lighter. I've talked to a number of folks who do a lot of overseas shooting and they find that the locals are less intimidated when they pull out a D3XXX vs. a D3s/D4s monster.

My advice would be: you seem to like shooting with the D3300. B/c it's smaller and lighter, it's a great body for travel. Then upgrade your glass. If you shoot sports than you want the fastest zoom you can afford. Look at the of photography you typically do when traveling. if it's a lot of interiors or landscapes, than look for a good traveling tripod and shoot with long exposures (which renders the low light performance mute). I know you said that you use the D300 for shooting sports--how much sports do you intend to shoot overseas? And again, fast glass will make a bigger difference here than the body will.

Now, having said all that, I have two D7000 bodies, am very happy with that body (and yes, I know there is better technology out there). It will be bigger and heavier than the D3300. But you can buy a d7000 (body only) new for $400 these days off of Amazon if you do decide to upgrade bodies. But my final recommendation for a lot of travel photography: travel light, travel small, get good glass--the best you can afford or rent..

 

[Bebulamar]

If you go FX your favorite lens 18-300mm won't work. Oh yeah it works but in DX mode and not the reason to buy and FX body. For the most part if you go FX you will have to forgo the all in one lens. Rather the 24-70 and 70-200 pair would be a good fit but still it doesn't go to 450mm which is the equivalent of 300mm with your old FX system.