The Full Frame mentallity

[MrSLR]

Before I write all this, I do am not writing this to affend any owners of any camera nor any style of camera its just a few honest questions that Id love to have answered.

Lately on google Ive searched up questions like full frame vs crop sensor and D300 VS D700. Ive noticied a lot about the D700 being amazing in wedding photography and have been noticing a lot of crap being said about the D300 being useless for weddings which I dont understand as we've had cameras for a lot of years and Ive seen amazing pictures taking with old Film SLRs.

I dont understand why people who want to use D300's for wedding photography are bashed so hard. Seach D300 VS D700 on google and watch the yahoo answers and answers from other forums.

Ive been saving for a business license and some insurance and better gear to start a business (part time) in event photography and other styles as I like a bit of everything. Ill be doing some more classes and trying to get some time to be a second shooter for awhile for experience and to build a better portfolio. This is part of my 5 year plan or so as I like to call it and my family and Wife are pushing me in a positive way to keep pursuing it as I understand success has to be earned not given.

Im saving for another body and enjoy my D80 and 17-55mm lense and I know the limits of my camera body as well as the lense and if a D300 is useless for event and other things (wouldnt understand why) I may as well sell my gear and by a D700 and I mean that honestly.

I wouldnt mind owning a full frame but for me as my style seems to be mid to long end of lense i feel full frame isnt for me. But would iso in a D300 or upcoming D400 hold me back that much. Ive shot 1600iso shots in a rock and bowl event with my D80 and they came out decent, obviously not pro quality and i know a D700 would shine there but im not into pitch dark photography.

My goal was to have a D300 and my D80 and my 17-55mm lense and ADD the following lense: 70-200mm VR, 85mm 1.4 and the 35mm 1.8

Lighting ect I know is needed thats why i am taking a while before i hit this full throttle as i need to learn more, get more training experience but im setting goals and going for them i wont sit back and do nothing.

But back on topic for event photography, landscape, the occassional second shooter for weddings and industrial photography, do i need full frame?

I understand the iso differences which ive seen charts and comparisons and i understand the D700 has better DR, but for my style is it a must for someone on a budget who is doing photography part time as a business. Once i got more money in the business and got bigger id keep the D300 and use it as a second body and go full frame as i like the crop body for longer end zooming.

I would really appreciate opinions on the full frame needs.. Im not into sports nor would i do it as a job as i have no interest in it nor do i know anything about sports in general.

 

[N0YZE]

I don't have the answer, but I'm with you 100% on this.

If all you do is read threads on it you'll begin to wonder how beautiful photos were ever taken prior to the D700.

I have the D200, and amazingly enough... if you read older threads professional photographers were stoked about it and couldn't be happier. Must be global warming causing conditions to change or something, because if you read enough you'll quickly learn it's seems as though it's not possible to take a professional photo with a D200 anymore.

 

[Debbi]

It really is a personal decision. I have done SEVERAL weddings with the D300 that I used to have and it did very well - certainly better than the D200. I chose the D300 over the D3 because I just could not justify the cost doing weddings part time. Now I own a D700 and it really does shine in a wedding scenario but it was really a personal choice as the D300 does just fine. I do like the wider angle I get with FF and use it a lot at weddings but on the flip side, I have lost the reach if I'm way in the back of a church with a 70-200. However, it's a great camera and the resolution is so good, I can just crop it and be fine.

I would honestly suggest you rent each, one at a time, and run them thru their paces before making a decision. The learning curve will be the same from a D80 and I do believe you would be totally happy with either one.

BTW, your comment about film slr's is really not appropriate in this as you could just buy faster film!

Good luck!

Debbi

 

[MrSLR]

I don't have the answer, but I'm with you 100% on this.

If all you do is read threads on it you'll begin to wonder how beautiful photos were ever taken prior to the D700.

I have the D200, and amazingly enough... if you read older threads professional photographers were stoked about it and couldn't be happier. Must be global warming causing conditions to change or something, because if you read enough you'll quickly learn it's just not possible to take a professional photos with a D200 anymore.

My wedding was taken with a Cannon about the same level as the D300 and the pictures are amazing and yes i see a lot of posts about full frame and i honestly wondered if having a crop sensor would hold me back. Im hoping i dont offend anyone as i honestly as i dont want to make the wrong decision.

It really is a personal decision. I have done SEVERAL weddings with the D300 that I used to have and it did very well - certainly better than the D200. I chose the D300 over the D3 because I just could not justify the cost doing weddings part time. Now I own a D700 and it really does shine in a wedding scenario but it was really a personal choice as the D300 does just fine. I do like the wider angle I get with FF and use it a lot at weddings but on the flip side, I have lost the reach if I'm way in the back of a church with a 70-200. However, it's a great camera and the resolution is so good, I can just crop it and be fine.

I would honestly suggest you rent each, one at a time, and run them thru their paces before making a decision. The learning curve will be the same from a D80 and I do believe you would be totally happy with either one.

Good luck!

Debbi

Thank you Thats what im looking for, also if i rent a D700 ill need to rent a lense with it as my 17-55mm wont work at all ranges and wouldnt make sense to use as such. If a D300 would work at a wedding which is challenging enough i dont thing id need a D700. I love my 17-55mm lense and i dont want to give it up even though the 24-70 is close to it other than long range side of it. Im not the biggest wide angle person, heck even 17mm on my camera is wide enough for my tastes. A fisheye would be fun though but other than that, im good.

I may have to rent one. I wish someone near me owned a D700 in Harrisburg.

EDIT: but faster film looks pretty grainy at 3200 iso from what ive seen pictures of. I was just using it as a comparison

 

[luke_28]

There will always be something better on the horizon. In a few years everyone will be saying how great the D900 or whatever is, and wonder how anyone shot weddings with a D700.

I believe it is more important to learn lighting and composition than to have the latest greatest camera. :wink:

 

[Debbi]

Thank you Thats what im looking for, also if i rent a D700 ill need to rent a lense with it as my 17-55mm wont work at all ranges and wouldnt make sense to use as such. If a D300 would work at a wedding which is challenging enough i dont thing id need a D700. I love my 17-55mm lense and i dont want to give it up even though the 24-70 is close to it other than long range side of it. Im not the biggest wide angle person, heck even 17mm on my camera is wide enough for my tastes. A fisheye would be fun though but other than that, im good.

I may have to rent one. I wish someone near me owned a D700 in Harrisburg.

EDIT: but faster film looks pretty grainy at 3200 iso from what ive seen pictures of. I was just using it as a comparison

I think you would be VERY happy with a D300 but I would certainly rent one and try it out in challenging situations. Try it out at all ISO's and compare with ones you've taken with your D80. You will be amazed at how much better it handles the darker situations. Sounds like FF may not be for you at this time but down the road a D300 will definitely make a great backup body as the controls are really identical. I had no learning curve at all between the 300 and 700.

Grain and noise, I believe, are two totally different animals. I like grain - especially B&W but noise I can do without. Totally my opinion.

Good luck and enjoy. They are both wonderful cameras.

 

[A.O.M.E.]

Well... if getting a D700 means you wouldn't be able to get all those great lenses, definitely don't do it. Get that fantastic glass now and when the D700 is replaced you can pick it up for cheaper. You won't see a *huge* improvement (ISO) from a D80 to a D300 but it's a full stop.

 

[MrSLR]

Thanks for the responses guys, makes me not feel like a tard for wanting a crop body over full frame.

I dont like using Credit and I figure since im saving and can get a D300 faster that will allow me to build my portfolio faster while preparing to open a part time job. I dont want a bunch of loans with tons of equipment to lose everything. Since i have a full time job i can save and build piece by piece while saving and slowly building a portfolio that way i have truely nothing to lose as i have no loans and can keep the equipment.

I just want to cover my bases thats all. I do appreciate everyones advice thats why i come here. I also figure by the time i have enough for my next body (july) The D400 could be announced.

EDIT: Hard for me to keep up lol with the responses. I have a lot of 1600iso shots that came out great with my D80 and if i can get that one stop to 3200iso id be in heaven

Dont get me wrong, down the road id love a full frame body but for a opening business part time i dont think i need it. I love this forum

 

[ANDS]

The only advantage that I can see personally for the 700 over the 300 is the iso performance. Thats it. Image quality wise I'd be surprised if someone is able to squeeze the blood out of that stone, but on a low-light level I might be tempted to get the 700 over the 300 just to make my life easier.

 

[Max Power]

Well, if you plan on doing wedding photography, I would ask wedding photographers what their thoughts are. Getting past all the internet bluster, I think you will find that many wedding and sports shooters have gone to the D3 and D700, even many from Canon, because those two bodies excel in those areas. They really are better than most everything else on the market for that.

That doesn't mean you couldn't shoot a wedding satisfactorily on a crop sensor, but having clean low light images really opens up doors and gives you a lot more options when shooting the event.

If you plan of shooting other things, I think the difference is much less pronounced.

There is a reason many of the pros are switching to full frame. If you plan on charging people for your work, you should rent one and check it out.

 

[MrSLR]

The only advantage that I can see personally for the 700 over the 300 is the iso performance. Thats it. Image quality wise I'd be surprised if someone is able to squeeze the blood out of that stone, but on a low-light level I might be tempted to get the 700 over the 300 just to make my life easier.

ISO performance would be nice but id have no lenses for it at all and by adding the lense i would need, it would delay me by 5 months or even more. It would be easy to shoot with the D300 and D80 as a backup and build up the lense i need which is mainly the 70-200mm and 85mm 1.4 and then adding to a full frame would transition easier. I keep hesitating, thats the problem. I dont personally feel id ever make use of the iso performance of the D700. Id rather do it right the first time though. I think i may stick with crop sensor for awhile because either way i always want a crop sensor in my arsenol.

 

[MrSLR]

Well, if you plan on doing wedding photography, I would ask wedding photographers what their thoughts are. Getting past all the internet bluster, I think you will find that many wedding and sports shooters have gone to the D3 and D700, even many from Canon, because those two bodies excel in those areas. They really are better than most everything else on the market for that.

That doesn't mean you couldn't shoot a wedding satisfactorily on a crop sensor, but having clean low light images really opens up doors and gives you a lot more options when shooting the event.

If you plan of shooting other things, I think the difference is much less pronounced.

There is a reason many of the pros are switching to full frame. If you plan on charging people for your work, you should rent one and check it out.

I dont honestly know if i would do wedding photography that much and sports i have no interest in. I do plan on charging as the reason of getting a business license and insurance. I like the free lance feel of photography, more options but i dont want to make a costly mistake as buying the wrong tool for the job. If it really gets to the point where i keep questioning myself this bad, makes it worth it to save the extra money throughout the year and buy the D700. Your right Max power i need to call some photographers.

 

[italy74]

Ciao Josh
it's just a pity you missed a thread a few days ago where there was a fair comparison about iq between D300 and D700. While of course beautiful pictures have always been taken with ANY camera, probably the accent here is having better pictures (less noisy) straight out of camera ( = less PP later / higher keeper rate ) and being able to shoot "stealthier" during ceremonies not being forced to use flash. Aside D/R and higher useable ISO, as others said, differences are very few with D300 / D400.

Coming back to the old thread, here you go:

https://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=216650

 

[MrSLR]

Ciao Josh
it's just a pity you missed a thread a few days ago where there was a fair comparison about iq between D300 and D700. While of course beautiful pictures have always been taken with ANY camera, probably the accent here is having better pictures (less noisy) straight out of camera ( = less PP later / higher keeper rate ) and being able to shoot "stealthier" during ceremonies not being forced to use flash. Aside D/R and higher useable ISO, as others said, differences are very few with D300 / D400.

Coming back to the old thread, here you go:

https://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=216650

Wow that is quite a difference, scarry difference.

 

[Heddok]

Josh
I know nothing about wedding or pro photography so no advice. But my first digital camera was a D-80 and I loved it, gave it to my dad and it continues to turn out great pics for him too.

Last week I started a thread on lens lust where I posted 11 photo's all taken with the same lens. Half were taken with my old D-80 and half with my D-700. Not one person noticed. Only the D-700 was listed in my signature but some of the better photo's weren't with it!! So don't let any one bug you about FX vs DX or what body.

Go to Treklens sometime and punch in D-80 and prepare to get blown away.

 

[ANDS]

ISO performance would be nice but id have no lenses for it at all and by adding the lense i would need, it would delay me by 5 months or even more. It would be easy to shoot with the D300 and D80 as a backup and build up the lense i need which is mainly the 70-200mm and 85mm 1.4 and then adding to a full frame would transition easier. I keep hesitating, thats the problem. I dont personally feel id ever make use of the iso performance of the D700. Id rather do it right the first time though. I think i may stick with crop sensor for awhile because either way i always want a crop sensor in my arsenol.

I would see what performance you can get out of those 1.4 primes honestly, before saying "Damnit I need the D700." I have been consistently amazed at how much light they can suck in stopped down. That would certainly be a "cheaper" alternative than forgoing what you have right now and rebuilding from scratch.

Of course, if you WERE able to sell off what you have you could still make use of the primes, but of course then we get to the fact that youre losing length at the expense of low-light IQ.

 

[italy74]

PS if ceremonies are what you're looking for, maybe you could find interesting to evaluate also the "old" Fuji S5 PRO, highly recommended from many wedding photographers for its D/R and skin tones despite the less MP. It was a twin brother of D200 (same body and electronics, just the sensor was different), but more aimed to formals and ceremonies.

 

[MrSLR]

Josh
I know nothing about wedding or pro photography so no advice. But my first digital camera was a D-80 and I loved it, gave it to my dad and it continues to turn out great pics for him too.

Last week I started a thread on lens lust where I posted 11 photo's all taken with the same lens. Half were taken with my old D-80 and half with my D-700. Not one person noticed. Only the D-700 was listed in my signature but some of the better photo's weren't with it!! So don't let any one bug you about FX vs DX or what body.

Go to Treklens sometime and punch in D-80 and prepare to get blown away.

Will have to check that out, thank you my d80 takes amazing pictures but doing this is a business part time i dont want to screw up a persons images they paid for by lacking in equipment. 1600 iso gives decent results but for faster moving objects 800iso limit.

I would see what performance you can get out of those 1.4 primes honestly, before saying "Damnit I need the D700." I have been consistently amazed at how much light they can suck in stopped down. That would certainly be a "cheaper" alternative than forgoing what you have right now and rebuilding from scratch.

Of course, if you WERE able to sell off what you have you could still make use of the primes, but of course then we get to the fact that youre losing length at the expense of low-light IQ.

I dont mind starting from scratch if i knew i wasnt making a mistake. I dont have any primes yet but im saving for the equipment for professional use. I dont want to buy certain DX lenses only to have to sell them off when not working to the extent needed. if i bought a d700 id need a 24-70, 70-200mm minimum.

Only way to afford FF is to buy d700, those two lenses and buy a D300 and sell the D80 to make part of the money up. Only prime i really want is the 85mm 1.4 for portraits. I need to find someone near me with a D300 and D700

EDIT: ceremonies arnt what im as into. Wedding wise i mean. Mostly events, landscaping, portraits. Id love to do family portrait work. Its funny, getting the business license, insurance, and learning tax stuff is easy, but equipment wise this is challenging. The only problem here is figuring out if i need the high iso or not. Sure id like it, but for a starting business, is it a good choice.

Your guys are great though, the help is very much appreciated.

 

[ANDS]

Ok well if you're not really going to be doing Weddings, then in every one of those situations, you can actually control the lighting, which renders a lot of the iso/image quality debates moot no? DEFINITELY for family portraits and certain business events you can control the lighting. From what you describe above, I would do the D300 FIRST, get only lenses that are not DX (so the primes and the 70-200 are good to go) and see how that works out for you - I think you will be surprised.

 

[MrSLR]

Ok well if you're not really going to be doing Weddings, then in every one of those situations, you can actually control the lighting, which renders a lot of the iso/image quality debates moot no? DEFINITELY for family portraits and certain business events you can control the lighting. From what you describe above, I would do the D300 FIRST, get only lenses that are not DX (so the primes and the 70-200 are good to go) and see how that works out for you - I think you will be surprised.

Thank you was getting close to ripping my hair out!!