I know that if you ask six photographers their opinions on full frame versus regular DSLR cameras, you will get ten different opinions but I am opening that can of worms anyway.
I own two ancient Nikon D80 cameras, one of which has finally spit out its last photo and died. The second one is on its last legs.
I have been doing a heck of a lot of on-line research since Hubby has graciously agreed to the purchase of a new camera for me. I think I have narrowed the field down to a Nikon 7200 since I am not convinced that a full frame camera is required for me.
However, I have not kept up with technology since I purchased my old D80s and I really do not know ANYTHING about the newer cameras. I may be totally wrong in this regard. Your thoughts and opinions in this matter would be greatly appreciated.
And to think I almost posted "3.. 2.. 1.. cue Jake" :P
My primary is a full frame, but it's pretty old (as camera technology goes). I would think a good-quality non-full frame camera that has all of the options (manual mode, etc.) would suit most people and save them money in the process. As Jake mentioned, it can be a can of worms, some people are pretty passionate about their feelings on this... In the end, I've found that the best camera you can get is the one you have; subject and composition are so much more important (for the regular shooter). Unless you plan on selling large prints of your shots, I wouldn't worry too much about getting the best/most expensive gear.
A D7200 is a fine choice, if you want to stay with Nikon and DSLR (rather than mirrorless) technology. You will be most surprised and pleased how much more powerful and flexible it is over your current (old) Nikon. And image quality, there is really no comparison... It is, though, still a significantly "large" camera body.
One reason not to go "Full Frame" is that all your current "DX" lenses {that don't cover the whole FF frame) would be disadvantaged shooting, say, a D610 or a D750. Native FX (full frame) lenses (larger, heavier, more glass) are expensive, comparatively, and typically a lot heavier.
FF cameras will, typically, have better "high ISO" performance (bigger, fatter light sensitive pixel points) and will give you better "bokeh" or nice background blur {same number of "big" pixels spread over more than twice the sensor area) for the same "f/stop," but with the modern D7200, it is not all that significant in practice. FF cameras will be heavier, and native lenses significantly "heavier." One significant advantage of APS-C cameras is that the "reach" of a telephoto lens is natively 50% more than FF for the same absolute focal length.
The D7200, too, will have just about every bell, whistle and feature of, say, a D750. If you can't say why you would want a FF camera, (there are pro reasons why, but we won't go there right now) then you don't need one. Truly. With modern cameras, it is much more about the technology of the camera rather than the size of the image sensor.
All the best. Might I suggest that you look for a factory reconditioned D7200 and save several hundred pounds over new.
@grizzlysghost@deadschool@frankhymus
Thank you, guys. I think that you are just confirming what I suspected and I really appreciate that.
And, Frank, I never thought about the fact that all my lens are DX so I would have to upgrade them as well. Thank you for that reminder - it is an important item to consider.
Wendy, I'm no expert, but unless you intend to go pro, the difference in weight can seem massive. I keep looking at the mirrorless for lightness, and two friends are much less likely to go shooting now because they don't think it is worth the weight of the ff and heavier lenses.
@tigerdreamer Thanks, Karen. You are right about the weight of full frame cameras. They are significantly heavier but that would not be a major problem for me and not the determining factor. I think I will be sticking with the D7200.
I also checked out the comparisons on mirrorless versus the DSLR during my research. From what I can gather, mirrorless does not yet have the capabilities of a regular DSLR camera since it is still relatively new technology. It will catch up, but in the meantime, I think D7200 is for me!
@farmreporter@tigerdreamer It's not the weight of the camera body that is the major difference, the D750 for instance is a few grams lighter than the D7200 even, but the weight of high quality FF lenses.
And just a little on mirrorless "technology." It has progressed by leaps and bounds, especially in the last 18 months. There are superb cameras available from Fujifilm (the stunning X-T2 for example) and Sony (the FF a7Rii and the APS-C a6300/6500), Olympus and Panasonic (Lumix), the last two "micro four thirds" sensors even smaller than the APS-C sizes. All with excellent native lenses. In some ways significantly outstripping traditional DSLR technology. In other ways, not quite... I would call the technology now "sound" and "quite mature." I have shot with the X-T2 and the a6500 quite a bit (rentals) and if I were starting in the field with what I know now, I would be hard pressed not to consider starting with one or the other, the Nikon DSLR hardliner that I must admit I am. I would not have said this even 1 year ago...
But yes, the D7200 is a fine camera, and significantly less expensive than its high end "mirrorless" competition. I shoot most of the time with a D7100, and it will continue to be fine for me for a little more time, until the "next generation" Nikons (the replacement for the D750) come to market.
@frankhymus So true, Frank.
And really, for me and all I wish to do with my photography, I really do not need to consider getting the higher quality FF lenses (though I certainly wish I could be that extravagant!)
+1 can of worms. I have a D800 and a D500, and a D200 before the D800. Use both the 500 and the 800 for photos posted here.
Frank has written a very good summary. To offer my (personal) experinces:
1. I like the pictures out of the D800 more. Sometimes, but by no means all the time, I can see a difference (and I am just a hack -- not using the camera for my living). I use primes on the D800 when ever I can.
2. The D500 is an easier thing to use than the D800 (which quite unforgiving of a casual operator), and I will very happily pick the D500 up with midrange zoom as a walk around. Whereas midrange zoom on the D800 makes me want to throw up on myself -- they feel like different tools.
3. The biggest single change you will probably notice going to a new camera is high ISO performance, Dx or FX -- it'll be another world.
4. Big viewfinders (FF is better, D500 still good) are nice -- my wife has a D5300, and it's like looking through a tunnel. Mirrorless could be something to look at if this is a big consideration.
If I had to make the choice, it would be FF. But as Frank gets to, it depends on your priorities -- size, weight, cost, and just convenience favour DX. I guess I would characterise FF as being that last 10-20% (and if you are printing big).
To Karen's suggestion -- I also have a baby Oly m43 mirrorless (EM10II) for when weight matters; I'd encourage you to go try one of those before you put your money down; Fuji is also well spoken of. Not as nimble to use as a DSLR, but there are a lot of people in this forum doing excellent work with them. I can get the camera,.3 primes, two zooms, and a battery in a very small bag. The same set up for the D800 is a back pack.
I hope you are not confused too much. Feel free to ask questions.
I'm a mirrorless camera user but got the FFF, full frame fever, as I've been trying out cameras as I look to upgrade. I tried out the nikon d750, terrific images but too heavy and cumbersome to lug around on trips, etc. At least for me. Not only that but I missed the in camera image stabilization of Olympus. I'm testing the Olympus em10mkii now and think I'll keep it, then buy the new Olympus em1mkii in a year or two when price drops.
@scotthouston@slash
Thank you, Scott for your comments which are really pertinent considering you use both cameras. I agree - I will see a huge difference in the newer technology from what I have at the moment no matter which way I go - especially in low light situations! D80 only goes up to ISO 1600 and that is super noisy. Looking forward to better options!
Would my present lenses work with a mirrorless camera or would I need to invest in a whole new set - not that I have a whole bunch of them.
I went from a D7000 to a D610 and the transition went very smoothly for me because these cameras are ergonomically very similar, and because I planned and knew ahead of time that the additional weight and bulk of the FF body was something that I was prepared to live with.
If you have a perfectionist's eye, you should notice that the D7200 will definitely give you sharper and cleaner images than the D80 did with the same lens, and without compromising on the additional weight of a FF body. If that's all you're trying to achieve, then I suggest the D7200 is perfect for you.
However, if you specifically plan to be shooting in low light action situations (concerts, sports) all of the time then FF is definitely the better choice for you.
But I guess the best advice I could give is to make your way up in small steps. I.E. don't jump from a D80 to a D810 because you may feel intimiated or overwhelmed and give up using it out of frustration. Just step your way up gradually at your own pace, and enjoy the ride.
@farmreporter No, different lenses for sure. 3.bp.blogspot.com/-HWAxuaEb_xo/Vaw-5040jmI/AAAAAAABAIU/E_hTHkt-3Sw/s400/20150503-20150503-IMG_20150503_075448-2.jpg for some idea of 85mm comparison, as an FYI. (sorry for long link)
My two cents for what it is worth...
People make amazing, compelling images with all kinds of cameras. There are advantages and disadvantages to all cameras. So, if you understand these two things you need to ask yourself what kind of photography you want to do, then you can make educated decisions on the equipment you want to invest in and find equipment that best suits you needs. A $10000 camera won't take more interesting pictures then a $100 camera.
In your situation, it seems like you do need a new body because yours is old and possibly becoming unreliable. The question you should ask is what limitations does you current camera body impose on you?
So I guess the question is what do you want your new camera to be able to do?
@scotthouston The "problem" with the D800 "hand held" is the large MP count, and the quite significant "shutter shock" and "mirror slap," which combined with the "less dense" pixel placement, is a problem APS-C DSLR cameras don't appear to have to much extent. All large mp FF cameras have this issue, later vintages of such cameras invested a lot of time working out how to dampen this. The D810 is a lot better, and the Sony a7Rii and the Canon 5DR had varying success on the same problem. If you have time for a shot and care to take it, "mirror up" shooting works OK, or defeats the purpose of a true "through the optical viewfinder" shooting. Live View too, but then you face the problems of the inferior on-sensor Auto Focus. The Canon 5Div I think introduced "dual pixel" mode into FF Live View...
Whilst I don't understand all the technology, I'll put in my penn'orth by saying that I have a Sony a6000 (now superseded by the a6300 - and one more I think) and my opinion is that it's a fabulous camera. I never wanted a dslr because of the weight and I can't fault the Sony in any way.
I have a Canon 70d and a Canon 6d and I have noticed a significant difference in the quality of my images, so I am loving a full frame. I did love my 70d though, the touch screen is really handy and the image quality is great too. I think it comes down to budget and priorities. Buying a really good lens makes a real difference on either full frame or crop.
The simple answer for me is yes. If you feel that you are ready to go from a regular dslr to full frame because it will only make your work better or that you know it is time to move up to the next level then the answer is yes. If you just want a new toy, it is an expensive status toy and not always worth the investment.
I went to a full frame on a round about reason. I had been shooting Olympus dslr and film, and Olympus was no longer making a full dslr and moving to micro 4/3 and mirrorless. I felt that they were not going to support my needs in the future. I decided to dive head in and went with nikon (new body, new lenses, new filters, and learning curve) and that if I was going to make that investment I really needed to step up my game and go full frame My d750 has features I am still discovering and blow my mind. I also thought about this for almost a year, researched, talked with users, and rented the camera first. I just knew that if I had to start from scratch it was time to move up my game. Now mind you nothing from this month was shot on that camera.
I also answer yes because I shoot half of my work in film and that is full frame and I love the feel that what I think I shoot is wyhat I capture.
@slash I thought that at first on the weight but I found it was the lenses that were heavy and not the actual body. I am a big prime lens fan which helps save weight. I also would go with a f1.8 over a f1.4 if it saved 8 ounces.
I have FF and APS-C Nikons (current models) and APS-C Sony mirrorless and several Fuji's including the XT-2. If I could only have one camera, I would choose the XT-2: the image quality is superb even at very High ISOs and Fuji glass is outstanding and reasonably priced.
I really appreciate everyone taking the time to answer this thread!
Nic, my low light situations will not be at arenas or concerts, but will be outdoors in early/late dawn or dusk hours and perhaps some night-time moon shots.
What I am aiming for is a more versatile, and now reliable, camera that will give me a better quality image ... something that I can see in my mind's eye but I find hard to achieve with my old D80.
I realize the limitations of the DX cameras but do not expect to sell my work, and will only print for my own or family photo albums so am willing to live with that.
However, I also photograph almost exclusively manual and enjoy taking total control of all settings to get what I want. However, I find that changing the settings on my old D80 slow and cumbersome using the menu so ease of use is an important consideration for me.
While price is not a limitation, neither do I want to squander money on something I don't need or use. I think I would rather save some bucks to spend on more lenses.
@farmreporter If you like "taking control of all settings" then the Fuji XT-2 is definitely for you as it has a physical control for virtually everything... go and play with one in your favourite camera shop.
@farmreporter Go for it. The D7200 will do everything you want and more. And you can print (even super large) most effectively, don't worry about that. I do it all the time, show and distribute the prints too. It has much more to do with your shooting technique and the quality of the lens (high quality FX lenses will mount and work on the D7200 just fine). Post processing too. Rather than the size of the sensor you are shooting with.
All the best. I'll look forward to seeing shots with your new camera.
@frankhymus Thanks, Frank. I am so excited and think it will be the 7200.
I plan on heading to 'the city' on Tuesday or Wednesday armed with prices from places like Amazon and Best Buy so that I can get the local dealership to barter a bit. I am willing to pay a LITTLE more to shop local but will go to the best deal if they cannot compete.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
when i have more time i will chime in as I shoot both a D610 (full frame) and D7000
My primary is a full frame, but it's pretty old (as camera technology goes). I would think a good-quality non-full frame camera that has all of the options (manual mode, etc.) would suit most people and save them money in the process. As Jake mentioned, it can be a can of worms, some people are pretty passionate about their feelings on this... In the end, I've found that the best camera you can get is the one you have; subject and composition are so much more important (for the regular shooter). Unless you plan on selling large prints of your shots, I wouldn't worry too much about getting the best/most expensive gear.
One reason not to go "Full Frame" is that all your current "DX" lenses {that don't cover the whole FF frame) would be disadvantaged shooting, say, a D610 or a D750. Native FX (full frame) lenses (larger, heavier, more glass) are expensive, comparatively, and typically a lot heavier.
FF cameras will, typically, have better "high ISO" performance (bigger, fatter light sensitive pixel points) and will give you better "bokeh" or nice background blur {same number of "big" pixels spread over more than twice the sensor area) for the same "f/stop," but with the modern D7200, it is not all that significant in practice. FF cameras will be heavier, and native lenses significantly "heavier." One significant advantage of APS-C cameras is that the "reach" of a telephoto lens is natively 50% more than FF for the same absolute focal length.
The D7200, too, will have just about every bell, whistle and feature of, say, a D750. If you can't say why you would want a FF camera, (there are pro reasons why, but we won't go there right now) then you don't need one. Truly. With modern cameras, it is much more about the technology of the camera rather than the size of the image sensor.
All the best. Might I suggest that you look for a factory reconditioned D7200 and save several hundred pounds over new.
Thank you, guys. I think that you are just confirming what I suspected and I really appreciate that.
And, Frank, I never thought about the fact that all my lens are DX so I would have to upgrade them as well. Thank you for that reminder - it is an important item to consider.
I also checked out the comparisons on mirrorless versus the DSLR during my research. From what I can gather, mirrorless does not yet have the capabilities of a regular DSLR camera since it is still relatively new technology. It will catch up, but in the meantime, I think D7200 is for me!
And just a little on mirrorless "technology." It has progressed by leaps and bounds, especially in the last 18 months. There are superb cameras available from Fujifilm (the stunning X-T2 for example) and Sony (the FF a7Rii and the APS-C a6300/6500), Olympus and Panasonic (Lumix), the last two "micro four thirds" sensors even smaller than the APS-C sizes. All with excellent native lenses. In some ways significantly outstripping traditional DSLR technology. In other ways, not quite... I would call the technology now "sound" and "quite mature." I have shot with the X-T2 and the a6500 quite a bit (rentals) and if I were starting in the field with what I know now, I would be hard pressed not to consider starting with one or the other, the Nikon DSLR hardliner that I must admit I am. I would not have said this even 1 year ago...
But yes, the D7200 is a fine camera, and significantly less expensive than its high end "mirrorless" competition. I shoot most of the time with a D7100, and it will continue to be fine for me for a little more time, until the "next generation" Nikons (the replacement for the D750) come to market.
And really, for me and all I wish to do with my photography, I really do not need to consider getting the higher quality FF lenses (though I certainly wish I could be that extravagant!)
Frank has written a very good summary. To offer my (personal) experinces:
1. I like the pictures out of the D800 more. Sometimes, but by no means all the time, I can see a difference (and I am just a hack -- not using the camera for my living). I use primes on the D800 when ever I can.
2. The D500 is an easier thing to use than the D800 (which quite unforgiving of a casual operator), and I will very happily pick the D500 up with midrange zoom as a walk around. Whereas midrange zoom on the D800 makes me want to throw up on myself -- they feel like different tools.
3. The biggest single change you will probably notice going to a new camera is high ISO performance, Dx or FX -- it'll be another world.
4. Big viewfinders (FF is better, D500 still good) are nice -- my wife has a D5300, and it's like looking through a tunnel. Mirrorless could be something to look at if this is a big consideration.
If I had to make the choice, it would be FF. But as Frank gets to, it depends on your priorities -- size, weight, cost, and just convenience favour DX. I guess I would characterise FF as being that last 10-20% (and if you are printing big).
To Karen's suggestion -- I also have a baby Oly m43 mirrorless (EM10II) for when weight matters; I'd encourage you to go try one of those before you put your money down; Fuji is also well spoken of. Not as nimble to use as a DSLR, but there are a lot of people in this forum doing excellent work with them. I can get the camera,.3 primes, two zooms, and a battery in a very small bag. The same set up for the D800 is a back pack.
I hope you are not confused too much. Feel free to ask questions.
Good luck with your camera search.
Thank you, Scott for your comments which are really pertinent considering you use both cameras. I agree - I will see a huge difference in the newer technology from what I have at the moment no matter which way I go - especially in low light situations! D80 only goes up to ISO 1600 and that is super noisy. Looking forward to better options!
Would my present lenses work with a mirrorless camera or would I need to invest in a whole new set - not that I have a whole bunch of them.
If you have a perfectionist's eye, you should notice that the D7200 will definitely give you sharper and cleaner images than the D80 did with the same lens, and without compromising on the additional weight of a FF body. If that's all you're trying to achieve, then I suggest the D7200 is perfect for you.
However, if you specifically plan to be shooting in low light action situations (concerts, sports) all of the time then FF is definitely the better choice for you.
But I guess the best advice I could give is to make your way up in small steps. I.E. don't jump from a D80 to a D810 because you may feel intimiated or overwhelmed and give up using it out of frustration. Just step your way up gradually at your own pace, and enjoy the ride.
People make amazing, compelling images with all kinds of cameras. There are advantages and disadvantages to all cameras. So, if you understand these two things you need to ask yourself what kind of photography you want to do, then you can make educated decisions on the equipment you want to invest in and find equipment that best suits you needs. A $10000 camera won't take more interesting pictures then a $100 camera.
In your situation, it seems like you do need a new body because yours is old and possibly becoming unreliable. The question you should ask is what limitations does you current camera body impose on you?
So I guess the question is what do you want your new camera to be able to do?
I went to a full frame on a round about reason. I had been shooting Olympus dslr and film, and Olympus was no longer making a full dslr and moving to micro 4/3 and mirrorless. I felt that they were not going to support my needs in the future. I decided to dive head in and went with nikon (new body, new lenses, new filters, and learning curve) and that if I was going to make that investment I really needed to step up my game and go full frame My d750 has features I am still discovering and blow my mind. I also thought about this for almost a year, researched, talked with users, and rented the camera first. I just knew that if I had to start from scratch it was time to move up my game. Now mind you nothing from this month was shot on that camera.
I also answer yes because I shoot half of my work in film and that is full frame and I love the feel that what I think I shoot is wyhat I capture.
I really appreciate everyone taking the time to answer this thread!
Nic, my low light situations will not be at arenas or concerts, but will be outdoors in early/late dawn or dusk hours and perhaps some night-time moon shots.
What I am aiming for is a more versatile, and now reliable, camera that will give me a better quality image ... something that I can see in my mind's eye but I find hard to achieve with my old D80.
I realize the limitations of the DX cameras but do not expect to sell my work, and will only print for my own or family photo albums so am willing to live with that.
However, I also photograph almost exclusively manual and enjoy taking total control of all settings to get what I want. However, I find that changing the settings on my old D80 slow and cumbersome using the menu so ease of use is an important consideration for me.
While price is not a limitation, neither do I want to squander money on something I don't need or use. I think I would rather save some bucks to spend on more lenses.
Decisions, decisions!
All the best. I'll look forward to seeing shots with your new camera.
I plan on heading to 'the city' on Tuesday or Wednesday armed with prices from places like Amazon and Best Buy so that I can get the local dealership to barter a bit. I am willing to pay a LITTLE more to shop local but will go to the best deal if they cannot compete.
SO EXCITED! LOL!
https://www.amazon.com/David-Buschs-Nikon-Digital-Photography/dp/1681980304/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1483924255&sr=1-1&keywords=david+busch+d7200