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

LL21

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2010
14,411
2,509
1,448
There is no downside to a full-frame sensor, except possibly cost.

I agree with Amir -- avoid teleconverters.

Thanks...i think for a novice like us, even if we blow up our photos to 4' x 4'...current technology at the consumer level is so good that this is entirely possible to do this, plus it seems to be more about the skill of the photographer anyway. 16MP is plenty of resolution with a crystal clear shot, and the lens gets us very close at 300mm and high quality vibration reduction...

so we will save the money, probably upgrade our 18-200 (27-300mm equivalent) and go for 18-300 (27-450mm equivalent)...and call it a day and get back to taking lots of photos of wonderful places.
 

Old Listener

New Member
Jul 18, 2010
371
0
0
SF Bay area
naturelover.smugmug.com
Thanks...i think for a novice like us, even if we blow up our photos to 4' x 4'...current technology at the consumer level is so good that this is entirely possible to do this, plus it seems to be more about the skill of the photographer anyway. 16MP is plenty of resolution with a crystal clear shot, and the lens gets us very close at 300mm and high quality vibration reduction...

so we will save the money, probably upgrade our 18-200 (27-300mm equivalent) and go for 18-300 (27-450mm equivalent)...and call it a day and get back to taking lots of photos of wonderful places.

Sweeping generalizations aside, Nikon doesn't sell a 27-450 equiv. lens for the Nikon mount that covers a FF sensor. Nor do Tamron or Sigma. With a FF Nikon body, you would have to carry two lenses to cover a 27-450 equiv. range.

Plenty of photographers think carefully about their specific needs and their resources and choose something other than cameras with FF sensors. Sometimes there are advantages to systems based on smaller sensors. There are important advantages for my specific interests: closeups of wildflowers and insects and long lens photos of wildlife.
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
Well, if there ever was a case for full frame camera, it would be landscapes printed at 4 foot by 4 foot. Assuming magazine print quality of 300 dpi, it would require a camera with 207 megapixels! Perhaps more if we take out the Bayer interpolation. 20 megapixels would be just 10% of that.
 

LL21

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

Sorry, to clarify, we will go with the Nikon 18-300mm lens (which we are told on our Nikon DX camera will be equivalent to 27-450mm in "35mm speak"). Right now, we have the 18-200mm which in 35mm speak means we are 27-300mm equivalent.

Sweeping generalizations aside, Nikon doesn't sell a 27-450 equiv. lens for the Nikon mount that covers a FF sensor. Nor do Tamron or Sigma. With a FF Nikon body, you would have to carry two lenses to cover a 27-450 equiv. range.

Plenty of photographers think carefully about their specific needs and their resources and choose something other than cameras with FF sensors. Sometimes there are advantages to systems based on smaller sensors. There are important advantages for my specific interests: closeups of wildflowers and insects and long lens photos of wildlife.
 

LL21

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2010
14,411
2,509
1,448
I will say the professional imaging company...which does mainly professional studio work...did an INCREDIBLE job with our RAW files. 200MB file for a single image, but it came out beautifully.

Well, if there ever was a case for full frame camera, it would be landscapes printed at 4 foot by 4 foot. Assuming magazine print quality of 300 dpi, it would require a camera with 207 megapixels! Perhaps more if we take out the Bayer interpolation. 20 megapixels would be just 10% of that.
 

Old Listener

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

Sorry, to clarify, we will go with the Nikon 18-300mm lens (which we are told on our Nikon DX camera will be equivalent to 27-450mm in "35mm speak"). Right now, we have the 18-200mm which in 35mm speak means we are 27-300mm equivalent.

I understood your decision and am not suggesting that you reconsider it.

I was writing to respond to Ron's blanket statement that there is no downside to a full frame sensor. In your case, there is a downside. The Nikon 18-300mm lens you are considering is designed for a DX sized sensor and would not cover a full frame sensor. Nikon does not sell a lens with the 27-450 equiv. range that covers a full frame sensor.
 

Old Listener

New Member
Jul 18, 2010
371
0
0
SF Bay area
naturelover.smugmug.com
Well, if there ever was a case for full frame camera, it would be landscapes printed at 4 foot by 4 foot. Assuming magazine print quality of 300 dpi, it would require a camera with 207 megapixels! Perhaps more if we take out the Bayer interpolation. 20 megapixels would be just 10% of that.


LL21 mentioned a Nikon D750 in his OP. Only 25 MPixels there. It's more than his current D5100's 16 Mpixels but still thoroughly inadequate by your criteria.

I don't think that "magazine print quality" applies to LL21's application.


Much of his discussion has been about increased reach.
 

Ron Resnick

Site Co-Owner, Administrator
Jan 24, 2015
16,017
13,346
2,665
Beverly Hills, CA
I was writing to respond to Ron's blanket statement that there is no downside to a full frame sensor. In your case, there is a downside. The Nikon 18-300mm lens you are considering is designed for a DX sized sensor and would not cover a full frame sensor. Nikon does not sell a lens with the 27-450 equiv. range that covers a full frame sensor.

Sorry about that, Lloyd. Thank you for correcting me, Old Listener. (I have used Canon cameras my whole life and so I was not familiar with the particulars of Nikon lenses.)
 

LL21

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2010
14,411
2,509
1,448
Thanks for that...and yes, it did (finally) occur to me as i was reviewing options that THIS reason is actually pro-DX vs full-frame for amateurs like us who are not intending to go up the learning curve of photography in a serious way. For us, these digital DX DSLRs with 23 pre-settings pretty much give us photographs we love. And tbh, with the professional imaging companies, a lot of touch up work can be done too if required. Thanks for taking the time with your advice!

I understood your decision and am not suggesting that you reconsider it.

I was writing to respond to Ron's blanket statement that there is no downside to a full frame sensor. In your case, there is a downside. The Nikon 18-300mm lens you are considering is designed for a DX sized sensor and would not cover a full frame sensor. Nikon does not sell a lens with the 27-450 equiv. range that covers a full frame sensor.
 

LL21

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2010
14,411
2,509
1,448
Not a problem...and will let you know if decided to upgrade to the new lens. That would be the only upgrade we make.

Sorry about that, Lloyd. Thank you for correcting me, Old Listener. (I have used Canon cameras my whole life and so I was not familiar with the particulars of Nikon lenses.)
 

ddk

Well-Known Member
May 18, 2013
6,261
4,040
995
Utah
Hi Lloyd,
I shoot with everything from the original iPhone to medium format 80mp digital backs, they're all tools and often are interchangeable. The D750 sensor has a different look from D5100 if you have the glass and know how to use it otherwise in a 4'x4' print they're indistinguishable from one another. Like Old Listener I don't see any advantage in full fame for you, besides you'd be locked into much more expensive lenses, the D750 is brutal in that regard nor can you us any of the DX lenses that you currently own.

70-200/2.8 is a great lens, actually one of the very few zooms that I can live with but like Amir mentioned it's large and hefty, I highly recommend seeing and holding with your D5100 prior to purchase. Not a fan of Nikon's consumer zooms, they're too contrasty, harsh and distorted for my taste and what I shoot, much prefer the rendering and more natural contrast of a Tamron at that level.
david
 

LL21

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

Thank you very much! Somehow, i could have guessed you were a knowledgeable person with experience at the high end (medium format). We will check out the 70-200/2.8 which have read quite a lot about. I suspect it is probably 'too much lens' for people like us who probably could benefit from more practice than a higher quality lens. I do think the extra 50% of reach in the longer 'consumer zoom' lens might be worthwhile...and Tamron does an 18-300mm (27-450mm equivalent for us Nikon DX users). We will check that one out.

Hi Lloyd,
I shoot with everything from the original iPhone to medium format 80mp digital backs, they're all tools and often are interchangeable. The D750 sensor has a different look from D5100 if you have the glass and know how to use it otherwise in a 4'x4' print they're indistinguishable from one another. Like Old Listener I don't see any advantage in full fame for you, besides you'd be locked into much more expensive lenses, the D750 is brutal in that regard nor can you us any of the DX lenses that you currently own.

70-200/2.8 is a great lens, actually one of the very few zooms that I can live with but like Amir mentioned it's large and hefty, I highly recommend seeing and holding with your D5100 prior to purchase. Not a fan of Nikon's consumer zooms, they're too contrasty, harsh and distorted for my taste and what I shoot, much prefer the rendering and more natural contrast of a Tamron at that level.
david
 

ddk

Well-Known Member
May 18, 2013
6,261
4,040
995
Utah
David,

Thank you very much! Somehow, i could have guessed you were a knowledgeable person with experience at the high end (medium format). We will check out the 70-200/2.8 which have read quite a lot about. I suspect it is probably 'too much lens' for people like us who probably could benefit from more practice than a higher quality lens. I do think the extra 50% of reach in the longer 'consumer zoom' lens might be worthwhile...and Tamron does an 18-300mm (27-450mm equivalent for us Nikon DX users). We will check that one out.

You're welcome Lloyd. There really is very little to discuss about the IQ of the 70-200/2.8 and I have friends that this lens is a permanent fixture on their cameras, its THE defacto portrait zoom lens but I would check out the equivalent Tamron before purchasing.

I like this guy's reviews, watch it to end he has real world advice;


Happy hunting,

david
 

WDB

Member
Feb 15, 2012
32
0
6
You can get very high resolution landscapes with any camera if there is nothing moving, crop sensors work fine, people have been making extremely high pixel count landscapes by stitching together multiple shots. Microsoft even has a free program for doing this. http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/projects/ice/ You can even buy robotic panning adapters to automate the photo taking. http://www.gigapan.com/

For wildlife photography, both Sigma and Tamron make 150-600mm lenses that won't break the bank, Sigma has two versions, the very heavy Sport version and the lighter much more affordable contemporary version. The Internet is full of great examples of photos taken with these 3rd party lenses.
 

JackD201

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
12,308
1,425
1,820
Manila, Philippines
Hi Lloyd,

I hope I'm wrong about this but I'm pretty sure I'm not. If you use a DX lens on a FX body like the D750, I believe you will not be using the full sensor. It will crop because it focuses light on a smaller part of the sensor only. At least that was the case with my D700 and my DX lenses which were used on my D300. If you jump to FX I would recommend going with an FX lens as well. I recommend you search out "DX on FX body" just to be sure. When I went FX I got the 24-300 ED to replace my 18-200 DX. I recommend it for when you can't or don't want to carry a lot of lenses. At 300 there's less of the rainbow effect on borders than the DX at 200. Served me fine this week in Sapporo taking the kids skiing and sledding from a distance espcially since I had no intention of removing and mounting another lens while it was snowing pretty hard.

Right now I'm on the fence. Do I wait for the D900 or do I jump onto an Sony A7 II which is lighter? My time with the RX1 has made the D700's output feel limited in all aspects except autofocus speed and tracking. Decisions, decisions.
 

LL21

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

I hope I'm wrong about this but I'm pretty sure I'm not. If you use a DX lens on a FX body like the D750, I believe you will not be using the full sensor. It will crop because it focuses light on a smaller part of the sensor only. At least that was the case with my D700 and my DX lenses which were used on my D300. If you jump to FX I would recommend going with an FX lens as well. I recommend you search out "DX on FX body" just to be sure. When I went FX I got the 24-300 ED to replace my 18-200 DX. I recommend it for when you can't or don't want to carry a lot of lenses. At 300 there's less of the rainbow effect on borders than the DX at 200. Served me fine this week in Sapporo taking the kids skiing and sledding from a distance espcially since I had no intention of removing and mounting another lens while it was snowing pretty hard.

Right now I'm on the fence. Do I wait for the D900 or do I jump onto an Sony A7 II which is lighter? My time with the RX1 has made the D700's output feel limited in all aspects except autofocus speed and tracking. Decisions, decisions.

Jack, Thank you. I believe you are correct. If we upgrade to the full-frame, the lens should really go. Full frame all the way. However, having considered this, i think that in reality from what everyone tells us...perfectly awesome 4 foot x 4 foot photos are possibly with our existing camera and lens...and while a full-frame/better lens would be 'better' all else being equal...the truth is that to get a truly better photo...we just need to take a better picture. Or take more pictures and get lucky! ;)

So for the moment, that is the way we are going...and so far we do, in fact, have 2 nice 4'x4' photos we have taken which we quite like.
 

JackD201

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
12,308
1,425
1,820
Manila, Philippines
Words of wisdom Lloyd, just take better pictures or get lucky :D In my case, the full on FX DSLRs are used for sports/action shooting more than anything else along with the occasional "golden hour family portraits with a view". They are fast and are more ruggedized for weather. The mirrorless cameras are for pretty much everything else like city walks and such.
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
Interesting. Tried these images of mine with these results:



Memorability: high

My corporate picture:



Memorability: High.

Next time any of you decide to argue with me about audio, remember this!!! :D



Memorability: Medium.

Translation: audio is not as memorable as me and Jewel above!
 

jfrech

VIP/Donor
Sep 3, 2012
2,152
749
1,160
Austin
Lloyd,

I have a Nikon D300s and a few lenses. I had and sold (duh) that Nikon 80-400 you mention above. It's really a killer lens and more all purpose than you might think. While it's BIG and HEAVY it takes some incredible shots of both wildlife and people. I did notice colors really pop out better. Ditto the resolution on my DX format 300s. Works nicely in a variety of lighting conditions especially with a fill flash like for my daughter. Plus this is a FX format lens so if you do get a full frame Nikon, you'll be keeping this lens...

You asked about the quality of this 80-400m. It's excellent. All metal...not the plastic consumer lens...

DSC_0301.jpg JCF_0585 (1).jpg JCF_0718.jpg
 

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