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

[destrekor]

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.

Yep.

Bulk is in no way something I am considering.

And aside from any brand lens issues, my main consideration is sensor size. I'll go no smaller than Nikon DX format (or, perhaps, any variation of APS-C), as there are going to be certain constraints.

I'd even plan on getting the battery pack grip, both for extra battery and, err, grip purposes.

And considering the addition of different lenses, and tripod (which, considering I don't care about including humans unless I go the photojournalism route, is likely something I'd have on me most times). If going for other planned shots, like home interiors, I'd be aiming for additional lighting equipment, as opposed to relying heavily on HDR.

Or perhaps just a TOUCH of HDR. A little punch does help catch and grab the eye, but when I see halo fringing between light and dark areas, I shudder. GOOD HDR you can hardly tell.
Well executed interior shots don't demand it - and with the right lighting from outside (if windows are in the picture) there is a certain time of day (season/weather depending) where the color will pop that much more.

 

[MrSquished]

it is incorrect to say m43 lenses are inherently worse. the panny 7-14mm is regarded as a pro level ultrawide angle, for example, very sharp center, edges and corners.

the one thing is a tilt shift lens, if you are that serious about architectural photography that is an expensive but unparalleled investment, and that would require an APS-C or FF camera in the Canikon world.

OP I believe you are incorrect about HDR and real estate photography that it's perhaps or probably not needed. I did extensive reading on RE photography, good HDR workflow is a must to shoot high end properties if you want to get gigs. Sure HDR can be done badly as you pointed out, but that is more user error where people's PP work sucks, and they end up making things look like cartoons. But with todays software if you learn correctly you can do HDR much better.

It's a must for high end properties because the view outside the windows is often a huge selling point - you can go for multiple flashes and lights as well to get the interior exposed properly while also preserving the views outside, but again you are now talking about a lot more added expense and time of buying themfirst of all, and setting up lights for each room and another learning curve. plus in some spaces there isn't always the room to put lights that won't get in the shot. HDR should be a skill-set in your repertroire to do RE shooting. RE shooting is highly competitive - time is money, if you are spending that much more time setting up more lighting rather than do a quick bracket, do the math. And if you are going to work for a company paying you by property or by the hour, take a guess at what they probably want you to have in your repertoire. I wouldn't dismiss it AFAIK.

This is from reading a lot on the RE subject, I may have interpreted the info wrong, but it seemed pretty straightforward.

My main point is that bulk and weight is a consideration to think about for most people and even if not, just coming out and saying that nothing smaller than APS-C is even worthy of being considered for certain kinds of shooting is just not true anymore. Pros that have started checking out MFT have started to say as much for their shooting besides Sports & Wildlife.

It's wonderful to have dreams about becoming a pro photographer for all these things but those fields are extremely tough to break into, and at the same time, a lot of great pro work is indeed done without lugging around a massive setup every time. And if the object is also to enjoy photography as a hobby at the same time, eventually for many photographers, the weight and amount of equipment you lug around becomes directly correlated to how often you have it all with you, and how often you shoot because of it. And setting up a tripod for every shot when there are other options will also start to limit you timewise for example.

The GH3 IQ is rated as high or higher than I think every other Canon APS-C out there. The same APS-C cameras people have been using for pro work for years now. I find it amusing that people instantly dismiss MFT as not an option for serious enthusiast photography with a possibility to go pro for some things. It's just not true anymore to have that attitude, people get the wrong idea.

Besides for sports and fast wildlife wihere Continuous AF is key, that is where the Phase Detect of DSLR's is a distinct advantage and i would only consider a DSLR if that was my shooting focus, and discount MFT.

Of course it's your call to consider all formats or not for your personal needs, just the perception it implies is incorrect.

 

[randomrogue]

For real estate you'll have a tripod. To not do HDR would be a big mistake. First of all at the most basic level you could do the built in HDR that I think all new cameras have. Next up would be taking one single raw file and utilizing the incredibly high DR that these new cameras have to do a single raw HDR. After that would be pushing the bracket button, taking 3 images and simply doing it in photoshop. Anything less today is not even professional and your competition will make you look bad.

 

[destrekor]

Argh.

I wish full reviews would start dropping now.
There are some nice improvements in features to favor this over the D600, but then there is the FX v. DX debate.

With the increased resolution of the D7100 (versus D7000, and higher pixel density over D600), it will demand better glass.

Can anyone help with the DX versus standard Nikon glass? DX glass is no-go on FX body, I got that (or, did I read wrong?). And, from what I can tell, there aren't any drawbacks to using FX glass on a DX body, is there?

If using a DX lens marked as 18mm, does it have a different FOV than a standard 18mm lens when used on a DX sensor?
I understand that yes, focal length doesn't technically change - using smaller sensors just means you actually crop the final image and thus for the same size print it just tricks the viewer into thinking it's from a different focal length... it wouldn't actually match the overall scene/depth/details produced by the longer focal length, correct? Putting that into words seems extremely complicated and appears to be why everyone just says its equivalent to a longer focal length when a crop sensor is used.

Aside from lens cost differences, is there any point to buy DX glass for a DX body? If I buy a DX body today, I'd probably prefer buying regular lenses, 1) for the likelihood of better results, and 2) for the ability to use on an FX body if I make the upgrade and/or ever buy into the concept of having two camera bodies (if I can make a living on this, I probably would).

Part of the concern about DX glass is getting back to the topic of UWA focal lengths.

But $800 difference between two camera bodies means less I can put into accessories, lenses, lighting equipment, etc. Versus later, if I win on this gamble, I'd be able to afford the loss of selling this body and buying the more expensive body (if not a greatly more expensive body, like the D800 or a newer model, or hell, a D4-level body), or even just buying such outright without selling the first body bought... while if I lose on this gamble, I didn't lose as much as I could have.

 

[elitejp]

A full frame camera always produces better results than a crop. The only thing a crop has going for it is reach and price.

If you like shooting wildlife or birds etc than crop is generally better since it makes whatever lens you put on the camera seemingly longer. So a 400mm lens on a full frame gives you a field of view of 600mm on Nikons crop. Some people say its more pixals on target. You can argue the semantics all you want but crop gives more reach else countless people who shoot birds wouldnt be using crop cameras.

Secondly, the technology for crop cameras has done very well and seemingly can produce results very similar to a full frame for a cheaper price.

But just to reiterate a full frame is going to give you a better picture and can handle higher iso better. If you have the money the d600 or d800 are a better choice.

 

[elitejp]

With the increased resolution of the D7100 (versus D7000, and higher pixel density over D600), it will demand better glass.

I dont really think thats true. Better glass on eithor a crop or full frame will produce better pics regardless of megapixels.

Can anyone help with the DX versus standard Nikon glass? DX glass is no-go on FX body, I got that (or, did I read wrong?). And, from what I can tell, there aren't any drawbacks to using FX glass on a DX body, is there?

No drawbacks

If using a DX lens marked as 18mm, does it have a different FOV than a standard 18mm lens when used on a DX sensor?
I understand that yes, focal length doesn't technically change - using smaller sensors just means you actually crop the final image and thus for the same size print it just tricks the viewer into thinking it's from a different focal length... it wouldn't actually match the overall scene/depth/details produced by the longer focal length, correct? Putting that into words seems extremely complicated and appears to be why everyone just says its equivalent to a longer focal length when a crop sensor is used. Can anyone help with the DX versus standard Nikon glass? DX glass is no-go on FX body, I got that (or, did I read wrong?). And, from what I can tell, there aren't any drawbacks to using FX glass on a DX body, is there?

People argue like crazy over the semantics of this. But easily understood any lens you put on a dx camera will give you a field of view 1.5x greater than Nikons full frame. So for your 18mm dx lens example you still need to multiply it by 1.5 which makes it effectively a 27mm lens.

Aside from lens cost differences, is there any point to buy DX glass for a DX body? If I buy a DX body today, I'd probably prefer buying regular lenses, 1) for the likelihood of better results, and 2) for the ability to use on an FX body if I make the upgrade and/or ever buy into the concept of having two camera bodies (if I can make a living on this, I probably would).

Wide angle Fx lenses wont be ultra wide for the crop cameras but are plenty wide for the full frame. So lens manufacturers made extra wide angle mm lenses for crop to be able to get wide angle shots comparable to a full frame camera.
Every lens performs differently and a fx lens wont perform better than a dx. Neither will a dx perform better than a fx.

Part of the concern about DX glass is getting back to the topic of UWA focal lengths.

Not an issue. Lens manufacturers produce lenses that will be just as wide on a crop as whats available for a full frame.

But $800 difference between two camera bodies means less I can put into accessories, lenses, lighting equipment, etc. Versus later, if I win on this gamble, I'd be able to afford the loss of selling this body and buying the more expensive body (if not a greatly more expensive body, like the D800 or a newer model, or hell, a D4-level body), or even just buying such outright without selling the first body bought... while if I lose on this gamble, I didn't lose as much as I could have.

A decision that can only be made by you. Most dependent on your financial state and what you may need to give up to buy this item.

On a personal note when I was first getting into this and studying it seemed everyone would tell me I had to buy the most expensive gear. 500 dollar tripods, 600 dollar flash, must have the grip, must have a couple of prime lenses and then a walk-around and a telephoto. My recommendation is take it slow. Start off with a walkaround lens 24-70/24-105 etc and then see what you shoot more of, on the wide end or on the long end. Then you can determine where to spend money. Of course its always nice if you dont have to buy a sell your lenses and can get it all right the first time.

 

[randomrogue]

I agree with starting it slow. However if I could have done it all over again I wouldn't have started as slow as I did. At the very least get a D7x00. Getting the D5x00 series is fine if you're not that serious but if you're in here asking lots of questions and looking forward to lots of photography Get the D7x00 series at the very least. If you already know that you're a low light/high ISO shooter though you should seriously look at FX if you can afford it. If you're shooting mostly on the wide end I would lean even more towards FX. The best wide angle glass is for FX. This might be personal preference though unless you require a 14-24 but to me spending that much money on DX only UWA glass made no sense. Don't buy glass though unless you know you need it. If you're not sure then using something as simple as a kit lens and taking note of your most used focal lengths makes sense.

As far as tripods, I hate to admit it, but you really do need to spend a decent amount of money to get a good tripod. I was willing to make a sacrafice on weight but if you want lightweight, stable, the right height, and other features like a good center support you'll need to spend a fair penny and it's really cheaper to do it upfront.

 

[destrekor]

I agree with starting it slow. However if I could have done it all over again I wouldn't have started as slow as I did. At the very least get a D7x00. Getting the D5x00 series is fine if you're not that serious but if you're in here asking lots of questions and looking forward to lots of photography Get the D7x00 series at the very least. If you already know that you're a low light/high ISO shooter though you should seriously look at FX if you can afford it. If you're shooting mostly on the wide end I would lean even more towards FX. The best wide angle glass is for FX. This might be personal preference though unless you require a 14-24 but to me spending that much money on DX only UWA glass made no sense. Don't buy glass though unless you know you need it. If you're not sure then using something as simple as a kit lens and taking note of your most used focal lengths makes sense.

As far as tripods, I hate to admit it, but you really do need to spend a decent amount of money to get a good tripod. I was willing to make a sacrafice on weight but if you want lightweight, stable, the right height, and other features like a good center support you'll need to spend a fair penny and it's really cheaper to do it upfront.

I could never argue with the comments about tripods.

It's been awhile, and I hadn't needed to use one for a ton of work, but I think I had one or two cheap ones I went through. One was simply bad, basically falling apart pretty quick when trying to utilize it on sand after minimal use beforehand. I can't remember if I killed the second cheap one I bought or not, but if I didn't it was still not exactly all that great.

A strong, quality, heavy-duty highly-adjustable tripod (that, due to all of that, can be used just about literally anywhere you can physically go yourself), I can guarantee won't be cheap, and I haven't even looked at such yet. I've seen the ones advertised for hundreds of dollars, but haven't actually shopped and researched such just yet.
That, and external lighting equipment, is on the agenda as the next items to research. First is camera, lens research happening simultaneously.

This might be personal preference though unless you require a 14-24 but to me spending that much money on DX only UWA glass made no sense. Don't buy glass though unless you know you need it.

Now, when you say that, it's skimming the question I posed and I'd really love some clarification.

When you speak of DX-only UWA glass, what difference does THAT have compared to general (FX) UWA glass?
I really want to work with UWA (especially important for architectural and interior work - handy for some landscape work), and yes FX is the way to go. But total cost is, of course, a limiter here. I'd spring for the D800 if I could.

So yes, I know that some benefits of a 12mm UWA lens (FX) will be lost on a DX body. But, would DX-specific glass help in this regard?

This is what I haven't seen clarified when shopping for glass. Does a 12mm DX lens on a DX body, produce the same visual scene as a 12mm "FX lens" on an FX body?
If so, as with most glass, at least a good lens will typically not lose much value (if cared for) when resold. So if I got a DX body and a DX UWA lens (where otherwise I would get good general/FX glass regardless of body type for future compatibility concerns, to avoid resale hassle), I wouldn't have to worry too much about losing a large amount of money on the deal.
As in, I should be able to buy a lens today for $800, and end up getting at least $500 a few years later. (could be wrong - I haven't looked at used prices in awhile)


For up front cost, it's a mix of what I'm looking for. I know that it's thoroughly better to pay for the right equipment on the first round, and is thus why I may not buy everything I am specifically look for right away. For instance, I might not buy any external lighting equipment for half a year - building up a solid portfolio and venturing into the landscape/urban art area is kind of a First Objective. I'll make what attempts I can to include in said portfolio good interior real estate work with the equipment on hand, but will probably avoid the portrait/interior set type lighting until I am actually trying to pick up stable work - first I need at least some credible portfolio work and some time getting to know the new DSLR, the digital photography scene itself, and ample time with the digital darkroom (thankfully, at least SOME physical dark room experience/skills can be transferred to the PC - and already having the PC skills also helps a lot I'd reckon ).

 

[randomrogue]

I don't have time for a long response. Yes I'm pretty sure that if you compare the equivalent focal lengths the image is identical. What you should do though is take a look at the DX UWA lenses. The good ones. Compare to the FX lenses. There are compromises to be made everywhere with wide angle so what meets your needs?

Nikon 10-24. Look at the aperture. It's 3.5-4.5. Does this meet your needs? On FX this is 15mm equivalent on the wide end which is good but I wanted F2.8.

Tokina 11-16mm. Now we have a F2.8 lens. A 16-24 mm lens on FX. This is a good lens and could fit my needs. I wanted something very sharp though and for the ultimate in sharp UWA you would need a Nikon 14-24 F2.8 for FX. At $2000 it's a bit much. I got the $750 Tokina 16-28 F2.8. It's sharper, has a few extra mm on the long end, and is pretty damn impressive.

There are a few other lenses to look at.

Nikon 12-24 F4. Too slow for my taste, a DX lens, and not wide enough. That's 18mm on FX. Might be good enough for many but it's a $1100 lens and not worth it to me.

Nikon 16-35 F4. Great focal range, FX, takes filters, extremely sharp. This is the lens you get if you don't need F2.8 on FX and want to take filters.

Samyang 14mm F2.8. For less than $400 you can get this lens and it's ridiculously sharp. One of the best bargains for FX but with a catch. It has some mustache distortion which is difficult to correct for. However if you wanted to get into UWA for cheap this is a great way to do it.

There's also the 17-35 F2.8 for FX but the price is $1500 so I don't think it's that great a deal.

 

[randomrogue]

Oh and if you use DX lenses on FX you'll get a circular type image with black around it. However with some of these zooms you can use the widest focal length on FX and be fine. I'm pretty sure the Tokina 11-16 will work at 16mm on FX but it is soft.

 

[destrekor]

Oh and if you use DX lenses on FX you'll get a circular type image with black around it. However with some of these zooms you can use the widest focal length on FX and be fine. I'm pretty sure the Tokina 11-16 will work at 16mm on FX but it is soft.

I get that using DX glass on FX body doesn't work.

I don't have time for a long response. Yes I'm pretty sure that if you compare the equivalent focal lengths the image is identical. What you should do though is take a look at the DX UWA lenses. The good ones. Compare to the FX lenses. There are compromises to be made everywhere with wide angle so what meets your needs?

Nikon 10-24. Look at the aperture. It's 3.5-4.5. Does this meet your needs? On FX this is 15mm equivalent on the wide end which is good but I wanted F2.8.

Tokina 11-16mm. Now we have a F2.8 lens. A 16-24 mm lens on FX. This is a good lens and could fit my needs. I wanted something very sharp though and for the ultimate in sharp UWA you would need a Nikon 14-24 F2.8 for FX. At $2000 it's a bit much. I got the $750 Tokina 16-28 F2.8. It's sharper, has a few extra mm on the long end, and is pretty damn impressive.

There are a few other lenses to look at.

Nikon 12-24 F4. Too slow for my taste, a DX lens, and not wide enough. That's 18mm on FX. Might be good enough for many but it's a $1100 lens and not worth it to me.

Nikon 16-35 F4. Great focal range, FX, takes filters, extremely sharp. This is the lens you get if you don't need F2.8 on FX and want to take filters.

Samyang 14mm F2.8. For less than $400 you can get this lens and it's ridiculously sharp. One of the best bargains for FX but with a catch. It has some mustache distortion which is difficult to correct for. However if you wanted to get into UWA for cheap this is a great way to do it.

There's also the 17-35 F2.8 for FX but the price is $1500 so I don't think it's that great a deal.

I guess I'm still confused, but I think I may get it.

Imagine the resulting image after using a 12mm lens on an FX body.

To get that EXACT SAME image, with the same framing, angle of view, FOV, DoF, etc... I'd thus need to use, what, an 8mm lens if on a DX body?
And more likely than not, said 8mm lens would HAVE to be a DX-only lens?

 

[randomrogue]

It all becomes obvious when you use the new FX cameras since they have built in crop modes.

So clearly with DX you would need a much smaller focal length to get the same field of view. What you're really dealing with is then sharpness, distortion, vignetting, and differences in aperture.

I've seen images of the Sigma 12-24 on FX and the distortion was pretty bad. It's still rectilnear[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] but it's really pushing it. [/FONT]It might be a bad example of what you're trying to ask. Hopefully the image up top explains it better though.

 

[MrSquished]

I get that using DX glass on FX body doesn't work.




I guess I'm still confused, but I think I may get it.

Imagine the resulting image after using a 12mm lens on an FX body.

To get that EXACT SAME image, with the same framing, angle of view, FOV, DoF, etc... I'd thus need to use, what, an 8mm lens if on a DX body?
And more likely than not, said 8mm lens would HAVE to be a DX-only lens?

the mm on a lens only affects the FOV from FF to a smaller sensor. FOV and angle of view are pretty much the same thing. everything else is not. so no, it does not change DOF and etc... it doesn't change your framing either. the photographer frames the shot each and every time.

DOF is not affected by the FOV on a per crop basis. yes wider angle shots have a bigger DOF than zooms, but that is across the board. so 16mm prime lens at f4 on an FF shooting the exact same thing on a 1.5x lens at 10mm at f4 the DOF is more affected differently by the sensor size, not the focal length differentiated by the crop factor.

an FF shot at f5.6 will provide one stop shallower DOF than an APS-C crop sensor will at the same framing, same FOV, perspective and same fstop. and an APS-C in turn will provide 1stop shallower DOF than an MFT sensor at the same framing, perspective, FOV and fstop. so, all other things being the same, a shot on an MFT lens at f2.8 will provide the same DOF as an APS-C 1 stop slower at f4 and the same as a FF at another stop slower at f5.6. so even though your 10mm APS-C shot is considered 16mm in FF, that alone is not affecting the DOF or anything else but the FOV.

both have plusses and minuses. sometimes razor thin DOF is preferred, other times the longer DOF requiring less light is great for other types of shooting.

all these equivalencies don't really matter if you are just thinking of them as numbers and don't know what FF really is. FF is just a common reference because that size was easily relateble to 35mm film.

UWA is great, but UWA is like 17mm-22mm on FF. you are like just obsessing over numbers, and it's not going to help you out - if there is a crop factor vs FF, that means no matter what, even if you have a 1mm lens in FF, an APS-C is going to have to go EVEN WIDER to get there. and that is concerning you. you are chasing a dragon. at some point you get diminishing returns - as the poster above pointed out, a 12mm FF rectlinear Ultra Ultra wide angle lens is not that good, it's so distorted beyond belief because to get that wide, so many compromises are made.

For landscapes and architectural work you don't need to chase that dragon. Good architectural work requires good lines. Past a certain point it's just silly looking. You are better off reading and learning about Tilt-Shift lenses if you really want to do high end looking architectural stuff than worry about 12mm on FF vs 8mm on an APS-C. and for general photography, you never need to go that wide. there are amazing lenses that cover the standard walkabout range for ALL MAJOR FORMATS out there.

for say product shooting in a controlled environment, lighting, etc... again, FF wont help you all that much if at all. you have the lighting so you can shoot at low ISO's NO PROBLEM and at low ISO's you will be hard pressed to tell any difference between an MFT, APS-C or FF shot with good glass. no real advantage. the differences lie more in camera features then, like say tethering or wifi, or what have you.

if you are shooting a lot of portraiture in low light and love love the shallowest DOF then yes, FF will help you, as I explained above about DOF and sensor size.

i had a 10-20 Sigma on my APS-C Canon. 16mm FF equivalent. It was PLENTY wide and good at that length. you need to start looking at pictures and relating these mm numbers to actual images.

 

[blastingcap]

Other than an easier time finding UWA lenses and FOV, I'm not sure FX has any advantage over DX when both are mounted on tripods and used for static shots like architecture. Set both on lowest possible ISO and let the camera take all the time it needs to snap a shot--it's on a tripod so handshake is a non-issue.

 

[destrekor]

the mm on a lens only affects the FOV from FF to a smaller sensor. FOV and angle of view are pretty much the same thing. everything else is not. so no, it does not change DOF and etc... it doesn't change your framing either. the photographer frames the shot each and every time.

DOF is not affected by the FOV on a per crop basis. yes wider angle shots have a bigger DOF than zooms, but that is across the board. so 16mm prime lens at f4 on an FF shooting the exact same thing on a 1.5x lens at 10mm at f4 the DOF is more affected differently by the sensor size, not the focal length differentiated by the crop factor.

an FF shot at f5.6 will provide one stop shallower DOF than an APS-C crop sensor will at the same framing, same FOV, perspective and same fstop. and an APS-C in turn will provide 1stop shallower DOF than an MFT sensor at the same framing, perspective, FOV and fstop. so, all other things being the same, a shot on an MFT lens at f2.8 will provide the same DOF as an APS-C 1 stop slower at f4 and the same as a FF at another stop slower at f5.6. so even though your 10mm APS-C shot is considered 16mm in FF, that alone is not affecting the DOF or anything else but the FOV.

both have plusses and minuses. sometimes razor thin DOF is preferred, other times the longer DOF requiring less light is great for other types of shooting.

all these equivalencies don't really matter if you are just thinking of them as numbers and don't know what FF really is. FF is just a common reference because that size was easily relateble to 35mm film.

UWA is great, but UWA is like 17mm-22mm on FF. you are like just obsessing over numbers, and it's not going to help you out - if there is a crop factor vs FF, that means no matter what, even if you have a 1mm lens in FF, an APS-C is going to have to go EVEN WIDER to get there. and that is concerning you. you are chasing a dragon. at some point you get diminishing returns - as the poster above pointed out, a 12mm FF rectlinear Ultra Ultra wide angle lens is not that good, it's so distorted beyond belief because to get that wide, so many compromises are made.

For landscapes and architectural work you don't need to chase that dragon. Good architectural work requires good lines. Past a certain point it's just silly looking. You are better off reading and learning about Tilt-Shift lenses if you really want to do high end looking architectural stuff than worry about 12mm on FF vs 8mm on an APS-C. and for general photography, you never need to go that wide. there are amazing lenses that cover the standard walkabout range for ALL MAJOR FORMATS out there.

for say product shooting in a controlled environment, lighting, etc... again, FF wont help you all that much if at all. you have the lighting so you can shoot at low ISO's NO PROBLEM and at low ISO's you will be hard pressed to tell any difference between an MFT, APS-C or FF shot with good glass. no real advantage. the differences lie more in camera features then, like say tethering or wifi, or what have you.

if you are shooting a lot of portraiture in low light and love love the shallowest DOF then yes, FF will help you, as I explained above about DOF and sensor size.

i had a 10-20 Sigma on my APS-C Canon. 16mm FF equivalent. It was PLENTY wide and good at that length. you need to start looking at pictures and relating these mm numbers to actual images.

I've been looking for images of different subjects, at different focal lengths, quite often.

My 12mm FX comment was mostly a specific prompt as a check-on-learning, than it was meant to stress any particular desire.

There is also certain features of software, taking a UUWA image (possibly fisheye) and turning it into a distortion-free panorama-wide image file (DxO Optics Pro does that). For certain scenes, that is rather awesome imho.

More awesome, however, is achieving something similar using wide angle tilt-shift lenses. Quite ironically, I refreshed my Anandtech CP (and saw this new post) immediately after I finished reading a Canon TS 24mm lens review (more to see details on the Tilt-Shift than to study Canon specifically).

Also, as a side note, it's not inherent of such UUWA glass (on FX) to produce significant barrel distortion, CA, sharpness issues, etc... that's inherent to bad glass, most easily witnessed at such focal lengths.

There are plenty (well, not so plentiful, but more than a few) of well-reviewed lenses that have amazing capability - they just have the price tag to warrant it. Tamron has one that, compared to Nikon, is actually pretty damn awesome (quite similar, and the Nikon is more than twice the price).


The article, and included images, convinced me that I'd want a good Tilt-Shift lens for landscape photography.

But UWA desires aren't about chasing a specific number - it's about application and the visual scenes I've already imagined or ones I really want to try myself. For certain stylistic architectural work (my architecture photography focus isn't entirely about professional work - I've always obsessed over it for art purposes), it would be quite welcomed, and just as useful for practical purposes.
But ultimately, no this side-discussion isn't about chasing any particular dragon. It's about chasing the right angle of approach, the right attack vector, the right road/path through the maze - one which doesn't lead to a dead end in terms of the varied things I'd like to accomplish or at least attempt.

 

[MrSquished]

i've been reading about fisheyes a lot and trying to find great defished images because i am tempted to get the 7.5mm Rokinon Fisheye for my OM-D. there is still significant edge distortion after defishing, and you lose a lot of the usable image as well. i have seen some great shots with the fisheye googling i have done, but they are not all that often. probably partly because it's not so prevalent, but the internet is pretty big, it was rare i saw a great de-fished shot.

i do have the DxO perspective correcting software but it never worked on my 64 bit system. i didn't want to bother with their installing software to diagnose the issue stuff. LR is aware of possible 64bit inconsistencies and provides downloadable DLL's to fix them. i haven't tested it out because of that. maybe software is the future of UWA shooting. haven't seen it yet.

if you want to do architecture and landscapes. seriously save that 800 bucks and spend it on good glass. it will do you far far more good. sure if you want a tilt-shift lens and you go FF, an FF will indeed help because there are so few good tilt-shifts you can't get a crop version equivalency like you can with pretty much every other lens. but an Canon FF 17mm tilt shift lens is $2,500 bucks. a Nikon 24mm FF tilt shift is 2k.

you better be sure you are going to be shooting a lot of high end architecture if money is an object. you are better off shooting APS-C, getting better UWA glass, and if down the road you are getting so into arhictectural photography you want your verticals and perspective to be that perfect, go for it.

other than tilt shift, the crop nikon is way more than enough camera for anything you describe.

 

[destrekor]

Other than an easier time finding UWA lenses and FOV, I'm not sure FX has any advantage over DX when both are mounted on tripods and used for static shots like architecture. Set both on lowest possible ISO and let the camera take all the time it needs to snap a shot--it's on a tripod so handshake is a non-issue.

That's ultimately why light sensitivity isn't really a factor in this for me.

I mean, it sort of is, but it's one of the lowest-ranked things. I'm trying to focus on the details which are going to be most immediately applicable, as opposed to the details that will impact perhaps the rarest or most distant ideas/objectives of my photography interests.

Wildlife photography is sort of a passing interest, and something I'd attempt when roaming any landscape - but I imagine that's really only going to be the case when I'm out looking or investigation specific landscape shots anyhow, or just looking to experiment.

I cannot rule out sports photography, but I highly highly doubt it. Just about the only thing I'd actually be interested in shooting are fast cars on road tracks. I have to travel for that. Mid-Ohio is the closest, well.. Belle Isle is closer but aside from the backdrop it's not as visually interesting imho and due to it being in rough shape it's a rarely used track, IndyCar being about the only group interested for whatever reason. Mid-Ohio has some amazing photography opportunities for a few classes of cars, and I'd likely HAVE to try that out. Two strong interests (road racing and cameras) will simply have to merge, at least once. Actually, the first major race (that coincides with an opportunity in my schedule) after purchasing a DSLR and the right lenses, I'm making a promise to be there. It may not work out for another year or two, but it will happen.

But if that works out exceptionally well, the being paid path would make an upgrade to a better camera a non-issue after that. It's not the focus, however.

Other interests or possible professional routes, I can't see it making a big impact aside, aside from causing at least some financial losses if changing camera bodies/formats/manufacturers at some future time.

Photojournalism? Some routes offer plenty of opportunity for tripods, or otherwise a step up or two in ISO would not be a major issue - and it's only a rare scene that doesn't allow changing both aperture and exposure time a few stops either direction, unless it's specifically for such a major outlet as National Geographic. If I ever got landed such a job, I think an upgrade to a top-end FF camera (Nikon would probably have a D5 by then) wouldn't cause much hemming and hawing, let alone contemplating an entry-level FF body.

Interior real-estate photography, product photography, landscape photography... I'll have ample opportunities for tripod use, and, more often than not, I'd be retarded to use anything else. ND filters, long exposures, etc... especially since most of those uses are basically demanding small apertures.

 

[destrekor]

i've been reading about fisheyes a lot and trying to find great defished images because i am tempted to get the 7.5mm Rokinon Fisheye for my OM-D. there is still significant edge distortion after defishing, and you lose a lot of the usable image as well. i have seen some great shots with the fisheye googling i have done, but they are not all that often. probably partly because it's not so prevalent, but the internet is pretty big, it was rare i saw a great de-fished shot.

i do have the DxO perspective correcting software but it never worked on my 64 bit system. i didn't want to bother with their installing software to diagnose the issue stuff. LR is aware of possible 64bit inconsistencies and provides downloadable DLL's to fix them. i haven't tested it out because of that. maybe software is the future of UWA shooting. haven't seen it yet.

if you want to do architecture and landscapes. seriously save that 800 bucks and spend it on good glass. it will do you far far more good. sure if you want a tilt-shift lens and you go FF, an FF will indeed help because there are so few good tilt-shifts you can't get a crop version equivalency like you can with pretty much every other lens. but an Canon FF 17mm tilt shift lens is $2,500 bucks. a Nikon 24mm FF tilt shift is 2k.

you better be sure you are going to be shooting a lot of high end architecture if money is an object. you are better off shooting APS-C, getting better UWA glass, and if down the road you are getting so into arhictectural photography you want your verticals and perspective to be that perfect, go for it.

other than tilt shift, the crop nikon is way more than enough camera for anything you describe.

That's kind of how I've been thinking about it all.

And since good Tilt-Shift lenses command a good premium, they aren't as in the near future as a decent UWA lens. And obviously the professional income is going to be a little while yet, so better glass and having all the fundamentals down pat are going to go further for me than having all the perfect, most expensive tools right away.
Aside from a DX-specific UWA lens, I cannot imagine I'll be buying any other DX glass, and am preparing myself mentally for the premium the glass I want will command. But that'll provide better opportunity in the immediate future (better results if my fundamentals are good) and save on future costs later.

I can see myself buying a $1000 lens in the immediate future. I cannot see myself spending $2000+ on glass in the next year or two. If I can't make anything happen professionally in that time, probably never, and I'll appreciate the fact that I didn't make a bigger gamble.


Now to hope that there aren't any early adopter issues with the D7100 like there was with the D600.


Software is another issue:
I'm ignoring the cost difference to use DxO Optics Pro for the D600 as opposed to the D7000/7100 (Optics Pro Elite required for D600, Optics Pro standard for the DX bodies. Elite/Standard is $300/170.) I'm basically already figuring I'll have whichever version I need.

I lost my opportunity to get a good discount (Student) on any Adobe software, which now pisses me off but I never even considered it back in college. I don't even know if I knew about it back then.

I don't know if I'd truly have any use for any other software to make buying a Creative Suite pack a better option, or if I should even be considering it or even Photoshop standalone.
I've used Photoshop plenty (however, not for editing RAW/high quality digital photos) but I'd need/want a legitimate license if I were to ever go Pro.

I have no qualms about buying Lightroom 4, but is there THAT MUCH one would need Photoshop for that can't be done in LR4? Don't get me wrong, I realize how much can be done in Photoshop (and much I cannot imagine), but I've never even used Lightroom and thus don't have a good grip on its overall potential in the hands of, say, a Lightroom wizard.

For the near future, if I wanted to be 100% legitimate and yet not be restricted in terms of potential, would a combination of GIMP and LR4 work to complete any deficiencies of LR4? Or, some other advanced but free imagery program?

 

[elitejp]

light sensitivity is always a factor but dx cameras can do very well...just not as good. By listing what you think you will be shooting more of you have listed just about all the reasons to buy an fx rather than a dx.

Again back to the lens situation if it still isnt clear. ANY LENS PUT ON A DX CAMERA WILL INCREASE THE FOV BY A MULTIPLE OF 1.5. So it doesnt matter if its a dx lens or a fx lens. The fov will change by a multiple of 1.5. In other words a dx prime lens of 20mm will give you a fov of 30mm on a dx body. A fx lens of 20mm put on a dx body will also give you a fov of 30mm. Its the sensor in the camera thats changing things not the lens.

Dx bodies will also increase the dof. So its something like a 20mm f1.4 on a dx body will have the same dof and fov as a 30mm f2.8 on a fx. I dont ever calculate the dof between ff and crop so thats just given for illustration purposes to say crop has a greater dof than ff at any given f stop.

Resale value of a dx lens or fx lens is really based on the quality and demand for the lens. Just because its a fx wont make it sell better.

Like I said earlier full frame is better. The pics, the dynamic range, the color, the noise...everything but reach.

Also ff bodies resell better than crops. Anyone can correct me on that point if they believe im in error.

 

[iGas]

light sensitivity is always a factor but dx cameras can do very well...just not as good. By listing what you think you will be shooting more of you have listed just about all the reasons to buy an fx rather than a dx.

Again back to the lens situation if it still isnt clear. ANY LENS PUT ON A DX CAMERA WILL INCREASE THE FOV BY A MULTIPLE OF 1.5. So it doesnt matter if its a dx lens or a fx lens. The fov will change by a multiple of 1.5. In other words a dx prime lens of 20mm will give you a fov of 30mm on a dx body. A fx lens of 20mm put on a dx body will also give you a fov of 30mm. Its the sensor in the camera thats changing things not the lens.

Dx bodies will also increase the dof. So its something like a 20mm f1.4 on a dx body will have the same dof and fov as a 30mm f2.8 on a fx. I dont ever calculate the dof between ff and crop so thats just given for illustration purposes to say crop has a greater dof than ff at any given f stop.

Resale value of a dx lens or fx lens is really based on the quality and demand for the lens. Just because its a fx wont make it sell better.

Like I said earlier full frame is better. The pics, the dynamic range, the color, the noise...everything but reach.

Also ff bodies resell better than crops. Anyone can correct me on that point if they believe im in error.

I haven't look to see if this fact is true or not, but the total cost of the new camera and recover value of the camera is not the same as the ability of resell able or not.

A $2000 lost on a FF body initial cost + tax is $3500 that worth $1500 in 5 years doesn't translate well when compare to a lost of value on a DX body. DX body cost around $600-1700 new, and 5 years later it worth $200-900 for a lost of $400-800. Therefor, DX camera is a better value than FF camera, so as micro four third, and point and shoot.

That said, I would still favor the FF body because of faster lens, shallow DOF for better subject separation when needed, greater selection of lenses, and brighter viewfinder.

<-- own a 5D mkII, and S95.

 

[blastingcap]

Didn't Canon basically say they were focusing on FX from now on? They won't abandon their APS-C line altogether, but if you want semi-pro features and build, you're going to have to look at full-frame. http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0336328811/cp-2013-interview-with-canons-masaya-maeda I guess APS-C will be the land of Rebels, then.

 

[elitejp]

hmm? not sure about that but the 6d doesnt strike me as a camera with pro features.

 

[MrSquished]

hmm? not sure about that but the 6d doesnt strike me as a camera with pro features.

what do you consider pro features

 

[elitejp]

I was just making a jibe about the af system.:sneaky: In reality though todays dslr's are already pretty darn pro. You just need to look at the spec sheet and see what you need to help you do the job you need the camera to do.

 

[MrSquished]

if i was buying a camera system right now and it had to be between APS-C and FF, between Canon and Nikon i would get the D7100 and it would be a pretty easy decision.

and then a few months later i'd be loathe to use it because it was so damn heavy and unnecessary