expert advice needed! (body upgrade)

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

expert advice needed! (body upgrade)

(61 posts) (17 voices)

Tags:

« Previous 123 Next »

msmoto

big gun cougar
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 2,736
offline

Someone said Porsche... well, my Smart fortwo is much better around town and I don't care where I park it! And, if you are very, very good, you might notice my avatar photo is taken in a 996 Porsche Cup car... owned by a friend in Minneapolis. Back to the comparisons.... my Hayabusa which I sold after 10,000 miles of terror, did a lot of things my current DR650 will not do. But the 650 does well 99% of the time. And I do not replace the rear tire every 2500 miles.

Yup, FX is the ultimate. A new Porsche cabriolet, with the options I want is about $135,000. A new Hyundai Elantra about $18,000. They both have heated seats and get from A to B in great comfort. At 165 mph the Porsche has an advantage. At 65 mph, well...

DX will do a heck of a lot MORE FOR THE BUCK than FX.

And... I wonder why we are still talking about this.... too many people with too little to do, maybe, huh? Like me, ha, ha, ha.

Posted 1 year ago #
JForhan

senior member
Joined: Jan '12
Posts: 71
offline

I knew a Porsche once. But I gave most of my money to Charity.

Posted 1 year ago #
Henrik1963

member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 40
offline

Hmmmm Porsche Porsche Porsche: I may WANT a Porsche - But I dont want to PAY FOR a Porsche. And in the end: I dont need a Porsche. A Ford Fiesta may get me from A to B OK. But I think I would look good in a Porsche going from A to B.

I now have a D90. But I think a D800 would look good on me :-)

Posted 1 year ago #
msmoto

big gun cougar
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 2,736
offline

adamz said:
there's no iso 100 on d3s :)

What about Lo-1 on the D3s? Isn't this an equivalent of ISO 100 or am I missing something?

Posted 1 year ago #
studio460

preferred member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 1,231
offline

The D7000, while good, can't compete with the low noise floor of an FX sensor. Although I own a D7000, in my situation, the money would have been better spent on a used or refurbished D700 instead. Coming first from a D70, then a D90, I swore I'd never buy another DX body, mainly due to the smaller sensor's higher amounts of chroma noise. But at the time, I was interested in shooting video, and the D7000 was the first and only Nikon DSLR available to offer video acquisition using a modern AVCHD-based CODEC.

I do enjoy carrying a smaller body for times when photography isn't my primary goal, and as a result, I now own three DX-only zooms to support my "D7000 system." Here's a summary of my recent DX investments:

Nikon D7000 $1,200
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 DX: $600
AF-S Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 VR DX: $900 (refurbished)
Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 DX: $500 (used)

Total: $3,200

Again, that money would have been better spent on a D700 body, and all-FX glass. I realized my "mistake" a few months after I bought my Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. For the same cumulative investment I made in a new DX body, and a DX ultra-wide ($1,200 + $600), I would've already been in used-D700 body territory (especially, since I already owned an FX ultra-wide). Instead of the above "DX system," I could've purchased:

Nikon D700 body: $2,200 (refurbished pricing at the time)
AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4.0 VR: $1,099 (refurbished)

Total: $3,300

Also, the D700 is just the right size--not too big, not too small. In my hands, the D7000 is a bit smallish. Now, admitedly, the 24-120mm f/4.0 is a stop slower, and doesn't offer the range provided by the three DX zooms above (however, FX' inherent lower noise floor can easily accomodate this one-stop difference with an increase in ISO). But, I already owned quite a few FX lenses, including an ultra-wide, AF Nikkor 14mm f/2.8, which is actually wider than the Tokina 11-16mm DX lens, when on an FX body. I also already owned the FX equivalent of the Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 DX zoom, the AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR I.

Posted 1 year ago #
msmoto

big gun cougar
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 2,736
offline

studio460 said:

Nikon D700 body: $2,200 (refurbished)
AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4.0 VR: $1,099

Total: $3,300

Also, the D700 is just the right size--not too big, not too small. In my hands, the D7000 is a bit smallish. Now, admitedly, the 24-120 is a stop slower, and nowhere near the range offered by the thress DX zooms above. But, I already owned quite a few FX lenses, including an ultra-wide 14mm f/2.8 (which is actually wider than an 11mm on DX), plus the FX equivalent of the Tokian 50-135mm f/2.8 DX zoom, the AF-S Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 VR.

I have the 24-120VR... beautifully sharp, and the VR is so nice. Bought this rather than the 24-70 f/2.8 specifically for the VR. And I am using it on DX at present.

Posted 1 year ago #
tcole1983

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,553
offline

I don't believe it would be wasteful to get a D7000 now and always upgrade to a FX body later. You have DX glass, so you aren't losing anything by buying an upgraded DX body. If you think you want to go FX in future though just don't buy anymore DX glass. You could always use it as a backup. Also you never know what will be out by the time you outgrow/outuse the D7000. Lastly technology on bodies is rapidly changing. They are just like computers that have to be upgraded after so many years...as you have seen with the body you have. I think too many people look at buying a body as a forever investment when you know in 10 years it will be almost obsolete. Look at the changes since you got your body...even my D5000 is almost due for its second update since I got it and I don't feel like I have had it that long.

Posted 1 year ago #
studio460

preferred member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 1,231
offline

tcole1983 said:
I don't believe it would be wasteful to get a D7000 now and always upgrade to a FX body later.

That's kind of my point. If you plan to seriously pursue your photography (and eventually move to FX), why not buy an FX body to begin with?

Posted 1 year ago #
zlik

senior member
Joined: Dec '11
Posts: 88
offline

msmoto said:
What about Lo-1 on the D3s? Isn't this an equivalent of ISO 100 or am I missing something?

Yes, Lo-1 on the D3s (& CO) is "ISO 100 equivalent". But it is not "ISO 100".

Lo-1 is actually a 2x longer exposure at ISO 200 (base ISO) underexposed by 1 stop after the capture to simulate ISO 100. By doing that, you increase SNR (less noise) but your highlights clip 1 stop sooner, because the shot is overexposed by 1 stop at capture time.

Posted 1 year ago #
tcole1983

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,553
offline

studio460 said:
That's kind of my point. If you plan to seriously pursue your photography (and eventually move to FX), why not buy an FX body to begin with?

In this case he doesn't really have any lenses. So cost for FX body and new lenses is most likely out of reach where new D7000 and using lenses they already have is obtainable for most. I mean lenses are the real investment. If you have already invested in DX glass then why not use it while you invest in FX glass from now on? The FX lenses can be used on the DX body as well so you don't lose anything by it. On the other hand it will take a significant amount of upfront money to get an FX body and lenses to cover the cost for similar coverage of most any DX shooters lens collections. At least $3000 for only a body and a single all in one zoom like the 28-300.

I mean I don't know how much money the OP has or expects to invest in it. If they make money doing it and/or have a nice chunk of change to invest in the equipment then it might be feasible to jump right in head first. I just think cost wise for the average amateur it is a large expense when you already have DX equipment to just up and switch to FX.

Posted 1 year ago #
Henrik1963

member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 40
offline

We all want our camera choice to be rational - what we need is what we buy right? I don't think it is that simple. Most of us buy a camera for hobby use. Most of us will buy the camera we can afford. That may not be the whole truth but it is closer to the truth than any notion of rational choice.

If it was all about what we need we would all have a D40.

(I admit that some times our GF or BF have a say when it comes to: How much camera can we buy)

If you really want that D700 and you have the money then go for it. Most of us don't need one. But most of us will have a big smile on our faces when taking pics with one. That is until the D800 is available :-)

Posted 1 year ago #
msmoto

big gun cougar
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 2,736
offline

zlik said:
Yes, Lo-1 on the D3s (& CO) is "ISO 100 equivalent". But it is not "ISO 100".

Lo-1 is actually a 2x longer exposure at ISO 200 (base ISO) underexposed by 1 stop after the capture to simulate ISO 100. By doing that, you increase SNR (less noise) but your highlights clip 1 stop sooner, because the shot is overexposed by 1 stop at capture time.

Hey, thank you zlik. I actually understand what you are saying. And not having the "headroom" in the highlights is kinda like an audio amp which clips. The results are terrible. I do a lot of manipulation in Lightroom and I like to find details out there in "bright bright" land. If I have lost 1 f stop of head room on the high lights... not good. Thanks again for explaining this.

Posted 1 year ago #
studio460

preferred member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 1,231
offline

zlik said:
Lo-1 is actually a 2x longer exposure at ISO 200 (base ISO) underexposed by 1 stop after the capture to simulate ISO 100. By doing that, you increase SNR (less noise) but your highlights clip 1 stop sooner, because the shot is overexposed by 1 stop at capture time.

I was under the impression that anything under the base ISO (i.e., <ISO 100) would be noisier, and that's the reason why the lowest "native" ISO would always be preferred, when optimal SNR performance is desired.

Posted 1 year ago #
studio460

preferred member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 1,231
offline

tcole1983 said:
In this case he doesn't really have any lenses. So cost for FX body and new lenses is most likely out of reach where new D7000 and using lenses they already have is obtainable for most.

Although the "FX lenses are too expensive" argument is made frequently, I just don't subscribe to it. There are plenty of affordable FX lenses, especially used. Of course, if you want to throw slow DX kit lenses into the mix, FX glass will price higher. My point is, at the time, the price difference between a new D7000 and a refurbed D700 was "only" $1,000. I've since spent more than twice that on DX-only lenses.

Posted 1 year ago #
studio460

preferred member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 1,231
offline

HankThePigeon said:
So thats where I'm struggling. One part of me feels like I should make the most of my investment and skip right to FX.

Skip right to FX. You'll be happy you did.

HankThePigeon said:
I know the benefits of FX, as I mostly shoot natural light portraits with a shallow depth of field.

Both available-light photography and portraiture benefit greatly from FX. You have greater light-sensitivity, and can more easily achieve shallow-focus effects, especially at longer subject-to-camera distances (which is inherently more difficult in DX). Skin tones also appear "smoother," and colorimetery, more "accurate" in FX.

HankThePigeon said:
So thats where I'm struggling. One part of me feels like I should make the most of my investment and skip right to FX. But the other part of me says continue with a DX body and continue to invest in FX glass, (i.e - 85mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4)

Exactly. I think "making the most of your investment" is skipping directly to FX. And, considering the fact that you're even thinking about buying the uber-expensive 85mm f/1.4 and 35mm f/1.4 lenses, means that you likely do have the means to go with an FX body now.

Posted 1 year ago #
zlik

senior member
Joined: Dec '11
Posts: 88
offline

msmoto said:
Hey, thank you zlik. I actually understand what you are saying. And not having the "headroom" in the highlights is kinda like an audio amp which clips. The results are terrible. I do a lot of manipulation in Lightroom and I like to find details out there in "bright bright" land. If I have lost 1 f stop of head room on the high lights... not good. Thanks again for explaining this.

That's exactly the same thing. The analogy works here. When there is a high contrast scene, it's better to stick with base ISO and expose to the right. Don't clip the highlights.

Posted 1 year ago #
zlik

senior member
Joined: Dec '11
Posts: 88
offline

studio460 said:
I was under the impression that anything under the base ISO (i.e., <ISO 100) would be noisier, and that's the reason why the lowest "native" ISO would always be preferred, when optimal SNR performance is desired.

After doing lots of tests, I can confirm that the LO settings do produce cleaner shots. The "only" drawback is actually the highlight clipping.

As I said, using the LO1 setting is exactly the same thing as using ISO 200, exposing the sensor 1 stop longer, and reducing the exposure back with software. By doing thins, you're actually "exposing to the right" by 1 stop more, thus clipping the highlights. But you gain information in the shadows (less noise). If you try it, you will see that the LO1 produces smoother results than 200 ISO, but the clipped part of the photo is bigger.

In the end, if you expose correctly to the right at base ISO, you don't gain anything by using the LO1 setting.

The only times that using LO1 makes sense is with low contrast scenes, when you don't want to over expose manually and reduce the exposure in post. Gains some time when you know you will use your pictures SOOF.

Posted 1 year ago #
msmoto

big gun cougar
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 2,736
offline

zlik said:

The only times that using LO1 makes sense is with low contrast scenes, when you don't want to over expose manually and reduce the exposure in post. Gains some time when you know you will use your pictures SOOF.

Yup, but in general, low contrast may mean lower light.... and SOOF= straight out of ?

Posted 1 year ago #
zlik

senior member
Joined: Dec '11
Posts: 88
offline

msmoto said:
Yup, but in general, low contrast may mean lower light.... and SOOF= straight out of ?

SOOF = sh*t out of forum ;)

Posted 1 year ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

studio460 said:
That's kind of my point. If you plan to seriously pursue your photography (and eventually move to FX), why not buy an FX body to begin with?

Because it would be about 4 grand in glass to match what you could have with DX for 1-2k. At least with DX you can try out almost all styles for much cheaper on the glass side.

If you are learning, it is not smart to buy something that is at it's production run. It also lacks video and cost twice as much.

studio460 said:
I was under the impression that anything under the base ISO (i.e., <ISO 100) would be noisier, and that's the reason why the lowest "native" ISO would always be preferred, when optimal SNR performance is desired.

It doesn't deal with noise but optimal image quality. The Base ISO is the optimal quality of the sensor. You may loose some details, contrast, shadows, etc.

I love the ISO 200 being the base- gives more speed at the best quality.

Posted 1 year ago #
studio460

preferred member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 1,231
offline

TaoTeJared said:
Because it would be about 4 grand in glass to match what you could have with DX for 1-2k. At least with DX you can try out almost all styles for much cheaper on the glass side.

True, but given the choice of the systems listed below:

studio460 said:

Nikon D7000 $1,200
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 DX: $600
AF-S Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 VR DX: $900 (refurbished)
Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 DX: $500 (used)
Total: $3,200

Nikon D700 body: $2,200 (refurbished pricing at the time)
AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4.0 VR: $1,099 (refurbished)
Total: $3,300

I would've chosen the latter, had I the chance to do it again. But that's me. I have a particular need for a second FX body, so spending that amount on a complete DX system simply wasn't the wisest investment for my purposes.

Posted 1 year ago #
studio460

preferred member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 1,231
offline

zlik said:
In the end, if you expose correctly to the right at base ISO, you don't gain anything by using the LO1 setting.

Interesting analysis. Thanks for posting that!

Posted 1 year ago #
tcole1983

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,553
offline

studio460 said:
Although the "FX lenses are too expensive" argument is made frequently, I just don't subscribe to it. There are plenty of affordable FX lenses, especially used. Of course, if you want to throw slow DX kit lenses into the mix, FX glass will price higher. My point is, at the time, the price difference between a new D7000 and a refurbed D700 was "only" $1,000. I've since spent more than twice that on DX-only lenses.

I wasn't necessarily saying FX glass is too expensive. I am saying it is twice the burden when you already have a DX setup to then turn around and take a loss selling it and then to go back and trying to rebuy stuff. I also don't think you can argue that FX glass isn't more expensive.

In your case you might have found it to be a waste, but I don't really think the approach that everyone should buy FX from the start is for the average person. I have seen your photos and you obviously shoot for money and/or some sort of income if it isn't your only job. I and the majority of people that have DX bodies don't...plus is DX really that bad? I like the crop factor and extra range it gives. Personally I have 3 DX lenses and 1 FX. I would take a significant loss to sell the DX lenses and then on top have to spend more money on a body. If I can ever save any money I plan to buy the next pro DX body. Now will my next lens be FX? Probably...and that goes along the lines with FX glass is all pro level stuff.

Posted 1 year ago #
studio460

preferred member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 1,231
offline

tcole1983 said:
. . . plus is DX really that bad?

Certainly not. I just wanted to warn anyone who is about to buy their first "expensive" Nikon body to learn from my experience. I tell you, it hit me like a kick in the pants, like a month after I bought the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 DX lens . . . I realized that with that same money, I would've been a hella lot closer to affording a D700 instead.

Posted 1 year ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

studio460 said:
True, but given the choice of the systems listed below:
-------Nikon D7000 $1,200
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 DX: $600
AF-S Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 VR DX: $900 (refurbished)
Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 DX: $500 (used)
Total: $3,200

Nikon D700 body: $2,200 (refurbished pricing at the time)
AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4.0 VR: $1,099 (refurbished)
Total: $3,300
-----------------------------

I would've chosen the latter, had I the chance to do it again. But that's me. I have a particular need for a second FX body, so spending that amount on a complete DX system simply wasn't the wisest investment for my purposes.

That is two very different systems for different purposes - it's comparing apples to oranges.

Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 DX: $600 VS. 16-35mm f/2.8G ED FX: $1,260
AF-S Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 VR DX: $900 VS. 24-70mm f/2.8G ED FX: $1,890
Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 DX: $500 (used) VS. 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR I (used) FX: $1,600
Nikon D7000 $1,200 vs. Nikon D700 body: $2,200
Total: $3,200 vs. $6,950

That is a difference of $3,750 and not even near the $100 you suggested for a comparable systems.

If someone wants to try out macro:
40mm f/2.8G DX Micro-NIKKOR $280 vs. 60mm f/2.8D AF Micro-NIKKOR $600 = $320 Diff
85mm f/3.5G ED VR $530 vs. 105mm f/2.8G VR AF Micro-NIKKOR $990 = $455 Diff
To try both, the difference is $775

Point being - if you are starting out, It is much cheaper to go to DX that allows a beginner to try more types of photography for less and I believe that offsets 1 stop improvement of ISO noise.

Posted 1 year ago #