I am deeply poisoned by full frame cameras...

[Cowseye]

No, there is really a difference between the two even at iso200.....

Really? I test a shot at NSC @ ISO 3200 on D700. I find it just as good as my previous D90 @ ISO 400.
If ISO 200 on a D90 is its base and it's very resilient to edit without causing much noise, I wonder what wonderous picture can a D700 give at ISO 200. Feeling poisoned now....

 

[daredevil123]

Really? I test a shot at NSC @ ISO 3200 on D700. I find it just as good as my previous D90 @ ISO 400.
If ISO 200 on a D90 is its base and it's very resilient to edit without causing much noise, I wonder what wonderous picture can a D700 give at ISO 200. Feeling poisoned now....

You can compare easily here. http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

 

[Cowseye]

I was in the same boat as you awhile back, had been shooting a d200 and really wanted to go FX for the sensor. heres my view on the biggest differences.

1) the full frame sensor. you get shallower DOF and you now get to use old glass that was designed for film on its intended format. these old lenses perform beautifully on the full frame sensor. this is the biggest reason i wanted to switch.

2) dynamic range. its incredible on the d700 and i can pull back even very very extreme shadows. i wasn t even aware of this, but the difference is huge and very very welcome.

3) noise is very very well controlled. this was not my main reason to switch, but it is pretty amazing shooting 'comfortably' at 3200

4) Viewfinder. its big! and make composition and manual focus alot easier. really enjoyed this part too. but.. its not 100% on the d700.

5) weight. while i hate to admit this(ego), the camera is substantially heavier. and i actually felt the difference btwn the d700 and d200.

IMHO, if your only concern is Hi ISO performance, you re probably better off looking at the d7000 or the d300 sucessor. also, do notice that probably no one(exp you) will view your pictures at 100% and thus its almost a not an issue at all. you seem to have alot of (consumer)zoom lenses.. my suggestion would be to invest in some really fast primes(or just good glass) instead as that will make a lot more of a difference to your photos as compared to simply going fullframe. I believe its the glass in front of the sensor that makes more of a difference(and the eye behind the viewfinder of course). here are some suggestions:

24 2.8 AFD (≈35mm so its a very nice focal length)
35 1.8 AFS (or 35 f2 just in case you go FX next time)
85 1.8D
135 f2 AIS (manual lens, but fantastic image quality)

5 hit poison combo from Ben Ang.... I'm feeling even more poisoned....

 

[Ben Ang]

Really? I test a shot at NSC @ ISO 3200 on D700. I find it just as good as my previous D90 @ ISO 400.
If ISO 200 on a D90 is its base and it's very resilient to edit without causing much noise, I wonder what wonderous picture can a D700 give at ISO 200. Feeling poisoned now....

erm... just to share, heres one shot i feel really shows off what the d700 sensor can do:

out of camera:

and after running thru capture NX2. its pretty noisy in the shadows, but coming from the d200, i'm still amazed this is even possible.

used the 17-35 at f8, iso 200.

 

[Vic Han]

Hahah, I believe it is always correct to say that good price is always for high quality, or it will be definitely a waste.
FF is the essence of photographing. why i say tt. Because the original photographing in film is 35mm, it is really a milestone for a digi-photographer to update to FF.
However, a APCS is good option for people who need to have a glimpse of the activity, before invest more resource on it.
As you have already fully utilized the potential of D90, it is nature for you to update to FF.

Go ahead playing with your new equipment and share your pics here:-')

 

[allenleonhart]

Hahah, I believe it is always correct to say that good price is always for high quality, or it will be definitely a waste.
FF is the essence of photographing. why i say tt. Because the original photographing in film is 35mm, it is really a milestone for a digi-photographer to update to FF.
However, a APCS is good option for people who need to have a glimpse of the activity, before invest more resource on it.
As you have already fully utilized the potential of D90, it is nature for you to update to FF.

Go ahead playing with your new equipment and share your pics here:-')

yea... right. who said ff is the essence of photography?

i could had sworn there are large formats. does it mean ur gonna get a hassenbald digital back for it is the "grand daddy of photography" ?

if i dive even further, u will be trying to shoot with silver, chalk and a pinhole camera.


to TS. furbish ur skills first. equipment comes later, once u hit a big wall.

money is urs, u can spend it the way u want to, i wont bother. just sharing my 2 cents

 

[daredevil123]

Hahah, I believe it is always correct to say that good price is always for high quality, or it will be definitely a waste.
FF is the essence of photographing. why i say tt. Because the original photographing in film is 35mm, it is really a milestone for a digi-photographer to update to FF.
However, a APCS is good option for people who need to have a glimpse of the activity, before invest more resource on it.
As you have already fully utilized the potential of D90, it is nature for you to update to FF.

Go ahead playing with your new equipment and share your pics here:-')

er... original is wet plates. Then came dry plates. Film wasn't even born then.

And when Film came into being, it was not even 35mm... but the camera and film looks like this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_camera

 

[donut88]

Y are u pixel peeping ?

To look for ants?

 

[Andrew Ng]

If you are shooting Commercially and want to save a lot of time, a FX Cam like D700 is ESSENTIAL. Other than that DX format like the D7000 is good enough.

The Only diffrence I see is cleaner JPeg files on the FX. Thats all.

I still shoot at ISO 200~400 regardless of FX or DX with Strobes.

Medium Format is good not for the dynamic range only. Also because of its leaf shutter.

 

[Cowseye]

If you are shooting Commercially and want to save a lot of time, a FX Cam like D700 is ESSENTIAL. Other than that DX format like the D7000 is good enough.

The Only diffrence I see is cleaner JPeg files on the FX. Thats all.

I still shoot at ISO 200~400 regardless of FX or DX with Strobes.

Medium Format is good not for the dynamic range only. Also because of its leaf shutter.

Care to share how a D700 saves a lot of time?

 

[pinholecam]

Hahah, I believe it is always correct to say that good price is always for high quality, or it will be definitely a waste.
FF is the essence of photographing. why i say tt. Because the original photographing in film is 35mm, it is really a milestone for a digi-photographer to update to FF.
However, a APCS is good option for people who need to have a glimpse of the activity, before invest more resource on it.
As you have already fully utilized the potential of D90, it is nature for you to update to FF.

Go ahead playing with your new equipment and share your pics here:-')

Don't try to pass on mis-information like its holy grail advice.

FF, what? FF 645? FF 35mm? FF 6x6? FF 6x7?
The term does not even represent 35mm format but any format that is not a crop of the original sensor/film.

A format is just that. No right or wrong. Just because 35mm format on film proceeded the APS-C format prevalent on digital does not mean it is unquestionably better.
Ever seen the macros taken by the folks using u4/3 or compact cameras + macro attachments in the Macro sub-section? The higher DOF can come as an advantage.
High DOF at fast apertures (ie. f2)? High DOF for hyperfocal distance street/candid shots? Yes, all very nicely achieved by a smaller sensor camera.
The photographer simply selects the right tool and format to make life easier (as he/she sees it) for the photography he/she does.

yea... right. who said ff is the essence of photography?

i could had sworn there are large formats. does it mean ur gonna get a hassenbald digital back for it is the "grand daddy of photography" ?

if i dive even further, u will be trying to shoot with silver, chalk and a pinhole camera.


to TS. furbish ur skills first. equipment comes later, once u hit a big wall.

money is urs, u can spend it the way u want to, i wont bother. just sharing my 2 cents

No, he/she should be drawing on limestone caves with powdered pigments

 

[Irvine]

good quality glass poisons me a lot more than FF cameras :bsmilie:

 

[Andrew Ng]

Care to share how a D700 saves a lot of time?

My clients are happy with JPGs quality on site shoot and they can take it back immediately to use = No DI on my side = TIME and MONEY SAVED! Wosh!

Processing RAW Pics = Longer Time in importing than JPG = More Time spend on clients waiting = Spending money on faster computer to save time = Money Loss.

Time is Money. :-}

 

[allenleonhart]

My clients are happy with JPGs quality on site shoot and they can take it back immediately to use = No DI on my side = TIME and MONEY SAVED! Wosh!

Processing RAW Pics = Longer Time in importing than JPG = More Time spend on clients waiting = Spending money on faster computer to save time = Money Loss.

Time is Money. :-}

... ... ...

 

[NineEleven]

Mate, I have both D700 & 7000 but I enjoy the 7K more because of the weight when I travel.

Go invest in good lenses, "bright" lenses make the difference or you can take my 700 since I'm selling it.

 

[FrozenRiver]

Cure for you :

Don't pixel peep.


The noise is not going to affect you in any real way unless you always print A3, A2 or have a wall sized monitor for viewing the photos.

You are right... I need to stop myself from doing that again... What's more, I found that skilled pp can lower the noises quite a bit. I looking into that. Thanks!

 

[FrozenRiver]

The true capability of iso for full frame is at higher level. At 200, DX and FX shouldn't have much difference. The real poison comes at 1.6k and above...

You are of course right to say that FF performs better than CF at higher ISO. But it is the same at lower ISO... You can checkout some online reviews, which compares images from D700 and that from D7000, both at ISO 200. The detail and color produced by D700 is superb...

 

[FrozenRiver]

it's a want not a need, maybe once u get ur first job u can justify to fulfill ur want, for now just be satisfied in what u hve, D90 is a very capable beast itself

Thanks... Now I think it is my pp skill that is limiting the quality of my images more than anything else. Right now I am looking into books on pp skills. Hopefully that will bring some freshness into my images.

 

[FrozenRiver]

Like others mentioned, no zoom, no noise too visible.
Remember after getting ur FF body, your previous DX lenses may need to be upgraded as well which may often cost even more than the body.

Ryan

I don't think I can live without the convenience of zooms... Sigh. I am not upgrading to FF right now anyway, but rather looking to promote my pp skills first. Thanks.

 

[FrozenRiver]

Being a student, having a DX DSLR with so many lenses is already a big thing to be proud of.
Just make full use of what you have and work around the corners, since you know how to handle the output.
Using it and learn as much as you can on photography and move onto FX when you start work.
Using FX as a treat to yourself for getting a job after graduation.
Enjoy taking picture with what you have rather than feeling sad for what you do not have and frustrated with what you have.

Precisely... You said all that eventually came into my mind. Thanks a lot.