OT: as long as we're discussing DSLR

[vqdriver]

i'm considering upgrading my d80 to something full frame.
what am i looking at for a 'starter' full frame body? i'd even consider jumping off the nikon wagon since i primarily use only one go-to lens.

[stickville]

I am sure you have checked the price of the D700 and corresponding Canon -- at least 2600+. The full frame for 99% of photograph is indistinguishable from the APS sensors. Why not buy the D300 for about 1600 and purchase a really good lens--both for the price of only a full frame camera body. Look at the "DPREVIEWS" site for good information on Canon and Nikon camera bodies and lens.
Have fun!

[ergott]

You can get a used first generation 5D. It's still an incredible camera. Look for one for around $1000 paired with your favorite fast prime and you are going to love the results.

You can't do this with a crop sensor. The first is shot with Canon 85mm 1.8 and the other with a Minolta Rokker 58mm 1.2 (manual focus no less) on a 5D. Both are wide open.

http://ergottwheels.smugmug.com/People/Sunday-in-the-Park/MG9565/305932851_L8Shr-X3.jpg

http://ergottwheels.smugmug.com/Other/Snow-Day/MG4493/438036366_S5b3s-XL.jpg

[SEABREEZE]

Nikon D700

Canon 5D m II

[benb]

If you want to save money I'd echo the comment to get a used 5D Mk I. I've had one since about the first week they came out and I can't really get excited about anything to replace it. I just don't see much in the new cameras that makes me want to spend the money.

I think if you're serious and especially are making prints it is not difficult at all to see the difference between the various cameras.

If you are the kind of person who uses one lens a lot, especially if you like using a prime lens, you'd really like a 35mm sensor camera. You definitely can't go wrong with a D700 either though. If I had Nikon lenses there is no way I would switch to Canon right now.

The D700 is closer to what I wanted in the 5D Mk II then what Canon produced. I'm hoping the 5D Mk III or whatever they call it incorporates Autofocus that is competitive with the D700.

I used to have an 85/1.8 that I used with my 5D and I really miss it.. I traded it for a 100/2.8 macro and the 85/1.8 is really magical for the kind of pictures ergott posted.

[BumbleBeeDave]

You can get a used first generation 5D. It's still an incredible camera. Look for one for around $1000 paired with your favorite fast prime and you are going to love the results.

You can't do this with a crop sensor. The first is shot with Canon 85mm 1.8 and the other with a Minolta Rokker 58mm 1.2 (manual focus no less) on a 5D. Both are wide open.

http://ergottwheels.smugmug.com/People/Sunday-in-the-Park/MG9565/305932851_L8Shr-X3.jpg

http://ergottwheels.smugmug.com/Other/Snow-Day/MG4493/438036366_S5b3s-XL.jpg

Why would you not be able to create images like this with a cropped sensor?

VQ . . . The prices for full frame sensor cameras are still very high. Granted, they may have high resolution than a half frame sensor, but do some thinking before you spring for a full frame sensor camera at this point in time just under the assumption that a bigger sensor must be better.

What lenses do you already have that you might wish to continue using with metering hookups in their full frame focal length? If you have a lens like the Canon 85mm 1.8 and want to continue to use it as an 85mm at wide open aperture, then yes, a full frame sensor would be needed. But unless you have an older special purpose lens like that which you want to continue using, then what's the point? . . . and I'm assuming since you currently have a d80 that you are not using such lenses because the d80 won't let you meter with them. You need a D200, D300, D700, D3 level Nikon to be able to meter with the older lenses.

Also keep in mind what your end use for the images will be. If you really want the option of being able to make huge enlargements with razor sharpness, then yes, spend the money. But 12.3 mp files off my cropped sensor D300 enlarge beautifully up to 16x20. Also consider that much of the quality of larger print images can be improved through judicious software assist. At today's prices for full frame sensor cameras you are paying a lot for that resolution which you may never end up taking advantage of.

I started in news photography in 1981, and at that time we paid a high premium for fast sharp lenses, eschewing any save the most expensive zoom lenses because of their demonstrated lack of sharpness. The maximum sharpness was needed to make large final images, but also to compensate for the pre-press methods of the time, which involved multiple generations of optical reproduction that inevitably degraded quality a bit with each generation, since you made a print through an enlarger lens, which was then shot again with a plate camera to make halftones, which were then pasted up on a page which was itself shot again with an optical camera to make the printing plate.

Today with digital files, as long as you are reproducing from the original file, particularly if it's a raw or otherwise uncompressed file, you don't have those multiple additional optical generations that introduce degradation. You also have quantum leaps in lens optical technology that have made an 18-200mm zoom my "go-to" lens, even though it's not an expensive piece of glass.

So I ask again . . . Why exactly do you feel you really need a full frame sensor camera? If not for one of the reasons above, then save yourself some money and put the extra cash into lenses or an extra flash that will really add to your creative abilities in the field. Given the pace of technology, I think there's a good chance that in 5 years most, if not all DSLR's will have full frame sensors at much lower price points.

Hope this helps . . . :)

BBD

[ergott]

Why would you not be able to create images like this with a cropped sensor?


BBD

Crop sensors also have more depth of field for a given aperture. If you are already shooting wide open (f/1.2), you can't achieve the same narrow DOF as when shooting FF with a fast prime. If you like working with sliver thin depths of field, you want a bigger sensor.

Also, the best performing cameras at the highest ISOs are full frame from Nikon and Canon.

If those 2 needs aren't a priority, then you don't need FF.

[tylercheung]

the only real reason (as above) is if you want to use older 35mm lenses. In that vein, the Canon is the top pick in that it has a narrower body than the Nikon and therefore is compatible with more adapters.

i.e. you can use the old Minolta Rokkor MD mounts (like above ;) ), Leica R mount, Pentax K mount, possibly Nikon F mounts, etc via adapters w/ the Canon 5D/5D Mk II. THere are nikon adapters for some of these older lenses but because the focusing distance for nikon is a tad thicker, it is not compatible w/ some of them.

you can do it on the newer, smaller sensors too, like w/ the 7D or the rebels, etc, but you will have smaller FOV (35mm will be about 50 mm, 50mm will be about 80 ish or so) for the given depth of field and perspective for each lens. It depends on how picky you are.

Short story - if you have nice older lenses (some of which do admittedly have nicer qualities than newer lenses), get the Canon. Otherwise, whatever you have is fine.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . but I really like the following on my D300 . . .

--D-lighting
--multiple-point active follow focus
--multiple off camera flash control
--ability to meter in manual and shutter priority with older lenses

BBD

[Pete Serotta]

We need to start talking biking for a while....yes I am closing some threads but please do not take it as personal - - we at times just get way off topic.

THANKS

[Pete Serotta]

Bikes please for some time...THANKS