Digital Upgrade: Is Full Frame Worth it for Our Use?

LL21

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2010
14,411
2,509
1,448
Hi Gents,

Some advice is welcome on our current Nikon D5100 (16MP) DSLR and Nikon DX 28-200M (f/3.5-5.6).

Background
My wife and I are NOT going to study-up and spend a lot of time learning about F-Stops, ISO, and Image Depth, etc...however, because of the 23 auto settings for practically every conceivable shot (for an amateur)...we have truly enjoyed using the camera when we travel.

Most of our 'keeper shots' have involved landscape, monuments where the zoom has been particularly helpful. Both night shots and day shots.

We have just recently blown up 2 of our favorite shots to 4 feet x 4 feet (1.25m x 1.25m) which a professional imaging firm kindly 'touched up' with their software. We anticipate doing more of this.

Two Questions:

1. If we are not likely to go full-manual and like the 23-pre settings...and ARE people who will blow up special photos to 4' x 4'...

...is the Nikon D750 Full Frame Camera a worthwhile upgrade? (The highest level Nikon that still provides 23-pre settings.)

2. Are any of these lenses a big upgrade for long-range shots? (We are happy taking food shots or famiily portraits with our pocket-sized Sony RX100.)

- 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.)

- Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6? (better zoom but quality?)

- Nikon 28-300 f/3.5-5.6? (great flexibility...but quality?)

Thanks for any advice!!
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
I am not a Nikon guy so can't give you specific advice. In general, as you note with your question, very long ration lenses don't have the best image quality. For landscape work I highly recommend full frame sensors. Usually you want more of the landscape brought in. A cropped sensor does the opposite.

As to learning a lot, there is not much to learn for good landscape work. Simply put the camera in "AV" mode and you are all set with full automation. Just change the f-stop and take a few shots and pick the one that looks the best to you. In that regard, if you are after 4 foot by 4 foot shots, I would get the highest megapixel body you can. I have a 50 megapixel and really enjoy the resolution it gives me, allowing me to crop images and still wind up with lots of pixels.

For lenses, I use 16-35, 24-105 and 100-400 zooms for landscape work. All on full frame body and built-in image stabilization.
 

LL21

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2010
14,411
2,509
1,448
Thank, Amir! That is very helpful and gives us something to consider.

Sounds like full-frame is definitely worth considering with high-megapixels (all else being equal).

And for lenses, the 70-200mm f/2.8 sounds like a good quality lens but based on our own personal shooting experience, might just prove a bit too short for us. So we might have to go 80-400mm and then fall back to the Sony RX100 for family shots, food, etc.

As for Nikon considerations, we are contemplating the Nikon D750 based on its rave reviews from dpreview.com and also from others as one of the best full-frame DSLRs for the money...and (again), its the highest level Nikon that still provides the 'dummy-easy' 23 pre-settings for nearly every conceivable photo situation.

Thanks again!
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
My pleasure. On 7-200 f2.8, I have the same in Canon but almost never leaves the home. It is very heavy and as you say, not long enough to isolate a specific part of the landscape. Nor do I need f2.8 when I am shooting landscapes. It is a great "stay at home" portrait lens or when I can be close to my car.

Time permitting, I will post my pictures of Denver fall colors using these lenses.
 

LL21

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2010
14,411
2,509
1,448
Great! BTW, i have been reading Ken Rockwell's excellent website...where he pretty much categorically states that at today's level of digital cameras, it is mainly the photographer not the camera anymore. other than durability, the consumer digital SLRs with 12MP or more are great in his opinion and with good glass, its really up to the photographer. And with good glass, even then, he seems to feel there are very little differences between a great 28-200 and a specialized 70-200 unless one really knows what one is doing.

Which probably means: a) stick with what we have or b) (maybe)...consider an even broader range (latest 18-300mm)...which in DX terms means 27mm-450mmm. From experience, we often have found we wished we had more zoom...wildlife, long-distance shots from the water, etc...
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
Wildlife only begins to be good at 400 mm. So if that is something you want unfortunately you want long, heavy glass. It is one area of photography that the laws of physics stomp on you and good :). Cropped cameras help some there allowing 400 mm to be usable but longer always helps.
 

Ron Party

WBF Founding Member
Apr 30, 2010
2,457
13
0
Oakland, CA
My pleasure. On 7-200 f2.8, I have the same in Canon but almost never leaves the home. It is very heavy and as you say, not long enough to isolate a specific part of the landscape. Nor do I need f2.8 when I am shooting landscapes. It is a great "stay at home" portrait lens or when I can be close to my car.

Time permitting, I will post my pictures of Denver fall colors using these lenses.

Look forward to it. Your photographs always are delightful.
 

LL21

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2010
14,411
2,509
1,448
Wildlife only begins to be good at 400 mm. So if that is something you want unfortunately you want long, heavy glass. It is one area of photography that the laws of physics stomp on you and good :). Cropped cameras help some there allowing 400 mm to be usable but longer always helps.

Thanks...that is very helpful to know and from recollection fits about right. From a practical standpoint, i think we will probably redo our safari photos which we have up on the wall...when we travel there again. But in the meantime, i think we see ourselves more likely to blow up a huge shot to match Maccu Picchu and Angkor Wat...with another location.

So for us, i think the versatility 27-450mm probably suits us best...and if Ken Rockwell is right, then its all really up to us as photographers anyway. NO excuse to blame on the camera! ;)

Thanks for your advice...i think this has helped clarify our thinking.
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
Thanks...that is very helpful to know and from recollection fits about right. From a practical standpoint, i think we will probably redo our safari photos which we have up on the wall...when we travel there again. But in the meantime, i think we see ourselves more likely to blow up a huge shot to match Maccu Picchu and Angkor Wat...with another location.
By the way you just mentioned the one that is more important than camera or glass: being there! :) I have a ton of photography gear but no pictures of Africa because I have never been there. Being able to travel to these locations is critical.
 

LL21

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2010
14,411
2,509
1,448
By the way you just mentioned the one that is more important than camera or glass: being there! :) I have a ton of photography gear but no pictures of Africa because I have never been there. Being able to travel to these locations is critical.

Yes, we've been blessed to be able to travel around many parts of the world.

BTW, what is a teleconverter, and with our well-regarded Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 (27-300mm equivalent in 35mm speak)...would this essentially allow us to get to 510mm? What would the trade-offs in practical terms be, if Nikon says this it requires minimal exposure compensation of 1.5 f/stops?
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
A teleconverter multiplies the focal length of the lens by the amount indicated. So a 2X teleconverter will make a 70-200 zoom a 140-400.

Sounds like a perfect thing but laws of nature are rarely in our favor :). These are the down sides:

1. The light output of the lens drops by the same factor as the teleconverter. So if it is a 1.5 TC, you also lose that much of your maximum F-stop. A F4 lens now becomes F5.6. New cameras are very sensitive so unless you are shooting a dark concert, you can compensate by using higher ISO (or the camera will do that in its Auto modes).

2. The background blur reduces. The higher the F stop number, the more depth of field you have. So if you are taking wildlife shot, now the grassy field behind the lion will be more prominent which usually is not good.

3. Autofocus slows down or stops working. A number of Canon bodies for example will not autofocus at F8. Manual auto focus is difficult because your viewfinder has also become much darker. Tracking birds in flight becomes much more difficult with slow autofocus.

4. There is some hit to image quality. The corners of the image usually suffer the most. Stopping down past the minimum, usually solves fair bit of this.

In general teleconverters are only useful on very long lenses (e.g. 400 mm) that are already bright (F4 or F2.8). They lose most if not all of their values outside of this.
 

LL21

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2010
14,411
2,509
1,448
A teleconverter multiplies the focal length of the lens by the amount indicated. So a 2X teleconverter will make a 70-200 zoom a 140-400.

Sounds like a perfect thing but laws of nature are rarely in our favor :). These are the down sides:

1. The light output of the lens drops by the same factor as the teleconverter. So if it is a 1.5 TC, you also lose that much of your maximum F-stop. A F4 lens now becomes F5.6. New cameras are very sensitive so unless you are shooting a dark concert, you can compensate by using higher ISO (or the camera will do that in its Auto modes).

2. The background blur reduces. The higher the F stop number, the more depth of field you have. So if you are taking wildlife shot, now the grassy field behind the lion will be more prominent which usually is not good.

3. Autofocus slows down or stops working. A number of Canon bodies for example will not autofocus at F8. Manual auto focus is difficult because your viewfinder has also become much darker. Tracking birds in flight becomes much more difficult with slow autofocus.

4. There is some hit to image quality. The corners of the image usually suffer the most. Stopping down past the minimum, usually solves fair bit of this.

In general teleconverters are only useful on very long lenses (e.g. 400 mm) that are already bright (F4 or F2.8). They lose most if not all of their values outside of this.

Fantastic! Its like cheating on a test! Thanks!
 

Old Listener

New Member
Jul 18, 2010
371
0
0
SF Bay area
naturelover.smugmug.com
LL21,

" 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.) "

It will give the same 300mm (full frame equiv.) as your 28-200 lens. Full frame vs. DX doesn't matter for this characteristic.

The 70-200 2.8 would have much better test results than your lens. The 80-400 may produce better test results too. (DxOmark publishes tests on camera bodies and lenses.) In practice, the difference may not matter for your photos.

The larger the ratio of min. to max. focal length the more likely it is that compromises will reduce the image quality. And the less satisfactory the lens will be with a teleconverter. The advantage of a lens with a high zoom ratio is that you can avoid carrying multiple lenses and changing them in an inconvenient situation. With the 80-400 lens, you might want to carry along a lens to cover the range below 80mm (that is 120mm equiv. focqal length.)
 

LL21

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2010
14,411
2,509
1,448
LL21,

" 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.) "

It will give the same 300mm (full frame equiv.) as your 28-200 lens. Full frame vs. DX doesn't matter for this characteristic.

The 70-200 2.8 would have much better test results than your lens. The 80-400 may produce better test results too. (DxOmark publishes tests on camera bodies and lenses.) In practice, the difference may not matter for your photos.

The larger the ratio of min. to max. focal length the more likely it is that compromises will reduce the image quality. And the less satisfactory the lens will be with a teleconverter. The advantage of a lens with a high zoom ratio is that you can avoid carrying multiple lenses and changing them in an inconvenient situation. With the 80-400 lens, you might want to carry along a lens to cover the range below 80mm (that is 120mm equiv. focqal length.)

Thanks! So the 70-200 f/2.8 would effectively become 105-300mm (35mm equivalent) on our DX camera? And does the f/2.8 mean the camera is faster/better able to handle low light...in comparison with the 80-400mm (120mm-600mm in 35mm) which is f/3.5-5.6? Or at this difference in zoom ranges, presuming its not apples to apples anymore. I guess i am asking is the 70-200mm a better lens for what it is than the 80-400? I suspect so from the reviews...but am clearly no photographer just a newbie. Thanks again for your advice.
 

Old Listener

New Member
Jul 18, 2010
371
0
0
SF Bay area
naturelover.smugmug.com
Thanks! So the 70-200 f/2.8 would effectively become 105-300mm (35mm equivalent) on our DX camera?

Yes. The math applies to any lens you put on your DX camera body.

And does the f/2.8 mean the camera is faster/better able to handle low light...in comparison with the 80-400mm (120mm-600mm in 35mm) which is f/3.5-5.6?

Yes. However, note that f3.5 isn't that different from f2.8. Some lens reviews show you the max. aperture at different focal lengths. The key comparison would be max. aperture at 200mm rather than 400mm.


Or at this difference in zoom ranges, presuming its not apples to apples anymore.

You need to figure out the focal length range you really need and buy the lens that fits those needs.

I guess i am asking is the 70-200mm a better lens for what it is than the 80-400? I suspect so from the reviews...

Probably so but the difference may not be that significant for you.

Sensor image quality hasn't been a factor for my applications since 2009. The lens I use aren't large, heavy or expensive but they deliver quite good images in appropriate uses. (I use the Micro four thirds system.) Other things like weight, size, aids like focus peaking, image magnification and blown highlight detection matter more to me.

You need to understand your applications to know where the differences in image quality as a faction of size, weight and price no longer matter to you.

but am clearly no photographer just a newbie.

I don't mean to offend you but... Your ratio of money to be spent to relevant knowledge is dangerously high.

Thanks again for your advice.


To get back to your question about upgrading from DX to FF. Suppose that you are looking through 12X binoculars at a bobcat. The bobcat is large enough to be seen clearly and properly admired. Now suppose that the same binoculars are only 8X. The bobcat is much smaller and you can't see it in the same detail. That's what switching from DX to FF will mean when you use the same long lenses.

Amir mentioned the advantage of cropping. Suppose that you use cropping that large FF image to regain the reach you lost by going to FF. To make an object 1.5 times as large in the image, you need to crop so that both length and width of the image in pixels are reduced by a factor of 1.5. That means that a 50 mpixel image gets reduced by a factor of (1.5 X 1.5) to about 22 Mpixels. No advantage over your 24 MPixel D5100.
 

LL21

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2010
14,411
2,509
1,448
Old Listener,

Thank you! This is exactly the kind of advice i was looking for. Reviewing my 'old notes' about the Nikon 5100 + 18-200mm DX lens we got...i know exactly why we got it, and those reasons remain just as valid 2 years later as they did then: 23 presets, nice MP, excellent glass with good range...more than good enough for novices like us.

So in the end, the ONE thing we found we wished we had more of...was zoom capability. So if there is anything for us to do...it is possibly to trade in our 18-200 for the new 18-300mm which gives us effectively 27-450mm which would be nice...as you said about 50% closer. I think its around GBP460 less probably a somewhat 'ok' trade-in price on the old glass...in any event, a lot of money saved relative to a D750 plus most likely a more expensive zoom lens.
 

Old Listener

New Member
Jul 18, 2010
371
0
0
SF Bay area
naturelover.smugmug.com
Old Listener,

Thank you! This is exactly the kind of advice i was looking for. Reviewing my 'old notes' about the Nikon 5100 + 18-200mm DX lens we got...i know exactly why we got it, and those reasons remain just as valid 2 years later as they did then: 23 presets, nice MP, excellent glass with good range...more than good enough for novices like us.

So in the end, the ONE thing we found we wished we had more of...was zoom capability. So if there is anything for us to do...it is possibly to trade in our 18-200 for the new 18-300mm which gives us effectively 27-450mm which would be nice...as you said about 50% closer. I think its around GBP460 less probably a somewhat 'ok' trade-in price on the old glass...in any event, a lot of money saved relative to a D750 plus most likely a more expensive zoom lens.

In your OP, you described your current lens as 28-200. In this post, you refer to it as 18-200mm. Which is it?

You would probably see little different in image quality in moving to a Nikon 18-300 lens. Be aware that Nikon offers 2 18-300 zooms with considerable difference in cost and weight. The DxOMark results look similar.

Tamron and Sigma make similar wide range zooms. I'd do a bit of consumer research before buying.
 

LL21

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2010
14,411
2,509
1,448
sorry - literally a new laptop...just popped it out of the box an hour ago. you are correct..18-200mm is our current. and the question is whether we go to the 18-300 (27-450 equivalent) for that extra zoom like when we travel/safari, etc and just stay put.

We were thinking of the newer 18-300 f/3.5-6.3 mainly due to reviews from Ken Rockwell which were reasonably positive in quality...its less expensive and lighterweight.

In your OP, you described your current lens as 28-200. In this post, you refer to it as 18-200mm. Which is it?

You would probably see little different in image quality in moving to a Nikon 18-300 lens. Be aware that Nikon offers 2 18-300 zooms with considerable difference in cost and weight. The DxOMark results look similar.

Tamron and Sigma make similar wide range zooms. I'd do a bit of consumer research before buying.
 

Ron Resnick

Site Co-Owner, Administrator
Jan 24, 2015
16,017
13,346
2,665
Beverly Hills, CA
There is no downside to a full-frame sensor, except possibly cost.

I agree with Amir -- avoid teleconverters.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing