Which FX body should i get?

[LittleSparrow]

I had planned on getting 2 new lenses with my budgeted $3000. But now im thinking i might get an full fame body and 1 lens. I currently have a Nikon D7100 which i like but am always wanting a wider view so getting an FX body seems the way to go. The lens i want is around $1500 ish, so the body would need to be around $1500 too. From research i can get a Nikon D650 or a little stretch in the budget would get me a D750. As far as i can tell through reviews the D650 is quite close to the D7100 aside from the DX, FX thing. How does the D750 differ from the D7100 and the D650?

Would also love to see photos or hear your reviews if you own or owned these FX bodies?

[arthurking83]

difference between D610 and D750 would be to account for the type of shooting you do. ie. what's your main shooting preference for, and what other things are you interested in too?
If you only really do landscapes, I doubt there'd be any advantage in a D750 over a D610. Same sensor, same sensor ability, etc.
I use the landscape reference simply due to yoru comment re wider lens.. which is an issue mainly with landscape shooting.

Pop it on a tripod frame it up, shoot. A better body probably won't really help you get 'better images'.
D750 has the tilting screen, which can help in some very rare situations. But you'd ask yourself how many times are you likely to be shooting landscapes from ground height or 2m high .. or whatever ;)

But very few of us only do one style of of photography subject(some of us don't get enough time to do any photography too tho .. but a discussion for another day! :p)

So lets assume you like a bit of street photography, and maybe some macro, and a bit of bird chasing .. D750 would be an advantage in those non Landscapey situations(in some way).

Other advantages of the D750 over the D610 to consider:
* Uses a more modern processor, so (where this may have IQ effects) could result in slightly nicer high ISO images of you ever need to shoot at elevated ISO levels.
Theoretically there should be no processing to high ISO, if you set high ISO NR to off. But in almost all cameras, this doesn't happen.. they mainly all have a slight bit of NR applied to the raw file to assist with IQ. later version processor will have been tweaked a bit more than an earlier model processor.

* Uses the 51 point AF module, which not only gives more focus points, but is also a better, more accurate and sensitive focus module.

* Allows more frames for bracketing if this is a feature you would use. Can be important in some HDR landscape situations. Obviously you could just as easily capture more frames in the D610 in two separate instances, but in some situations elements can move just enough to make that a harder task.

* In terms of weight, the D750 is lighter by 100g. Not a huge amount, but usually more features in a body = heavier! It's body has more magnesium than the D610, but in the end it's a moot point for multi material devices. If a problem were to arise(ie. in the form of an accident), the most likely section to be damaged will be the weakest part anyhow. So even if more of the D750 body had more magnesium in it's construction, the part that will most likely break will be that smaller are of plastic that is the weak point.
But the lower weight could be an advantage to be mindful of.

Hope that helps.

[LittleSparrow]

Thank you for your reply! Very detailed and helps a lot.
Landscapes, seascapes and night/milkyway shots are of interest to me. I've always felt let down when trying to do these with my DX camera body. My main interest is photographing people. I plan on using the D7100 for head shots portraits and close ups like that but i'd love to create artistic portraits using the entire person and incorporating more of the background scenery/landscape that i believe a full frame would help me accomplish.

[arthurking83]

I reckon the bigger advantage of moving from a crop sensor to a larger sensor is more in the portrait side of photography.
Landscapes not so much.
night/sky/astro type photography tho .. no comparison .. Fx over Dx hands down.

For landscapes, think about the situation and settings you'd use.
Lowest ISO. Wide angle most of the time, and pretty much stopped down.
I don't really see a major advantage other than more total number of pixels in the Fx(if you got one with more pixels that is .. ie. D810 or D850).
But at 24Mp, using base ISO, and an appropriate lens .. I don't think the advantage would be as much as you think it will be.
You say you want a wider FOV, but you can still get that with Dx too(think Sigma 8-16mm lens). Allows a 12-24mm equivalent FOV .. so pretty much as wide as it gets.
One advantage a crop camera has over the larger sensor camera is that it allows the use of a wider aperture value for a similar rendering of a scene, where the larger sensor camera will need a smaller aperture by comparison.
The smaller focal length for a set FOV, allows the use of a wider aperture, so you let more light in, as well as possibly set the lens to a more efficient aperture value too.

Just as a rough idea on what I'm referring too, but the actual numbers may be incorrect .. but!
Consider that an 8mm lens could get close focus to infinity rendered sharp using an f/5.6 aperture value, but that the 12mm lens may need f/8 instead for the same focus distance set.
F/5.6 is more than likely the more efficient aperture, in that it probably renders more sharply and allows more light through to the sensor(remember ISO will almost always be set to base setting).
Have a look through any lens test and you'll see that most are optimised for F/4-f/5.6, and progressively get less sharp from f/5.6.
That doesn't mean that f/8 is unusable, just that f/5.6 is sharper.


For Portraits tho, it's a totally new kettle of fish(or chips, or both if you prefer!).
Whereas, with a Dx camera you may have zoomed out a bit more, or shot 50mm instead of 85.. or 85 instead of 135mm ... the point is, with an Fx sensor, to get the same tight crop, you move in more, or you shoot with a longer lens that you may have been used too with Dx. ;)
Move in more of longer focal length .. and much more subject separation.
if you're into that, consider the Sigma 135/1.8 Art lens. Should give really nice results, in terms of sharpness AND blurr.

Night/Astro/milky way .. you'll love the ability to shoot higher ISO with the Fx sensor.

With what you've just added, I'd say aim for the D750 if you can.
NOTE THO!!... I'd advise you to hold off for a bit, if your not rushed to do it.
Reason is that it's about now that Nikon will be updating D610/750 type camera bodies.. it's just that time in their lifecycle to be updated soon.
So two things may come of that .. 1/. that D750's will drop in price due to the new camera being more desirable .. and .. 2/. could be some uber new feature or spec that could be something to wait for and possibly spend a bit more (again) on having in your next camera.
(more than likely I'd say #1 is the more important point that will eventuate)
The rumour mill has been pretty much set that Nikon are probably going to amalgamate the two lines(D610 and D750) into a single model with the next release .. if this happens i'd be interesting to see if the camera is a D620 priced body with D750 features, or the other way around.

You'd probably kick yourself to have got a D750 and the new model is a touch cheaper but with better features... so I'd wait. Nikon usually have new camera releases about Jan/Feb in this part of their cycle.


But irrespective of all that new model talk, for portraits and sometimes in night type shots.. the D750's AF system is almost certain to be an advantage to have over the D610s AF system.

[Glenda]

I went from a D7100 to a D750 last year. Arthur has given lots of good technical advice so I'll just say I really like it and am super impressed with the way it handles high ISO. I never thought I'd go to Fx as I have small hands but the D750 feels comfortable to hold and it's not too heavy.

This was shot ISO 3200 and I have some other posts in the birds and the landscapes sections if you want to check them out.
133833

[ricktas]

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?136940-Full-Frame-Nikon-Recommendations

Looks like you are still looking.

You say that " am always wanting a wider view". What lenses do you have? Because if your current camera is still serving you well, you could simply buy a wider lens. Looking at your work on Flickr, you are doing very well with your photography with the camera you have. And upgrading to an FX body may not be the best way to get wider shots.

You also have the issue that if any of your existing lenses are Dx lenses, then whilst they will fit an FX body, you will get a cropped view, and thus the wide angle you seek will not happen.

[LittleSparrow]

Thank you ArthurKing83! Lots of useful information. I will need to save up a little more if i go for the D750 so i may as well wait and see what Nikon do before purchasing :)

Lplates, thank you for your reply. Beautiful photo!

Ricktas, yes, i ended up upgrading to another DX body from the D3100 and here i am still not feeling 100% satisfied! My lenses are mostly FX aside from my Nikkor 35mm which is a DX lens. I am going to be buying the Tamron 24-70mm and was going to use that on my D7100 but then i thought about the conversion onto a DX body and really wanted that 24mm end to actually equate to 24mm.

[Cage]

I've recently gone from a D800 to a new D7200 plus a used D600, a combo that suits my needs.

I use the D7200 with a Sigma 150-600 Sport for birds and a Tamron 24-70 as a walk around kit, and the D600 for wide work and night shoots.

The money I saved on a pre-loved D600 enabled me to also get a Samyang 12mm f2.8 UWA, mainly for nightscapes.

[MrQ]

The money I saved on a pre-loved D600
Not to mention that Nikon gives you free sensor cleaning for life on the D600. :)

[ricktas]

Not to mention that Nikon gives you free sensor cleaning for life on the D600. :)

Which is all well and good if you live in Sydney. For the rest of Australia, shipping your camera off the the Nikon Service Centre is disruptive. It can be gone for weeks.

[MissionMan]

I went the other way, from full frame to APSC. Ultimately I found very little value in full frame unless you are really pushing the limits. I consider my photography to be good, so it's not that I am a beginner who doesn't know how to use my camera, it's more a case that I realised we are often pushed to full frame as the next progression, but the reality is very few of us actually push our cameras to the degree that APSC becomes a limiting factor. Ultimately, the differentiators are more megapixels or low light...I've quickly realised that more megapixels won't solve my photography problems other than creating more problems for post processing and storage, and low light is about a stop, which isn't much either unless you go to a D5. For low light, you're better off investing in some lighting gear and learning to do lighting properly than shooting at ISO12800. What else? DOF? Only really an issue if you are buying 1.4 primes and lets be realistic, if you're already worried about the cost of a full frame and single lens, buying $2000 primes probably isn't go to be high up on the purchasing list. Then when you're shooting an 85 at 1.4, the question is do you actually know how to use that extra DOF properly?

I'd go with Rick and say buy some more lenses and then upgrade at some point in future if you still think APSC is limiting you.