Upgrade to FX Pro gear - is it worth it?

Reply sent to moderation!!!!!

Hey Barnie

My answer to you is yes definetively yes! Why... As a photographer who shot in many different conditions, i must say that often is the quality of equipment, house and lenses essential to get the shot i want. For me VERY important topics are the quality and speed of the lenses i use, but also High iso quality and water resistant camera house.

Yes of course the photographer controls the images who are shot, and the photographer makes the pictures, BUT I must say that some times, the gear is very important to get the photos I want or need!

Look at it as an investment

I agree. FX is a luxury not a requirement. Good lenses are a requirement not a luxury.
I think you will find most Press people still use DX.

moderation is killing me.

I recently discovered that lot of AP, Reuters or AFP pictures are taked with Canon 5D instead 1D.

My advice: Good lens makes the difference. Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 is the best choice I ever did.

Thanks guys,
I have been researching for quite some time now and think that 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 will cover 99% of what I will need. Then build from there.

I am tempted by the D700 as it is not so huge, but the D3s does fit in the hand so much better than anything else.

Just hope I continue to plan out each shot with care.

most of my replies went to moderation

If you have the cash a D700 and those lenses are good. Though most of the modern Nikon and Canon DSLR's (DX or FX) will out perform the film SLRS of 10-15 years ago. I have had a full page (tabloid) image on the front page using a Nikon D70s (6MP).

I would not get hung up on DSLR "full frame" it is a misnomer It is a new medium and there are a variety of formats none of which have any real relevance to the wet film formats.

Shooting with digital as opposed to film has another element to consider that hasn't been dealt with here yet. In the old film days it was all in the glass in front of the film, as any camera body could hold the film in place, and the film didn't change from camera to newer camera, but with no more film, you have the sensor to deal with, and what is more important you have the software that interprets that captured data into a picture to seriously consider. It is just as important, if not more so, than the glass in front of the sensor.

Your old D3000 has old software converting your capture into a picture. At low ISO you will not notice much of a difference with a newer camera like the D3100, or the D5100 (a superb camera by the way), but when you get above ISO 400 with your current camera you will notice an increase in noise real fast as you increase the ISO. With the newer cameras, and especially the improved noise handling software you can go up over ISO 1600 before you notice the kind of noise you will get with your old camera at ISO 400. This has to do mostly with the software improvements, and a little with the sensor improvements.

Moving to a full frame FX format for you right now isn't as important as moving to a newer camera with better noise handling software.

If you do decide to move up to FX full frame format you will gain quite a bit, mostly in how much more picture you have to crop with, and a decrease in noise with the same amount of megapixels as a ASP-C size DX format. The pixels are farther apart on FX so you get less noise caused by the heat generated. If you have a 16meg FX format camera, and a 16Meg DX format camera the DX format will generate more noise than the full frame FX at the same ISO. You can go to higher ISOs with full frame with less noise than DX format. That is the main difference, along with how much more picture you have to crop from.

What you loose in moving to full frame FX format, and this also hasn't been address, is what is called the crop factor. With full frame FX you are as the title implies at the same size sensor as a 35mm frame of film, and this has created no crop factor.

With APS-C DX format you have a smaller sensor so it crops the scene you are looking at by a multiplying factor. With the Nikon you are at a 1.5 crop factor meaning a 50mm lens is really a 75mm lens on the DX format camera. Why is this called a crop factor if it enlarges the mm's? Because if you look though a 50mm lens on a 35mm film camera the scene is a certain size, if you look through a 75mm lens at the same scene it shows less of the scene, it is cropped. Having a smaller sensor does not record as much of the scene as a full sensor so it essentially has cropped it the same as the increase in mm's did. You gain a 1.5 increase in lens mm's with a Nikon DX format camera. My explanation is crude but I hope you get the concept.

Moving to a full frame camera like the D700 you loose this increase in lens power over the smaller sensor DX format, and that is also something to consider. A 70mm - 200mm F2.8 lens on a DX format is really a 105mm - 300mm F2.8, and this is not something to take mildly at the price of lenses above 200mm at F2.8. The 70mm - 200mm F2.8 will run you new about $2700US, but a 300mm F2.8 you would need to match the DX multiplying factor with full frame will cost you over $4000US, and it goes up exponentially from there.

My 70mm - 300MM F4-F5.6 VR(an excellent lens), tops out at 450mm at F5.6 on my DX D7000, in full frame to reach 450mm F5.6 would be close to $4000, instead of the $500 the lens cost.

With moving up to full frame you also increase your lens cost considerably to get comparable mm lenses over 200mm.

Just some things to consider when looking at moving up to full frame FX cameras.

Steve,
Thanks for the thorough reply it is appreciated.

Yes, I had considered many of the points you have raised, especially the crop / magnification factor. I'm aware that the 70-200 will leave me a little short of the 300mm I could do with. I guess a 1.7x teleconverter should fill the gap in the intrim even though it will pin me back to f4.8 or so.

It is primairally the low light capabilities that attract me to the FX bodies, this is one of the biggest hurdles with my ancient (haha) D3000, anything over ISO400 is unusable.

When I was shooting the Tour of Qatar cycle races early this year I struggled even in full daylight to get sufficient shutter speed. As for auto focus - don't even ask or the mod will remove this post!!

All I need to do now is persude the Mrs!
Barnie.

D700 + 24-70 f/2.8 will get you an amazing lot of the shots you need as a PJ. Add a 70-200 f/2.8 and a TC and you got everything covered, short of sports that is.
Anyway, I don't see you actually stating the need of a D3, nor the need of FX other than knowing it's the Holy Trinity, so I agree in that you're better off starting with upgrading your camera to something that handles low light better. I would advise you to get a D7000, an amazing little camera, well built, with outstanding image quality, video, noise level as good as it gets this days in DX, and start thinking what you really need.
I mean, if you have the money, the combo I suggested you at the beginning will give you the best imaginable quality for anything from hobbyist to professional use, so there's nothing wrong in buying it, but if you have to earn that money and money isn't quite pouring from heaven, which seems the case, you would be wiser in thinking what you really need for what you're actually shooting.

Thanks for your input Patricio,
Much apppreciated.

@Marc Sardón I have tested both 5D (MKII I assume) and the 1D MKIV, though I am not planning to splash out on those cameras, I was impressed more by the 1D.

To the OP: I would stick to the camera manufacturer, this is the main point...because your lenses fit the mount. Splashing out on new camera plus lenses is really expensive. Though I own a Canon 50D, I would recommend you stay on a crop camera. Like Chris said "FX is a luxury not a requirement"

I finally got the 70-200 f2.8, it was essential as I was shooting motorbike races at night. So for now on the old D3000 it is like shooting with a 105 - 300mm f2.8 which is very handy indeed.

I did notice that all the pro photogs were shooting with D3s or Canon D1, and now I know the reason.

When you shoot the pit lane, start grid, race, padock, podium and press conf it all adds up to about 700 photos and a sore hand! The big bodied D3s types are so much easier to hold with a big lens for a long time.

Not one DX or small bodied camera in sight! (except mine of course)

What a difference the lens made, it is like some of my shots look 3D.

re the body... use the MD-D10 it adds a second battery and gives much better handling like the larger bodies.... In fact you may have seen several D700's (which are FX ) with battery packs as they look like the D3's. I use a D300 with the MB-D10.... Put it on to try it and it now never comes off. one of the best investments I made. BTW witht he MB-D10 and 6 AA batteries you ca boost the fps right up.

Unfortunately the MD-D10 battery pack is camera specific, and will not work on your older D3000. As far as I know there is no external battery pack for your present camera.

It is great having good glass isn't it? Can you tell by your picture quality why everyone puts the lens as the first priority in getting top quality pictures?

You also might have not noticed the DX size cameras using a battery pack making their cameras look bigger. My D7000 is small, but with the battery pack grip looks more like the D3x, and my D300 is huge with the battery grip.

one photog was using an old D2, but all the really serious guys were on Canon D1 or Nikon D3s range of kit.

Yes, the D700 + battery grip would be good for me too

I see why people say about getting good glass first, makes such a difference, I have not used my old tele photo since, and rearly pick up the 10-24 Tamron now, the image quality just is not there now I have my superb 70-200 f/2.8

D3s would do me just right though. I notice that the 10fps is essential when shoting horse races, trying to time the snout over the line just is not possible with old D3000, then by the time she has digested the RAW food it is too late to get any more of the action.

I think the D4 is better than the D3s as many of the features are aimed more at the Press.

However as long as you have a "reasonable" camera the most important thing is being there and capturing the image.

Yes, D4 would be my choice, but I'm not that flush with cash at the mo!

I would wait a few weeks and look for a second hand D3s....

Don't get hung up on having to have a full frame sensor. With the technology of today there is not a whole lot of reasons favoring FX over DX. Sure you get a bigger file to work with, and crop from, but that is not enough reason to spend the extra money in my opinion.

You can get a file that will be just as workable from a new DX sensor to meet photojournalism requirements.

As an example the new D4 is only 16megs, and not pushed way out at 24megs. You don't need the extra megapixels in photojournalism or Nikon would have included them. Any image over A3 size is getting out of the photojournalism arena, and 16megs meets every recognized need. A 16meg file from a DX sensor is just as big as a 16meg file from a FX sensor.

Some will press the noise issue, and they are right, but with the new noise algorithms in DX sensor cameras you can shoot at 1600 ISO with very salable results. Below that at 400-800 ISO there is no noticeable difference in noise between sensor size. The new firmware in-camera dealing with noise is fantastic.

The crop factor is different, but is actually a bonus with DX sensor size. That 1.5 crop factor with Nikon saves big bucks when you buy good glass for telephoto work, and there is a wide gamete of lenses designed for DX sensors at the wide angle end of the field.

A very excellent wide angle lens is the Tokina 12mm-24mm F4. It is a top quality piece of glass, and I'm not saying it is a top quality lens given the price, I'm saying it is top quality period, at any price.

The other issue is frame rate per second. 10fps is great, and my Sony NEX5N (APS-C sensor size. Sony makes Nikon's sensors), at 16megs will shoot at that speed (as long as the focus distance doesn't change, like grabbing the horses nose at the wire), for $700, and it has an adapter so my Nikon glass attaches to it. My D300 (built like a tank), with battery grip, and the EL-4A battery (or the AA battery holder), hits 8fps, but gets noisy over 800 ISO, then my D7000 only shooting at a piddly 6fps with, or without battery grip, but is almost noiseless up to, and including 1600 ISO at 16megs. So there are different ways to reach the desired frame rate without spending thousands on a full frame camera for just a few frames faster in some cases.

In my opinion for all around photojournalism work DX sensor size is the way to go if you are on a budget. You will spend less on the camera body. The glass is much cheaper in the telephoto end of things, and with the newest noise reduction algorithms in the firmware you have no concerns shooting at 1600 ISO or less.

For your budget, and with the glass you already have you should seriously check out the new Sony NEX5N as an upgrade to what you have now, not the NEX 7 as it is a little noisier at 24 megs, and is double the price. Check it out on dpreview, and compare it to other cameras concerning noise. It is better than my D7000 for noise reduction, not by much, but it is, and it will shoot blazing fast with only slight limitations. It's a very usable camera for the price, putting out pro quality images.

As usual Steve talks a lot of sense.

For what it is worth I have had a full page (tabloid) picture, on the front page which is close to A3 using a Nikon D70s which is a Dx 6MP camera. Various people who know what they are talking about have said that a good DSLR (Nikanon etc) 6MP and above is good for newspaper and web work. That is as long as the image is most of the frame. Obviously if you want to crop right down and blow that up you need more.

You are asking about FX at the same time Demotix launch their iPhone app.... Whilst most modern phones have 5-8 MP the sensors are smaller and the lenses nothing like as good as a DSLR but they are getting usable pictures. Sometimes the only pictures which is why the are usable rather than being technically good. the BBC did experiment with camera phones a while ago and decided they were OK for emergency use but NOT as a replacement for "proper" cameras

Re "full frame" DSLR's there is no such thing. AFAIK the 35mm SLR film size is in fact historically a HALF FRAME size from the old movie cameras. Whilst Nikon have DX and FX size sensors the FX should not really be called "Full Frame" as it is a digital format and not really connected to the 35mm *half frame* SLR film size.... There are some Wiki pages talking about the various film sizes and digital sensor sizes there are a lot of both and no real direct relationship between film and digital sizes.

After all the 35mm film size is depends on the film put in it. The Dx or FX digital sensors have a wide variety of MP sizes from 1 to 16? and also varying ISO ranges.

The reasons for using FX and DX have nothing to do with one being "more professional" than the other

Steve, couldn't agree more with you. If I get spare money to get a D700, I won't hesitate. I'll then keep my D300 for use with long lenses and use the 700 for low light situations and as a travel light solution with something like a 24-120mm f/4 or 24-70mm f/2.8.
But I can still do 90% of what I need with the D300, and would happily live with a D7000 as backup for far less than a D700 and deal with low light situations and add nice video.
A good friend of mine, an established PJ working for a world class agency, just sold his D3 because for the most he didn't need it and could work with his trusty D300.
I think it's a matter of having the extra cash. If you have it, the more options you have the better. If you don't, DX, as you mention, is the way to go.
And BTW, I own the Tokina you mention, it works as something around 18-35mm f/4, it's a really good lens, it's built like a tank. Only drawback, the odd orange in the corner flare when shooting into the light. But you close the angle to around 14mm and it's gone and you still are in the 20mm equiv zone, so all in all I just don't mind.
In an ideal world, I'd have something like the new Canon GX1 as an carry everywhere camera, and both FX and DX bodies. In the real world, I couldn't be more happier than I am with the D300. If only the rubber wouldn't peel off...

There has been a ton of very valuable and much appreciated information shared here. Thank you all for your contributions.

As for my final decision I shall be going for FX D3s or D700, primarily because of what I am finding the more I shoot proper events.

I'm having to deal with extremes of light where I need to control what is going on, for example,
At the motor racing circuit, shooting bikes at 100mph+ I like a nice 1/60th shutter speed to blur the track etc, but in bright sunlight it is pushing me to f22 and beyond, the 'pro' shooters all have "low ISO" setting which is great, means you can get the shot when required.

Then there is the fps, getting the horse snout over the line - not 10 yards over it, or the 180mph racing bike screaming up the finish straight - old D3000 and many 'not quite pro' cameras just aren't up to it.

Life out here is fun

Barnie, a D300 with grip and AA alkaline cells will burst 8fps (same fps as the D700). The D3 is the winner with 9fps native, 11 in DX mode.
As of low ISO, D300, D700 and D3 all share the low ISO function where you get iso 100, there's no winner there.
If you do need to shoot in low light the D700 is a hell of a camera, you put a grip on it and you get almost the same as a D3 gives you (I've shot up to ISO 3200 with outstanding results). Yet, you take the grip of, put something like a 24/35mm and you get a much more portable set.
I fail to see too many situations where the D3 would be better than a D700.

Well, the discussion takes me to Ken Rockwell "The camera doesn`t matter."
But of course the majority of people are going to discuss the byline without reading or understanding the entire article.

Of course a boring picture taken in a dark sporthall remains boring, even if the camera was enabled to take it without noise. But I´m not convinced, that just the people here around are going to take boring pictures. That´s why the camera does matter, because the competitors provides not only not-boring pictures as You surely does, but also nearly noise-free ones. And this is not the only benefit You´ll get by the FX-sensor.

Noise free is a big bonus, I notice the noise even at ISO 400 on the D3000 at night. I shot the Qatar Golf Masters last weekend, old D3000 performed ok, but could do with the 8 or 10 fps to capture the swing a bit better. Still much to learn though.

I was reading about the D800 this morning, looks like an awesome bit of kit. I shall take some time to consider

The D800 only has a 4 fps rate at full resolution so not really meeting what you want to shoot. It will do 6 fps at DX size of 15.2megs though. At $3000US there are other alternatives for fast frame rate shooting at reduced cost.

I personally want the D800E that was also announced. 36.2 megs fits right in with getting older.

Hi,

I'm a bit late to the game, but I thought I would share some recent experience on the DX to FX move I made over the past few months.

I was shooting with a D300 and D300s, which I had moved to about a year ago from a D100 and D2x. Even with the DX on the D300's I was blown away by the difference in low-light performance. I suspect you will see something similar if you were to just move up from the D3000 to a D300s or D7000. If your budget is such that you can't go all the way to FX then the D7000 is an excellent choice, and used by several pros.

I had been saving my money for a while and focusing my attention on getting f2.8 glass. With the D300's I was using a Sigma 18-50 F2.8 and a Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR. I don't think I can emphasize enough the importance of VR (or IS in the Canon world). Over your life as a photographer you will probably keep lenses much longer than bodies, so it is a great place to put limited resources.

Having said that, a few months ago I got a fantastic opportunity on a used D700 with only 1600 shutter count. I begged, borrowed, and stole enough to make the purchase. It was a major difference, on par with moving from the D100/D2x to the D300.

Immediately I was making sharper images in low light. With the higher usable ISO I was able to use higher shutter speeds, and/or higher aperture for better depth of field. When things are moving, and when combined with a fast AF lens, the notion that FX or good lenses is a luxury dissolves.

Cameras and lenses are your tools, and like a mechanic or plumber, you will need spend on them. For some reason people whistle when they hear that a camera is worth $1000, but would think it perfectly normal for a mechanic to spend $50,000 on a computerized analyzer. For some reason - probably because they have a $100 camera that seems to take great pictures - spending so much on a camera is perceived as a frivolous self indulgence.

Just my $0.02

Cheers
Victor