Full Frame Nikon Recommendations?

[swifty]

Hi LittleSparrow,
I think you could go both ways and there are some sound arguments made for investment in lens as well as going FF.
On the one hand, staying with DX and investing in lens nets you a wider scope of focal lengths to explore whilst going FF targets specifically what you want to achieve, which is to shoot wider and still maintain good isolation with shallow dof.
I won't go into the bokeh quality issues but another lens option you could explore would be a Sigma 18-35 f1.8. Unfortunately this won't make the migration should you eventually go FF but its more or less what you want to do and at a lower cost (more than a stop faster than f2.8 zoom options).
Going FF early is more costly initially (although prices are really getting quite good) but may save you dollars in the long run.
Btw I used to own the 35/1.8G DX and it works fine on FX cameras in FX mode. Saves me adding vignetting in post haha. Quite a lot of barrel distortion on that lens though.

Also Ryan Brenizer's name was mentioned above. And if you don't mind a little PP, you could try out the Brenizer method for static, posed subjects. This method effectively is like shooting with a much larger sensor but in small sections and merged together in post.

[I @ M]

Is this not available then?

http://Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S ED Nik....S.A. Warranty

Errr, yep, I forgot about that one totally.
I haven't seen or heard much about it since the release so it slipped my tiny mind.
I really need to stop getting out and photographing and start studying gear on the net more closely.

[LittleSparrow]

FYI it's a AF-S DX 35mm f1.8

Thanks to all who commented. I definitely have some research to do and a lot to think about before I start spending. My $1500 isn't hard though, i'm happy to keep saving if needed.

I am starting to lean towards getting a couple of new lenses before going straight to the new fx body. I'm just worried about investing in new lenses that won't work well with a fx camera when/if I buy one down the track.

[arthurking83]

..... My $1500 isn't hard though, i'm happy to keep saving if needed.

.....

AH! so how much do you reckon you could 'justify'?

If you claim can afford to spend more, then you may get inundated with $10K recommendations of D810's, Nikon 24-70/2.8 and 200/2VR or something silly like that.

if you can push the finances just beyond the $2.5K region .. D610 + Tamron 24-70/2.8VC.
Or if you can justify that lil bit more to say $3K, D750 + Tammy lens.

ps. I recommend the Tamron 24-70 because it's a good lens .. not just because it has image stabilisation(VC). It is a bit large tho(in diameter), but once used to it it feels normal.

This way you do get that wide to moderate zoom ability on Fx .. plus the ability to isolate subjects more as the Fx sensor allows you top.
You can still use the 35mm Dx lens for as long as you need too(just remember it's limitations .. Swifty also mentioned them).

Then once you have a really good grip of what it is you want from your camera gear, then further down the track you could also add a few more decent lenses as well.
Decent lenses include(but not limited too) 85/1.8(or if you can afford it 85/1.4) Sigma 35/1.4 Art(exceptional lens for just under $1K) Sigma 50/1.4 Art(same as 35/1.4 Art) .. etc.

As for investing in lenses that won't work on Fx cameras .. think of it in this manner.(and why I recommended a camera for your situation, and not a lens).

In your situation, if you opt for a camera first and you're not totally pleased with the choice, you literally have lost nothing. You have spent money needlessly in a manner of speaking, but in reality your new camera can still operate as your old camera did/does.

But if you spend this money on a lens instead, and you aren't pleased with the differences it gives you then you can't use this lens as you previously did (as you can with the camera upgrade).

That is, as an example: a 24-70/2.8 will never render an image in the way a 35/1.8 can(ie. with the 35/1.8 at f/1.8!), but a larger format camera can be cropped to render the same as you got with your cropped camera previously.

In effect a new camera can be seen as a forward step in your photography path. It may not have been what you expected, but it's certainly neither a sideways nor backward step.
The new lens can be either a forward, sideways or backward step. You won't know until you try it for a while. If it's sidewards or backwards step, it's basically wasted money.
It may work as well as you hoped (say) on a larger format size, but again without spending more money, you won't know.

[LittleSparrow]

Probably not talking in the $10ks just yet lol (I got 4 kids to feed!). Im thinking more like maybe saving another $1500 at this stage. So, the $3000 mark

Now im swayed back towards new body lol. Im going to go to JB and have a hold of the D750 just go get a feel of it in my hands. Im thinking i'll save some more and get an FX body with a new fx lens.

[arthurking83]

Probably not talking in the $10ks just yet lol (I got 4 kids to feed!). ......

......

aHa! .. so you have double the investment in human resources that I do.
Which means that you potentially have double the return in that investment, if you were to consider reallocation of human resources for beneficial hardware acquisition

(I've tried on numerous occasions, but my investment in HR wasn't to expectations )


Seriously tho: if you have this idea now in mind that you want an upgrade, I think it's best to do both camera and lens together.
It seems that the more you have to spend in one hit, the more persuasive your buying capability becomes. Even if this spending of $3k only saves you $100 in a bargaining exchange, it's $100 you get to keep!

[MissionMan]

Agree with Arthur's comments about getting them together if you can. One important aspect is the relationship impact.

As an example, a single $3K purchase is better than 6 $500 purchases because people only look at the amount of time you're spending money, not the actual amount. As an example, if your hubby spends $20K on a new jetski and you spend $5K on 3 occasions on camera gear, the perception is you're being greedy because you've bought expensive gear 3 times. This works much the same as the credit system for buying flowers. Giving your wife 12 red roses on 3 separate occasions has more impact than giving your wife 36 roses on one occasion, or better yet, buying one red rose every week for 36 weeks works the best. An anomaly with this theory is the spend offset theory which allows you get to something they want at the same time as getting yourself something you want which essentially offsets the spend completely. I.e. if your hubby wants a new iPad, waiting until you can afford to buy the camera, lens and iPad will essentially mean he is so focussed on playing with his new iPad that he forgets you spent money on the camera and lens.

Disclaimer - babes, if you're reading this, someone hacked my account, I don't know anything about this post

[ROA44]

Well just had a quick look/comparison between the D610 and the D750, and disregarding price I'm not sure which one I would choose myself, but then still way to much to learn.

[MissionMan]

Yeah, there isn't that much difference. The D750 is supposed to have a brand new sensor.

From what I can gather there are not a whole lot of differences: wifi, 0.5fps faster, new AFS system with -3EV detection instead of -1, native ISO12800 instead of 6400, 51AF points vs 39, AF has 11 points at f/8 instead of 7, higher resolution LCD which tilts, better battery life. When you go through the comparison, I guess the question is whether any of these actually really impact you. For most people, probably not

[cupic]

Sorry If Ive deviated from the original post.
With the current crop of FF bodies .ie D610 D750 and the D800 series where would the D3X sit in this Nikon group
I know the light light its the best or high ISO noise is below average.
Feel free to add Lance as yours and other opinion value to me


cheers

[MissionMan]

I think for what you are paying for a D3X (or would be second hand for a low shutter count), the D810 would probably be a better bet. Other than the full size body, the D810 is a newer camera, newer sensor, etc so it's probably better in almost every respect. It's not that the D3X is bad, just the D810 is two generations of camera better and two generations is camera land is a lot. The other issue is the warranty. A new D810 would have a new 2 year warranty where a D3X is unlikely to have one so if you have problems, it will be expensive.

[arthurking83]

D3x is a strange beast of a camera. Back in the days when it was (more) relevant, it had a very high resolution count(Mp) in Nikon terms.
Of course that really meant nothing as Sony used the same sensor in two far cheaper camera bodies concurrently.
But in Nikon terms .. it had far more relevance back then. Price was astronimical, even compared to the D3/D3s.

Now tho, I'm not sure why Nikon even bother to continue it in their lineup.

24Mp isn't the advantage that it used to be over the lower res sibling in the Pro lineup. 24Mp doesn't seem to have the same advantage over 16Mp(D4) that it used to have over 12Mp(D3).
I'm assuming that due to the ludicrous high price($10K when new) Nikon has a huge old inventory of stock .. and hence why it's still in the Pro lineup.

It must also be remembered that this camera was announced back in late '08, which in digital camera terms is Jurassic!

But this camera has one key point over other any other Nikon camera.
It still has a high res sensor but also contained in an extremely rugged pro type body.

I guess until Nikon create a 20 or more D4 sucessor(eg. a D5 with 20 or more Mp) then this camera still must have some relevance to some professional Nikon user somewhere in the world.


It's major flaw is when used in 14bit raw capture mode(as with the D300/D300s) and any other cameras using the Sony sensors of the time.
Setting the camera to 14bit depth in raw mode would paralyze the sensors ability to pass its data to the cameras other electronics to create an image.

in 12 bit raw capture, you would achieve a decent frame rate(as specified by Nikon). eg. the D300 would do 6fps, the D3x could do 5fps.
Not blazing, but acceptable for even some pro sport use.
Set them to 14bit tho, and the camera ground to a halt! 1 or 1.5fps was your top speed. You think to yourself well that's ok for something like landscape shooting, but I tell 'ya(from experience with the D300) it's not! It's painful if you're trying to do something like HDR or just normal bracketing.
One of the reasons you get a DSLR is that it gives you advantages you can't get with more consumer oriented cameras. One of those advantages is not only raw, but higher bit depth raw.
This was a major flaw with these two particular sensors(D300 and D3x .. both from Sony).

Also, high ISO noise wasn't a D3x strong point. It wasn't bad, but it's not great. D3 and D3s as well as the D700 were way ahead of it, and even they're still competitive vs some of the current crop of cameras, in terms of high ISO noise performance.

[LittleSparrow]

Well considering that within the past few days I have added around $10k worth of gear to my wish list i'm definitely going to have to add a new laptop for hubby to the list so that he doesn't notice all of the small, yet expensive gear i'll be buying too. Might tell him to take the kids to look at the TV's or something so that he doesn't hear the total value at checkout! haha

[ROA44]

Of course you know he will need a Jackson Big Tuna 2 seater Kayak, so that when he goes fishing you can go a long to take the Photos.

[cupic]

Probably not talking in the $10ks just yet lol (I got 4 kids to feed!). Im thinking more like maybe saving another $1500 at this stage. So, the $3000 mark

Now im swayed back towards new body lol. Im going to go to JB and have a hold of the D750 just go get a feel of it in my hands. Im thinking i'll save some more and get an FX body with a new fx lens.

Jb hands down can do D750 for under 2K.
With or without 15%. AS for me well Im hoping for the real D700 replacement this year
that or Xmas 15 dill be D750 under the tree or earlier depends on my weakness ....

cheers

[glennb]

Im another for investing in a 24-70 lens (I recommend the tammy 24-70 2.8) You won't be blown away with your images moving from cropped to full frame, I wasn't going from 5100 to D610. not sure if your doing what I did and googling too much on crop vs full frame, but the main thing I like was the easier/quicker controls for ISO shutter aperture etc.... (though there are crops that do this too) Im pretty sure the 3100 has the same sensor to my 5100 which is the same sensor as the D7000 which is a great sensor. Ive seen amazing picture on flickr using these cameras. I actually prefer my D5100 for macro work as it has more DOF and also prefer it as a walk around lens with my Tam 24-70 2.8 cos of the good range you get with the crop (36-105mm on crop lens) though it will be heavier than your 35mm.
food for thought

[sanger]

I also have a D3100 and 18-55 kit lens which is more than ok for now but, I'm also poking around and absorbing as much info on lenses as possible.
From reading this post have I got it correct. If I were to buy the two mentioned Tamron's 24-70 and 70-200 then they would work on my 3100 even though they are for full frame ?
While at this stage I have no intention have upgrading you never know what the future holds.
So is it generally better to buy FF lenses or stick with the DX lenses.

[MissionMan]

I also have a D3100 and 18-55 kit lens which is more than ok for now but, I'm also poking around and absorbing as much info on lenses as possible.
From reading this post have I got it correct. If I were to buy the two mentioned Tamron's 24-70 and 70-200 then they would work on my 3100 even though they are for full frame ?
While at this stage I have no intention have upgrading you never know what the future holds.
So is it generally better to buy FF lenses or stick with the DX lenses.

It's always best to go with full frame lenses if you can afford them (they are generally more expensive) because you are future proofing your lens collection for a move to full frame at a later stage. Even if you don't switch, they will always work perfectly on a DX body.

In short, a full frame lens will work on a DX body, but a DX lens on a full frame body will be cropped (by default) and won't have great quality on the edges if you disable the crop.

From a Nikon perspective, the crop is 1.5x so a 24mm will appear like a 36mm lens on a DX body.

This has pros and cons. For longer lenses, it can give you extra reach if you need it. I.e. a 200mm looks like a 300mm so for birding or other sports that require a long reach, this may not be bad because a 200 f/2.8 on a DX body is a lot cheaper than buying a 300 f/2.8 on a full frame body.

It's also not to say you can't have both. For example, some photographers may carry a DX body and a full frame body so they can pick and choose as required. I think Thom Hogan was one of those people although it could have been size related prior to the arrival of the smaller full frame cameras.

[sanger]

Thanks MM

[shaneando]

Interesting conundrum - additional lenses or new body?

I don't think there is a right or wrong answer, but with some thought you could work out what each would bring (and cost!).

After about five years of using DX bodies - D5000, then D7000, then D7100 - I finally went to a full frame body (D750) a few months ago. I had two specific reasons related to the type of shooting I do (mainly landscape and wildlife) - (1) lack of wide angle primes for DX bodies, (2) better high ISO performance for wildlife. Then it was a matter of choosing bodies. The D610 wasn't really what I was after. Having shot the D7000 and D7100 back to back I much prefer the D7100, and the D610 is more like the D7000 - lower spec AF system, a number of minor features lacking that individually weren't showstoppers but collectively were. I couldn't justify the price (and size of the D800/810 (I do a lot of hiking/backpacking with my gear), and in my analysis the only things it offered over the D750 were extra pixels and different control layout. The D750 seemed to meet all my needs so now I have the D7100 and D750 combo. The other factor here was that these two bodies are almost identical in terms of control layout, functions, AF system, batteries etc so I can switch between the two with minimal effort.

Obviously my style of shooting is different to yours but I related my experience to show that by looking carefully at equipment capabilities and your shooting style you can make some logical choices.

If you were going to stick with DX bodies/lenses for the foreseeable future and just wanted lenses, I have a few recommendations. The main issue with this course, in my opinion, is that Nikon has not produced many high quality lenses specifically for DX bodies, so you may have to look at third party options. Firstly, I'd recommend the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8. This is a nice lens, gets you f/2.8 aperture with a good zoom range either side of your 35mm focal length, very good optically, and can be obtained for less than $600 brand new. Second would be to consider the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8. I haven't held or used this lens, but a lot of people have reported very good results, and it allows you to maintain the f/1.8 aperture. Some caveats with these options - they are DX only so won't work satisfactorily on FX bodies; also Sigma reverse engineers the mount/communications (as opposed to using Nikon specs under license) so there have been some minor compatibility problems with older lenses on newer Nikon bodies. You could easily get both of these for well less than $1500 and greatly expand on the capabilities you currently have with the 35mm/1.8. BTW that was my first prime and it's an excellent little lens which I still have and use occasionally!

For longer focal length portraiture I would suggest either the 70-200 f/4, the 70-200 f/2.8 (version 1), or one of the various 85mm primes. These are all FX compatible lenses so you are future proofed there but they work very well on DX bodies also. I have the 70-200 f/4 and the 85mm f/1.4D (the older version).

There are also some nice primes Nikon have released recently that could be considered - 20mm, 28mm, 35mm (FX version), 50mm (not a recent lens but still not bad), 85mm - all f/1.8 aperture and very good optically. There is also rumoured to be a 24mm f/1.8 coming out soon. These can all be used on DX or FX bodies, and all are under $1000.

As for full frame bodies, if we exclude the professional D4S, there are three to choose from - D610, D750, D810. If you are less price-sensitive, the D810 is arguably the best all-round DSLR available at the moment. However I believe the D750 hits the sweet spot at the moment. It's only about $400 more than D610 with a better AF system, a more robust body, and a number of small control and function capabilities that are better. The D810 is over $1000 more than D750 and offers an extra 12MP, a different control layout, and not much else. Also the D810 uses both CF and SD cards which means having both types of card.

If your budget was hard at $1500 and you wanted some better options right now, I'd say go with the two Sigma zooms, or if you don't mind using primes (and want future FX compatibility) then a few of the f/1.8 primes. For a step up in image quality you could for $1500 get a used version of the 70-200 f/2.8 or perhaps a used 85mm f/1.4G, although from what you've written it sounds like you are after the wider focal lengths, bearing in mind that on a DX body these will give a narrower field of view.

If your budget was $3000 I'd say get the D750 and one or two of the primes, perhaps the 50mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8 (not forgetting that the 35mm you currently have will work on an FX body, giving a wider field of view than your D3100, with a slight amount of vignetting which can be managed easily in post processing). Then you could work on building your lens collection.

Cheers

Shane