Upgrade to FX?

[Jujurwc]

Are there any draw backs to upgrading to a full frame camera besides cost (lenses body etc)?

Thinking of upgrading to the D610 from D7000.

 

[Mr Gadget]

Are there any draw backs to upgrading to a full frame camera besides cost (lenses body etc)?

Thinking of upgrading to the D610 from D7000.

Besides cost? that is a pretty big thing to me!

If fact it is a show stopper.

 

[jfriend00]

For the same subject distance, you will need a longer telephoto in order to get the same framing (often referred to as less reach). So, where a 70-200 would get you the framing you want at 200mm at a given subject distance, you would then need 300mm on FX. This can sometimes be a disadvantage with telephoto and an advantage with wide angle (e.g. 17mm wide angle is a wider field of view on FX than DX)

At the same aperture and subject distance, FX will have one less stop of depth of field (sometimes an advantage, sometimes a disadvantage).

 

[Simon Garrett]

Are there any draw backs to upgrading to a full frame camera besides cost (lenses body etc)?

Thinking of upgrading to the D610 from D7000.

Besides cost? that is a pretty big thing to me!

If fact it is a show stopper.

Size of lenses, weight, reach of lenses, reduced depth of field (drawback or advantage, depending on circumstances).

Also longer product cycle. FX cameras tend to be upgraded every 3-4 years, with DX cameras it feels more like every few months (unless you're waiting for a D400). Personally, this looks like an advantage to me, but if you're a gear-head, you start to hyperventilate if your camera is more than 6 months old and once the warranty runs out you need medication.

 

[kablowski]

Size and weight obviously.

 

[InTheMist]

Keep in mind that the depth of field is noticeably shallower.

 

[Jujurwc]

For the same subject distance, you will need a longer telephoto in order to get the same framing (often referred to as less reach). So, where a 70-200 would get you the framing you want at 200mm at a given subject distance, you would then need 300mm on FX. This can sometimes be a disadvantage with telephoto and an advantage with wide angle (e.g. 17mm wide angle is a wider field of view on FX than DX)

At the same aperture and subject distance, FX will have one less stop of depth of field (sometimes an advantage, sometimes a disadvantage).

 

[Randy Z]

Yep

 

[Hugo First]

For the same subject distance, you will need a longer telephoto in order to get the same framing (often referred to as less reach). So, where a 70-200 would get you the framing you want at 200mm at a given subject distance, you would then need 300mm on FX. This can sometimes be a disadvantage with telephoto and an advantage with wide angle (e.g. 17mm wide angle is a wider field of view on FX than DX)

At the same aperture and subject distance, FX will have one less stop of depth of field (sometimes an advantage, sometimes a disadvantage).

 

[Simon Garrett]

Are you saying at the same aperture and distance the FX will have a shallower depth of field?

Yes, see http://www.dpreview.com/glossary/optical/depth-of-field

 

[Jujurwc]

Wouldn't that be a good thing for sports and taking pics of family and friends?

 

[Jujurwc]

That's a really helpful tool. Thanks. I see the sensor type has a Nikon DX sensor option, but is a FF camera such as the D610 a "sensor type 1"? Thanks

 

[blue_cheese]

For the same subject distance, you will need a longer telephoto in order to get the same framing (often referred to as less reach). So, where a 70-200 would get you the framing you want at 200mm at a given subject distance, you would then need 300mm on FX. This can sometimes be a disadvantage with telephoto and an advantage with wide angle (e.g. 17mm wide angle is a wider field of view on FX than DX)

At the same aperture and subject distance, FX will have one less stop of depth of field (sometimes an advantage, sometimes a disadvantage).

--
John
Gallery: http://jfriend.smugmug.com

Thanks for the answer, but I'm slightly confused. Are you saying at the same aperture and distance the FX will have a shallower depth of field?

I'm contemplating a similar move and have pretty much decided. "FX weight" is by biggest worry, especially when it comes to lenses, but I think I will be able to get away with D610 and 70-200 F4 (or even cheaper *gasp* 70-300 variable aperture) for the long end. From a D7xxx the weight to a D6xx is not a big jump, and for equal length quality lenses weigh about the same, I dont really see any notable weight advantage to DX although it is certainly touted about. Body weight is a big question for me as I am coming from a D3100, so that is certainly there.

I dont buy the "shallower" DOF, I view FX as simply a larger frame, and according to DOF calculations it actually has more DOF for any given focal length and aperture than DX

My D3100 with the 50mm 1.8 at F1.8 and 2m (say a head/shoulder shot of someone) subject gives a 11 cm DOF, the larger COC on the FX format actually gives MORE DOF of about 17 cm

with a consumer lens at 300mm F5.6, and subject at 10m away (say a nearby critter/bug), the DX camera gives a DOF of 24cm, while the FX camera gives DOF of 37cm....

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

The challenge is that the frame changes, what I find with my D3100 is that the framing is too tight for the focal lengths I like (and I have never used fil/FF before) I like longer lengths to feel wider so FX seems reasonable.

The FX "shallower DOF" is based on assumption you want to retain framing, which means that you want longer lenses on FX.

As for the "reach" bit, again, the focal length is not longer, it is just a tighter frame, you can certainly give up pixels and crop. A D800 will crop to 16M, so it can basically double as a DX camera, but you are not "reaching" anything, you are just cropping by throwing away the FX frame. If you need lots of pixels on a crop then DX makes more sense, but that has its own challenges.

--
"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil."
- Ayn Rand

 

[Willie73478]

Are you saying at the same aperture and distance the FX will have a shallower depth of field?

Yes, see http://www.dpreview.com/glossary/optical/depth-of-field

 

[ata3001]

Yep

 

[jfriend00]

For the same subject distance, you will need a longer telephoto in order to get the same framing (often referred to as less reach). So, where a 70-200 would get you the framing you want at 200mm at a given subject distance, you would then need 300mm on FX. This can sometimes be a disadvantage with telephoto and an advantage with wide angle (e.g. 17mm wide angle is a wider field of view on FX than DX)

At the same aperture and subject distance, FX will have one less stop of depth of field (sometimes an advantage, sometimes a disadvantage).

 

[Jujurwc]

That makes sense. Thanks man

 

[Leonard Migliore]

Are you saying at the same aperture and distance the FX will have a shallower depth of field?

Yes, see http://www.dpreview.com/glossary/optical/depth-of-field

 

[PHXAZCRAIG]

Whether or not it is an advantage depends on your subject.

I had to relearn all my lenses when I move to FX (D300 to D700), even though I'd shot with some of those lenses on film (N90s). In particular, I had to get a feel for what apertures to use from a DOF point of view in order to get sufficient DOF to work with the subject. From getting the back row of people in focus in a group shot, to getting enough DOF in vacation shots to getting enough DOF in landscapes. Rule of thumb - if you were happy with F-stop X on DX, decrease aperture by the crop factor when going to FX. F4 on DX becomes F5.6 on FX. F5.6 on DX becomes F8.

Lenses - a big difference there. Few of the lens focal ranges you are comfortable with on DX translate well to FX. And of course on wide angle you simply have to replace a DX lens with a (significantly bigger, usually more expensive) FX version. You do lose reach on the long end too, which normally isn't an issue except in wildlife and sports.

I found the bigger lenses to be problematic for travel. Whereas I used to fit 10.5, 12-24, 24-70 and 80-400 in my waist bag, simply swapping the 12-24 for a 14-24 blew up the whole rig. The 14-24 could barely fit by itself, and it wouldn't fit with the other lenses. For my last vacation, I bought a 16-35f4 stick in there, or else I would have had to be content with just 24mm on the wide end. (Still decently wide enough most of the time).

 

[Ronan_M]

Nothing wrong with wanting to go FX. If you've got the money...go for it. But dont expect it to do miracles with your photos.

Have a read at this before spending $$$$

http://www.nickcarverphotography.com/blog/photography-tips-do-i-need-a-full-frame-camera/