08-20-2010, 01:06 PM
[quote name='exuvia' timestamp='1282296754' post='1946']
you should ask yourself some questions...
- "which size I'm going to print, at maximum?" This is actually what makes you choose between a high pixel count body and a medium pixel count body (aka: FF or DX).
- "I'm going to need high iso shooting?". If yes, go with a FF D700.
- "how much Depth of field handling is crucial to me? (portraits, for example)". If it is, go FF, otherwise DX is more than enough.
And now for the brands: as Edge said, feel a body in your hand, to decide the brand. Nikon has better ergonomics, but that doesn't mean Canon has something wrong. Nikon makes some better lens, as the micro series and the wide angle zooms (14-24 at the top), but they are expensive. Canon makes very good lenses too, and not necessarily cheaper.
About other makers: trust Tokina, less so Sigma (quality control issues).
I'm a full time pro nature photographer, and I am totally satisfied (up to 60x90 prints) with my D300 and D200. So, after all, what does matter is other than megapixel.
[/quote]
I am not necessarily needing a FF sensor for the print size, because I never print that big other than for testing maybe. I mostly limit to A3.
I often shoot in low light conditions where flash is impossible or useless (inside cathedrals or similar conditions and would like the ability to shoot at high ISO
I don't think I absolutely need the FF for the DOF. However, it would be nice
With respect to brands, I think that I can adapt to both with some work. I have had the 7D in my hands and it feels nice, but I have not yet seen a D300S or a D700. However, I am confident that I can adapt to both and I agree with you that High MP count is not a guarantee for high quality images.
Frankly, I think both make good lenses, but I am interested in seeing whether I can find the same quality for a lesser price.
you should ask yourself some questions...
- "which size I'm going to print, at maximum?" This is actually what makes you choose between a high pixel count body and a medium pixel count body (aka: FF or DX).
- "I'm going to need high iso shooting?". If yes, go with a FF D700.
- "how much Depth of field handling is crucial to me? (portraits, for example)". If it is, go FF, otherwise DX is more than enough.
And now for the brands: as Edge said, feel a body in your hand, to decide the brand. Nikon has better ergonomics, but that doesn't mean Canon has something wrong. Nikon makes some better lens, as the micro series and the wide angle zooms (14-24 at the top), but they are expensive. Canon makes very good lenses too, and not necessarily cheaper.
About other makers: trust Tokina, less so Sigma (quality control issues).
I'm a full time pro nature photographer, and I am totally satisfied (up to 60x90 prints) with my D300 and D200. So, after all, what does matter is other than megapixel.
[/quote]
I am not necessarily needing a FF sensor for the print size, because I never print that big other than for testing maybe. I mostly limit to A3.
I often shoot in low light conditions where flash is impossible or useless (inside cathedrals or similar conditions and would like the ability to shoot at high ISO
I don't think I absolutely need the FF for the DOF. However, it would be nice
With respect to brands, I think that I can adapt to both with some work. I have had the 7D in my hands and it feels nice, but I have not yet seen a D300S or a D700. However, I am confident that I can adapt to both and I agree with you that High MP count is not a guarantee for high quality images.
Frankly, I think both make good lenses, but I am interested in seeing whether I can find the same quality for a lesser price.