Moving to FF dilemma

[Shanks]

HI, I've been reading the thread 'Just trying to get my head round aps-c and ff' in this forum with interset and note the view that buying full-frame lenses for APS-C cameras in preparation for a future move is not a good move. But what about the other way round?

I currently have a NIkon D7100 which I've been really pleased with. However, my son is developing an interest in photography so I thought I would let him have that and I would take the opportunity to upgrade. After looking around I had settled on a D750 or D800. The problem is that these are both full frame. We have a Nikon 18-300 and a Sigma 17-50 and it we hoped to share these and ocasionally hire other lenses. the Nikon site says "this is no problem and their FF cameras just auto detect the DX lens and it's fine'. Is it really that easy? I appreciate that until I can afford a full size lens I'd only be using the 'crop' portion of the sensor but other than that, is there a problem with taking this route?

If it's going to be a issue are there any sensible aps-c bodies that would be good upgrades for the D7100? Most of our time is spent taking pictures of cycling and motor sports if that helps guide an answer.

Thanks for any help or suggestions.

 

[Cagey75]

Can you allow for a 50mm lens in your budget until you can get some more FF glass? Fantastic lens [50mm 1.8G] for the money and will allow you full advantage of the FF sensor. You can use the others in crop mode too if you want, but I think you'd end up mostly using the 50mm.

 

[StewartR]

We have a Nikon 18-300 and a Sigma 17-50 and it we hoped to share these and ocasionally hire other lenses. the Nikon site says "this is no problem and their FF cameras just auto detect the DX lens and it's fine'. Is it really that easy? I appreciate that until I can afford a full size lens I'd only be using the 'crop' portion of the sensor but other than that, is there a problem with taking this route?

There is no technical problem with taking this route. I don't know whether the cameras will auto-detect a Sigma lens, but it's easy to put the camera into DX crop mode yourself.

But be aware that DX crop mode implies a big reduction in your pixel count. The D750 is 24 MP in FX mode but only 10.67 MP in DX mode; the D800 is 36 MP in FX mode but only 16 MP in DX mode.

 

[Shanks]

Thanks Cagey75, that looks like a nice lens and it's certainy a possibility, although I'd be concerned about the limitations of a fixed lens for cycling, even the short zoom range of the Sigma is useful. The reviews and example images are impressive though.

Thanks Stewart, I knew it dropped but had no idea it was by that much 16 is workable but I'm not sure I'd want to go to less than half of what I have with the D7100.

It seems that the only viable upgrade path staying with a cropped sensor is the D7500.

 

[andy1868]

Or the D500

 

[SsSsSsSsSnake]

Or the D500

 

[gad-westy]

Or the D500

Much as I love my D800, this is the right answer. Using crop lenses on full frame is a nice option on occasion but it's wasting the camera's potential. You're carrying around the bulk of an FF camera but not taking advantage of it. A D500 is a great solution for motorsport and cycling. It's forte is fast action, perfect. Only snag is that it's more expensive than both of the full frame cameras you were considering but at least you'll not need to worry about lenses.

Or as a wild card option, another D7100 or similar and something like a 70-200 lens with the money saved... I guarantee it would make a much bigger difference than switching bodies. It would keep your physiotherapist in work too. Win win!

 

[ian-83]

Much as I love my D800, this is the right answer. Using crop lenses on full frame is a nice option on occasion but it's wasting the camera's potential. You're carrying around the bulk of an FF camera but not taking advantage of it. A D500 is a great solution for motorsport and cycling. It's forte is fast action, perfect. Only snag is that it's more expensive than both of the full frame cameras you were considering but at least you'll not need to worry about lenses.

Or as a wild card option, another D7100 or similar and something like a 70-200 lens with the money saved... I guarantee it would make a much bigger difference than switching bodies. It would keep your physiotherapist in work too. Win win!

Or the D7500? Not quite a D500 but mostly there except the autofocus system? Not sure how it compares to the D500 in this respect though.

 

[LeeRatters]

I'm not at all clued up on the Nikon offerings one single bit but I will add.... I don't see the point of getting a FF to use in crop mode. Either budget for FF lenses to match or pick up a top end crop camera to use your current lenses & be able to fight over sharing lenses in the future

 

[Retune]

I'm not sure why buying FX lenses in preparation for moving away from DX would be seen as a bad idea. In the 'standard zoom' range you usually want something wider on DX than an FX zoom will give you, but you have that covered already. At other focal lengths, an FX lens may be a bit heavier or more expensive than the DX alternative (if one even exists), but otherwise you aren't losing anything (and in some cases will be buying a better lens). I personally would not bother with DX lenses on FX in most situations. Try out a DX lens on an FX body in a camera shop - it's a worse experience than using a DX body. There are plenty of cheap FX lenses on the secondhand market. As Keith suggests, a 50mm would be one option (the cameras you mention are compatible with older AF-D lenses, so you can get something for under £80 if your budget is tight). A decent mid-range AF-D zoom like the 28-105 can be found for under £150, and performs well even on the D800. There are lots of reasonably priced telezooms.

The D800 is an excellent all-round camera, but it wouldn't be my first choice for motorsport and cycling - the framerate is pretty low at 4fps in FX mode. The D750 improves on the framerate, but has a pretty shallow buffer that limits the time you can shoot at 6.5 fps: https://photographylife.com/nikon-d750-buffer-capacity

 

[Shanks]

Brilliant, thank you everyone, that has given me a lot to consider and leaves me with some very sensible options to chose from. It looks like my lad might have to wait a little longer before he benefits from the deal but we may both have a much better outcome.

I'm erring towards the D500 which means we can both use everything we have in the bag for a while. Retune - I was trying to avoid buying a new body and a set of lenses, he will keep the D7100 for a while so being able to swap and share between us does make sense. Who knows he may even stump up for some glass himself that I can then use Neither of our abilities warrants a big investment yet, so it's a case of making wise choices now and getting in a lot more practice.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I think you are doing it the wrong way round. First you need decent lenses and only then new body. Even on a cropper I'd be thinking to do away with the likes of 18-x00 in favour of somthinso like 70-200mm.

 

[TG.]

Or you could sell your D7100 for around £400 and buy a decent used D700 for around £450 that will give you 8fps with the grip, give that to your son and get yourself a D800/D810 get a couple of FF lenses you can both share and work your way up from there

 

[SsSsSsSsSnake]

And if you go FF and kit too heavy you can always use your Pony

 

[Shanks]

Thanks LongLensPhotography, I agree, lenses ought to be a first consideration before a body change but I need another body as sharing the D7100 with my lad is not practical in the long term. If it was just for me I'd be very happy staying with it and just buying more glass. I'm trying to identify a good upgrade path for us both without breaking the limited camera fund I have.

TG - the concept of us both going FF is appealing and the choices you suggest may be a workable solution, thanks. It does mean changing everything we have but I guess once you bite that bullet it should be straightforward from there on.

Lots to think about and Google will be my friend for a week or so while I check prices and reviews now. Thanks everyone for the comments and suggestions.

at SsSsSsSsSnake I think when the boxes start arriving my wife might be saddling that one up for me.

 

[snerkler]

I think this has already been covered but it's fine using FX glass on DX bodies as you don't lose out on anything (as long as you're aware of equivalent focal lengths), but if you use DX glass on an FX body in effect you just get a low MP DX body which defeats the purpose of going FF.

 

[sk66]

I would seriously consider just staying with the crop format... there are a lot of tradeoffs to be made ($$$/weight/etc) when going to FF, all for benefits that most don't actually need (and quite possibly will not use).

 

[Shanks]

thanks snerkler and sk66, I'm beginning to think the change up to ff for us both is going to be too expensive. To be honest we are both still early on our journey with photography and taking that route we will end up with costly kit that is far beyond our abilities. Staying with cropped with allow us to develop the skills and one day we might see a feature or tech on ff that we would appreciate. By then hopefully he can be buying me some kit.

 

[Cagey75]

thanks snerkler and sk66, I'm beginning to think the change up to ff for us both is going to be too expensive. To be honest we are both still early on our journey with photography and taking that route we will end up with costly kit that is far beyond our abilities. Staying with cropped with allow us to develop the skills and one day we might see a feature or tech on ff that we would appreciate. By then hopefully he can be buying me some kit.

What was your main reason for going FF? The differences that would matter to me for example, would be better ISO performance, better build quality generally, 'true' focal length and better control over DOF - no nonsense about equivalence, and much better dynamic range. If these things don't really matter much to you, then APSC is plenty good enough.

 

[StewartR]

The differences that would matter to me for example, would be better ISO performance.....

OK.

..... better build quality generally .....

Not true.

..... 'true' focal length .....

Irrelevant. Focal length is a property of the lens, not the camera.

..... better control over DOF .....

OK if you want really shallow depth of field at f/1.4, but otherwise irrelevant.

..... and much better dynamic range..

OK, but I'd quibble with 'much' better.

 

[Cagey75]

OK.
Not true.

Irrelevant. Focal length is a property of the lens, not the camera.

OK if you want really shallow depth of field at f/1.4, but otherwise irrelevant.

OK, but I'd quibble with 'much' better.

I can't be arsed to multi quote have some bullet points

• What APSC cameras are better built than the average FF body? Are they not generally weather sealed for one? And mostly Mag-alloy, at least the ones I would go for would be.
• 
  
• I know it's not really relevant, I've made this very point on here many times. But people go on about 'equivalence' so much, with FF it is what it is. You're preaching to the choir on that
• 
  
• I also like 1.4 lenses, it's what i used most when I did shoot FF, which was with a D800E, what APSC camera is built as well as that?
• 
  
• Again, what APSC cameras have as good DR?

What was your main reason for going FF? The differences that would matter to me for example, would be better ISO performance, better build quality generally, 'true' focal length and better control over DOF - no nonsense about equivalence, and much better dynamic range. If these things don't really matter much to you, then APSC is plenty good enough.

This was my personal wants for FF, and the body I would choose would be just as specific, so you're arguing against my preference here. I can't speak for the OP, which is why I asked them to clarify their needs

I use M43 btw, my camera is weather sealed, built pretty good too, but it's not as well built as most FF bodies. I don't worry about FL equivalence personally but constantly see people force it on here when we mention any M43 lens, so I'm glad you actually said that one.

 

[Shanks]

Hi Cagey75, the change wasn't brought on by a specfic want for FF or as a mark of dissatisfaction with the cropped sensor of the D7100. I'd still say the D7100, for me, is a great camera and ticks all boxes. I want to give that to my son and was looking for a worthwhile upgrade path for me. If I'm going to change then going to a D7200 or even D7500 wasn't enough of an improvement to make the change and cost worthwhile. That left models like the D750 or D800/10 as front runners but, most choices meant switching to a ff body. I wanted to know what the implications of that change would be, given that we would want to be sharing lenses, at least for a while. It seems to me that a ff body with a dx lens is going to be too much of a compromise. A D500 or another 7100 and a new lens appear to be the favoured options.

I'm trying out a Sigma 150-600 sports this weekend, thank you StewartR, so I may have a whole new wish list by next week. ;-)

 

[snerkler]

I can't be arsed to multi quote have some bullet points

• What APSC cameras are better built than the average FF body? Are they not generally weather sealed for one? And mostly Mag-alloy, at least the ones I would go for would be.
• 
  
• I know it's not really relevant, I've made this very point on here many times. But people go on about 'equivalence' so much, with FF it is what it is. You're preaching to the choir on that
• 
  
• I also like 1.4 lenses, it's what i used most when I did shoot FF, which was with a D800E, what APSC camera is built as well as that?
• 
  
• Again, what APSC cameras have as good DR?

This was my personal wants for FF, and the body I would choose would be just as specific, so you're arguing against my preference here. I can't speak for the OP, which is why I asked them to clarify their needs

I use M43 btw, my camera is weather sealed, built pretty good too, but it's not as well built as most FF bodies. I don't worry about FL equivalence personally but constantly see people force it on here when we mention any M43 lens, so I'm glad you actually said that one.

What APS-C cameras are better built than the average FF? The D500 and D300 are a couple that I can think of, at least as well built. Also for DR, the D500 and D7500 both have 14ev, that's only 0.5ev behind the D750 and higher than most Canon FF. The D7200 has 14.6ev, higher than the D750 (just), a stop higher than the 5DIV and 2.7 stops better than the 6D-II.

APS-C cameras aren't too shabby these days

 

[ecoleman]

What APS-C cameras are better built than the average FF? The D500 and D300 are a couple that I can think of, at least as well built. Also for DR, the D500 and D7500 both have 14ev, that's only 0.5ev behind the D750 and higher than most Canon FF. The D7200 has 14.6ev, higher than the D750 (just), a stop higher than the 5DIV and 2.7 stops better than the 6D-II.

APS-C cameras aren't too shabby these days

The Canon 40D and 50D were also built like a brick s*** houses. They both had magnesium alloy bodies.

 

[JJ!]

Hi Cagey75, the change wasn't brought on by a specfic want for FF or as a mark of dissatisfaction with the cropped sensor of the D7100. I'd still say the D7100, for me, is a great camera and ticks all boxes. I want to give that to my son and was looking for a worthwhile upgrade path for me. If I'm going to change then going to a D7200 or even D7500 wasn't enough of an improvement to make the change and cost worthwhile. That left models like the D750 or D800/10 as front runners but, most choices meant switching to a ff body. I wanted to know what the implications of that change would be, given that we would want to be sharing lenses, at least for a while. It seems to me that a ff body with a dx lens is going to be too much of a compromise. A D500 or another 7100 and a new lens appear to be the favoured options.

I'm trying out a Sigma 150-600 sports this weekend, thank you StewartR, so I may have a whole new wish list by next week. ;-)

If sharing lenses I would 100% go down the D500 route. Its a fairly chunky beast and does make my D750 seem a bit slender, but its probably the best crop camera out there.I sometimes get lured to it, but just love how the D750 works and what it produces!

 

[Cagey75]

The Canon 40D and 50D were also built like a brick s*** houses. They both had magnesium alloy bodies.

My G80 has a mag-alloy body too and it's an M43 camera, it is also weather sealed. It is not built as tough as a D800. The D500 and D300 may be built fine, I'm sure the D850 still trumps them. Let alone pro bodies like the D4/5 or 1Dx

 

[cambsno]

There is no technical problem with taking this route. I don't know whether the cameras will auto-detect a Sigma lens, but it's easy to put the camera into DX crop mode yourself.

But be aware that DX crop mode implies a big reduction in your pixel count. The D750 is 24 MP in FX mode but only 10.67 MP in DX mode; the D800 is 36 MP in FX mode but only 16 MP in DX mode.

On a related note, is it better to use a D750 in DX mode, or use in FX and crop in processing? Does one have more resolution than the other, if say I cropped the FX image to match the DX one?

 

[snerkler]

On a related note, is it better to use a D750 in DX mode, or use in FX and crop in processing? Does one have more resolution than the other, if say I cropped the FX image to match the DX one?

As far as the final image is concerned there's no difference. Using DX mode on the D750 gives you just over a 10mp image, and if you cropped in post to give you the same framing you'd get just over a 10mp image. It's possible that it may meter slightly differently when shooting DX compared to FX frame though, but I never saw any difference tbh.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

The Canon 40D and 50D were also built like a brick s*** houses. They both had magnesium alloy bodies.

Apart from metal alloy body they had very little weather sealing and were fair weather cameras. Most will be happy with that, but once in a while you get caught in the rain or a freak sea splash and there are reports on here that this could be enough.

So that is point no1.

2. Autofocus systems used to be a lot better in pro-level FF cameras than ANY of the APS-C competition. This has now sufficiently changed but it really forces you into the flagship APS-C (7DII or D500), likewise there are now some crappy FF implementations (6d) in terms of 1. and 2.

3. Colour accuracy is by far better on FF models. In a way APS-C cameras are almost intentionally made to record more vivid and contrasty shots limiting their processing latitude.

4. Dynamic range. FF cameras make it look very faithful and real. While APS-C counterparts may pass the test - my experience with APS-C Sony files tells me it looks somewhat "faked" and very hard to process to my liking.

5. Cost. Actually in my case it was exactly same as I had all the Canon L glass - the only difference was UWA which actually was comparable too, and back in the day there was only dodgy 17-40 or crappy 16-35 II. There are cheap FF lenses, but zooms particularly leave a lot to be desired just like with APS-C system.

This is not to say APS-C cameras are crap in general and can't be used to a good effect. The 40D I had a while back made me considerable income, but a higher res file would have attracted a few extra customers.

 

[sk66]

3. Colour accuracy is by far better on FF models. In a way APS-C cameras are almost intentionally made to record more vivid and contrasty shots limiting their processing latitude.

4. Dynamic range. FF cameras make it look very faithful and real. While APS-C counterparts may pass the test - my experience with APS-C Sony files tells me it looks somewhat "faked" and very hard to process to my liking.

There are a couple of factors that give FF an advantage... when the same exposure settings are used the FF sensor gets more total light (4x as much as a 2x CF sensor). And if it has the same sized pixels it has a greater sampling rate (higher MP/more accurate information).

But I wouldn't say that FF is necessarily better in either of these aspects... that is going to be very dependent on the camera model and how it is used.

 

[snerkler]

4. Dynamic range. FF cameras make it look very faithful and real. While APS-C counterparts may pass the test - my experience with APS-C Sony files tells me it looks somewhat "faked" and very hard to process to my liking.

Try a Nikon D7200 or D500 they certainly don't look faked, I was hard pressed to tell them apart from my D750

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Try a Nikon D7200 or D500 they certainly don't look faked, I was hard pressed to tell them apart from my D750

Hopefully they are if Nikon just made them as mini D850 or whatever... they all should be like this but in many cases marketing departments dictate what output end users want to see...