Upgrading to full frame

Hi

I'm going to get a full frame Nikon camera, the question is only which one... options are used D700, new D800 and used D3s. I wasn't sure what sub-forum to use.

First of all, the prices I write here are local prices converted to $US. These are the prices here and they are different from USA/ebay prices. Buying from USA/ebay is not an option.

the main reason for the upgrade is ISO. I use an f/1.4 lens and very often to use ISO 1600 and above. With my current camera 1600 is usually ok but sometimes not. 3200 is usually very bad and only rarely ok (depends what I shoot). Another is that even 1600-3200 sometimes just doesn't give me enough speed (at f/1.4) and I would really prefer a caemra that could look ok at 6400.

Used D700 advantages are that it's the least expensive and there are more for sale used. It looks sginificantly better than mine at ISO 1600-3200 and sort of ok but not really at ISO 6400. It doesn't have video which is a big disadvantage. Although I rarely need video, I really don't want to give that up completely... A used D700 usually costs around $1,500-$2,000 depends on how old/used and just luck.

New D800 advantages are the higher resolution, which isn't really so important, but it looks like it gives overall better ISO than D700 at same size photos which is good. Also photos at same size as D700 just look better to me. the high resolution will also help with macro which I do (things like tiny screws etc.) but this isn't critical. It has good video. It is new so no wear. Disadvantages are the high resolution (more often not needed), it's new (will lose significantly more if I decide to upgrade in a few years) and I'm not really sure about its ISO. Price new is $3,600-$4,000.

Used D3S just looks best to me in how the photos look. It is also the best for ISO which is the main reason I'm upgrading. It is big and heavier, a disadvntage. Its only advantage to me over the D700 is the ISO (I can tell a difference but not sure it's worth paying double). It's used to might not lose as much if I sell it, but it is so expensive used and is a bit old, so I'm affraid in a few years no one will want it unless I sell it for very cheap... Price used is same as D800 new, $3,600 (if yo uare lucky) or more often a bit over $4,000.

There is another option. A used D700 or even D3S and a new cheaper model, like D3200 or D5100 for video and macro at low ISO. For that the D3200 will better than what I have now which has 18MP. But it is a real PITA to carry two cameras... and getting the used D3S and another camera is really getting to more than I would like to spend (actually the D3S and D800 are already more than I was hoping to spend, but I will if that will get me what I want/need).

Thank you!

Rumors are that a Fx D600 may be anounced in August, might be worth the wait!

What are you shooting and what size do you print? Where are the pictures used? Of course pictures with the D800 will look better, but how would that affect your business? Would you think that better quality of prints would improve your work enough to get more sales? In what context are you using the camera? Remember that in order to get the better quality with the D800 the tripod is almost a must. I wonder what are your shooting conditions that make you not happy with 3200 at 1.4. Maybe you could invest in a good portable flash system if that would be an option. It could be a lot cheaper than trying to stay in line with all the newest technology...

eurotrash said:

Of course all camera's would benefit from tripods. It would also benefit all cameras if the earth stopped rotating to prevent vibration. I don't know what all the hubbub is about. Can you shoot handheld with your camera now? Then you can shoot handheld with that one too right?

Click to expand...

The concern seems to be that the greater pixel density exposes more camera shake. From there an argument about downsizing ensues (of course ))

Personally I feel greater pixel density is even worse in FX than DX because...drum roll please...not all pixels are created equal!

After a while of checking all the options, I decided to go for a D700. I might upgrade in some years if prices for better cameras go down or photography becomes important enough to invest more. However I will probably wait for the D600 to come out (if it does) since some local photographers claim this will make used D700s drop in price significantly. If the D600 is as good as the D700 in photos quality and ISO then it could even be a better option than a D700 and I'll consider it.

Thanks again

The whole issue of FX and DX sensors becomes null and void if I need to shoot larger then A3. I don't even use Digital for that, as I do not have the 10K for medium format digital. Instead I use my Bronica Medium format film camera. Depending on the job I need to do will decide what film I use. I then get the film processed... if it is slide or colour, and use an Epson Medium format film scanner to get the max res I can out of the image. The file is then massive and can be printed out the size of a Bus Stop poster!

I often have moments of switching to full frame. Ive never once thought of it as upgrading though lol
Unless I was looking at an even higher end camera like the D4. Its just another format to me
I used to use Olympus four thirds which I loved. I ve also used full frame. There are pros and cons with any format.
I chose APSC because it seems a good middle ground. Ive a feeling I did the right thing in waiting.
I gotta feeling in my bones that the new D400 is going seem like the best camera on the planet, so Im excited at the Mo.
Currently I think its the D4 to my mind. Its specs are breath taking etc. Im dissapointed that the 400 is likely to have more than 16 milion pixels though. I think having more than 16 is rather silly unless you have a specific need. It feels like the D400 has been a lifetime wait. The D300 has held its own for a helluva long time and is still good today even. The D300s of course seemed nothing more than a very slight upgrade.
All is looking well though.

I guess I didn't phrase that right (it's not my first language). I meant upgrading my camera and that the new one will be a full frame camera (for various reasons).

clarnibass said:

I guess I didn't phrase that right (it's not my first language). I meant upgrading my camera and that the new one will be a full frame camera (for various reasons).

Click to expand...

Its fine I was just expressing my thoughts is all. I quite understand. Its something everyone seems to do lol.
Its just nice to somtimes give food for thought. It can often even revalute a persons way of thinking at times.
If its an intresting thread, I use it as a way of keeping it going too lol.
I like it when I see somthing that someone says and think to myself mmmmmm good point or yes... never thought of that etc

Marcel said:

What are you shooting and what size do you print? Where are the pictures used? Of course pictures with the D800 will look better, but how would that affect your business? Would you think that better quality of prints would improve your work enough to get more sales? In what context are you using the camera? Remember that in order to get the better quality with the D800 the tripod is almost a must. I wonder what are your shooting conditions that make you not happy with 3200 at 1.4. Maybe you could invest in a good portable flash system if that would be an option. It could be a lot cheaper than trying to stay in line with all the newest technology...

Click to expand...

These are great questions. Going to full frame is not really an "upgrade". I think one would only go the way of full frame if they wanted better wide-angle results (architecture/landscape), better pictures in low light and just plain better image quality. Also, if you have lots of lenses from film days, you can use those lenses as well. Other than that, i think someone would be wasting their money.... But, it's their money, not mine.

Your looking at cameras for differant needs. The D800 is on the other end of the (I use this camera for ) scale compared to the D3s. If I were shooting a wedding or even a sporting event and had the choice to use either a D-800 or the D3s than to its a no brainer to choose the D3s. The D3s will blow away the D800 as far as speed and low light performance. It seems you need to fully understand what cameras are used and for what purposes. High pixel cameras suck in low light shooting and are slow compared to low pixel cameras that are awesome in low light and have a high burst rate. If I did nothing but shoot portraits in studio. Than the D-800 would be my first choice. But if I were shooting Basketball games and other sporting events indoors , than the D3s would be. You can use any camera for any shooting condition. But certain cameras are simply made for doing certain types of photography. The pixel count has nothing to do with camera shake.

The same pixel count on an FX will produce better pictures than on a DX. Larger pixels collect more more light resulting in a sharper image, better color, less noise. The list goes on. Keeping the same size sensor and always adding more pixels is a marketing thing. Never really has any benifits. As soon as get into around 12 pixels. Going more doesn't produce any noticable improvement with an image printed at 8x10

really high ISO shallow dof is a pretty limited use for me, I have the Full frame multi generation cameras, and well,, personally, I don't like the results much past ISO 1200, I'll push to 1600 sometimes, beyound that,, yuck,, even with the lastest sensors and full frame, I still am unhappy with the noise,

I do think what I call the natural no noise state of sensors have continued to improve. I remember my first Nikon DSLRs were so bad, anything beyound 200,, and I was hitting the noise removal, and loosing detail.

Over time, what I call the natural design point has risen. On my D700 it was close to 800 where I just did not see much effect between 100-800 and I could dial in the exposure/speed/ISO without too much stress.

Now with the 800,, it is more like 100-1200,

But once the natural design point is exceed, and the gain is upped on the transistors, noise becomes an issue.

And, well, I hate NOISE. the evil of photography,,


sure sure,, maybe a few artistic use of noise,,, but not most of the time.

and ISO 6400,, only under the worse conditions will I personally use this setting.

Did anyone notice that this thread is a year old??

Actually, no I didn't.