Digital Upgrade: Is Full Frame Worth it for Our Use?
- Thread starter LL21
- Start date
Wow JFrech! Great pictures!!! Thanks for the advice and sharing the specific experience! Will keep all of this in mind! I have to imagine our Nikon DX 18-200mm lense (27mm-300mm equivalent since we're DX) has to be pretty good...so anything more is up to the photographer. Speaking of which, you take great shots!
Time to get out to the wildlife refuges and get more bird pictures.
I liked the shots you posted. The barn picture has color and interesting detail. The butterfly is my kind of content. My favorite was the picture of the girl. You captured a great smile! How about a link to more of your pictures?
I'm a content guy rather than a photography hobbyist. Wildflowers and insects are our main subjects.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bill_lesley_photos/
I don't have any of my pics posted other than hi fi pics around here and those just above. If my my 16 daughter knew I posted that pic of her to a bunch of audiophiles she'd scream
Here's a few with my 85 Nikon VR lens...That moth is like 5-6 inches big. The blow hole is Hawaii is a ways off...if you look closely you'll see a few people for perspective. The sea turtle was like 100 yards away...I focused just above him..so off a smudge...and I didn't have my 80-400 lens handy or it would have been a better shot. And I can hear my other daughter screaming now
Hi --
Don't have time at the moment to read the whole thread, but am 25 year Nikon user so will chime in. The downsides of full frame are size and weight, particularly of the lenses. Plus are reduced depth of field at a given focal length when you might want that, better low light performance/less noise generally and better crop ability.
I have a D800 which I will likely replace with its successor that should come this yr. It's a phenomenal camera, as is the 750 which you cannot go wrong with.
- Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 (We understand that our current DX means our 18-200 gives us 300mm in practical terms, whereas the full-frame lens 70-200mm would give us less zoom capability.)
Own it -- a far better lens than the 18-200 in every qualitative measure and from a usage standpoint. Really no comparison in that regard, but far larger with less zoom range. Works very well with the teleconverters.
- Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6? (better zoom but quality?)
Own it -- excellent IQ, better than expected. Into wildlife territory at the long end with a lot of range in the other direction.
- Nikon 28-300 f/3.5-5.6? (great flexibility...but quality?)
Borrowed one briefly. Not nearly the quality of the first two but such long zooms never are. More 'consumer' than 'pro'
With a cam like the 750, you really need glass that's of commensurate quality to take full advantage of the sensor. Lenses such as the 18-200/300 aren't there in addition to the fact that they don't cover the sensor at the wide end.
Having said all this, was at Glacier Natl Park in Montana, and Yoho and Jasper in Canada this summer on a family trip, and went with my Fuji XT-1 (APS-C) package at roughly half (or less) the weight and size. In a situation where photography is not the primary focus and/or a quite a bit of hiking is involved, the lighter/smaller package was a relief and I didn't give up that much vs the Nikon. Will post a couple,of pix tomw.
One other thing, a hands down better site than Rockwell for Nikon and other cam info is bythom.com
And finally, not to be a killjoy or critical in any way, but
just a tiny bit of study on the parameters you list, particularly with the kind of tools you have and may get, can be transformative and up the fun of it.
Last edited:
Great capability, but see if you can tolerate the Sony 'ergonomics' before you go that route Jack. Other thing to consider with smaller full frame cams is the lenses aren't any smaller -- doesn't really cut the package size that much and for some, the smaller body/big lens is not so great handling-wise. I think what everyone wants is biggest sensor with the smallest possible lenses.
"
Both Canon and Nikon have lenses that are much smaller than normal lens designs using Diffractive Optics, Canon has made a few lenses and now Nikon has their "Phase Fresnel" 300mm f4 lens http://www.imaging-resource.com/new...iew-pricey-phase-fresnel-supertele-saves-on-b Sony is working on curved sensors and that should allow for less complex lens designs.
The Zeiss Baetis and Loxia lenses for the Sony E mount are pretty drool worthy. And not all that large for full frame. I'm biding my time with the RX1, but I think an A7Rii is in the cards eventually.
Having moved to full frame three years ago with the RX1, I'll say for many applications, the larger frame is not necessary. Sometimes, however, you get shots you would otherwise miss. It's a great concert camera, if your seats are close enough.
They're trying, using fresnel elements and the like, but at least for the next year or two, those designs are few. And they're fighting physics. Not a perfect comparison, but vs. a Fuji 55-200 (300 equiv) zoom, the Nikon is 50% heavier and longer as well. Nikon in particular really needs to make a definitive DX decision -- still no D300s (pro) successor, and there are some holes in the DX lens lineup. The apparently decided they want to force more advanced folk in to full frame, but even lenses on the smaller side for FF are still a good size/weight bump vs. crop sensor. You have to decide for what situations lugging around the extra size and weight is worth it for you or if that matters at all. Don't get me wrong, love my D800 -- it's a superior cam to any DX or crop sensor out there, but don't miss the bulk of the system on a lot of stuff.
The below pic was taken w/a Fuji XT-1, with the Fuji 10-24 zoom. Package weight about 10% more than just the 300m lens and feel like I gave up very little vs. using the 800.
I was thinking about the ergonomics Bob. My golf glove size is 26, that's Men's XL in US size. I agree about the lens size as far as zoom but this other end is intriguing, like being able to use a Leica lens on it. I travelled with my D700 only once since I got my RX1 but I'm glad I did. I would never have gotten shots I wanted to take on the slopes with the RX1 me not being a walk zoom olympic Yeti. LOL. Like in audio, its horses for courses. No free lunches. Thanks for the reminder
I don't have any of my pics posted other than hi fi pics around here and those just above. If my my 16 daughter knew I posted that pic of her to a bunch of audiophiles she'd scream
Here's a few with my 85 Nikon VR lens...That moth is like 5-6 inches big. The blow hole is Hawaii is a ways off...if you look closely you'll see a few people for perspective. The sea turtle was like 100 yards away...I focused just above him..so off a smudge...and I didn't have my 80-400 lens handy or it would have been a better shot. And I can hear my other daughter screaming now
View attachment 24700View attachment 24701View attachment 24702View attachment 24703
All well done, pleasing picture. I especially like that moth picture. Tell your daughter that men like a girl in a uniform.
I was thinking about the ergonomics Bob. My golf glove size is 26, that's Men's XL in US size. I agree about the lens size as far as zoom but this other end is intriguing, like being able to use a Leica lens on it. I travelled with my D700 only once since I got my RX1 but I'm glad I did. I would never have gotten shots I wanted to take on the slopes with the RX1 me not being a walk zoom olympic Yeti. LOL. Like in audio, its horses for courses. No free lunches. Thanks for the reminder
I have US XL hands too. For me the Sony was not just a size/button placement issue, it's the menu structure and so on. One of the reasons I ended up w/the Fuji is the ergonomics -- very similar to using a film SLR. I rarely have to dive into the menus, and the viewfinder is terrific. I can really just be in there with the shot. No Leica option, but the lenses are excellent IMO. They will have updated versions of their top two cams this yr that will have a 24mp sensor.
It's been painful switching from an LX100 to RX100 for my pocket cam. A real tradeoff of size vs ergonomics.
Anyway, sorry for any OT stuff here.
Thanks. BTW, you might consider the D7200 which would be a massive upgrade over the 5100 in every parameter. The extra megapixels would help your large blowups, and you'd still be in the DX world which means smaller lenses long range-wise.
Interesting!!! I had not considered that. I will do some reading on the 7200. Thanks!
If you decide it's a contender, definitely get one in your hands -- beyond the specs and so forth, the shooting experience is a whole different thing from the 5xxx series.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |