Full Frame vs. Nikon D40-90, etc.???

[TLCOhio]

Maybe this is kind of a "dumb question", but wanted to get a little education/feed-back on the pro-con factors on having a "full frame" Nikon versus the D50 I now have. Have been considering getting a D90. Clearly, price is a major difference/factor. What are the major pluses and advantages to having a "full frame" camera? Any downsides, other than to your wallet?

 

THANKS! Enjoy! Terry in Ohio

[chipmaster]

Maybe this is kind of a "dumb question", but wanted to get a little education/feed-back on the pro-con factors on having a "full frame" Nikon versus the D50 I now have. Have been considering getting a D90. Clearly, price is a major difference/factor. What are the major pluses and advantages to having a "full frame" camera? Any downsides, other than to your wallet?

 

THANKS! Enjoy! Terry in Ohio

 

Beside your observation of $, actually a LOT of $, there is the weight thing. Between much larger body all the glass that is FX capable is much bigger in general then the DX optimized lenses. If you shoot longer focal length you lose the crop factor.

 

DX cameras like D3K, D5K, D90, D300s give you ~1.5 mag advantage for all your telephoto's. A 70-200 on DX your frame of view is really 105-300 effectively, on FX you are back to 70-200! The loss of focal length is very noticble and not recoverable as a TCE will loose you aperture. Getting a 300 2.8 you are looking at 5 grand and 6lbs+. If you like to shoot wide then FX is great, but there are many good 10-20mm DX lenses that make the DX wide as well. If you are a low light shooter then the FX is where you really can't match on any DX!. It gives you a one to two stop stops over the best DX offerings. The D300s and D90 will be a huge upgrade over your D50, the D700 another couple stops and D3s likely another stop.

 

Upgrading from D50 the D90 and D300s are going to be a huge step up. To go the next step you need to have ego, lots of $ or really a need for that extra senstivity. I shoot indoors sports for fun so it was a must. I'm oggling the D3s now.

 

You might want to read Thom's review of the D700: http://www.bythom.com/nikond700review.htm Here is part of his summary of should you get go FX

 

"Should You Get a D700? Yes. Or no. Surprisingly, it's not quite as easy decision as it might seem to be:

 

Film SLR owner who hasn't gone digital. If you're a N90s or F100 user, the D700 is probably the camera you've been waiting for, though you should also take a long look at the D300. If you're a F3, F4, F5, or F6 user, the D3 is probably the more logical choice, especially with the recent drops in prices.

 

Consumer DSLR owner (D40, D40x, D50, D70, D70s). I'd say no, skip the D700 and go to the D90 or D300. First, there's that DX/FX thing. You're used to shooting DX and the D90 and D300 will sustain that. The D700 is heavier and bigger by enough that it should make you pause and consider the D90 and D300 instead, though if you've been missing the FX frame, that may be enough to tip things in the D700's favor. Don't get distracted by that high ISO and slight DR gain's though: you pay a big financial penalty for the differences, and both the D90 and D300 are better than what you've got.

 

Prosumer DSLR owner (D100, D200, D300 user). Older prosumer users will see bigger gains than a D300 user will, but the primary thing is FX, at least another stop of high ISO capability over the D300, and a bit more dynamic range. Still, I'd say D100 and D200 users really have to consider the D300. D300 users need to think carefully about what they give up and gain in moving to FX. The D300, for example, has autofocus sensors that cover most of the frame and has a higher pixel density (useful at the telephoto end with distant subjects, such as in wildlife shooting).

 

Older professional DSLR owner (D1x or D2x user). Here again we have an easy answer: yes, move up to the D700 (or D3) if you're ready to upgrade. The D2x might be able to hold its own against a D700 at the base ISO, but that's where it ends: at every higher ISO value the D700 starts to pull further and further away. "

 

 

Oh, another thing to remember is lenses, many of nikon's early AFS consumer zooms offerings are DX lenses, on FX they reduce your pixels and become DX again. Check your lenses, unless you got a stable of D or older film glass you may need to buy all new glass as well.

[TLCOhio]

Beside your observation of $, actually a LOT of $, there is the weight thing. Between much larger body all the glass that is FX capable is much bigger in general then the DX optimized lenses. If you shoot longer focal length you lose the crop factor.

 

DX cameras like D3K, D5K, D90, D300s give you ~1.5 mag advantage for all your telephoto's. A 70-200 on DX your frame of view is really 105-300 effectively, on FX you are back to 70-200! The loss of focal length is very noticble and not recoverable as a TCE will loose you aperture. Getting a 300 2.8 you are looking at 5 grand and 6lbs+. If you like to shoot wide then FX is great, but there are many good 10-20mm DX lenses that make the DX wide as well. If you are a low light shooter then the FX is where you really can't match on any DX!. It gives you a one to two stop stops over the best DX offerings. The D300s and D90 will be a huge upgrade over your D50, the D700 another couple stops and D3s likely another stop.

 

Upgrading from D50 the D90 and D300s are going to be a huge step up. To go the next step you need to have ego, lots of $ or really a need for that extra senstivity. I shoot indoors sports for fun so it was a must. I'm oggling the D3s now.

 

You might want to read Thom's review of the D700: http://www.bythom.com/nikond700review.htm Here is part of his summary of should you get go FX

 

"Should You Get a D700? Yes. Or no. Surprisingly, it's not quite as easy decision as it might seem to be:

 

Film SLR owner who hasn't gone digital. If you're a N90s or F100 user, the D700 is probably the camera you've been waiting for, though you should also take a long look at the D300. If you're a F3, F4, F5, or F6 user, the D3 is probably the more logical choice, especially with the recent drops in prices.

 

Consumer DSLR owner (D40, D40x, D50, D70, D70s). I'd say no, skip the D700 and go to the D90 or D300. First, there's that DX/FX thing. You're used to shooting DX and the D90 and D300 will sustain that. The D700 is heavier and bigger by enough that it should make you pause and consider the D90 and D300 instead, though if you've been missing the FX frame, that may be enough to tip things in the D700's favor. Don't get distracted by that high ISO and slight DR gain's though: you pay a big financial penalty for the differences, and both the D90 and D300 are better than what you've got.

 

Prosumer DSLR owner (D100, D200, D300 user). Older prosumer users will see bigger gains than a D300 user will, but the primary thing is FX, at least another stop of high ISO capability over the D300, and a bit more dynamic range. Still, I'd say D100 and D200 users really have to consider the D300. D300 users need to think carefully about what they give up and gain in moving to FX. The D300, for example, has autofocus sensors that cover most of the frame and has a higher pixel density (useful at the telephoto end with distant subjects, such as in wildlife shooting).

 

Older professional DSLR owner (D1x or D2x user). Here again we have an easy answer: yes, move up to the D700 (or D3) if you're ready to upgrade. The D2x might be able to hold its own against a D700 at the base ISO, but that's where it ends: at every higher ISO value the D700 starts to pull further and further away. "

 

Oh, another thing to remember is lenses, many of nikon's early AFS consumer zooms offerings are DX lenses, on FX they reduce your pixels and become DX again. Check your lenses, unless you got a stable of D or older film glass you may need to buy all new glass as well.

 

THANKS, chipmaster, for the excellent background and summary! In addition to cost, you added that important factor of "WEIGHT". Having had a couple FM bodies and an FE body, plus lens, it was good in the "good, old days". My old glasses lens did good things, but they are not automatic. Lugging around the heavier camera and lens is not something that I miss. Unless I learn some more compelling reasons, it seems that aiming for the D90 might be the route to consider. Look forward to any other background and info. Appreciate the help. Enjoy! Terry in Ohio

[chipmaster]

Terry,

 

I found this site recently, nice comparison of D700 and D300 versus superzooms and higher quality glass http://ezstrobesphoto.blogspot.com/2009/01/nikon-d300-vs-d700.html

 

Depending on how you shoot may sway you one way or the other. From what I read the D90 and D300 have very similar if not the D90 tweeked to be even cleaner. No question that the D5K which I have even though the sensor is similar/same as the D90/D300 is crippled in some way and can't produce similar quality images, still stellar but not as good as D90/D300.

 

Shopping for a camera is such fun...

[TLCOhio]

Terry, I found this site recently, nice comparison of D700 and D300 versus superzooms and higher quality glass http://ezstrobesphoto.blogspot.com/2009/01/nikon-d300-vs-d700.html

Depending on how you shoot may sway you one way or the other. From what I read the D90 and D300 have very similar if not the D90 tweeked to be even cleaner. No question that the D5K which I have even though the sensor is similar/same as the D90/D300 is crippled in some way and can't produce similar quality images, still stellar but not as good as D90/D300.

Shopping for a camera is such fun...

 

THANKS! Yes, the shopping is fun. Paying for it is not as much excitement. I have time before next summer's Norway Coast cruise to figure out what works best. Enjoy! Terry in Ohio