[Brightcolours]

[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1286794805' post='3581']

I asked the question of yours to myself often... I'm upgrading from D90 to D700 and feel quite comfortable inside, because:



- I love shooting with wide angle lenses; bird shooting or sports photography is not my style.

- except for my 11-16mm Tokina, all of my lenses are FF compatible. This one was the most critical issue for me, because UWA lenses for FX are quite pricy (the -expected to be- new Tokina 16-28mm can be a relief).

- bigger pixels = higher tonal range and good ISO perfromance (I don't need huge prints). The D700 owners I talked with, told me that usually 400 is their base ISO (also they can take brilliant pictures with ISO 1600).

- D700 is an affordable FX body in Nikon universe. I gave up waiting for a D700 successor which will be most probably a D700x with video avalibility (and with a significant higer price tag).



Yet; having said these, I will see if my expectations will be met, beginning from next week...



Kind regards,



Serkan

[/quote]

Your Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 is also "FF compatible". It will mount, it will AF, and it will give a fine vignette free image at 16mm.



So you can still use it perfectly on your Nikon D700. Just not as 11-16mm zoom, but as 16mm f2.8 prime.

[PuxaVida]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1286800466' post='3582']

Your Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 is also "FF compatible". It will mount, it will AF, and it will give a fine vignette free image at 16mm.



So you can still use it perfectly on your Nikon D700. Just not as 11-16mm zoom, but as 16mm f2.8 prime.

[/quote]



I know, but the 16mm is the worst focal length in terms of sharpness (at least in D90). That's why I'm not expecting too much from it. The best 12-13mm part will not be usable (unless I'm ok with the 5.1MP cropped mode). But by all means, I won't sell it with the D90, I will try it on the D700 first.



Regards,



Serkan

[genotypewriter]

[quote name='Lomskij' timestamp='1286786840' post='3573']

I guess the same arguments can be applied to FF vs medium format :-))

[/quote]

Agree... and medium vs. large, etc.





[quote name='Lomskij' timestamp='1286786840' post='3573']

Sony A850/A900 and Nikon D3X have similar pixel density as 10/12 mpix APS-C cameras (D200/D300), so that's not exactly true.

[/quote]

That's the dpreview way of comparing things... pixel to pixel. If I want 30x20" prints that's what I'll produce whether I use an APS-C or a FF. So the dimensions of the reproductions stay the same but the FF image has less magnification and hence better SNR.





[quote name='Lomskij' timestamp='1286786840' post='3573']

Obviosly the 2.25x difference in light gathering is not going to dissapear, however the point is that crop sensors are so good at the moment, that the main FF advantages are no longer "so obvious" in most of the situations.

[/quote]

Sure... all cameras are good and are capable producing images that weren't possible before. But still there are cameras out there that are better than others <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />





[quote name='Lomskij' timestamp='1286786840' post='3573']

The appearance of lenses like 25mm f/0.95 doesn't help either :-)

[/quote]

So someone managed to hack a manual focus lens on to the FourThirds mount that's barely equivalent (still less than) a 50 1.8 on FF plus a whole lot of aberrations... big woof <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> That's probably 1950's tech <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> I'd like to see them make a 42mm f/0.66 lens to match a 85 1.2 on FF lol





[quote name='Lomskij' timestamp='1286786840' post='3573']

I don't get this one, care to elaborate? There are tons of FF lenses that look really poor on high density FF sensors, while still can be used APS-C because of sweet spot.

[/quote]

Like I said before, it's not a fair comparison unless we're comparing at the same reproduction sizes. And the differences you can see will also depend on how large your print them. I'm sure there are exceptions such as when an APS-C lens has be re-badged as a FF lens (e.g. 70-200 VR), etc.



GTW

[Steinar1]

HM...... reading you all I just now realize I made a mistake buying the D300s instead of the D700 (1 week before the D7000 was announced <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> ). I think I need to follow you Serkan before I get too heavily invested in lenses that are DX only. Very interesting discussion. Wish we had more like this one! Kindly Vieux Loup

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1286809310' post='3585']

HM...... reading you all I just now realize I made a mistake buying the D300s instead of the D700 (1 week before the D7000 was announced <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> ). I think I need to follow you Serkan before I get too heavily invested in lenses that are DX only. Very interesting discussion. Wish we had more like this one! Kindly Vieux Loup

[/quote]

No reason for that, a switch to full frame. Just because for certain areas full frame can have an advantage does not mean APS-C has none. Only when you feel you find yourself limited by your lenses and camera you should start to look for a solution.



Full frame has less reach with the same lens to fill the frame. Your Tamron 70-300 VC USD will not be as "long" on full frame.

For now, you are the limiting factor.



You chose a 16-85mm f3.5-5.6 DX VR lens over f2.8 lenses.... for now you really do not sound like the photographer who would benefit from full frame.

[Steinar1]

Of course I am the limiting factor <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> As always B you have no problems putting the finger on the mark. But my guess is most of us are the limiting factors, you included and please permit me to philosophize a little. You see, I would add a D700, not sell my D300s, so my lenses are still good and I am very happy with the 16-85, which I think is the best Nikon transstandard in terms of optical qualities, bar none! Kindly Vieux Loup

[Guest]

[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1286815178' post='3587']

Of course I am the limiting factor <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> As always B you have no problems putting the finger on the mark. But my guess is most of us are the limiting factors, you included and please permit me to philosophize a little. You see, I would add a D700, not sell my D300s, so my lenses are still good and I am very happy with the 16-85, which I think is the best Nikon transstandard in terms of optical qualities, bar none! Kindly Vieux Loup

[/quote]





Yes - If I bought into FX I would not abandon DX. For example, to find the same DX 'reach' as, say, my 70-300VR on FX would cost a lot of money. I also hate disposing of equipment, I get 'attached' to it! I would, maybe sell my 18-200VR to part finance my next FX lens; I almost never use it.



It is clear that Nikon (for one) are continuing and reinforcing the dual FF/crop approach (to use more general terms). This allows that big premium price on FX bodies, which enthusiasts/pros are paying. But DX provides the 'volume' sales which pays overheads and the 'foot in the door' for people first getting into DSLRS.



What does fascinate me is the future of Canon's 1.3X crop body approach. I actually think that this is a very workable compromise format and I wish there were more body choices. I guess we are where we are though, in that a 1.3X body from any manufacturer would have to use existing FF lenses. Sorry for going a bit off-topic.

[joachim]

[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1286807403' post='3584']

So someone managed to hack a manual focus lens on to the FourThirds mount that's barely equivalent (still less than) a 50 1.8 on FF plus a whole lot of aberrations... big woof <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> That's probably 1950's tech <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> I'd like to see them make a 42mm f/0.66 lens to match a 85 1.2 on FF lol





[/quote]



See [url="http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?/topic/323-nokton-%C2%B5ft-25095-samples/"]http://forum.photozo...-25095-samples/[/url] for discussion/samples from the 25/.95 lens for mFT.



J.

[Guest]

For me the #1 advantage of FF is shallow DOF (isolation); and if there was a cheap option I'd go with 6x7. Sensor technology will always improve as well as 'special effects' and FF seems to move at a slower pace so from a technical perspective of sensor technology FF (and larger) can be better but there will be periods between leaps when it is less so.

[PuxaVida]

Well, what I've learned from forums (and I personally believe so) is that the investment is better made for the lenses. The lenses are the faithful friends... But all in all, I think the choice must be depending on the way we take pictures. My 70-300mm will be fine with the D700 because I barely used the 250-300mm range in my D90. What I'm looking forward to is whether the 70mm will still be deadly sharp or not. Also, my expectations regarding D700 are below the 50mm range (Nikon 24-85D and Zeiss / Nikon 50mm) and moreover the 105mm micro.



Kind regards,



Serkan