Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
I'm looking to upgrade my DSlR setup before a trip to Iceland. One reason I'm thinking of going full frame is because I want to do a lot of landscape stuff with ultra wide angle views; this wouldn't be a problem if APS-C sensors didn't have a crop factor of approximately 1.6x. The problem is that full frame cameras cost about twice what I wanted to spend on a Nikon D7000. Newschoolers what are the pros and cons of full frame vs aps-c
If you have to ask then don't go full frame. Is the crop of your current camera really limiting your ability to get good landscape photos? What lenses do you have?
Currently I have an 18-135, 70-300, 35mm prime and 50mm prime and the 18-55mm. The reason the crop factor of 1.6x makes a difference is because I would like to go wider than 18mm allows and using a 10-24mm on a crop sensor effectively negates the purpose of buying the 10-24 as your minimum effective focal length is 16 which I could basically used the 18-55 or 18-135
CabbyArrantCurrently I have an 18-135, 70-300, 35mm prime and 50mm prime and the 18-55mm. The reason the crop factor of 1.6x makes a difference is because I would like to go wider than 18mm allows and using a 10-24mm on a crop sensor effectively negates the purpose of buying the 10-24 as your minimum effective focal length is 16 which I could basically used the 18-55 or 18-135
The 10-24 is an APS-C only lens though isn't it? So your rational for buying it doesn't make sense because you wouldn't be able to use it on full frame anyways (although there are a few that work from 15-24 on full frame, but again its kind of pointless).
What camera are you using right now? You could also look at buying a tokina 11-16 because on an aps-c it would be equivalent to 17.6mm and you can later use the same lens on a full frame at 16mm (you can't go below 16mm or you will get vignetting).
Some of the reasons people go full frame for landscape include better dynamic range (usually, depends model vs model), better build quality (ie. weather sealing), better iso performance (ie. for night landscape/astrophotography).
CabbyArrantCurrently I have an 18-135, 70-300, 35mm prime and 50mm prime and the 18-55mm. The reason the crop factor of 1.6x makes a difference is because I would like to go wider than 18mm allows and using a 10-24mm on a crop sensor effectively negates the purpose of buying the 10-24 as your minimum effective focal length is 16 which I could basically used the 18-55 or 18-135
no get the 10-24 because your 18-135 still has the 1.6 crop applied to it so you actually have about a 28mm at 18 on your lens that's why you're struggling with landscapes. If you don't want to spend the extra on a tokina and you use a tripod predominitaly the canon 10-18mm is a great lens for 300 new. Film its decent but not amazing.
Hoodlivingno get the 10-24 because your 18-135 still has the 1.6 crop applied to it so you actually have about a 28mm at 18 on your lens that's why you're struggling with landscapes. If you don't want to spend the extra on a tokina and you use a tripod predominitaly the canon 10-18mm is a great lens for 300 new. Film its decent but not amazing.
CabbyArrantim still talking dslr's op not 35mm film
Wut? I dont think you know what you're actually asking. A canon dslr with a 1.6crop factor is going to have 1.6 crop factor whether it is a ef-s lens or a full frame ef lens, the body's sensor is what produces the crop factor. So your 18-135mm is still multiplied by 1.6 just as your other lens' will be. The reason ef-s doesn't work on full frames is due to them down sizing the iris of the lens to just cover the size of a 1.6 sensor. Where as you can use ef on a efs because the sensor is only using the central portion and the lens' iris has fall off around the sensor.
HoodlivingWut? I dont think you know what you're actually asking. A canon dslr with a 1.6crop factor is going to have 1.6 crop factor whether it is a ef-s lens or a full frame ef lens, the body's sensor is what produces the crop factor. So your 18-135mm is still multiplied by 1.6 just as your other lens' will be. The reason ef-s doesn't work on full frames is due to them down sizing the iris of the lens to just cover the size of a 1.6 sensor. Where as you can use ef on a efs because the sensor is only using the central portion and the lens' iris has fall off around the sensor.
You're under the assumption that I'm goong to buy a canon and I'm aware of what causes you to have a crop factor. My problem is I was looking at nikon DX bodies and buying used FX lenses which cause you to have a crop factor of 1.6. That's what I was getting at. on the flip side I was thinking of getting a 6d which only allows Ef lenses where there is no crop factor at all With that configuration. I think I didn't explain well enough on my previous post.
CabbyArrantYou're under the assumption that I'm goong to buy a canon and I'm aware of what causes you to have a crop factor. My problem is I was looking at nikon DX bodies and buying used FX lenses which cause you to have a crop factor of 1.6. That's what I was getting at. on the flip side I was thinking of getting a 6d which only allows Ef lenses where there is no crop factor at all With that configuration. I think I didn't explain well enough on my previous post.
wut x2?
1. nikon has a 1.5 crop on their dx line
2. using a full frame fx lens doesnt cause a crop factor the body of the camera is what decides the crop factor no matter what glass is put in front of it. it doesnt matter if its a dx lens on a dx body the dx body still has a 1.5 crop. If the camera is not a full frame camera no matter what lens is on it there will be a crop factor.
3. nikons nicer Fx cameras also can detect if theres a dx lens on it and adjust the size of the sensor to eliminate the black borders.
CabbyArrantI want to do a lot of landscape stuff with ultra wide angle views
to go back to what your original post was about, What did people do back in the days of 35mm fixed lens' they moved their feet to get their framing. If youre too close for your frame then step backward, if you cant physically move backward then since youre shooting on a tripod you create a panorama downsize and stitch in post. theres always ways.
2. using a full frame fx lens doesnt cause a crop factor the body of the camera is what decides the crop factor no matter what glass is put in front of it. it doesnt matter if its a dx lens on a dx body the dx body still has a 1.5 crop. If the camera is not a full frame camera no matter what lens is on it there will be a crop factor.
3. nikons nicer Fx cameras also can detect if theres a dx lens on it and adjust the size of the sensor to eliminate the black borders.
Ok fine it's the body that determines a crop factor but that doesn't change the fact that you won't get cropping when using full format lenses on a full frame body. We are essentially saying the same thing. and you will also not get cropping when using DX lenses on a DX body. I understand how the cropping works. The difference is though that you are using the Crop factor to talk about the difference in size between APS-C sensors and Full frame sensors. what your saying is true but I've been using it to refer to the factor at which focal lengths are effectively different When using FX lenses with DX.
CabbyArrantOk fine it's the body that determines a crop factor but that doesn't change the fact that you won't get cropping when using full format lenses on a full frame body. We are essentially saying the same thing. and you will also not get cropping when using DX lenses on a DX body. I understand how the cropping works. The difference is though that you are using the Crop factor to talk about the difference in size between APS-C sensors and Full frame sensors. what your saying is true but I've been using it to refer to the factor at which focal lengths are effectively different When using FX lenses with DX.
You still get cropping with DX lenses on crop bodies.
Michael_ThatcherYou still get cropping with DX lenses on crop bodies.
yeah, but it's negligible compared to Fx on DX body. Either way this thread was supposed to address the pros and cons of upgrading from crop to full frame
CabbyArrantyeah, but it's negligible compared to Fx on DX body. Either way this thread was supposed to address the pros and cons of upgrading from crop to full frame
Dog, a dx lens in front of a crop sensor is still going to have the same crop factor that a FX lens would have. I don't see what you dont get lol
Honestly dude I don't think it is worth it for you to upgrade to full frame right now. Stick with what you have and start building up a solid set of lenses/tripods/bags/ND filters/etc.
There are a ton of great photos, including landscape photos, that were shot on aps-c bodies. You say you "want to do a lot of landscape stuff" so go do a bunch with the camera you have. You don't need to upgrade your camera body to take acceptable landscape photos. You can take great photos of landscapes with a crop body, a solid tripod, a set of ND filters, and some editing in lightroom/photoshop.
I think you should show us some of your work and tell us what you're really looking to get out of upgrading to a full frame camera.
Because if you're talking about ultra wide lenses, yeah sure nikon dx has a crop factor, but you can also buy an 11-16 for like 300-400 bucks.
At a crop factor of 1.5x that makes it approximately 16.5-24mm . To get the equivalent on full frame nikon, the cheapest uwa zoom you could get is the nikon 18-35 3.5-4.5g for 650$ , and the view would STILL be wider on the dx sensor camera although the difference really isn't all that much.... You could go for a 16-35 f/4 or a 14-24 f/2.8 but that would be over a grand.
If you're upgrading for crop factor and that's all, I don't think it's worth it for you because you already seem worried about the cost and in the end, going to full frame is gonna be a lot more costly with the cost of fx lenses. If there's other reasons you're upgrading then that's another story I guess.
But the d750 on grey market/used is pretty damn cheap right now so that might be worth hopping on
nutz.I think you should show us some of your work and tell us what you're really looking to get out of upgrading to a full frame camera.
Because if you're talking about ultra wide lenses, yeah sure nikon dx has a crop factor, but you can also buy an 11-16 for like 300-400 bucks.
At a crop factor of 1.5x that makes it approximately 16.5-24mm . To get the equivalent on full frame nikon, the cheapest uwa zoom you could get is the nikon 18-35 3.5-4.5g for 650$ , and the view would STILL be wider on the dx sensor camera although the difference really isn't all that much.... You could go for a 16-35 f/4 or a 14-24 f/2.8 but that would be over a grand.
If you're upgrading for crop factor and that's all, I don't think it's worth it for you because you already seem worried about the cost and in the end, going to full frame is gonna be a lot more costly with the cost of fx lenses. If there's other reasons you're upgrading then that's another story I guess.
But the d750 on grey market/used is pretty damn cheap right now so that might be worth hopping on
I do quite a bit of longer exposure photography so having a camera that performs well in low light is something that I really need.
Honestly dude I think what you have right now is doing well for you. If anything I would say your post production work is what is limiting you, not your camera. There are a few things you could change in those photos that would help to improve them (level horizon lines, removing distracting elements, improving contrast between opposite colours, etc.)
I'm not sure I totally understand your point about long exposure and needing a camera good in low light. Long exposure at any time other than the darkest times of night doesn't require good ISO performance since you usually put this at the lowest native ISO (Ie. for pretty much anything but astrophotography). Even then, the benefits of a full frame camera for astrophotography is more so in the size of the sensor which allows you to leave the shutter open for longer without getting star trails.
Michael_ThatcherHonestly dude I think what you have right now is doing well for you. If anything I would say your post production work is what is limiting you, not your camera. There are a few things you could change in those photos that would help to improve them (level horizon lines, removing distracting elements, improving contrast between opposite colours, etc.)
I'm not sure I totally understand your point about long exposure and needing a camera good in low light. Long exposure at any time other than the darkest times of night doesn't require good ISO performance since you usually put this at the lowest native ISO (Ie. for pretty much anything but astrophotography). Even then, the benefits of a full frame camera for astrophotography is more so in the size of the sensor which allows you to leave the shutter open for longer without getting star trails.
what I do actually need is some faster glass. The stars and fireworks were done at 18mm f/3.5 that was before I got the 50mm 1.8 which I don't love the focal length. The noise and focus issues with the stars is something I've fought with since I began using DSLR. Either way I'm going to get a new camera body that has better low light performance and definitely dropping money on some glass as well. Honestly I wish the 70d wasn't so damn expensive compared to a d7000 So I could keep using my canon lenses but you get so much more for your money with Nikon imo.
i just got photoshop CS2 though as my first photoshop software so if you know any good resources that would be appreciated(if you wondering why I'm using such old software I got it free)
Michael_ThatcherHonestly dude I think what you have right now is doing well for you. If anything I would say your post production work is what is limiting you, not your camera. There are a few things you could change in those photos that would help to improve them (level horizon lines, removing distracting elements, improving contrast between opposite colours, etc.)
I'm not sure I totally understand your point about long exposure and needing a camera good in low light. Long exposure at any time other than the darkest times of night doesn't require good ISO performance since you usually put this at the lowest native ISO (Ie. for pretty much anything but astrophotography). Even then, the benefits of a full frame camera for astrophotography is more so in the size of the sensor which allows you to leave the shutter open for longer without getting star trails.
I actually do quite a lot of astrophotography but it's never quite turned out the way I want it. I live in a rural area but corn fields aren't exactly picturesque. the reason I'm upgrading though is that im traveling to Iceland to shoot the northern lights and a range of other things next winter so having equipment that will get me what I want is a must.
CabbyArrantI actually do quite a lot of astrophotography but it's never quite turned out the way I want it. I live in a rural area but corn fields aren't exactly picturesque. the reason I'm upgrading though is that im traveling to Iceland to shoot the northern lights and a range of other things next winter so having equipment that will get me what I want is a must.
Hey man,
from every response of yours in the thread, it sounds like you've already made up your mind on upgrading so why even bother asking?
If you are gonna upgrade and you wanna go the nikon path and you can't afford to spend over a grand, pick up a d700. Great cam. If your budget's flexible and you want video then grab a d750 .
from every response of yours in the thread, it sounds like you've already made up your mind on upgrading so why even bother asking?
If you are gonna upgrade and you wanna go the nikon path and you can't afford to spend over a grand, pick up a d700. Great cam. If your budget's flexible and you want video then grab a d750 .
Yeah im going to upgrade no matter what. But I didn't know whether now was the time to just dig in and go full frame. Right now is probably not the time to go full frame but getting something a little more suitable in terms of dynamic range, ISO performance, and Resolution is not a bad investment imo. Definitely going to invest in some glass and a some software though. The only reason I started thinking about going full frame though is bc there are a few canon 6d's listed on eBay brand new for under 1000 so I thought why the hell not go full frame; means I won't want to do so as soon in the future but money is a factor so I probably won't.
CabbyArrantYeah im going to upgrade no matter what. But I didn't know whether now was the time to just dig in and go full frame. Right now is probably not the time to go full frame but getting something a little more suitable in terms of dynamic range, ISO performance, and Resolution is not a bad investment imo. Definitely going to invest in some glass and a some software though. The only reason I started thinking about going full frame though is bc there are a few canon 6d's listed on eBay brand new for under 1000 so I thought why the hell not go full frame; means I won't want to do so as soon in the future but money is a factor so I probably won't.
Alright so if you want to get a new body then go ahead but don't fall into the trap of thinking better camera = better photos. You also don't need the newest and best full frame camera and there are lots that can be had for less than $1000. I don't think you need to worry about your lens collection because you are gonna have to sell most of them if you want to move to full frame anyways. Right now the nikon D750 is a deadly camera and a solid mix between high end features and price. So if you switch to nikon I would seriously consider it. If you want to stick to Canon I would wait until the 5d mark iv is released. This should bring the price down on a lot of the other full frame Canon's and can make it more affordable for you (in the mean time while you wait you could build up a collection of Canon lenses).
I wouldn't worry too much about investing in software right now. Photoshop CS2 is fine and there are some free alternatives to lightroom (check out darktable).