Considering a new DSLR... (now own a D600 - next: other discussions)

[destrekor]

[Click Here to jump to latest discussion section: all about software]

And I want to make this as serious as possible:

I expect it could be a bit of a financial hit. But I might be able to cover most through the sale of a car (short version: grandma died, dad is getting her Civic, I get his '04 Sebring, I ditch my '97 Dakota).

I figure I want a damn good DSLR, but not yet gunning for the break-the-bank top-level Professional models.

Am I aiming too high for the Nikon D7100 (dropping this month) ?

I'm curious to see what impact the removal of the Optical Low-Pass Filter will have on final image quality, and how hard (or easy) it is to produce negative results with moire visible.

I'd so much rather a Full-Frame sensor, but I'm beginning to wonder if it will really be that big of a deal. If I focus on the right lenses, they'd be compatible if I ever move to a FX body (with same lens mount, of course). I mainly intended for an affordable FX body to utilize my current lenses from my old Nikon film SLR. While they produce some decent photos (a photography teacher was impressed), they are Tamron lenses and thus won't do for professional work. So, my only true NEED to go Full Frame, and Nikon to boot, is no longer even a concern.

Lens considerations:
- wide-angle (not necessarily fisheye) - thinking 14-16mm equivalent? Perhaps with zoom range, perhaps fixed.
- 50mm lens (which is what, roughly 75mm equivalent?)
- perhaps a 28-80 or thereabouts lens
- I loved having a 70-300mm lens (with macro ability, by means of a physical switch on my Tamron), and would love a similar Nikkor lens. This can easily cost more than a Nikon D600 or D800, so... a modest lens.


Should I be looking elsewhere? As in, certain specific Canon or Sony models?

The actual image quality is a HUGE decision factor: whatever I'm paying, it's not necessarily about the bells and whistles (100 AF points as opposed to 20; a billion MPs as opposed to 15MP). I wouldn't want a 5MP Pro SLR, simply because the sensor quality (as in color accuracy, white balance, noise, etc...) has improved so much.

Looking at DPreview, it seems the D7000 has excellent IQ compared to competing models and significant improvements over older generation Nikon models. Since it can be had a few hundred dollars cheaper now that the D7100 is almost here, I AM considering that model too... but the D7100 might offer enough to justify a little more.


End point: at first, I'd be using it for "fun" to simply get acquainted with a DSLR (I LOVE film, and still want a film Medium or Large format ), and to give myself some ammo to chew through in the digital darkroom and familiarizing myself with digital tools.

But I'd be preparing for indoors and architectural photography (maybe make a whitebox for product photography), and really start reaching out for professional work (real estate, for instance).

The other things I'd need, would be both a hot-shoe flash (with filter) and some wireless flash units for scene lighting.
I think, as I get closer to a purchase decision, I'll be reaching out to nearby photographers or companies that do real estate photography, and seek out employment or suggestions to put the right foot forward.

If I do that before I purchase the equipment, I'd show off my better examples from film - and if I wait until after I purchase, I'd just take the effort to do some similar shots wherever to build up a sample portfolio of sorts.


Thoughts, on all of that?


[edit: turning this into a D7100 v D600 thread, as that is ultimately the decision I am looking to make.]
[edit2: got the D600 + other goodies]

 

[arrfep]

I think you're overthinking. IMO:

Image quality has reached parity across all models, for 95% of users. If, as you say, you are starting from scratch and you truly believe you will find paying architectural work in the next two years, I'd go with Nikon. Dynamic Range of theirs current sensors, and ability to lift shadows w/o causing noise or banding is significantly ahead of Canon.

Their 14-24 is highly regarded as the best UWA zoom available. Pricey, but would be worth it for professional work. But, of course, on a crop body you're going to lose most of what makes it special, since it becomes a 21-36mm on DX.

BUT, the Tokina 11-16 for crop bodies gets just as much praise. Incidentally, I think you're letting internet armchair critics sway you a little too much (yes, I see the irony in me stating that) because plenty of Tamron/Tokina/Sigma lenses are professional quality. Sigma currently makes the best 35mm AF prime available and arguably one the best 85mm primes, and the Tamron 17-50, 28-75, and 90mm macro are all highly praised. Ooh and the recently released Tammy 24-70 VC is supposed to be just as good as the CaNikon offerings, at half the price. Plus built in image stabilization.

Anywaaaaaay. If architecture is your thing, I would suggest going full frame. D7100 is going to retail at what $1200. You can find nearly new or refurbished D600 bodies all day long for $1700 or less. What you'll gain on the wide end will be worth it. If you really eventually want full frame, and you can swing the difference in $$, there's no reason to not just get it right now. By the time you buy the D7100, use it for a few months, then sell it and lose money, you won't end up that far from the cost of a D600.

Alternatively, you could go with Canon. Refurb 5D Mark IIs for $1400. While, yes, Canon sensor tech is behind, it's kind of like a Lamborghini losing in a race to a Ferrari. You're still going to get some of the most mind-boggling image quality available. There's a reason it spent such a long time being such a hot seller. Additional pro to going Canon is that their lenses tend to be cheaper across the board, and they have a larger selection. The 100-400L would fill the zoom requirement you're looking for, at a very reasonable price.

Anyway I'm sure I only confused you more, so the Cliffs are: anything you buy right now will give you great image quality. If you can swing it, go full frame now.

 

[destrekor]

I think you're overthinking. IMO:

Image quality has reached parity across all models, for 95% of users. If, as you say, you are starting from scratch and you truly believe you will find paying architectural work in the next two years, I'd go with Nikon. Dynamic Range of theirs current sensors, and ability to lift shadows w/o causing noise or banding is significantly ahead of Canon.

Their 14-24 is highly regarded as the best UWA zoom available. Pricey, but would be worth it for professional work. But, of course, on a crop body you're going to lose most of what makes it special, since it becomes a 21-36mm on DX.

BUT, the Tokina 11-16 for crop bodies gets just as much praise. Incidentally, I think you're letting internet armchair critics sway you a little too much (yes, I see the irony in me stating that) because plenty of Tamron/Tokina/Sigma lenses are professional quality. Sigma currently makes the best 35mm AF prime available and arguably one the best 85mm primes, and the Tamron 17-50, 28-75, and 90mm macro are all highly praised. Ooh and the recently released Tammy 24-70 VC is supposed to be just as good as the CaNikon offerings, at half the price. Plus built in image stabilization.

Anywaaaaaay. If architecture is your thing, I would suggest going full frame. D7100 is going to retail at what $1200. You can find nearly new or refurbished D600 bodies all day long for $1700 or less. What you'll gain on the wide end will be worth it. If you really eventually want full frame, and you can swing the difference in $$, there's no reason to not just get it right now. By the time you buy the D7100, use it for a few months, then sell it and lose money, you won't end up that far from the cost of a D600.

Alternatively, you could go with Canon. Refurb 5D Mark IIs for $1400. While, yes, Canon sensor tech is behind, it's kind of like a Lamborghini losing in a race to a Ferrari. You're still going to get some of the most mind-boggling image quality available. There's a reason it spent such a long time being such a hot seller. Additional pro to going Canon is that their lenses tend to be cheaper across the board, and they have a larger selection. The 100-400L would fill the zoom requirement you're looking for, at a very reasonable price.

Anyway I'm sure I only confused you more, so the Cliffs are: anything you buy right now will give you great image quality. If you can swing it, go full frame now.

I've always accepted that Nikon lenses (the premium lenses, at least) are just about the best there is - but at more affordable pricing, others can step up.

Looking at wide angle Nikon lenses, I can buy another camera body for most of those prices.


And no, you haven't confused me one bit. You confirmed what a lot of my gut and internet research was saying - Nikon has some great digital sensors at this time, and amazing lenses.

But yeah, one thing I definitely need to do is start researching other lenses. As I was looking at wide angle, I was sort of reaching that conclusion anyhow. Price and limited selection (that still works great for DX format) kind of demand looking elsewhere. I'll have to see what the third-parties have come up with recently.
As I said - myself, and a professional eye, were happy with the photo quality I produced using my Nikon N65 and Tamron lenses.

I just don't know about Full Frame. I'd rather not go with refurb or used camera bodies. My N65 was refurbed (I think, otherwise it was used), and while a refurb can mean it simply sat on a demo shelf for a year then was returned to manufacturer, it can also mean other issues. I think the shutter was starting to have issues.

I know, for architecture, fish-eye can create some wonderful imagery (10mm), but for real estate I'd likely refrain from that extreme. 14 or 16mm equivalent should be extremely versatile. However, does using a 10mm "fisheye" lens on a DX crop sensor typically produce any distortion issues? Or, is that not the case for a GOOD lens? Or, just not at all?

But an FX body - I don't know if one would necessarily be in my future. If I get a DX body now and can produce professional photos for whatever purpose, I may just keep at it that way. And since the lower cost of entry would enable me to spend more on lenses, that might lead to better overall photo quality to start with. If I truly am successful, I could purchase another body later. Ideally, if I reach that level, I should have two camera bodies anyhow and the income of a successful photographer would make that a regular business expense.

 

[blastingcap]

DSLRwise I'd go Nikon all the way unless you are into long telephoto (astronomy photographs, etc.), in which case I'd go with Canon's more affordable long lenses. Canon has been stuck at the same fab tech for eons, no matter how much denial Canon shooters may be in about it. 500nm is 500nm. Others are at 180nm and even 90nm sensor tech now (Sony, Toshiba). The better lenses are expensive but can last a long time, and you can get a lot of their value back if you sell them later.

A D7100 is a fine body if it lives up to its specs. It's got pro-level AF and the only thing that keeps it from being a pro body is the non-fully-metal-clad construction and the relatively tame buffer (6 shots, or 7 with 1.3x crop mode). You can always switch to FX later and keep your lenses if you choose FX lenses wisely, as you said.

 

[gevorg]

if you go with DX, the latest Tokina 11-16/2.8 is a great bang for your buck UWA

 

[randomrogue]

Nothing wrong with going DX. However I'd only get FX glass. I suppose you could make one exception for the wide angle lens but at that point haven't you kind of defeated the purpose of spending less money on the DX camera to spend more money on lenses? If you go FX in the future (and I wouldn't be surprised if you did) are you prepared to buy another wide angle lens? The Tokina 11-16 is $600. The Nikon 10-24 is $800. You'll also want to think about which aperture you want on these lenses. I wanted F2.8 so I could do some astrophotography.

Have a D600 with a Tokina 16-28. It's almost as good as the Nikon 14-24 but costs $750 instead of $2000. If you don't need the extra 2mm on the wide end it's an amazing lens. Suddenly DX didn't look so enticing to me and the switch was easy.

50mm on a DX lens to me is a portrait lens. This will of course be personal preference but on my DX camera I used my 35mm as a walk-around and it was good but just a bit too tight. Same thing with 50mm on a FX. Ideally I would want the new Sigma 35mm on my D600 and I think that would be pretty amazing as a walk-around. Others like using the 28mm but I think that's too wide.

So back to which camera. Although you could make do with a D5200 and be very happy with the IQ, I would go for the D7100 hands down if I was going DX. Full frame though is very enticing. The D600 really opens up a new possibility. Would I get it if I was you? Well evaluate your real uses. The D600 is going to give you shallower depth of field. It's also going to be the better camera in low light. I shoot mostly in low light and wanted the least amount of noise with the most DR and IQ. I definitely got that. If you're going to be shooting in good light though the benefits to FX drop off quite a bit. I doubt anyone would be able to tell the difference in pictures.

Flash wise I got a SB700. Before going out to buy a flashgun make sure you know what you're going to use it for. If you need the punch of a bigger flash get it right away. I'd also get an off camera cable right away. I can trigger my flash in commander mode but the cable makes things easier with line of sight. The D5200 doesn't have a built in commander mode so this alone would be a reason to step it up if you plan on using a flash.

 

[destrekor]

So, with the Tokina 11-16mm DX glass, is it TRULY 11-16mm when used on a DX body?

That's one thing I've been having a hard time figuring out: what actual focal length will I get with a DX body when using a particular lens? I've been seeing many "DX" lenses but in the description (at adorama or bhphoto) seems to describe a different focal length, with the numbers printed on the lens body actually being the FX/35mm equivalent.

But I've seen nothing of that for that Tokina lens.

A review of it does point out minor barrel distortion (especially at 11mm, though it is very minor) and some chromatic aberrations. Which is actually the kind of thing that had me looking at Nikkor lens off the bat, because I knew many third-party lenses have this issue for their UWA glass. Although, I don't know if Canon or Nikon are completely devoid of those issues or not. And real world, without blowing up a print super large, it's probably difficult to spot.


As for body:
yeah, that's ultimately the biggest challenge here. There's still a decent price difference between the D7100 and D600. I'd rather a full frame just so I never have to even think about focal length differences.

(is FX better in low light because the pixels are physically larger?)

If I go with the D7100 (most likely), should I go body-only or get the package deal which has an 18-105mm VR lens? Or is it better to put that $400 toward a different lens?

 

[Syborg1211]

So, with the Tokina 11-16mm DX glass, is it TRULY 11-16mm when used on a DX body?

That's one thing I've been having a hard time figuring out: what actual focal length will I get with a DX body when using a particular lens? I've been seeing many "DX" lenses but in the description (at adorama or bhphoto) seems to describe a different focal length, with the numbers printed on the lens body actually being the FX/35mm equivalent.

But I've seen nothing of that for that Tokina lens.

A review of it does point out minor barrel distortion (especially at 11mm, though it is very minor) and some chromatic aberrations. Which is actually the kind of thing that had me looking at Nikkor lens off the bat, because I knew many third-party lenses have this issue for their UWA glass. Although, I don't know if Canon or Nikon are completely devoid of those issues or not. And real world, without blowing up a print super large, it's probably difficult to spot.


As for body:
yeah, that's ultimately the biggest challenge here. There's still a decent price difference between the D7100 and D600. I'd rather a full frame just so I never have to even think about focal length differences.

(is FX better in low light because the pixels are physically larger?)

If I go with the D7100 (most likely), should I go body-only or get the package deal which has an 18-105mm VR lens? Or is it better to put that $400 toward a different lens?

All SLR lenses are spec'd for 35mm. So the Tokina 11-16mm will have to be multiplied by a DX crop factor of 1.5 for Nikon. One thing to note is that the Tokina actually works at 14-16mm on a full frame camera pretty darn well. If you're looking at D7000 and up, you don't need the new Tokina with the built in AF motor. You can get the older one for less money.


Do you really plan on going FX? Why not start off with it then? As others have mentioned the price difference between a D7100 and D600 isn't monumental in the grand scheme of FX lenses and such. If you can drop the idea of going FX, then there are plenty of awesome DX lenses available. I'm not recommending you do give up FX, but I'm just making a point. Lenses made for DX are smaller and easier to handle than FX lenses with the same image quality across the smaller area of the DX sensor. I've recently made the jump to FX and the size of these lenses is a bit daunting. The 70-200 is a monster!

FX is better in low light because the sensor is bigger. Bigger sensors can gather more light in a fixed amount of time.

 

[destrekor]

All SLR lenses are spec'd for 35mm. So the Tokina 11-16mm will have to be multiplied by a DX crop factor of 1.5 for Nikon. One thing to note is that the Tokina actually works at 14-16mm on a full frame camera pretty darn well. If you're looking at D7000 and up, you don't need the new Tokina with the built in AF motor. You can get the older one for less money.


Do you really plan on going FX? Why not start off with it then? As others have mentioned the price difference between a D7100 and D600 isn't monumental in the grand scheme of FX lenses and such. If you can drop the idea of going FX, then there are plenty of awesome DX lenses available. I'm not recommending you do give up FX, but I'm just making a point. Lenses made for DX are smaller and easier to handle than FX lenses with the same image quality across the smaller area of the DX sensor. I've recently made the jump to FX and the size of these lenses is a bit daunting. The 70-200 is a monster!

FX is better in low light because the sensor is bigger. Bigger sensors can gather more light in a fixed amount of time.

I think technically, it is indeed pixel size.

The whole sensor itself doesn't pick up light, it's the individual pixels. The smaller each sensor pixel gets, the less light it can drink in.

They had that talk about the upcoming HTC One, which has 2µm (or roughly) pixels, compared to most phone sensors having around 1µ.
The D7000 has 4.8µm pixels, the D7100 has 3.9µm, and the D600 has 5.96µm.

The D7100 and D600 are a great comparison, because they have essentially the same amount of pixels (24.1 vs 24.3MP). The larger sensor of the D600 means each pixel is definitely larger. Thus, it has more surface area to capture light.

In fact, using those numbers, I wouldn't doubt if the D7100 is a little worse in low-light settings compared to the D7000.
But does the removal of the optical filter improve light intake, at all? I don't know if that filter blocks any light at all (the D7100 is the first model from Nikon to go without it).

The surface area of the sensor itself, I don't imagine, really has anything to do with it. Just typically, a byproduct of that is larger pixels.
If Nikon made a FX sensor with the same 3.9µm pixel size (should be around 36MP for FX sensor at roughly 4µm), I wonder if the overall performance would be almost exactly the same as that pixel size on a smaller sensor.

Other things, like how much of an area of the lens gets captured by the sensor, come into play too, I reckon.


edit:
as far as cost - it's fairly monumental considering this is all part of the initial upfront gamble on being able to recoup any of it (the plan) - if I can't, it could cause a bit of pain both short and long-term.
But, like gambling on a new small business venture, it's an acceptable risk imho.

I really, really am trying to convince myself the D600 is what I need. I'm trying to consider overall IQ of large prints, for example.
And like I always reasoned, larger formats are always better. Going into digital, I never wanted to consider anything less than Full Frame. Hell, if I was rich, I'd already own a digital medium and/or large format. (with film too, of course)
Going smaller than my 35mm camera is something I never once considered.
But Full Frame cameras have not been as common as I anticipated by this time, and manufacturers are slow to introduce newer models at lower prices.
The D600 does have an attractive price, all things considered, but $2000 is a decent step up from $1200. That's already one or two decent lenses. Considering I'll still need to actually pay for some quality software, and get some good lighting equipment, I know for sure I'd be approaching if not going over $3000-3500 up front if I get the D7100. By time I really get into it, I fully expect to be broaching $4000 as I get more lighting equipment and accessories, especially if I invest in any $1000+ lenses.

In interest of trying to keep total cost as low as reasonably possible, without sacrificing too much, I think I may have to accept a really good DX camera, at first.
And IF/WHEN I'm able to actually start making money on this investment, to the point it's a steady income, then I make bite the bullet on an FX body and either sell any DX-specific lenses and the body or just spend that much more to get more FX specific equipment. That's the nice thing about really good lenses - they don't lose too much value when you go to sell it used.

 

[randomrogue]

The Tokina 11-16 is 16.5-24 for 35mm equivalent.

It works better on the long end where a 70-300 (full frame lens) would be 105-450 on DX in 35 mm equivalent.

 

[destrekor]

The Tokina 11-16 is 16.5-24 for 35mm equivalent.

It works better on the long end where a 70-300 (full frame lens) would be 105-450 on DX in 35 mm equivalent.

Well yeah, it works wonders in the telephoto lens range. Free 1.5x teleconverter!

Unfortunately, it's terrible at the UWA end.

I'm trying to figure out if I could still work some magic at 16.5mm for interior shots. That should be wide enough...
I wouldn't be able to get as artsy by shooting at 11 or 13mm (especially using software to convert to a wider-format image without distortion, though the true fisheye image can be awesome too), but I'd know in the future it'd be something I'd look too.

 

[MrSquished]

16.5mm is plenty for good interior shots. Ultimately without a tilt-shift lens the amount of distortion you get going any wider will have a negative effect on your end results.

Keep in mind the real estate market is very tough to break into as a photographer. Realtors are cheap, it's very hard to get them to part with their money. Only a small percentage of realtors make the majority of good sales and so the target market is quite small.

 

[Syborg1211]

I think technically, it is indeed pixel size.

The whole sensor itself doesn't pick up light, it's the individual pixels. The smaller each sensor pixel gets, the less light it can drink in.

Damn... you're right! I wasn't thinking it through. I work with optical sensors and know that a larger photodiode means more light sensitivity so incorrectly made the connection that larger camera sensor means more sensitivity, but a photodiode is really just a single pixel in the camera world... that's what I get for surfing forums while at work lol

 

[blastingcap]

FX vs DX

larger, heavier, better wideangle support vs smaller, lighter, better telephoto (arguably) because AF coverage is broader across the image even though you could crop a FX shot to get a similar effect

FX also gets about 1 stop better performance than DX, all else equal, so an ISO 1600 image on FX may look more like ISO 800 on DX.

FX also gets smaller DoF possibilities, but I think small DoF is wildly overrated and something people coming up from p&s worship but real pros usually don't use paper-thin DoFs for most types of photography. Plus larger DoF is better for macro.

I could not justify FX for my own shooting. I take most shots in good light, so high-ISO advantage is not necessary, plus I have tripod and flash anyway, and truth be told my RX100 is my main camera in daytime now, and with its panorama mode I don't even have to stitch casual shots together anymore. I'm happy enough with my Sigma 10-20 ultrawide on DX. You might find better lenses for architecture built for FX and thus should pair it with an FX body, but you may want to think about it some more.

 

[destrekor]

16.5mm is plenty for good interior shots. Ultimately without a tilt-shift lens the amount of distortion you get going any wider will have a negative effect on your end results.

Keep in mind the real estate market is very tough to break into as a photographer. Realtors are cheap, it's very hard to get them to part with their money. Only a small percentage of realtors make the majority of good sales and so the target market is quite small.

Especially around here, I imagine there may be difficulty making a real career out of it. If it's a job or two once in a blue moon where I can build a portfolio for when I'm ready to move to a new region, that'd be fine with me, just as long as I can make something happen.

That's why I'd also try and market to other aspects of the photography world: product photography, or other marketing-relating photography; or perhaps even try to get contacts for photojournalism.

If I have the equipment and can slowly build up a portfolio filled with pro-level photographs, I think I can make something happen.

And I'm not abandoning the art aspect either, so perhaps supplemental income can come from that (not banking on that in the least); landscapes, cityscapes, other architectural imagery... those were always my preferred subjects.

Damn... you're right! I wasn't thinking it through. I work with optical sensors and know that a larger photodiode means more light sensitivity so incorrectly made the connection that larger camera sensor means more sensitivity, but a photodiode is really just a single pixel in the camera world... that's what I get for surfing forums while at work lol

But there's more too it!

The D800 has a 36MP FX sensor (as opposed to the 24MP FX sensor in the D600), and I don't think (may be wrong - haven't looked at the finer details) the D800 has worse IQ than the D600.

So much to consider, ugh.

 

[destrekor]

FX vs DX

larger, heavier, better wideangle support vs smaller, lighter, better telephoto (arguably) because AF coverage is broader across the image even though you could crop a FX shot to get a similar effect

FX also gets about 1 stop better performance than DX, all else equal, so an ISO 1600 image on FX may look more like ISO 800 on DX.

FX also gets smaller DoF possibilities, but I think small DoF is wildly overrated and something people coming up from p&s worship but real pros usually don't use paper-thin DoFs for most types of photography. Plus larger DoF is better for macro.

I could not justify FX for my own shooting. I take most shots in good light, so high-ISO advantage is not necessary, plus I have tripod and flash anyway, and truth be told my RX100 is my main camera in daytime now, and with its panorama mode I don't even have to stitch casual shots together anymore. I'm happy enough with my Sigma 10-20 ultrawide on DX. You might find better lenses for architecture built for FX and thus should pair it with an FX body, but you may want to think about it some more.

In Macro photography, I absolutely LOVE a shallow/small DoF, especially if the lens makes great bokeh. Actually, I think that would be absolutely preferred for most Macro photography.

For most imagery, sometimes people go overboard for whatever reason - sometimes it's not much understanding, perhaps lacking a tripod, and go with a wide aperture to ensure they can get a fast shutter (and some automatic modes will make that happen).

But in wide open areas, shots of indoors, buildings, landscapes, other scenes... small aperture large/deep DoF is necessary.


But were you saying Full Frame sensors are better able to achieve a shallower DoF? As in, an F/2.8 close-up using a DX body won't have the same DoF as a the same on an FX body?
I figure this may be intuitive, but my mind is elsewhere and doesn't feel like thinking about any kind of math or angles as they apply to the properties of light and optical lenses and projecting onto a plane of specific size, etc.

 

[AkumaX]

But were you saying Full Frame sensors are better able to achieve a shallower DoF? As in, an F/2.8 close-up using a DX body won't have the same DoF as a the same on an FX body?
I figure this may be intuitive, but my mind is elsewhere and doesn't feel like thinking about any kind of math or angles as they apply to the properties of light and optical lenses and projecting onto a plane of specific size, etc.

Yes, not only do you have to multiply the focal length to compensate for crop factor (1.5x), you have to do the same for aperture as well

example: 17-50mm f/2.8 on DX = 25.5-75mm ~f/3.8 on FX

so if you had a 24-70mm f/2.8 on FX, that's roughly equivalent to a theoretical 16-46.6mm f/2.2 lens on DX

 

[randomrogue]

DX and FX backwards in your post.

 

[blastingcap]

That's odd, most people struggle to get enough DoF in macro photography, going so far as to stack photos in post or buying special lights that mount on your lens or to use flash/strobes. But it depends on exactly what settings you're using and if it's only weakly macro you might have more DoF than you want.

Lenses NEVER CHANGE FOCAL LENGTH. Ever. A 100mm lens is a 100mm lens, period. Many lenses made in the film era, and FX lenses in the digital era, were made for 35mm aka FX sensors. (135mm film = FX = 35mm film. Same thing.)

DX is a smaller sensor than FX so it effectively crops out some of the image circle. The Nikon/Sony/Pentax crop factor is 1.5; Canon is 1.6. This cropping makes an optical illusion where it appears as if the lens were a longer focal length, if the photo had been taken by an FX camera. For instance a DX camera with 10mm lens takes photographs that appear to be as if taken with an FX camera with 15mm lens.

Apparent depth of field is also multiplied by the same crop factor (to a first approximation). So a 10mm f/1.0 lens on DX looks the same as a 15mm f/1.5 lens on FX.

FX is a little over twice as much surface area as DX, but that is only a little over 1 stop difference. It's not the ginormous difference some people make it out to be. Assuming same sensor technology (so not doing some ridiculous comparison like comparing a 2012 Sony sensor to a 2003 Canon sensor), it lets you go just one stop faster. One stop.

The biggest weakness of DX for architecture is not the low-light sensitivity, but rather how the crop factor castrates wideangle lenses. For instance, that awesome 20mm lens on FX is now a 30mm on DX... not very wide anymore. (Obviously the lens is still at 20mm but it APPEARS TO BE 30mm due to the DX crop factor, when you print the photos.) There are very few top-notch non-fisheye wideangle lenses with focal lengths below 14mm.

One thing you can do if you're patient btw is to get a top-notch fisheye lens and de-fish it in post-processing after the fact. Yes you will lose some corner resolution, and there may be leftover distortion that can't be corrected (which sucks for architecture), but I'm just throwing that out there as a possibility.

In Macro photography, I absolutely LOVE a shallow/small DoF, especially if the lens makes great bokeh. Actually, I think that would be absolutely preferred for most Macro photography.

For most imagery, sometimes people go overboard for whatever reason - sometimes it's not much understanding, perhaps lacking a tripod, and go with a wide aperture to ensure they can get a fast shutter (and some automatic modes will make that happen).

But in wide open areas, shots of indoors, buildings, landscapes, other scenes... small aperture large/deep DoF is necessary.


But were you saying Full Frame sensors are better able to achieve a shallower DoF? As in, an F/2.8 close-up using a DX body won't have the same DoF as a the same on an FX body?
I figure this may be intuitive, but my mind is elsewhere and doesn't feel like thinking about any kind of math or angles as they apply to the properties of light and optical lenses and projecting onto a plane of specific size, etc.

 

[destrekor]

That's odd, most people struggle to get enough DoF in macro photography, going so far as to stack photos in post or buying special lights that mount on your lens or to use flash/strobes. But it depends on exactly what settings you're using and if it's only weakly macro you might have more DoF than you want.

Am I confusing the terminology here?

I think every macro photo I have ever seen has had a very bokeh-heavy background, or otherwise very much out of focus.

Only the subject, and typically only some of a larger object, is in focus, every not the same distance is out of focus.

I do have limited macro experience...

is this about keeping a large object in complete focus, so thus requiring a little more range of distance/depth actually in focus... but due to the nature of the work, the background will typically still be out of focus, due to planning with better composition to ensure the background and foreground are far from the object's "middleground" ?

Say, keeping the whole flower/flower group in focus, as opposed to only part of a flower or only one flower?

 

[blastingcap]

Sorry, I was thinking bug scale when I was thinking macro but if it's a flower then you can get away with larger apertures.

Most bug-scale macro photos have blurred backgrounds--it's impossible to NOT have that if you are shooting macro and don't do any special tricks like stacking photos in post-processing.

Small DoF: most of the photo is out of focus

Large DoF: most of the photo is in focus

At some macro aperture-focal length-distance combos it can be a struggle to get all of your subject in focus. Light can be a challenge too if you are shooting at f/32 or something like that to try to get more DoF, that's not a lot of light being let in so people sometimes use flash or special light attachments to help with that.

It's not as hard to avoid DoF problems if you are shooting a flower or something relatively large like that. But once you get down into the tiny bugs scale, it's more challenging.

If you don't mind losing parts of your subject, you can get away with using relatively large apertures like f/8. Especially if you then crop the photo which artificially increases the perceived depth of field in the same way going from FX to DX artificially increases the perceived depth of field, so that f/8 might appear to be more like f/16 after cropping.

If you want to read more, see: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3064907237/depth-of-field-in-macro-photography (see page 2 of that article for some more info)

Am I confusing the terminology here?

I think every macro photo I have ever seen has had a very bokeh-heavy background, or otherwise very much out of focus.

Only the subject, and typically only some of a larger object, is in focus, every not the same distance is out of focus.

I do have limited macro experience...

is this about keeping a large object in complete focus, so thus requiring a little more range of distance/depth actually in focus... but due to the nature of the work, the background will typically still be out of focus, due to planning with better composition to ensure the background and foreground are far from the object's "middleground" ?

Say, keeping the whole flower/flower group in focus, as opposed to only part of a flower or only one flower?

 

[MrSquished]

for the styles of photography you are shooting, you may want to consider micro four thirds - a panny GH3 or an olympus OM-D EM-5. i shot these two properties with my OM-D.

http://www.pixelsquish.com/portfolio/real-estate/

shooting another one this weekend

You have some fine lenses for product photography as well as 2 macro choices (Oly 60mm and Panny Leica 45mm). For photography that you will be out and about for, the MFT kit is far more enjoyable to carry around. For street shooting it's far less obtrusive than a DSLR so people tend to act more naturally around you.

I really am not sure what is the holy grail of Full Frame. It's just a format and it's really not inherently better than APS-C or MFT for a lot of styles of photography.

 

[destrekor]

Sorry, I was thinking bug scale when I was thinking macro but if it's a flower then you can get away with larger apertures.

Most bug-scale macro photos have blurred backgrounds--it's impossible to NOT have that if you are shooting macro and don't do any special tricks like stacking photos in post-processing.

Small DoF: most of the photo is out of focus

Large DoF: most of the photo is in focus

At some macro aperture-focal length-distance combos it can be a struggle to get all of your subject in focus. Light can be a challenge too if you are shooting at f/32 or something like that to try to get more DoF, that's not a lot of light being let in so people sometimes use flash or special light attachments to help with that.

It's not as hard to avoid DoF problems if you are shooting a flower or something relatively large like that. But once you get down into the tiny bugs scale, it's more challenging.

If you don't mind losing parts of your subject, you can get away with using relatively large apertures like f/8. Especially if you then crop the photo which artificially increases the perceived depth of field in the same way going from FX to DX artificially increases the perceived depth of field, so that f/8 might appear to be more like f/16 after cropping.

If you want to read more, see: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3064907237/depth-of-field-in-macro-photography (see page 2 of that article for some more info)

Ah, it was as I figured once I reasoned it out.

The problem is actually probably magnified with flowers, because they are larger subjects than most bugs, though magnification is likely a fair bit less.
That link showed it quite well: the one with the mantis and flower. Photos of a flower like that are quite often just like that.

So what comes of this, is now I know what I'll need to do to combat it better. Macro, for me, was always kind of a "hey, my lens can do it - let's try it!" as opposed to specifically trying to track down the best subjects and macro opportunities.

 

[iGas]

Any used full frame body will do, and the Samyang ultra wide is a cheap alternative that is an amazingly sharp lens (high mustache distortion that is difficult to adjust for architecture, but more than good enough for landscape).

I own 5 lenses, and the Canon 50mm, and Samyang 14mm are not L lenses. And, IMHO, both lenses are just about as sharp as the L lenses that I have.

 

[blastingcap]

for the styles of photography you are shooting, you may want to consider micro four thirds - a panny GH3 or an olympus OM-D EM-5. i shot these two properties with my OM-D.

http://www.pixelsquish.com/portfolio/real-estate/

shooting another one this weekend

You have some fine lenses for product photography as well as 2 macro choices (Oly 60mm and Panny Leica 45mm). For photography that you will be out and about for, the MFT kit is far more enjoyable to carry around. For street shooting it's far less obtrusive than a DSLR so people tend to act more naturally around you.

I really am not sure what is the holy grail of Full Frame. It's just a format and it's really not inherently better than APS-C or MFT for a lot of styles of photography.

While OP seems to be aiming at indoor arch work, I would not recommend M43 for serious architectural work--the kind where you need lines to be straight. Most M43 lenses have high distortion, but you don't see it because they cook their RAW files. This means edge and corner resolution drops significantly as the lines get straightened out in software. See, e.g., http://www.photozone.de/olympus--four-thirds-lens-tests/530-pana_714_4?start=1

Further, many serious arch shooters use tripods for obvious reasons, and that is already so bulky that you might as well go all the way and get a larger-sensored, larger-lensed camera.