Considering changing sides
Discussion
I felt the same as you - I saw images from people using Canon 5ds and wondered why I could never get anything like that.
When I switched from crop to full frame with my D800 (purchased second hand) I stopped feeling that way and knew that where an image wasn't right it was because of me, rather than this nagging doubt that my kit was letting me down. I started to see the images I wanted coming out of the camera rather than something that felt "flat" and "dull".
It's hard to qualify what was missing but I suspect a combination of bokeh and focal length which just works better with full frame, for me.
So my personal experience was that going full frame with my existing lenses (which to be fair were quite expensive) made a huge and I mean HUGE difference to my results - and really made me enjoy photography again instead of constantly thinking my camera was letting me down.
When I switched from crop to full frame with my D800 (purchased second hand) I stopped feeling that way and knew that where an image wasn't right it was because of me, rather than this nagging doubt that my kit was letting me down. I started to see the images I wanted coming out of the camera rather than something that felt "flat" and "dull".
It's hard to qualify what was missing but I suspect a combination of bokeh and focal length which just works better with full frame, for me.
So my personal experience was that going full frame with my existing lenses (which to be fair were quite expensive) made a huge and I mean HUGE difference to my results - and really made me enjoy photography again instead of constantly thinking my camera was letting me down.
This the type of "snap" that Im talking about.
I know its as much PP as kit, but I havnt yet managed to replicate this kind of thing. (this isnt the best example maybe,it was a quick flikr raid)but its super sharp at a good size on the screen.
Cal Crutchlow - Honda by Jonny Henchman, on Flickr
One of mine for comparison.
I know Im losing IQ because im having to crop heavily....
Dani by Mark P, on Flickr
In addition, its only just this year I started to use LR10 and find it much better than my previous Elements 8.
Current glass line up :
http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-nikon-70-300mm-...
http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-nikon-16-85mm-f...
http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-tamron-90mm-f2-...
I have considered FF as Ive been told they produce much higer IQ ,but Ive seen some amazing shots from both 7DII and D500.....
Feeling lost right now.
I know its as much PP as kit, but I havnt yet managed to replicate this kind of thing. (this isnt the best example maybe,it was a quick flikr raid)but its super sharp at a good size on the screen.
Cal Crutchlow - Honda by Jonny Henchman, on FlickrOne of mine for comparison.
I know Im losing IQ because im having to crop heavily....
Dani by Mark P, on FlickrIn addition, its only just this year I started to use LR10 and find it much better than my previous Elements 8.
Current glass line up :
http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-nikon-70-300mm-...
http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-nikon-16-85mm-f...
http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-tamron-90mm-f2-...
I have considered FF as Ive been told they produce much higer IQ ,but Ive seen some amazing shots from both 7DII and D500.....
Feeling lost right now.
Top one has a lower exposure value.
You have blown the whites out, so no detail, this also means reds tend towards pinks etc and colours are weaker.
Advantage of a modern sensor here is you can shoot for the hilites and push the rest of the image a lot more. With contrast watch the hilites as it pushes both sides of the image - so just work on mid tones, shadows/blacks.
Its also got a bit more contrast and sharpening - and an obvious shallow dof as he has a background due to shooting from lower.
You have blown the whites out, so no detail, this also means reds tend towards pinks etc and colours are weaker.
Advantage of a modern sensor here is you can shoot for the hilites and push the rest of the image a lot more. With contrast watch the hilites as it pushes both sides of the image - so just work on mid tones, shadows/blacks.
Its also got a bit more contrast and sharpening - and an obvious shallow dof as he has a background due to shooting from lower.
Never shoot jpg!
Even now when the cameras are good at it its a poor option for maximising the image. Back on the d300...
Also remember that a FF body if you have to severely crop in to apcs or larger will give you poorer results than a higher pixel density crop camera. FF works best when you have enough focal length to make use of that whole sensor.
Even now when the cameras are good at it its a poor option for maximising the image. Back on the d300...
Also remember that a FF body if you have to severely crop in to apcs or larger will give you poorer results than a higher pixel density crop camera. FF works best when you have enough focal length to make use of that whole sensor.
Turn7 said:
This years Motogp Ive hired the Siggy 105-600 and will shoot RAW as opposed to Jpeg, so fingers crossed.
And use the histogram so you know exactly where your exposure is and can correct if required.The money you saved by not needing to buy a new camera can be shared between Rob and me
RobDickinson said:
Top one has a lower exposure value.
You have blown the whites out, so no detail, this also means reds tend towards pinks etc and colours are weaker.
Advantage of a modern sensor here is you can shoot for the hilites and push the rest of the image a lot more. With contrast watch the hilites as it pushes both sides of the image - so just work on mid tones, shadows/blacks.
Its also got a bit more contrast and sharpening - and an obvious shallow dof as he has a background due to shooting from lower.
OP, while I agree with all of what Rob says (he's far more qualified to advise you on this stuff than me) it's also worth adding that the top one was shot on a 400mm prime lens rather than cheaper and poorer 70-300mm zoom. Prime lenses really are in a different league.You have blown the whites out, so no detail, this also means reds tend towards pinks etc and colours are weaker.
Advantage of a modern sensor here is you can shoot for the hilites and push the rest of the image a lot more. With contrast watch the hilites as it pushes both sides of the image - so just work on mid tones, shadows/blacks.
Its also got a bit more contrast and sharpening - and an obvious shallow dof as he has a background due to shooting from lower.
Dogsey,thanks for the reply.
I know the linked image was taken with better glass, but as I said, it was a quick grab to illustrate a point.
My question(s) now is/are :
How do you rate my glass in terms of Nikkor quality ?
What would you recommend as an upgrade ? IE, I have half an eye on the new AFS 80-400 Nikkor
RAW shooting - best file size to use - I have three options .....
I know the linked image was taken with better glass, but as I said, it was a quick grab to illustrate a point.
My question(s) now is/are :
How do you rate my glass in terms of Nikkor quality ?
What would you recommend as an upgrade ? IE, I have half an eye on the new AFS 80-400 Nikkor
RAW shooting - best file size to use - I have three options .....
Can I interest you in a d3s?
I'm in a predicament- off to Pripyat in a couple of weeks and my 700d has died. Don't want to spend a grand on something when I'm just a hobbyist. Looked at the 7d and was tempted. Spoke to a friend of mine who is a bloody good professional asking his advice and he offered me one of his nikons. I can't bring myself to change over (primarily due to the cost in lenses).
Still not sure what to do and I need to pull my finger out pretty sharpish.
I'm in a predicament- off to Pripyat in a couple of weeks and my 700d has died. Don't want to spend a grand on something when I'm just a hobbyist. Looked at the 7d and was tempted. Spoke to a friend of mine who is a bloody good professional asking his advice and he offered me one of his nikons. I can't bring myself to change over (primarily due to the cost in lenses).
Still not sure what to do and I need to pull my finger out pretty sharpish.
Considered renting a nice Canon body and lens for a weekend and seeing how you get on?
When I chose Canon when I bought my first DSLR I tried a Nikon and Sony in my hands but the Canon just felt 'right' so that where I when.
As said Canon vs. Nikon is pretty much a level playing field.
When I chose Canon when I bought my first DSLR I tried a Nikon and Sony in my hands but the Canon just felt 'right' so that where I when.
As said Canon vs. Nikon is pretty much a level playing field.
Turn7 said:
How do you rate my glass in terms of Nikkor quality ?
What would you recommend as an upgrade ? IE, I have half an eye on the new AFS 80-400 Nikkor
RAW shooting - best file size to use - I have three options .....
RAW - shoot the largest size. storage is cheap.What would you recommend as an upgrade ? IE, I have half an eye on the new AFS 80-400 Nikkor
RAW shooting - best file size to use - I have three options .....
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/08/the-sort-...
Lensrental said:
The Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 ED AF-S VR
Commonly called the 80-400 VR II, this lens has been the Nikon 400mm zoom for some time now. It’s, well, it’s better up to about 300mm, but it’s just not that good when you stretch it out to 400mm. Not a great performance for a lens that demands a premium price.
Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6E ED AF-S VR
The newer Nikon telezoom is something of a different beast. It’s a fixed aperture lens and it zooms out to 500mm, so it’s the first lens in this test that can actually go past 400mm. Plus it’s a lot less expensive than the older 80-400mm. I can’t comment on how it performs in the field, but from an MTF standpoint, it outperforms its much more expensive brother at 400mm.
Canon’s 100-400 IS II is, from an MTF standpoint, the best zoom at 400mm, but the Nikon 200-500 and both the Sigma and Tamron 150-600s are also really good, far less expensive, and have greater range. The Nikon 80-400 VR II is not quite as good at 400 as the competition.
IMO the 80-400 has never been a great choice, nikons 70-300 was ok back in the day but canon s70-300L and 100-400mk2 murder it (should do for the price).Commonly called the 80-400 VR II, this lens has been the Nikon 400mm zoom for some time now. It’s, well, it’s better up to about 300mm, but it’s just not that good when you stretch it out to 400mm. Not a great performance for a lens that demands a premium price.
Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6E ED AF-S VR
The newer Nikon telezoom is something of a different beast. It’s a fixed aperture lens and it zooms out to 500mm, so it’s the first lens in this test that can actually go past 400mm. Plus it’s a lot less expensive than the older 80-400mm. I can’t comment on how it performs in the field, but from an MTF standpoint, it outperforms its much more expensive brother at 400mm.
Canon’s 100-400 IS II is, from an MTF standpoint, the best zoom at 400mm, but the Nikon 200-500 and both the Sigma and Tamron 150-600s are also really good, far less expensive, and have greater range. The Nikon 80-400 VR II is not quite as good at 400 as the competition.
Try that 150-600 I think you will like it, watch for your exposure/hilites, and abuse as much dof as you can get (i.e. get low, separate subject from background) - even at 400/5.6 you can have quite shallow dof if you can get closeish.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff