What should I buy?

[4Lmike]

I've got a D5000 at the moment. Im thinking of buying a D7000.

Should I keep the D5000 as a spare/backup camera (as I'm starting to get into weddings etc) or sell the D5000 and put the money towards new equipment/lens?

...Or not even bother with the D7000 and spend all the money on extra lenses etc for the D5000?

[Ed_P]

I'm a Canon man, so can't advise on models. But if you're planning on doing weddings etc, I'd advise you to always have a spare camera with you.

[4Lmike]

...or do i save up for full frame? is it really worth the extra money?

[Gad-Westy]

4Lmike said:

...or do i save up for full frame? is it really worth the extra money?

Simpo is the man to ask here.

[Simpo Two]

Gad-Westy said:

Simpo is the man to ask here.

Full frame makes for lower noise (if noise is a problem - with the latest sensors it's unlikely) but shortens your reach by 33% and effectively rules out DX lenses. They will autocrop but that only leaves you with 5Mp. FF gear is also bigger and heavier, which may be important if you plan to carry it round your neck all day - so it's not necessarily a wonder solution IMHO.

Really, you should know what the weakest part of your kit is simply by using it 'in combat'. Personally I'd rather have one body and a fast lens than two bodies and a slow lens but it's your show, you need to decide.

Edited by Simpo Two on Thursday 15th September 18:34

[4Lmike]

Thanks simpo.

Basically I want to get it right first time to save money/hassle in the long run. For example I don't want to go and buy a D7000 and more DX lenses to then turn around in a couple of years and decide I want FF, in which case I'd have to sell all my current gear losing money on it.

I'm not too fussed about the uncropped images you get with FF, but I was reading an article (which had examples) which basically said the quality is so much better to the extent that a rubbish lens on FF camera would produce better results than a great lens on crop body. Is this true? Link here - http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advanta...

[GetCarter]

Sticks neck out....

FF is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much better than DX, (I use both) that I think DX will be sidelined in a few years. I see no future for it. (Long term)

I said the same about 35mm film v digital 10 years ago on PH and oh how everybody laughed.

[Beardy10]

4Lmike said:

Thanks simpo.

Basically I want to get it right first time to save money/hassle in the long run. For example I don't want to go and buy a D7000 and more DX lenses to then turn around in a couple of years and decide I want FF, in which case I'd have to sell all my current gear losing money on it.

I'm not too fussed about the uncropped images you get with FF, but I was reading an article (which had examples) which basically said the quality is so much better to the extent that a rubbish lens on FF camera would produce better results than a great lens on crop body. Is this true? Link here - http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advanta...

I'd be surprised if that's true about a rubbish lens on FF being better than a pro lens on DX personally. I don't have any proof other than I know how much better pro glass makes my D7000....I have an 18-200 which I used on my D7000 when I first got it. I now have a 24-70 and the quality is miles better.

Personally if I was you I would probably upgrade my glass to FX lenses (though you'll probably need a DX lens at the wide end for group shots) and stick with the D5000....that would be the cheapest way to do it. Having said that I don't think you can photograph a wedding with one body.....you NEED to have a back up in case of failure.

[Simpo Two]

4Lmike said:

I was reading an article (which had examples) which basically said the quality is so much better to the extent that a rubbish lens on FF camera would produce better results than a great lens on crop body. Is this true? Link here - http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advanta...

Ken Rockwell shoots JPG. Not only does this tell you something quite important about his standards, but in-camera JPG processing includes whatever sharpening parameters the camera has been set to apply. So comparing different JPGs and linking that back to sensors is patent rubbish.

I've been using DX in combat for several years and nobody's ever said 'Ooh that's crap, if only you'd used a FF camera it would have been better'. Furthermore sometimes a 200mm f2.8 is only just long enough; if I want the same angle of view/speed on FX I'd need a 300mm f2.8 - I'm not carrying one of those round my neck all day and it won't fit in my nice bag. So really, don't worry about it. You're judged by your photographs. That's what they pay for. So stop reading reviews and get out there

Edited by Simpo Two on Thursday 15th September 21:00

[McMacro]

Ken Rockwell

[Simpo Two]

Beardy10 said:

Personally if I was you I would probably upgrade my glass to FX lenses (though you'll probably need a DX lens at the wide end for group shots)

The best arbiter of lens quality is not specifically DX or FX - though FXs throw a larger image and so when used on a DX camera it chops out the 'best bit'. My workhorse lens is the DX 17-55mm f2.8 and with a price tag of £1,000+ it's not shabby.

Too much wide angle for groups distorts the end figures, but 17mm copes well when I'm crammed into a roomfull of preening bridesmaids, and for most interiors.

[flat-planedCrank]

GetCarter said:

FF is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much better than DX, (I use both) that I think DX will be sidelined in a few years. I see no future for it. (Long term)

I wonder if the ability to make cheaper lenses for smaller sensors will support the 'crop' cameras for all manufacturers.

For the average DSLR camera buyer - who I'd imagine isn't the kind of person to post in a photography forum - but just wants decent photos of their holidays, birthdays, etc. - the cost and availability of the lenses might be of paramount importance.

That along with the 'free reach' that cropped sensors provide for the sports / wildlife photographers, it might be difficult to market new cameras that appear to - perhaps erroneously - reduce the reach of photographers lenses. Can see the thinking going something like "I know I can shoot in cropped mode at 10MP, but why did I buy a 25MP camera if I'm going to throw all that extra data away with each shot taken?"

Just a thought, would like to know if others disagree

(sorry for dragging this a bit OT)

[RobDickinson]

DX/crop is here to stay.

Its just so much cheaper than FFF. Both production of the sensors, mirror box and lenses.

Thats not going to change.

What is changing is crop sensors being more efficient than ever, D7000 is a better sensor than the 5d , which is fairly amazing given 2.5 times more area and only 5 or so years time difference.

Ok one thing you dont get is the DOf control but most people are happy with fastish cheap primes anyhow.

[Gad-Westy]

RobDickinson said:

DX/crop is here to stay.

Its just so much cheaper than FFF. Both production of the sensors, mirror box and lenses.

Thats not going to change.

What is changing is crop sensors being more efficient than ever, D7000 is a better sensor than the 5d , which is fairly amazing given 2.5 times more area and only 5 or so years time difference.

Ok one thing you dont get is the DOf control but most people are happy with fastish cheap primes anyhow.

The cost is always the issue with FF isn't it. I would love a D700 to replace my D5000 and to be honest could probably justify the cost for the body alone but you get suckered in to also wanting very high quality glass to pair up to it. Even buying used, a D700, a 14-24, 24-70 and a 70-200 would set me back well over £4k and that's without even thinking about primes. That would certainly buy a lot in the way of high quality crop gear.

[4Lmike]

Thanks for the input guys. I think I'll probably give FF a miss for now as I simply can't afford it, and won't be able to afford the more expensive lenses that go with it either.

Will most likely get the D7000. Anyone have good/bad things to say about these from experience?

[Gad-Westy]

4Lmike said:

Thanks for the input guys. I think I'll probably give FF a miss for now as I simply can't afford it, and won't be able to afford the more expensive lenses that go with it either.

Will most likely get the D7000. Anyone have good/bad things to say about these from experience?

Haven't read a bad review of it. Some people seem to mention a focussing issue but I'm not sure if this is a user thing or an actual issue. Talk photography has a big owners thread going that's worth a read.

[GetCarter]

RobDickinson said:

DX/crop is here to stay.

Right... you're on. There has to be a beer on it though. I reckon in 10 years DX will go the way of LPs, 35mm Film, Cassettes, VHS, Yahoo & Mick Hucknall.... ie either nurdy, specialist, defunct, useless or a complete waste of space.

New sensor tech is on the way that will make FF pi55 cheap, and the world will want better, not 'crop'. Lenses will just have to catch up.

I'm talking proper kit here mind, not the laser eye implants that wifi to your iPad 9.1.1 (circa 2017)

[andy-xr]

4Lmike said:

...or do i save up for full frame? is it really worth the extra money?

I have a D700. I've not really used it since I bought the D7000 around 3 months ago, it's a very capable camera. I'm finding it craps out at ISO3200 really, so where the D700 you can just shoot at ISO5000 all day (er..night) the 7000 doesn't really have that ability.

[Beardy10]

Simpo Two said:

Beardy10 said:

Personally if I was you I would probably upgrade my glass to FX lenses (though you'll probably need a DX lens at the wide end for group shots)

The best arbiter of lens quality is not specifically DX or FX - though FXs throw a larger image and so when used on a DX camera it chops out the 'best bit'. My workhorse lens is the DX 17-55mm f2.8 and with a price tag of £1,000+ it's not shabby.

Too much wide angle for groups distorts the end figures, but 17mm copes well when I'm crammed into a roomfull of preening bridesmaids, and for most interiors.

Yes...sorry what I meant by that is tha of the OP wants to go FF some time in the future he is better off buying FX lenses now. I know the 17-55 is suppose to be a cracking piece of kit

[RobDickinson]

No point buying the wrong focal range now for a camera you may never own.

Not like its difficult to buy/sell used lenses.