APS-c user going full frame

F

florinyes

Suspended / Banned
Messages
53
Name
Florin
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi

Shooting a Sony A700 with Sony 16-80 CZ DT, Sony 70-200 G, and Tamron 90 macro..

I am mainly shooting inside (daughter) and I found my self struggling in low light situation.. I know I should use a prime lens but this is what i have..

Looking to go full frame and tempted by a850 and 900 but also considering to change system and Nikon D700 could be an option especially for it's low light capabilities..Also Canon 5D mk2 looks tempting and i could go on..

My dilemma: will the A850 A900 do the job and save me the sell and buy lenses? Is te D700 or 5D that much better to make it worth?

Any input much appreciated as I am really confused??

Kind regards

Flo
 
I don't know much about Sony or Nikon but I went from an APS-C (Canon 600D) to a 5D2 and for the same reasons and it was definitely the right move.
 
FWIW, Nikons use Sony sensors but seem to handle high ISOs better than Sony bodies. If your budget stretches to a new body, a D600 or D800 is well worth considering but if your current lenses were expensive, you're likely to take quite a hit when trading in against a new system (although if you're spending a fair bit on a system swap, your dealer might be a bit more generous!) Low mileage D700s are worth keeping an eye open for as well.
 
If you can get a good price to sell on your current gear, it might be a good time to switch. That's a nice package you got, and someone looking to start out might take the lot at a good price. You could then look to say, the D600 kit and a 1.8 prime or 2.
 
I went from Nikon D3100 to Canon 5D2. The system switch was very painful but after selling everything (inc 4 lenses) my calculations tell me it only costed me £300 for the time I've spent with Nikon.

The full frame has much much better low light performance. I was satisfied with D3100's ISO 3200 performance, but I am very pleased with 5D2's 6400 performance and feel 12800 is still usable if needed.


If high ISO is what you are looking for, get a newer generation camera like 6D or D600. both should do 6400 with ease and perhaps even 25600 depend on your target media (eg. print size or just view on computer).

Then get a nifty fifty will enable you to get photos in pitch black*.



* exaggeration. :p
 
Hi Flo, you have some nice lenses there and shouldn't struggle to much indoors with them obviously minimum focus length with 2 of them leaves you with just the 16-80 for I suspect most of your shots, my advice would be to pick up a 50/1.4 and keep the 700, if you still feel the need to change you won't lose much on the 50mm.
Would be interested in knowing what sort of problems you are having and do you have a flash to use off camera?
 
wuyanxu said:
Then get a nifty fifty will enable you to get photos in pitch black*.



* exaggeration. :p
Click to expand...

Not much of one! A term I've heard bandied about is UNavailable light photography!
 
chrism_scotland said:
D600 looks very good I'd like to get on in my hands to see what I think but as an ex Sony user (A77) I'm quite tempted by it.
Click to expand...

D600 had lots of dust/oil on sensor problems, not sure if they've been sorted yet.
 
Last edited:
SussexBlue said:
D600 had lots of dust/oil on sensor problems, not sur if they've been sorted yet.
Click to expand...
Mine hasn't shown this to any large degree (as in no worse than any other DSLR). I did have some dust on the mirror when it was new (straight out of the box new) and have only seen a little dust on the sensor which is no more than I would expect in normal use (I swap lenses often). Of the ones I know have had this issue it has passed in relatively few shots, anything from a few hundred up to 3,000. Also the sensor is easy enough to clean ....
 
Im in exactly the same boat, sony kit for me and would all be sold (all my lenses are DT lenses and i dont fancy the A99) so jumping ship to any manufacturer will happen, probably will be the 6D or D600 tho, spec wise i cant see me wanting or needing to spend more.

OP, am i right in saying the CZ and the 90 macro wouldnt work on the FF sony?
 
PDub said:
Im in exactly the same boat, sony kit for me and would all be sold (all my lenses are DT lenses and i dont fancy the A99) so jumping ship to any manufacturer will happen, probably will be the 6D or D600 tho, spec wise i cant see me wanting or needing to spend more.

OP, am i right in saying the CZ and the 90 macro wouldnt work on the FF sony?
Click to expand...

The CZ 16-80 is a crop lens. The 90 is FF.
 
I switched from an A700 + CZ16-80 to an A900 + Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 almost a year ago.

Low light - well, I will now shoot at 1600 ISO when on the A700 I tried to avoid going over 800 ISO, but still try and keep it lower if possible.

One thing that has made a significant difference is the software to PP RAW files - newer versions of LR are much better

If you don't shoot RAW for Low light, that should be the first thing to change, switch to RAW, and use LR to process the images, you'll be amazed at the difference!

Note that if you do swap to FF you will (as I did) have to swap from the CZ16-80, as that is a DT lens. Best alternative is the CZ24-70 f/2.8, but it's not cheap, so I went for the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 HSM, which is a reasonable compromise (and half the price).
 
Whatever you do DO NOT try out an a99. You WILL want one. ;-)

The a99 is very usable at ISO6400, if you're careful with your exposure. The beauty of the SLT/EVF is that you can ETTR without chimping, using the live histogram. That's handy if your kids are anything like mine (i.e. not keen on being asked to "do that again, Daddy didn't get the shot"). :-/
 
I've never used the A700 so not sure what ISO you think is acceptable. But with my old A55 I would happily use to ISO1600 and push it to ISO3200 if I had to with a smidgen of PP after. My A77 is similar. So depending on how much extra 'light' you need, one of those may be an option instead.

In the end I have gone Nikon D700 as my primary now for paid work because the noise handling is just so much better than the Sony. I did look long & hard at the A850/900 but after reading many reviews and comparing the images on DPReview site, I bit the bullet and switched systems.

If I were in your shoes, I'd try to get a cheap A55 or try out a A57 first before switching systems. I wouldn't go A850/900 because I just dont think the high ISO performance is worth the money. And unfortunately the A99 is v. pricey at the moment!
 
Hi

thanks everyone for making a point here..

So to start nifty fifty is not an option for me..tempted by the Nikon 50 1.2 but not sure why they so cheap?

What I am having grief with.. not wanting daughter to be aware of camera.. I'am not using a flash..I know a prime would do much better as I had a 50mm 1.7 and was impressed but then don't really PP (for cropping purposes) much so a zoom lens would be more suitable..Again I am just an enthusiast that likes nice gear too.

What I was thinking either sell out and get used D700 (for less than 1000quid) 24-70 f2.8 and a 50 1.2 ? Not really keen on keen on 70-200 as I am not using it for it's purpose sports etc..
Is the Nikon 24-70 as good as CZ 24-70 as I found the Sony 70-200G to be a superb lens?

I am into all this because thinking of swapping my 70-200 for a 24-70 and if I wanted to go FF then not that much of a hassle to change systems..

Thanks again everyone for your input and keep posting if anything else can be put on the picture.
 
Nikon 50/1.2 is manual focus only so would not be an option under auto setting, not meaning to offend but have you considered getting a NEX6 with the 16-50 lens, much less intrusive and takes great photos. I used to have the Nikon D3 but after a fallout with Nikon I moved to the Sony A900 now I have the A77 and the NEX6, the NEX is the camera that probably accounts for 90% of my usage. As to your question regarding the 24-70s, you probably wouldn't notice any difference.
 
While the attraction of an f/1.2 is undeniable if you like ultra shallow DoF (IMO, too shallow), MFing it won't be easy (due to that DoF) and you'll be losing the automatic aperture control as well. An f/1.8 or 1.4 would be a far better bet IMO.

A D700 with a 24-70 f/2.8 isn't subtle! Pretty sure your daughter will be aware of it, your only hope will be to get her so used to it that she takes no notice of it. My choice for unobtrusiveness and speed would be a smallish DSLR with a reasonably fast prime, probably a 35mm on FF or a 24mm on crop. Once habituated to the camera though, you shouldn't have a problem with a bigger body and bulkier lens as long as there's enough light for the available maximum aperture.
 
Manual focusing wide aperture lenses is much easier IMVHO if you have live view. I have a f0.95 and I have no problem focusing at that aperture with my G1 as it has magnified view.

Also, many people assume that you'll get razor thin DoF at these apertures and whilst you do at close distance as the camera to subject distance increases so does the DoF and the widest apertures become very usable.
 
Just to try and get a scale on the problems you are having.

As I understand it, with your A700 + CZ16-80 indoors you are struggling to get a fast enough shutter speed at an acceptable ISO (noise wise).

How much are you 'missing' by?

Would getting a 16/17-50 f/2.8 solve the problem? (the CZ is great, but reactively 'slow')
 
As advised above I would try a fast prime first before jumping ship.

I used to have a Sony A700 with similar lenses + the 50 1.4 and at the same time had a Nikon D70s with the 17-80G lens. When Sony decided to stop making optical viewfinders I gave them a go but didn't like them at all and decided to switch and have Nikon as my main system. I don't regret it at all.
 
florinyes said:
Hi

Shooting a Sony A700 with Sony 16-80 CZ DT, Sony 70-200 G, and Tamron 90 macro..

I am mainly shooting inside (daughter) and I found my self struggling in low light situation.. I know I should use a prime lens but this is what i have..

Looking to go full frame and tempted by a850 and 900 but also considering to change system and Nikon D700 could be an option especially for it's low light capabilities..Also Canon 5D mk2 looks tempting and i could go on..

My dilemma: will the A850 A900 do the job and save me the sell and buy lenses? Is te D700 or 5D that much better to make it worth?

Any input much appreciated as I am really confused??

Kind regards

Flo
Click to expand...

Sorry, this may sound like an insult to your intelligence and I don't mean it do...

...but have you tried using a flash???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top