TS already said that he is not confident in an all prime lenses setup.
Entry Level Fx Camera
- Thread starter eloitay
- Start date
TS already said that he is not confident in an all prime lenses setup.
Fudgecakes
Senior Member
tecnica said:
Then don't this kinda defeats the purpose of FF ??
How so?
does the whole purpose of full frame only lies in its shallow DOF?
enlighten me please?
No, there are many people who don't use primes and swear by the zooms (14-24, 24-70, 70-200). Also, TS wants that superzoom lens very badly it seems. Must have the 28-300mm.
Fudgecakes
Senior Member
brapodam said:
Then a dx camera with 18-200 is lighter, cheaper and more portable.
Certain zooms do beat primes. Eg: 24-70 @ 50mm vs 50 f/1.8
Not all. But some do. 14-24 + 24-70 + 70-200 you're looking at 10K of investment. If get from HK maybe 9K+ or PI about 7.5K or so.
Don't need to get the whole set la, on a FX, 17-35 + 24-70 can liao.
I've suggested that, but he wants FX for the better dynamic range, low light capabilities and what not.
That's why I said his budget not enough for full FX setup. Anyway which zooms you need depends on how you shoot. For some, they MAY NEED all 3 of the trinity zooms. For some other people they may only need 14-24, or 24-70, or 70-200. For Ken Rockwell, I'm pretty sure he just needs his D40 and 18-200 and a crap load of nonsense marketing talk
and the jpg function.
You need to be realistic on low light performance.
Anyway, FF with super zoom is not going to cut it if you want low light+streets shots.
You are just putting an unnecessary handicap on the ISO performance of the camera. (easily 2 stops difference between a zoom at f5.6 and a good zoom at f2.8 assuming both at 50mm).
Its not so clear cut too on the low light performance advantage.
Low light performance with more DOF at the same FOV, APS-C can be better.
Technique is still important.
Look for the light (so that its directional, shaping, keeps your ISO lower and aids AF) is more important than any whiz bang that you'd expect from a new camera.
Why not do this.
Get a 2nd hand D7K to keep costs lower a bit in case you need to sell the camera later on.
Since your father has some lenses, you can use some of those and get a FF compatible 24-70/2.8 and maybe a 12-24 too.
If you still think D7K is limiting to you later on, just sell it at perhaps a loss of $200-$300 (consider it as rental)
The lenses are usable on the FF you replace it with.
Last edited:
I agree with the earlier poster. A FF camera is not going to make a low light situation looks better. Without sufficient light, the picture just doesn't look good. For full frame camera, 24-70 is a highly recommended staple lens.
I have personally used a wide range of Nikon Dslr: D80, 300, 5000, 700, 7000. Now I am using D3 and D800. I initially thought D7000 is great DX camera and can replace my FF. But I was wrong, a DX camera is definitely no match for FF quality. So I can understand your intention to get a FF. Go ahead and get any of them and I am sure you will be happy with it.
mm.. save for the 14-24, primes are still a tad better.
the 24 2.8 AIS beats the 24-70 2.8 in colour, contrast and distortion, the 35/2 pre ai again for sharpness and contrast, the 50 1.2 AIs beats it for sharpness and colour and contrast and skintone rendition, the 35 1.4 AIS does fantastically at skin tones and colours, though not super sharp(but nowhere near soft either),
the 180 2.8D offers a crisp contrast and smother bg blur than the 70-200 vri(havent compared to ii) and beats then 80-200 2.8 af-s outright for contrast,
the tokina 17 3.5 really sits on the 17-35 for image quality, and the 24 2.8 and 35 f2 ais win by a clear margin too.
there's also the 28 2.8 AIS, 28/2, 45/2.8P, 85/1.8 pre ai, 85 1.4 AIS, 105/1.8/2/2.5, 135/2 DC that are claimed to be better (though i havent used these)
anw.. the point i guess is not that zooms are bad, they re certainly fantastic. but for ultimate image quality, and perhaps for best IQ for your $, the primes still win outright.
Hi
Ok I miss out clarifying one point, I chose 28mm to 200mm not because I need a super zoom, it is more of convenience and cost sake for a start. Yes it is pointless to use FX on a superzoom like stated above but like I mention it is a expansion strategy and not straight forward outlay strategy. My thinking is this, even let say I can afford to buy all at one shot now, i do not need all since my immediate need is travel and once I am back I probably stack with work so I would not have time to enjoy for maybe another 3 to 6 months that leave me time to save for the next lens let say portrait and so on.
Since now I see that FX lens on DX is not so bad an option I might just consider getting lens and snap onto my dad's camera for the time being until I feel that the D7000 just do not cut it even with good lens then I go hunt for a fx that save me budget, save me time to sell and headache of wanting to pick one now. But that also means that I do not have the option of getting canon unless I want to start the selling thing again. But at least now it is clear what option are available for me.
For me I am quite against buying one full set at once, simply because I only clear on one lens I want that is the 85mm prime lens for portrait and beside that actually I am aiming for a zoom lens that cover well 75% of the scenario needed for travel, I am thinking maybe 28mm to 200mm is too much basing on you guys feed back so maybe something like 24-70 is sufficient? Or is 70 to 200mm a better alternative? I think switching between taking pictures of people and landscape I reckon 24-70 is sufficient and probably have to move closer for anything else. This is not a budget issue decision but more of a portability issue.
Ok I miss out clarifying one point, I chose 28mm to 200mm not because I need a super zoom, it is more of convenience and cost sake for a start. Yes it is pointless to use FX on a superzoom like stated above but like I mention it is a expansion strategy and not straight forward outlay strategy. My thinking is this, even let say I can afford to buy all at one shot now, i do not need all since my immediate need is travel and once I am back I probably stack with work so I would not have time to enjoy for maybe another 3 to 6 months that leave me time to save for the next lens let say portrait and so on.
Since now I see that FX lens on DX is not so bad an option I might just consider getting lens and snap onto my dad's camera for the time being until I feel that the D7000 just do not cut it even with good lens then I go hunt for a fx that save me budget, save me time to sell and headache of wanting to pick one now. But that also means that I do not have the option of getting canon unless I want to start the selling thing again. But at least now it is clear what option are available for me.
For me I am quite against buying one full set at once, simply because I only clear on one lens I want that is the 85mm prime lens for portrait and beside that actually I am aiming for a zoom lens that cover well 75% of the scenario needed for travel, I am thinking maybe 28mm to 200mm is too much basing on you guys feed back so maybe something like 24-70 is sufficient? Or is 70 to 200mm a better alternative? I think switching between taking pictures of people and landscape I reckon 24-70 is sufficient and probably have to move closer for anything else. This is not a budget issue decision but more of a portability issue.
I have another suggestion. Get yourself a D7000 (or just use your dad's one) with mostly FX lenses. Then when you have enough money to throw around in the future, get the D800 and whatever DX lenses you have, can still use in DX crop mode. D800 has 36 MP so even if you put it on DX crop mode, you still have quite a fair bit of resolution.
Say, you get a 18-270, that 85mm prime, some flashes, a DX UWA (since you are going to shoot landscapes), and maybe can even throw in a macro lens. When you get the D800, sell the DX UWA and get a 14-24/16-35/Tokina 16-28. For your travel needs you probably won't need or even want 36 MP, so put it on DX crop mode and use the Tamron 18-270. The rest of the lenses can use on your FX body. I think someone posted a couple of pages back a video showing the comparison between a FF camera with crap lens and a crop camera with L lens, can really see the crop camera win hands down.
Say, you get a 18-270, that 85mm prime, some flashes, a DX UWA (since you are going to shoot landscapes), and maybe can even throw in a macro lens. When you get the D800, sell the DX UWA and get a 14-24/16-35/Tokina 16-28. For your travel needs you probably won't need or even want 36 MP, so put it on DX crop mode and use the Tamron 18-270. The rest of the lenses can use on your FX body. I think someone posted a couple of pages back a video showing the comparison between a FF camera with crap lens and a crop camera with L lens, can really see the crop camera win hands down.
Sgdevilzz
Senior Member
Well TS if it feels right for you to get an FX then go out there and get one! No point listening to us and still pondering what lenses to fit the camera or how portable is it. Your hobby is photography and by now you should already know that portability is always an issue with DSLRs. I brought almost 7kg of equipments when I travel overseas and I considered that light.
Your questions seems to be more on what lens is better, all in one? Midrange Zoom? Primes? That depends on your comfort zone. If you feel lazy then get the all in one. you want low light, get the prime or midrange 2.8. There is no such thing as fast, low light, all in one lens. You have to improvise, increase ISOs and such. Bear with the noise because all photos have them regardless how low your ISO is.
Don't think about the great equipments out there, D800, 5Dmk3, 85 1.4, trinity lenses. What's the point of getting a Ferrari if you don't know how to drive it?
Your questions seems to be more on what lens is better, all in one? Midrange Zoom? Primes? That depends on your comfort zone. If you feel lazy then get the all in one. you want low light, get the prime or midrange 2.8. There is no such thing as fast, low light, all in one lens. You have to improvise, increase ISOs and such. Bear with the noise because all photos have them regardless how low your ISO is.
Don't think about the great equipments out there, D800, 5Dmk3, 85 1.4, trinity lenses. What's the point of getting a Ferrari if you don't know how to drive it?
Last edited:
After all that is said and discussed, the problem is TS's budget. $6000 for body and lenses is just not enough for the newest FX setup. $5000-6000 is just about right for a DX setup with a good mix of lenses like UWA, Standard zoom, telezoom and a fast normal prime.
Similar threads
