Full Frame FX ?

T

tazio

Suspended / Banned
Messages
10
Edit My Images
No
Hello there i know this has maybe been done to death but anyway some advice would be nice ?
I currently have a D300 Gripped with RRS L bracket , D90 Gripped , Sigma 10-20 which i mainly use from 14-20 to avoid the differcult to correct distortion ! Nikkor 16-85, Sigma 50-150 F2.8 lovely lens ultra sharp, and 80-200 F2.8 Nikkor. 50mm 1.8 and tamron macro 60mm.
I mainly shoot architecture , both for my own projects " i run a architectural design practise " and also for clients. And a bit of portrait, landscape . ext . Anyway i have never really been happy with the 16-85 so have decided to either get the 17-55 f2.8 or the 28-70 f2.8 . if i went the 28-70 route than i may also purchase a toknia or nikkor 12-24 !. So i have a reasonable investment in gear. However i know that i would really be better going to FX and selling the DX kit ! since then of course i could purchase the wonderful 14-24 and a PC 24mm , although PC done in software does seem to work ok. With having to purchase the expensive glass , "no point changing i unless i do" i think that i would only be able to afford to purchase a secoundhand D700 , rather than the D800 which would be my preferred choice .
so the question is as i would only be upgrading the body to a D700 and not 800 is the extra image quality that i may get from the fine glass worh it ?Will i see it in the final print ect ?. or should i just upgrade the lenses as above ? and stick with DX for the time being?. Until i can efford both the D800 and lenses
It would be graet to hear from those that have switched .
At the moment i dont make money from my photography but it is something i would like to persue in the future in realation to architectural photography anyway .
thanks
 
Personally I would add up and see what you get if you sold your entire DX set up. Then add on the affordable budget you have then you'll have a better idea what to look at.

I would also look at opting for the D600 over the D700. Better res and new tech wins every time imo.

For architecture you'd probably want wide and a mid zoom. If you want to stay DX then the 17-55 is a fine lens.

If I were you, as you seem to be contemplating it anyway and also as you intend to use it in a semi/professional context I'd sell up and get the D600 and the 24-70 f/2.8. This little combo will serve more than you think. For wider the 16-35 f/4 would also be a nice addition. It's your money tho and your decision but I know that having an interest in architecture and landscape myself the 24-70 will serve you well. I also use the 16-35 and love both lenses. For portraits I use the 50mm f/1.4.

Hope this helps.
 
tazio said:
Hello there i know this has maybe been done to death but anyway some advice would be nice ?
I currently have a D300 Gripped with RRS L bracket , D90 Gripped , Sigma 10-20 which i mainly use from 14-20 to avoid the differcult to correct distortion ! Nikkor 16-85, Sigma 50-150 F2.8 lovely lens ultra sharp, and 80-200 F2.8 Nikkor. 50mm 1.8 and tamron macro 60mm.
I mainly shoot architecture , both for my own projects " i run a architectural design practise " and also for clients. And a bit of portrait, landscape . ext . Anyway i have never really been happy with the 16-85 so have decided to either get the 17-55 f2.8 or the 28-70 f2.8 . if i went the 28-70 route than i may also purchase a toknia or nikkor 12-24 !. So i have a reasonable investment in gear. However i know that i would really be better going to FX and selling the DX kit ! since then of course i could purchase the wonderful 14-24 and a PC 24mm , although PC done in software does seem to work ok. With having to purchase the expensive glass , "no point changing i unless i do" i think that i would only be able to afford to purchase a secoundhand D700 , rather than the D800 which would be my preferred choice .
so the question is as i would only be upgrading the body to a D700 and not 800 is the extra image quality that i may get from the fine glass worh it ?Will i see it in the final print ect ?. or should i just upgrade the lenses as above ? and stick with DX for the time being?. Until i can efford both the D800 and lenses
It would be graet to hear from those that have switched .
At the moment i dont make money from my photography but it is something i would like to persue in the future in realation to architectural photography anyway .
thanks
Click to expand...

Yes, you will see it - FX sensor is more than twice the image area of DX, which is the key to full-frame's better image quality. Whether or not that's worth it to you is hard to say.
 
Since you like grips and already have one for your D300, the D700 is the natural choice of FF Nikon - it uses the same grip. I would be tempted (if finances permit) to keep the 300 to run alongside the 700 (which is a fine camera). Bear in mind that the 14-24 Nikkor will only be a little wider on FF than your 10-20 is on Dx - the 10-20 gives a 35mm equivalent angle of view of a 15mm lens. If you can find a good copy, the Sigma 12-24 is that little bit wider and is also incredibly well corrected for distortions (it does exaggerate perspectives though - as do all UWAs!). IIRC, neither the Nikkor 14-24 nor the Sigma 12-24 accept filters in front of the lens (without some bodgery) - they slip into a holder behind the rear element (gels, cut to size using the template provided).
 
im upgrading to a d800 , getting the body and a third party grip for 1k , then i will get the plass proper grip and batteries at a later date . .

a d700 would be a good choices and the menus and controls are 99% similar

Cheers steve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top