Full frame or DX? (Nikon D610 or D7200)

[fargo747]

Righto, for those of you that are regulars, you may have read an earlier thread where I'm banging on about getting a Nikon D7200. Things have progressed. A little. I'm normally more decisive about these things...

Today's question is whether to get the top-notch DX sensor D7200 or step up to the full-frame D610? The latter is slightly less well-specced, but other than the wifi, will I miss any of it? It's tempting to really push the boat out and get a D750 but considering the original plan was to spend <£1000, things are getting a little out of hand and haven't even got a lens yet. Compared to my old D80 I really want to be able to improve shooting in low light, which it is dismal for; indoor without a flash, wildlife in the woods etc. So full frame or DX? I haven't even looked at Canon yet.

That's the question in a nutshell, but while I'm on...having listened (a bit) to some of the advice here, I'm going to steer away from the mega-zoom lenses and am now weighing up the options of a more moderate super-zoom or a two lens solution. The challenge comes because of lugging kit around on my back whilst skiing, mountain biking etc (badly) - hence a versatile one lens solution making sense for just stopping and shooting without persuading everyone to wait for half and hour while I fanny about.

[DibblyDobbler]

DX + Tammy 16-300 = sorted

[Evolved]

I recently treated myself to the D7100 and Tamron 24-70 and absolutely love it so far.

[GravelBen]

For low light performance they will both blitz the D80, but the 610 should be a noticeable step above the 7200 in that regard as well.

Tough call to make - I'm happy enough with my D7000 but when the time comes to upgrade a full frame body will be tempting.

[Evolved]

It will be assuming your lenses work on both.

[Mr Will]

DibblyDobbler said:

DX + Tammy 16-300 = sorted

Can't think of anything worse. I'm an FX + 50mm prime kind of guy.

[andy-xr]

Full frame will show up your glass quite quickly. If you've got decent lenses then cool, but smaller sensor more tightly packed will let you get away with more economy flavoured lenses

Also consider video, not just stills. I know everyone says they'll never use video on an SLR and they're for taking stunning photos of perfectly exposed landscapes, but you'll want to use it and come up short on st glass.

[fargo747]

Noted. Will take a balanced view on spending on good lenses! Would ultimately like to expand out to some primes, but need convenience for 90% of the time (at least until I learn what I am doing properly).

[Golaboots]

andy-xr said:

Full frame will show up your glass quite quickly. If you've got decent lenses then cool, but smaller sensor more tightly packed will let you get away with more economy flavoured lenses

Also consider video, not just stills. I know everyone says they'll never use video on an SLR and they're for taking stunning photos of perfectly exposed landscapes, but you'll want to use it and come up short on st glass.

Isn't it all down to linear pitch of pixels though? i.e. 24 megapixels across FX is needs less lens resolution than 24 megapixels across a DX sensor?

[GravelBen]

Golaboots said:

Isn't it all down to linear pitch of pixels though? i.e. 24 megapixels across FX is needs less lens resolution than 24 megapixels across a DX sensor?

Looking at DXO test results, most lenses seem to have higher ratings on FF than DX bodies. Seems to suggest the opposite of the common idea that FX reveals their weaknesses, but that could be down to how they determine their ratings.

[Mr Will]

GravelBen said:

Looking at DXO test results, most lenses seem to have higher ratings on FF than DX bodies. Seems to suggest the opposite of the common idea that FX reveals their weaknesses, but that could be down to how they determine their ratings.

I think that's more a case of aberrations than resolution. An FX lens used on a DX camera will have less distortion, chromatic aberrations, vignetting, corner softness, etc than it would on an FX body as these issues primarily occur near the edge of the frame, which is cropped off. These will all be far more visible at typical sizes than the small reduction in outright resolution.

[anonymous-user]

As a D7000 owner who has a bag full of good quality DX lenses (with a couple of FX), I have thought about upgrading to FX several times.

I have ultimately come to the conclusion that moving to FX will not benefit me because of the type of photos I shoot.

Bit of landscape, lots of car stuff, lots of night time long exposure stuff, that kind of thing.

None of this requires high ISO or huge dynamic range as can generally pick and choose the conditions, use my own lighting, and use a tripod for when I need a longer exposure.

If your main line of photos was handheld shots of things in variable or unreliable lighting conditions, then naturally you should look at FX for the ability to shoot at much higher ISO.

Pretty much most things I shoot are at ISO 100 and rarely more than 400.

What sort of stuff do you shoot?

[DibblyDobbler]

Mr Will said:

DibblyDobbler said:

DX + Tammy 16-300 = sorted

Can't think of anything worse. I'm an FX + 50mm prime kind of guy.

That's nice for you but the OP is talking about a versatile one lens solution.

The Tamron reviews very well and is nothing if not versatile...

[Mr Will]

DibblyDobbler said:

Mr Will said:

DibblyDobbler said:

DX + Tammy 16-300 = sorted

Can't think of anything worse. I'm an FX + 50mm prime kind of guy.

That's nice for you but the OP is talking about a versatile one lens solution.

The Tamron reviews very well and is nothing if not versatile...

I don't know what you're talking about, that is my versatile one lens solution!

[DibblyDobbler]

Mr Will said:

DibblyDobbler said:

Mr Will said:

DibblyDobbler said:

DX + Tammy 16-300 = sorted

Can't think of anything worse. I'm an FX + 50mm prime kind of guy.

That's nice for you but the OP is talking about a versatile one lens solution.

The Tamron reviews very well and is nothing if not versatile...

I don't know what you're talking about, that is my versatile one lens solution!

[fargo747]

Yeah, yeah - versatile for you - but I really want everyone else's versatile

NinjaPower said:

What sort of stuff do you shoot?

It's more a case of what would I shoot with a decent camera. The D80 went in a cupboard a couple of years ago because its lack of low light ability frustrated me and I felt the zoom wasn't quite enough - so lugging it around for the results I got was not worth the effort. I should really caveat that with something about a poor workman and that's probably fair. At least if I go for broke (quite literally) on the new kit, I know it is down to me to improve. So, what would I shoot?: Family/people (indoors), animals, wildlife, cars (static) and 'action' stuff we are doing (would especially like to achieve some decent skiing shots - hence the longer lens requirement). Quite like the idea of building on this early kit with more dedicated lenses once I understand what I'm trying to achieve.

Having slept on it, I'm coming to terms with forking out for a D750. Sound sensible?

[andy-xr]

The best lens I had for that was a 28-300. Normally I'm dead against super zooms, the quality fall off is quite noticeable, and I'm far from an image quality snob. But this lens is a bit magic. I sold mine for not much less than what I paid for it, maybe 20% loss over 18 months

[Mr Will]

fargo747 said:

Yeah, yeah - versatile for you - but I really want everyone else's versatile

Semi-seriously though; there is no one lens that will do it all. The superzoom will cover every major focal length but will be large, lower quality and of limited use in anything other than good light. The prime is just as compromised but in opposite direction.

The real solution is to have different lenses for different purposes but to not be afraid to leave some behind. A decent general purpose zoom, a prime for low light, portraits or portability and maybe telephoto for action sports will cover your needs very well. Just leave at home whichever ones you aren't planning on using that day rather than lugging a huge bag about.

[ExPat2B]

Just an interesting comparison, comparing a good zoom lens on a good camera ( Nikon 80-400 f5.6 on D7100 ) to a good prime on a good full frame. ( Nikon 600mm AFS on D810 )

Both taken at the same time, from the same distance, the guy was standing next to me.

Both have the same equivalent focal length 600mm full frame vs 400 on DX crop = 600mm.

DSC_3212 (2) by John Rowland, on Flickr

GoldFinch_CottonGrass3 by Nature Ist, on Flickr

Can you guess which is which ?

[steveatesh]

ExPat2B said:

Just an interesting comparison, comparing a good zoom lens on a good camera ( Nikon 80-400 f5.6 on D7100 ) to a good prime on a good full frame. ( Nikon 600mm AFS on D810 )

Both taken at the same time, from the same distance, the guy was standing next to me.

Both have the same equivalent focal length 600mm full frame vs 400 on DX crop = 600mm.

DSC_3212 (2) by John Rowland, on Flickr

GoldFinch_CottonGrass3 by Nature Ist, on Flickr

Can you guess which is which ?

I'm guessing the bottom one is the full frame camera?