what are the pros and cons of upgrading to full frame

[New to this]

Hi i have been playing with a D3000 for a few yrs but have up graded to a D7000 and a D90 in the last 12 months, i have invested in good glass 400 2.8f, 70-200 2.8f . My question is what would i really gain by upgrading to a full framed camera. what are the pros and cons of doing this. Also which camera would be best suited. love nature shots mainly birds.
Mnay thanks Rob

 

[Cagey75]

I upgraded from a D90 to FX, but still hold on to the D90 as it's a great camera. For out doors, wildlife, it is more than capable. I guess by going FX you gain better image quality, but probably only really noticeable when viewed or printed large.

Where I find I have gained is shooting indoors, at higher ISO levels, especially for gigs. Or naturally lit portraits indoors or in dim lighting. I have also noticed an extra degree of sharpness, clarity and overall depth and contrast and quality, when pairing the D800 with speedlights, in a studio type setting. I'm also a cropper, I do try frame right on cam, but sometimes, well, a lot of times, later on I feel an image would be better cropped a certain way. Too much nothing space or whatever reason. Shooting FX allows you much more freedom in that regard too.


SO, better overall quality, better ISO performance, better AF with more points, and tougher body + greater resale value.

 

[Pablosammy]

You will notice a step change in quality, and I imagine the D600 would be your natural upgrade route. The controls are in almost exactly the same configuration as the D7000, and it feels the same in the hand. Low ISO, colours, dynamic range etc will all be better.

Negatives? You'll lose the aps multiplication factor, so your nice telephoto glass won't reach quite as far. You might also notice more corner softness, as it's using the whole lens and not just the middle 'sweet spot' of the frame. Other than that, I'd say go for it!

 

[ausemmao]

Hi i have been playing with a D3000 for a few yrs but have up graded to a D7000 and a D90 in the last 12 months, i have invested in good glass 400 2.8f, 70-200 2.8f . My question is what would i really gain by upgrading to a full framed camera. what are the pros and cons of doing this. Also which camera would be best suited. love nature shots mainly birds.
Mnay thanks Rob

Positives?
Bit better image quality, more choice in wide angle lenses, slightly bigger view finder.

Negatives?
Bigger, heavier, more expensive (bodies and lenses).

That's about it really.

 

[AlfyB]

I'm also a cropper, I do try frame right on cam, but sometimes, well, a lot of times, later on I feel an image would be better cropped a certain way. Too much nothing space or whatever reason. Shooting FX allows you much more freedom in that regard too.

Are you saying that FX gives you more freedom when cropping images? If so, can you explain why/how.

An upgrade to FX is something I imagine myself doing, one day, in the distant future, when the time is right. If FX helps with cropping in someway I can't image, maybe it'll bring that day forward a little.

 

[architectfadi]

Are you saying that FX gives you more freedom when cropping images? If so, can you explain why/how.

An upgrade to FX is something I imagine myself doing, one day, in the distant future, when the time is right. If FX helps with cropping in someway I can't image, maybe it'll bring that day forward a little.

I think the cropping comment relates to the more mega pixels which I believe Cagey75 had in his D800e

 

[AlfyB]

I think the cropping comment relates to the more mega pixels which I believe Cagey75 had in his D800e

Ah, that I understand thanks.

 

[HoppyUK]

I think the cropping comment relates to the more mega pixels which I believe Cagey75 had in his D800e

It's not so much more pixels, but more physical image area - that's what drives everything.

FF is more than twice the area of crop format, so it collects more light (better ISO), allows lenses to work less hard (better sharpness). Also delivers less depth of field so more control there.

The size of the sensor is also what makes everything bigger and heavier, especially lenses, and pushes up the cost.

 

[Faldrax]

Negatives? You'll lose the aps multiplication factor, so your nice telephoto glass won't reach quite as far.

Reach is completely unchanged - the lens is what determines the optical magnification, using it on an 'crop' sensor body does precisely that - gives you an image that is a crop of the 'Full Frame' image.

This gives a reduced field of view, not increased magnification.

Any 'magnification' in the images is down to differences in pixel density - The smaller sensors on 'crop' bodies tend to have smaller pixels.
If you take the the same shot from a range of bodies then in pp crop the centre 1000x1000, the body with the highest pixel density will appear to give more magnification.

 

[New to this]

I upgraded from a D90 to FX, but still hold on to the D90 as it's a great camera. For out doors, wildlife, it is more than capable. I guess by going FX you gain better image quality, but probably only really noticeable when viewed or printed large.

Where I find I have gained is shooting indoors, at higher ISO levels, especially for gigs. Or naturally lit portraits indoors or in dim lighting. I have also noticed an extra degree of sharpness, clarity and overall depth and contrast and quality, when pairing the D800 with speedlights, in a studio type setting. I'm also a cropper, I do try frame right on cam, but sometimes, well, a lot of times, later on I feel an image would be better cropped a certain way. Too much nothing space or whatever reason. Shooting FX allows you much more freedom in that regard too.


SO, better overall quality, better ISO performance, better AF with more points, and tougher body + greater resale value.

many thanks for your reply on this

 

[New to this]

You will notice a step change in quality, and I imagine the D600 would be your natural upgrade route. The controls are in almost exactly the same configuration as the D7000, and it feels the same in the hand. Low ISO, colours, dynamic range etc will all be better.

Negatives? You'll lose the aps multiplication factor, so your nice telephoto glass won't reach quite as far. You might also notice more corner softness, as it's using the whole lens and not just the middle 'sweet spot' of the frame. Other than that, I'd say go for it!

Many thanks Sam for your coment.

 

[New to this]

Positives?
Bit better image quality, more choice in wide angle lenses, slightly bigger view finder.

Negatives?
Bigger, heavier, more expensive (bodies and lenses).

That's about it really.

Thank you so my Nikkon 400 2.8 would still be good for the full frame but the 70-200mm 2.8 tele would not be that good with the full frame ? sorry for being dum

 

[gman]

On full frame I've found not only is the noise handled better natively but the dynamic range is retained more, which for me is the more important aspect of going to higher ISO levels.

 

[New to this]

On full frame I've found not only is the noise handled better natively but the dynamic range is retained more, which for me is the more important aspect of going to higher ISO levels.

Thanks Graham

 

[gman]

Here's a quick chart showing the dynamic range of the D7000, D3s and the D600 across the various ISO settings.

I excluded the D90 because it's two years older than the D7000 so it's not really fair to put it up against newer cameras, whereas the D7000 and D3s are almost the same age. The D600 is brand new but has a closer pixel pitch to the D7000 so it shows how advances in technology have improved it's performance. The D3s with the lower resolution but larger sensor has a higher pixel pitch value which I'm guessing allows for better performance with dynamic range at higher ISOs. If you go to the site and look at the D4 which has a slightly lower resolution the results are even better probably because of the larger pixel pitch coupled with the latest technology.

The D7000 appears to have excellent dynamic range at low ISO but it falls quickly at higher ISO levels whereas the full frame bodies can keep an stop and almost a stop and a half at ISO6400, which is still a useable ISO level.

I guess the question is whether or not a stop of dynamic range is noticeable?

 

[New to this]

Here's a quick chart showing the dynamic range of the D7000, D3s and the D600 across the various ISO settings.

I excluded the D90 because it's two years older than the D7000 so it's not really fair to put it up against newer cameras, whereas the D7000 and D3s are almost the same age. The D600 is brand new but has a closer pixel pitch to the D7000 so it shows how advances in technology have improved it's performance. The D3s with the lower resolution but larger sensor has a higher pixel pitch value which I'm guessing allows for better performance with dynamic range at higher ISOs. If you go to the site and look at the D4 which has a slightly lower resolution the results are even better probably because of the larger pixel pitch coupled with the latest technology.

The D7000 appears to have excellent dynamic range at low ISO but it falls quickly at higher ISO levels whereas the full frame bodies can keep an stop and almost a stop and a half at ISO6400, which is still a useable ISO level.

I guess the question is whether or not a stop of dynamic range is noticeable?

Thanks again Graham

 

[New to this]

Thanks you all went foor a D800 so will have some fun now