Entry Level Fx Camera

[Fudgecakes]

I never say Entry Level DSLR, I mention Entry level FX DSLR as in the cheaper range of them without super high ISO or fps.
My mentality of skipping DX and jump to FX is because i definitely going to stick around photography for a while and if I build my DX lens and jump to FX I will need to offload everything.
So I rather get a general lens for now and add on other better lens as time goes by.

Another question for those DX to FX user, is the weight that noticeable?

In term of what lens I want to get AF-S NIKKOR 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR for the travel lens and a 85mm prime for portrait.

I am definitely not a professional but I do my own product shoot so for me it is called value for money, best image value per dollar with a minimum standard. So money is surely an issue but not if I have a good reason for it.
D7000 is like the bottom limit for me, it is good enough but I want my own system now instead of borrowing from my dad so I am setting a limit of 6k. I am extremely attracted to FX because of the low light performance and also if I get FX lens, I have more room to grow since D7000 is already the top end of DX already.

Technically crop to FF may or may not be considered an upgrade. I know many ppl will disagree with me on this however there is very little a FF sensor can do that a crop sensor can't. Furthermore you are dragging around much larger(and heavier) and expensive glass around. End up since you aren't earning from it, is the performance of the FF SENSOR really worth it? Is there alot that you can do on FF that you can't do in dx?

Sidenote: if you use dx and wanna buy more lenses you can always say "eh I sharing with daddy" and thus you wor get heat from your other parent :~]

 

[tecnica]

I am glad that this do not turn in brand war and I do not believe that both are equally good and bottleneck at the user. Equipment is used to help the user, granted that given superb skill you do not need that great of equipment to get good result, just think VR, without tripod VR will help a lot especially if your hand is not exactly super sturdy but given practise yes, you do not need that VR feature but it does help. So my mentality is get the best I can afford and enjoy the photography trip.

so which you THINK is better?

 

[Miao]

U r right to say theres little dx cant do that what fx can do. Dx iso performance is really good, hitting iso3200 and 6400 with acceptable photo quality. I use dx for family outing cos it darn light and cheap.

But i guess why ppl (& myself) go for fx is due to the dof that dx can't produce at the same f-stop dof effect. 30mm f1.4 sigma prime len generally produce a bokeh effect similar to fx f2.0 or f2.8 len. so if u imaging using f1.4 len on fx ...... Wow .. Bokeh bokeh bokeh .. But well, some ppl dun appreciate it and will say its not worth the price for fx expensive cam and len, and sometimes bokeh is not require for the kind of work you are shooting. A landscape shooter definately dun need bokeh effect, a wedding shooter like me, bokeh is everything ..

So .. Read up and experience both dx and fx for the kind of work you do, then decide if your body can handle the weight, pocket deep enough to burn or not .. I wish in the next 5yrs, we can get a fx cam and lens similar to dx weight and size ..

 

[Fudgecakes]

I wish in the next 5yrs, we can get a fx cam and lens similar to dx weight and size ..

and cost too

Wah if that happens I will sell my soul to buy it man. Hahhaa jokes aside
But I feel that the fx is not worth it now. Expensive glass. Expensive and heavy body. I love bokeh but equipment that cost 2-3 times more? Not worth it IMHO

BUT if TS is rich and have all da kaching to spend on FF, go ahead la. but I think personally that such a large amount of money should be spent on a good dx body with many many lenses and perhaps a compact? (For those times that a Dslr may not be too appropriate) especially since TS is not too experienced in photography and all. Thn if got left over, donate to charity xD

Btw I've Been shooting for 1year plus already I still have much to learn, but my dx cam is
Still not hindering my learning progress

 

[eloitay]

If I can draw a straight line down, it will be easy. But I am seeing the good and bad for both camera and it seems that it is pretty much a tie for me since each have its own advantage. I just could not decide by myself which features is more important for me.
For me now

Canon Love: Auto White Balance, Natural Skin Tone, cheaper lens, smaller raw file
Canon Hate: Auto Focus does not work in low light environment (How low I have no idea)

Unknown factor: Lens quality

Nikon Love: Sharpness, lovely DR, fast auto focus, familarity
Nikon Hate: Super big raw file, auto white balance does not work most of the time, colour tone seems off, expensive lens

Canon problem might be overhype since I personally have no tried one before, just that I could not find anyone who is willing to let me try their canon for a couple of hour then again I understand this is a personal kind of thing
Canon advantage seems to be countered by post processing except for file size

Nikon advantage is quite attractive fast focus and sharpness and DR but without nice color, it seems not that fantastic. The expensive storage required due to file size and expensive lens is a turn off. Oh well tough choice.

 

[ShaneKua]

Don't worry about the DR difference between the D800 and 5D3. If you don't have time to shoot RAW and edit your photos, you won't see much difference at all.

Other stuff you might be more affected by are Autofocus, how ergonomic, and what lens you already have.

If you're truly invested in Nikon lenses, why not stay?

What about the D7000 do you not like? If the handling and button placement doesn't fit you then you might feel that the D800 isn't much better in that regard. If you Likert alot you might have a harder time adjusting to Canon's layout?

 

[ShaneKua]

If I can draw a straight line down, it will be easy. But I am seeing the good and bad for both camera and it seems that it is pretty much a tie for me since each have its own advantage. I just could not decide by myself which features is more important for me.
For me now

Canon Love: Auto White Balance, Natural Skin Tone, cheaper lens, smaller raw file
Canon Hate: Auto Focus does not work in low light environment (How low I have no idea)

Unknown factor: Lens quality

Nikon Love: Sharpness, lovely DR, fast auto focus, familarity
Nikon Hate: Super big raw file, auto white balance does not work most of the time, colour tone seems off, expensive lens

Canon problem might be overhype since I personally have no tried one before, just that I could not find anyone who is willing to let me try their canon for a couple of hour then again I understand this is a personal kind of thing
Canon advantage seems to be countered by post processing except for file size

Nikon advantage is quite attractive fast focus and sharpness and DR but without nice color, it seems not that fantastic. The expensive storage required due to file size and expensive lens is a turn off. Oh well tough choice.

Dude if you're seriously considering and need a try out just PM me.

 

[ShaneKua]

Canon Hate: Auto Focus does not work in low light environment (How low I have no idea)
.

to clarify, the D800's lowlight autofocus works only because of its build in illumination lamp. If you're shooting an event like a wedding you would probably have to turn OFF the lamp anyway, less you disrupt the ceremony. Under such conditions, without an AF lamp, the 5D3 has more cross points which are more sensitive, and will PROBABLY help you to nail the shot more than the D800.

 

[Miao]

and cost too

Wah if that happens I will sell my soul to buy it man. Hahhaa jokes aside
But I feel that the fx is not worth it now. Expensive glass. Expensive and heavy body. I love bokeh but equipment that cost 2-3 times more? Not worth it IMHO

BUT if TS is rich and have all da kaching to spend on FF, go ahead la. but I think personally that such a large amount of money should be spent on a good dx body with many many lenses and perhaps a compact? (For those times that a Dslr may not be too appropriate) especially since TS is not too experienced in photography and all. Thn if got left over, donate to charity xD

Btw I've Been shooting for 1year plus already I still have much to learn, but my dx cam is
Still not hindering my learning progress

We all learn as we shoot, worth or not is up to .... Ur pocket deep enough or not ... Hahaha

 

[G-man]

Canon Love: Auto White Balance, Natural Skin Tone, cheaper lens, smaller raw file
Canon Hate: Auto Focus does not work in low light environment (How low I have no idea)

This was taken at Sentosa's Images of Singapore exhibition, which if you have been there, is absolutely dark. AF worked just fine.

 

[Fudgecakes]

We all learn as we shoot, worth or not is up to .... Ur pocket deep enough or not ... Hahaha

Haha but entry level and FX dont seem to go together leh. Ok I'll shut up now. Peace out xD

 

[brapodam]

and cost too

Wah if that happens I will sell my soul to buy it man. Hahhaa jokes aside
But I feel that the fx is not worth it now. Expensive glass. Expensive and heavy body. I love bokeh but equipment that cost 2-3 times more? Not worth it IMHO

BUT if TS is rich and have all da kaching to spend on FF, go ahead la. but I think personally that such a large amount of money should be spent on a good dx body with many many lenses and perhaps a compact? (For those times that a Dslr may not be too appropriate) especially since TS is not too experienced in photography and all. Thn if got left over, donate to charity xD

Btw I've Been shooting for 1year plus already I still have much to learn, but my dx cam is
Still not hindering my learning progress

With $6000 I think it's better to get a full DX setup rather than half a FX setup. One FX body and 2 lenses isn't enough if you want to be able to shoot in a variety of situations. Still need at least 2 or even 3 flashes for product and portraits. Plus tripod and light modifiers, bags and other accessories, $6000 may not be able to get a full FX setup. Whereas with DX can squeeze in 1 or 2 extra lenses.

 

[asdfg]

With $6000 I think it's better to get a full DX setup rather than half a FX setup. One FX body and 2 lenses isn't enough if you want to be able to shoot in a variety of situations. Still need at least 2 or even 3 flashes for product and portraits. Plus tripod and light modifiers, bags and other accessories, $6000 may not be able to get a full FX setup. Whereas with DX can squeeze in 1 or 2 extra lenses.

Or a good dx camera with fx lenses before taking the plunge
like a D7000 with 24-70 and 70-300 and 50mm
or a D700 and better lenses than a D800 and limited set of gear.

 

[Fudgecakes]

With $6000 I think it's better to get a full DX setup rather than half a FX setup. One FX body and 2 lenses isn't enough if you want to be able to shoot in a variety of situations. Still need at least 2 or even 3 flashes for product and portraits. Plus tripod and light modifiers, bags and other accessories, $6000 may not be able to get a full FX setup. Whereas with DX can squeeze in 1 or 2 extra lenses.

Or a good dx camera with fx lenses before taking the plunge
like a D7000 with 24-70 and 70-300 and 50mm
or a D700 and better lenses than a D800 and limited set of gear.

My sentiments exactly xD

 

[tecnica]

[video=youtube;hk5IMmEDWH4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk5IMmEDWH4[/video]

 

[brapodam]

Or a good dx camera with fx lenses before taking the plunge
like a D7000 with 24-70 and 70-300 and 50mm
or a D700 and better lenses than a D800 and limited set of gear.

But TS want a superzoom leh. Must have that 18-200. I can squeeze in a decent set of DX equipment with some money to spare though
-Nikon D7000 ($1650)
-2x Yongnuo YN565 ($440)
-Tamron 18-270 VC PZD ($850)
-Sigma 85mm f1.4 ($1200)
-Nikon 35mm f1.8 DX ($350)
-Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 ($590)

Still got $920 to spare for maybe another lens (50mm f1.4 maybe) and accessories. With this setup, if want to switch to FF, only the Tamron 18-270 has to be sold. The 35DX can work on FX in FX mode beautifully, as long as you don't focus too far away

 

[asdfg]

I don't get the point of a superzoom and FX to be honest. I mean if you have fx gear, and then add a superzoom to go travelling/lightweight then fine, but i wouldn't buy an fx camera just to put a 28-300mm VR on it.

How bout D7000, 28-300mm VR, 14-24mm and a 50mm
since money ($6000 to splash huh?) isn't such a big deal. Or scrap the D7000 why not go for the D700 or D800? To me the D700 is a digital version of the F6. It's no "frills" (well actually it's just "no video") just a really great FX camera.

 

[cichlid]

I don't get the point of a superzoom and FX to be honest. I mean if you have fx gear, and then add a superzoom to go travelling/lightweight then fine, but i wouldn't buy an fx camera just to put a 28-300mm VR on it.

How bout D7000, 28-300mm VR, 14-24mm and a 50mm
since money ($6000 to splash huh?) isn't such a big deal. Or scrap the D7000 why not go for the D700 or D800? To me the D700 is a digital version of the F6. It's no "frills" (well actually it's just "no video") just a really great FX camera.

I agree with you. Why 28-300mm + FX cam??

 

[brapodam]

U r right to say theres little dx cant do that what fx can do. Dx iso performance is really good, hitting iso3200 and 6400 with acceptable photo quality. I use dx for family outing cos it darn light and cheap.

But i guess why ppl (& myself) go for fx is due to the dof that dx can't produce at the same f-stop dof effect. 30mm f1.4 sigma prime len generally produce a bokeh effect similar to fx f2.0 or f2.8 len. so if u imaging using f1.4 len on fx ...... Wow .. Bokeh bokeh bokeh .. But well, some ppl dun appreciate it and will say its not worth the price for fx expensive cam and len, and sometimes bokeh is not require for the kind of work you are shooting. A landscape shooter definately dun need bokeh effect, a wedding shooter like me, bokeh is everything ..

So .. Read up and experience both dx and fx for the kind of work you do, then decide if your body can handle the weight, pocket deep enough to burn or not .. I wish in the next 5yrs, we can get a fx cam and lens similar to dx weight and size ..

Trouble is, bokeh doesn't usually go with superzoom. No point saying that the sensor is bigger, with lesser DOF and then stick a f3.5-5.6 lens on it; someone with a DX camera sticks on a 85mm f1.4 and all that advantage of FX in terms of DOF is lost.

 

[tecnica]

D7000 ($1650)
Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 ($800)
Nikkor 24-120 f4 VR ($1600)
Sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS HSM ($1900)

total $5950, agaration price.

if you go grey, prolly can fit in another SB900.

if you go FX, the lens choices will be pretty limited due to budget contraint.

remember, lens > body.