Options
Next Steps - Read On
Hopefully I can write my question(s) in a thoughtful manner such that some of you might offer some suggestions. Here goes...
I recently bought a Nikon D7000 - a step up from my Canon point and shoot (which by the way was a great little camera and when the sensor went bad, Canon replaced my then 3 year old camera with a newer more expensive model). So - not here to debate the Canon/Nikon thing. Anyway, I have been going to group photo shoots with a few different MeetUp groups and that's been rewarding. I feel out-classed with some of the "big boys" (women too) shooting with far more dollar power in their hands.
Question: Should I just get over it or possibly up-grade my camera? I think my photographs are coming out fine, even with my kit lens. I am sure that one of these days I will get a full frame FX body so here is the next -
Question: If and when I consider adding a new lens to my bag and given that I may up-grade to a better body at some point which should I do? Buy a DX lens and keep that system as a back-up (especially if I do wedding or reunions)? Or buy FX lenses for my DX body and take a sacrifice with the crop factor?
Question: Can a person really take professional quality photographs with a lower-end DX body camera such as my Nikon D7000? Or, is the lens more important than the diminished size of the camera sensor? For sure I know that faster lenses on the DX body will REALLY help.
I'd appreciate hearing from some of you as this is all new to me. I am not a newbie to photography - my first real camera (beyond my Kodak Brownie) was a Yashica D twin lens reflex and then a Minolta SR-7.
Anyway, thank you in advance for tsking on my questions.
I recently bought a Nikon D7000 - a step up from my Canon point and shoot (which by the way was a great little camera and when the sensor went bad, Canon replaced my then 3 year old camera with a newer more expensive model). So - not here to debate the Canon/Nikon thing. Anyway, I have been going to group photo shoots with a few different MeetUp groups and that's been rewarding. I feel out-classed with some of the "big boys" (women too) shooting with far more dollar power in their hands.
Question: Should I just get over it or possibly up-grade my camera? I think my photographs are coming out fine, even with my kit lens. I am sure that one of these days I will get a full frame FX body so here is the next -
Question: If and when I consider adding a new lens to my bag and given that I may up-grade to a better body at some point which should I do? Buy a DX lens and keep that system as a back-up (especially if I do wedding or reunions)? Or buy FX lenses for my DX body and take a sacrifice with the crop factor?
Question: Can a person really take professional quality photographs with a lower-end DX body camera such as my Nikon D7000? Or, is the lens more important than the diminished size of the camera sensor? For sure I know that faster lenses on the DX body will REALLY help.
I'd appreciate hearing from some of you as this is all new to me. I am not a newbie to photography - my first real camera (beyond my Kodak Brownie) was a Yashica D twin lens reflex and then a Minolta SR-7.
Anyway, thank you in advance for tsking on my questions.
0
Comments
Eventually, you may want to also have an FX-Full-Frame body and lenses which will gain you, using large aperture lenses, more control over DOF, but you will know when you need that capability.
Lighting, lenses and body, in that order, gets you the greatest return on investment. (Lighting also includes light modifiers and accessories.)
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I shoot DX, and my personal philosophy on lenses (having the means to execute my philosophy is a different matter...) is that other than wide angle, I prefer buying FX lenses. I have and love the DX 35mm f/1.8G prime. It is my most used lens and it is a great normal prime on DX. However, were I starting out today, I'd have to think seriously about the new FX 28mm f/1.8G as my normal lens, and then I could use it again when/if I go FX. There are some nice DX lenses (mostly from 3rd party, Nikon has not made a really great DX system), but I would prefer to have a good stable of lenses that could be relatively easily transitioned to FX.
There are, of course, multiple schools of thought on this. Some say get lenses for what you have now, unless you are truly within a year or so of going FX. Sigma makes a nice 50-150 f/2.8 tele-zoom for DX, and Nikon's 16-85 is a pretty good normal zoom. I have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (DX) zoom, and I love it, but mostly it stays on my wife's camera. You can certainly get some nice glass that is DX-specific, but IMO, I am totally fine with using FX lenses on the telephoto end. Obviously you can't do that with wide angle, though, and there are a few options to cover that end of the range, my favorite is the Tokina 11-16, which is reported to be able to cover the FX sensor at 16mm, so when/if you go FX, it's essentially a 16mm prime. That is appealing to me.
The bottom line is get whatever lenses you need for the photography you like. If you're truly close to a move to FX, the answer is clear, but if that's not in the near term, then you can easily go either direction. You can always sell gear you no longer need to help fund new glass. I just personally would rather have a stable of lenses that will transition, so when I do upgrade the body, I'm already in decent shape with the glass.
My site 365 Project
granted, there a newer bodies.
I'd keep the d7000 and get glass.
The d7000 is a plenty capable camera, and you shouldn't be intimidated by people with more expensive gear.
Get quality glass and it'll last you much longer than a body that gets outdated every 2-3 years.
D800
16/2.8, f1.4G primes, f2.8 trio, 105/200 macro, SB900.
It never gets easier, you just get better.
All of you were spot-on with your responses. I was glad to hear about the 11 x 16 mm Tokina and it's workability on an FX body as I have that puppy. And, I am learning more about light...cannot recall who it was that gave the priority order but believe that they were correct - light, glass, body.
Anyway, thanks for the responses. I hope others take a look at your responses as I am guessing a lot of others feel/felt as I do. You all helped me jump a little further.
Doyle
Check out this write up from DGrin's Matthew Saville about using that lens on full frame as compared to the renowned Nikon 14-24 f/2.8. You start to lose a bit of sharpness in the extreme corners, but totally acceptable IMO, especially considering the price difference. Also, the DX photos in that comparison are using a D7000, so they should put some of your fears of using a "lower-end body" to rest.
My site 365 Project
Get over it. Learn to use your body to the limits of its capability, and you will find that you can capture quite lovely images just fine.
Like Ziggy said, gets some good light - a simple window of north sky will work well for portraits and costs nothing - use your glass until it holds you back and you know what you need/want to make a better image.
Do not let folks with expensive black boxes intimidate you; photographers make photos, black boxes just hold sensors in the dark. I post images in my galleries shot with point and shoots, crop sensor bodies, full frame bodies, and m4/3 bodies. Most folks can never guess which camera/system took which picture.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Why? I'm almost embarrassed to admit because in reality I do this all in good fun, but part of me does enjoy shaming people who show up with the latest $3,000 or $5,000 camera, and all the $2,000 lenses they can possibly click "add to cart" on.
It sounds both self-absorbed and insulting, but like I said it's all in good fun. Sometimes I get amazing photos, sometimes I don't.
My point being, if you're just doing this as a hobby, don't worry about it. Focus on your craft, save up, and buy a camera or lens only when you REALLY feel like you're bumping up against the "edge of the envelope" with your current equipment.
In my opinion, havhing shot hundreds of weddings, portraits and other types of jobs with pretty much every mid-range and semi-pro DSLR ever made since 2004, ...I would say that if you cannot deliver pro-quality images with a D7000, you should work on tackling that issue first. Sure, your images would be higher quality with a D700 or D800 or something. But then again, if your aspirations are truly professional, there is SO much more to consider than the simple difference between DX and FX. For example, as a hobyist I would LOVE to own a Nikon D600 or D7100, and if I were a landscape photographer I'd go for a D800. Heck, I'd go for a D7100 for landscape photography, too!
But, as a wedding and portrait photographer, I have a very, very hard time when it comes to Nikon recommendations. The Nikon D600 is too limited in my opinion for high-performance wedding photography, though maybe acceptable as a getting started / backup camera. The D800 is way too high-res for high-volume wedding photography, in my opinion, unless you are ready to triple your storage costs and post-production times. The D700 is a great camera and my personal top choice for weddings right now, but it's so oldschool that it doesn't even have video, and in general a new wedding photographer who is coming from a newer camera like the D7000 or D7100 may have a hard time going back to "only" 12 megapixels when the D600 offers great image quality with a minimal compromise in performance and reliability.
So, there's all that confusion in the FX lineup right now, and we haven't even discussed the whole DX situation yet. Because once again if for example you're a hobbyist with more casual aspirations, and maybe you just want incredible functionality and features moreso than sheer envelope-pushing performance. Especially if you're more into landscapes and nature and stuff, in my opinion the new DX D7100 is the best camera on the market right now for that, with the D600 and D7000 being a close second in the Nikon camp. Plus, the DX lenses out there are incredible now, especially if you'd like to save weight and size, even if you don't care about price. But for example in the ultra-wide category, the Sigma 8-16mm is an incredible lens which I am testing right now, and far cheaper than the full-frame beast 14-24 if you shoot landscapes stopped down and don't need f/2.8... Then, in the mid-range category, you have all sorts of options in the FX and DX prime section, great options in both the f/2.8 and variable aperture zoom section, and great options in the telephoto zoom section. I'd rather have a DX 16-85 on a D7100 any day, compared to a D600 and a 24-120. Because for me, the whole point of getting that range of camera in general is to save size, weight, and price. A D600 might give me slightly better image quality at ISO 1600 and 3200+, but as a hobbyist that becomes less mission-critical and more about changing my standards a tiny bit.
SO, it goes back and forth. The bottom line is, what do you shoot, what are your aspirations, and what can you reasonably expect to spend in the next few years??
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
The Tokina 11-16 is one of the best investments overall in my opinion, as it has just been pointed out in that article I wrote. (Thanks for linking!)
Other DX lenses may not work on full-frame so well, but then again the better lenses out there for DX sensors do seem to hold their resale value pretty well.
I spent quite a few years shooting weddings with a D300 + D200 setup, and then before that I even shot a good number of weddings with a pair of Nikon D70's! Here was my reasoning behind investing a couple thousand $$ in DX lenses- I couldn't afford full-frame any time soon, and it was better for me to own the lenses that perfectly matched my focal range needs, compared to either renting those lenses for the 1-2 years that I would need them, or even compared to just buying the FX glass that would stay with me longer, but would be a compromise on practicality because of the crop factor.
Nowadays, I must admit, things are pretty different. If you're not a weight weenie like I am, then you might as well just buy a 70-200 2.8 or f/4, instead of the Sigma 50-150 2.8 that I bought. (Even though I still own, use, and love that lens on my D300 / D7100 for telephoto travel, adventure, and nature photography!) Also, considering that awesome ultra-wide crop sensor lenses like the Tokina 11-16 are available now, you could probably live with a Nikon 24-70 instead of a 17-55. That was my main critical decision, in my opinion, because those lenses are kinda similar in usefulness.
Anyways. Like I said in my first reply- what do you shoot, and what are your aspirations?
If anything, let's go back to the whole group shoot thing- Give me a D7000 and a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AFS-G, 28mm f/1.8 AFS-G, and/or 85mm f/1.8 ANY day, and I'll KILL them "dollar power" photogs who think their images are going to be better than mine just because their camera says mk3 and their lenes says f/1.2.
But that's just me. I like being the under-dog. I like shattering expectations, I like surprising everyone... Even if my photos were exactly the same as if I had upgraded to a bunch of nice high-dollar gear, it makes me feel so much better about myself to have "pulled off" such decent images with such "average" gear.
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
I would like to address only that one part of your question, as no one else seems to have done so.
Using an FX lens on a DX body is no sacrifice at all - on the contrary, an FX lens will give better perfomance on a DX body than on FX. This is simply because almost all lenses have some fall-off in sharpness near the edges of the frame, and a DX sensor doesn't use that part. It just uses the sweet spot in the center.
If you want to see how that works, look at the Nikon lens performance charts at SLRGear.com. Several lenses were tested on both DX and FX sensor cameras. For example, look at the review of the 85 f/1.8G lens here.