How much the actual cost for upgrading to FX?

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

How much the actual cost for upgrading to FX?

(34 posts) (16 voices)

Tags:

« Previous 12

TaoTeJared

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

n0msky said:
What is this lens best for? And what is the 20-70mm best for? I mean, I really want to know from you guys who own these lenses about in what occassions you mostly use them for your shooting.

And if you guys don't mind, how did you start shooting FX DSLR? What kind of combinations were your first FX set-up?

Simple answer for both lenses, everything and everything. They are not specific to any type of photography.

D800 is my first FX although I have shot with a D700 in the past. I have around 25 lenses - been quite a few years since I started - the collection just grows.

Out of curiosity why do you think you need a FX camera or even 2.8 Glass? That is not a normal start for most just getting going.

Posted 9 months ago #
Wonkylens

member
Joined: Apr '12
Posts: 19
offline

n0msky said:

As to my finding on a used 70-200mm 2.8 which is very attractive to me, I have these (another) silly questions: What is this lens best for? And what is the 20-70mm best for? I mean, I really want to know from you guys who own these lenses about in what occassions you mostly use them for your shooting.

And if you guys don't mind, how did you start shooting FX DSLR? What kind of combinations were your first FX set-up?

Sorry for asking so many questions. I really appreciate your time to write a comment here. Thank you.

The 70-200 mm is a lovely lense and is one everyone should own imo. Excellent for portraits, nature work and whatnot.

My path to FX (got a D800) took a while but ever since I got the urge to upgrade my first digital DSLR (D80) I have wanted a FX. Since the D700 replacement never came I ended up getting a D7000 as an upgrade to the D80.

As my plan was to eventually get to FX I kept that in mind when i added to the collection and I think I had 6 FX lenses (50 1.8, 24-70, 70-200, 120-300 sigma, 60 mm macro and a 150 mm macro sigma) before I got hold of the D800. Only DX lenses I bought was the 35 mm and a tokina 11-16. Truth be I didnt find many DX alternatives as the line up of quality DX lenses is severly lacking.

Posted 9 months ago #
n0msky

member
Joined: Sep '12
Posts: 12
offline

@TaoTeJared: thank you for your straighforward advice. Why I want to shoot FX and have 2.8 lenses? First of all, maybe two months ago, I borrowed my friend's FX camera (D700) and I was stunned by results, especialy in low lights. It was like a love at a first sight for me. At that moment, I just realized that there was another level of quality in photography which will satisfy you with great images in low lights: shooting FX (full frame). The second reason is that when I go back to my country (not Japan or the US), I know that I would probably oftenly deal with low lights situations (please don't ask me why :))? Thus, I think a FX body and fast lenses will help me in that situation.

Yeah, after reading your comment I guess I just have to hold on my plan to switch to FX any soon. I have to learn and get my current gear out for shooting. As time goes by, I think I would have enough experience and knowledge to pick the best gear that meets my need. I just hope that time will be coming soon.

Posted 9 months ago #
DavidHarsay

member
Joined: Sep '12
Posts: 14
offline

Some people pick up a mid level camera like the D5100 and put it into the auto mode, and take some decent shots, try some more creative stuff, also can learn a lot if they put some effort into it.

Without a basic foundation in photography skills, they actually may do better with a good point and shoot.

There is another side to it. With a camera like the D700, I honestly think that with good basic knowledge of exposure and camera menu systems, the nice FX cameras are a lot easier to take great pictures with. I really have to work hard at it with the D5100 to get the same result, because I'm not that talented. With the D700 set properly and with a 70-200 set to f-2.8, it's hard not to take a beautiful picture. The color, the sharp focus, the beautiful bokeh, it's obvious to everyone that the camera does do a lot. Skill and artistry can also get you there with a cheap camera, and is so amazing with a great camera. A lot of good seasoned photographers look down on people with nice FX cameras and top shelf glass who don't have much skill or experience.

There's a nice lady who works in the marketing department of a company I worked with, and has a beautiful Canon 1DMark4, and a collection of L lenses. She's not dumb by any means, but has no clue what an F-stop is, and takes thousands of beautiful pictures and incredible video. A pro could do much better with cheap stuff, but she definitely couldn't. And I've heard one excellent photographer talk about how he was almost sick to his stomach seeing her with gear worth multiple times what his car was worth, but it's her money.

I'm probably not adding much to this discussion... but I will say this. The 70-200 f2.8 makes a great portrait lens, great pro-journalist lens, and a great sports lens. It focuses fast on a good body. BUT... a very cheap 55-200 VR on an DX body will do as good with static subjects, with the same camera settings, in good light. Unless you need fast lens, fast focus, shallow DOF (notice I said same setting, the 55-200 is a long ways from f/2.8), you can save a lot of money and weight.

Posted 9 months ago #
TaoTeJared

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

n0msky said:
@TaoTeJared: thank you for your straighforward advice. Why I want to shoot FX and have 2.8 lenses? First of all, maybe two months ago, I borrowed my friend's FX camera (D700) and I was stunned by results, especialy in low lights. It was like a love at a first sight for me. At that moment, I just realized that there was another level of quality in photography which will satisfy you with great images in low lights: shooting FX (full frame). The second reason is that when I go back to my country (not Japan or the US), I know that I would probably oftenly deal with low lights situations (please don't ask me why :))? Thus, I think a FX body and fast lenses will help me in that situation.

Yeah, after reading your comment I guess I just have to hold on my plan to switch to FX any soon. I have to learn and get my current gear out for shooting. As time goes by, I think I would have enough experience and knowledge to pick the best gear that meets my need. I just hope that time will be coming soon.

Be careful not to rely on a few experiences to decide what you need. We have seen the new DX sensors being released performing as good or better than the D700 in many instances. FX was the only option 1-4 years ago but that has changed. If want the best low light, bars, restaurants, evening city scenes, you need f/1.4-2.0 glass - 2.8 doesn't cut it many times. Plus if you are in these situations, a 70-200 is 100x to large to use and the 24-70mm is close to being too large. Any Street shooting I do, I use a Fuji X100 and a film rangefinder with ISO 400 film in it. You can easily shoot at iso 400 with experience. I find my D800 is just to large and people notice it too much for me to get good candid shots.

Posted 9 months ago #
DaveyJ

preferred member
Joined: Jun '10
Posts: 452
offline

Thanks to you all on this topic. I admit ever since I saw TaoTeJared bought a D800 I have wondered....why not. And thanks to NR I have known for a long time the D600 was coming out. I am pretty happy with all of my DX Nikons and the D7000 does the best video of that group.

So I have been running estimates for what FX would cost adding gear to what I have. My own rough guess if I added what I think would work is $18,000. I have six FX lenses now. Adding the 200-400 Nikkor is the most expensive addition. Then I began to get data and reviews on the 300 Nikkor f4 and with a teleconverter 2.0 that does help some.

Much of my personal reluctance comes in based on my large and medium format 8 or 10 year run. I had camera bodies which cost more than my possible FX first estimate. Since I metered when I did larrge and medium format with 35mm Minolta film camera, I began to notice that on a few too many occasions that the 35mm work was actually more useful. I was fairly well known in some circles for large format photos, but in retrospect I sincerely regret that era. B&H Photo and Video guys argued that I SHOULD NOT GO TO LARGE FORMAT. I need not discuss here why I think large format was not the right move. But for certain it was VERY expensive. I also think of the 80-200 2.8 Nikon lens I traded in when I moved to the 70-300 lens. Now the 70-300VR lens is easily one of my favorites.

Where am I on the Switch to FX?? I sure don't know as yet. Meanwhile I photograph almost every day. I also realize almost every day DX is a better choice than FX as part of what I photograph does not require or appreciate high res. Still for the really great moments?
So that is why I am here tonight trying to figure D600 or D800? And what other costs are there? One for sure is BIGGER gear. And I will be blunt.......for me bigger gear is a big problem. If I were just taking photos maybe. But when I am using a shovel or a chainsaw, or surveying gear, or some other HEAVIER tool......big cameras can be a severe drag. I am always surprised when someone writes....when I go on vacation they use SMALLER cameras. AND I DO RESPECT THEIR REASONING! But for me.....at least then my hands are not covered in dirt and my shirt covered with sawdust..... But I do love taking photos and seeing the photos of others>
It truly is a beautiful world!

Well, good luck to you all! And I am certain the D600 will sell very well! But I do think msmotos prediction for a D400 will come true, just NOT TODAY!

DaveyJ

Posted 9 months ago #
n0msky

member
Joined: Sep '12
Posts: 12
offline

Thanks guys for dropping comments in this thread.

I just want to inform you all that I have purchased the 70-200 VRI for 90,000 yen (US$1100). I just couldn't help it- what a bargain! The lens is in superb condition and has 6-month warranty from Nikon for its autofocus reparation. I have also read the warranty card (actually it's like a receipt) and it says that the lens has been repaired, cleaned and fully checked. I just tested it for a few shots and I'm very satisfied with the results. I think the autofocus is superbly fast and the VR works really well. Even though it's heavy, I think I can cope with it.

Now, I have two lenses to play with: a 35mm/1.8 and a 70-200mm/2.8 VRI. My next targets are the 24-70mm/2.8 and 50mm/1.8G or 1.4G. I would like to know, which 50mm lens that performs well (1.8G or 1.4G)? How about the Sigma 50mm/1.4 OS?

Posted 8 months ago #
sevencrossing

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 1,265
offline

TaoTeJared said:

Out of curiosity why do you think you need a FX camera or even 2.8 Glass? That is not a normal start for most just getting going.

I have a D800, apart from a very expensive leaf, nothing else has the dynamic range. My most used lens is the 24-120 f4 and if working out side, It is stopped down to f8. indoors at ISO 3200 f4 is fine for me

If I need a shallow dof, i do have a 70-200 f 2.8 but it is my least used lens
the other f 2.8 lens i have is a 16mm fish eye, but it is nearly always stopped down to f8

Posted 8 months ago #
Mike Gunter

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 946
offline

Hi all,

Short answer, 'arm and leg'.

Long answer, depends...

I still have and use a lot of stuff from film days and have bought stuff that was FX/DX compatible, so...

I will likely get a D800 in time.

My best to all,

Mike

Posted 8 months ago #