Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Let me state a very obvious truism as a starting point for contributing to this discussion:
95% of all serious photographers could probably take 95% of their photographs for 95% of the time with pretty well any half-decent camera that has been produced in the past 5 years or more.
It is only for the other 5% - those photographs that have to be taken in difficult circumstances - that very much will be gained by "upgrading" the camera.
"Advanced" cameras will allow acceptable photographs to be taken in more extreme circumstances. By advanced, I do not just mean sensor size or sensor resolution but also things like processing engine, autofocus, exposure control, burst speed, dynamic range, etc., etc.
My own personal progression (if that is the right word) was from Nikon D80 to D300 to D3s to D800. Of course, given what I started by saying, for 95% of my shots, the D800 does not, on the face of it, give me any better initial photographs than the D80 did.
I do enjoy the extra 5% of extreme situations that the later camera helps me cope with. But I would be a fool to pretend that it is much more than 5%.
No, for me, (as I have said several times on this forum), the main advantage of the D800 over my earlier dSLRs lies in the comparatively larger amount of data I get every time I press the tit. My Raw files are now 45Mb. However you look at it, post-exposure photo processing is essentially data processing; so it stands to reason that the more data I have available, the more creative options are available to me in processing.
So that maybe gives another slant on the question - most of the benefits I obtain from a full frame, high-Mp camera are enjoyed when I am sitting at my computer, rather than when I am out taking photographs.
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
The new Sony sensors and removing the AA filter are continuing the trend of making full frame less of a requirement for superb image quality and resolution.
If you have a lot of Nikon lenses it may not pay to jump ship, but the results from the K5-lls were compared to Nikon D4 and won on all points, the trend is continuing in the Pentax K3 if it's resolution your after.
My K5 Flickr photostream
But it still has to be said that lenses matter more than camera for IQ, it's just not as cut and dried as it once was, a few years ago if you wanted the best IQ then you went full frame, not so much these days.
If you going to stay with Nikon the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 lens is still the industry standard for weddings.
Count me in for another vote for a D7100. I'd pair it with Sigma's 17-50 and 50-150 f/2.8's. This is a pretty decent set up for weddings, as far as body and lenses are concerned. A good flash will also be of a lot of use, if you don't already have one.
As mentioned, Micro 4/3 is another option. I contemplated jumping over to the EM-5 for a second body, but it didn't seem quite right. After reading extensively (or as much as I can) on the EM-1, I'm convinced that it's the new body I've been after, for which I'd pair with Panasonic's 12-40 and 35-100 f/2.8, respectively. Although I'd also throw in the battery grip and flash for good measure.
Honestly, I've even contemplating selling my D7100 and the rest of my Nikon gear for the EM-1...
Quote: The new Sony sensors and removing the AA filter are continuing the trend of making full frame less of a requirement for superb image quality and resolution.
The D7100 many are suggesting has no AA filter and 24 MP, so all of the current best bells and whistles
One of the points being made in this thread by hands on users is the assumption that FX is needed for "superb image quality" is largely a myth.
My own experience is similar to Grays of Westminster technical reviews in that using good lenses there is no advantage, D3 to D300, to 1600 ISO in an A3+ plus print.
I now shoot the D7100 and D800 (because each is better than the other for some subjects) and find no D800 quality advantage in 24 inch wide prints to 1600 ISO, and only a marginal difference at 3200. Either (as also D3 compared to D300) are capable of superb quality prints.
I prefer the D800 on the occasions when my aim is an A2 print - and I have the money to pay for this size print. I prefer the D7100 for a lot of my wildlife because I can get more working distance for the same viewfinder crop with insects, and for mammals without buying the 600 or 800 primes I would need shooting FX compared to the 200-400, sometimes with 1.4x, on DX.
I have not read any comments so far, so therefore this is my opinion.
I personally believe if you go full frame you won't want to go back to crop sensors, I have the Canon 5D mk iii and love it.
For weddings it is the perfect camera, I struggle going back to crop sensors now, it could be me but I find the IQ on ff sensors is next to none, also when you put a 70-200mm f2.8 lens on, that is what it is.
Where I found crop sensors come into there own is with Wild life where sometimes it's nice to have that extra reach, but saying that I have found these cropped sensors to be noisy in comparison to full frame.
If you are asking my opinion then it has to be full frame with a good lens, F1.8 TO A F2.8 lens is a perfect match to the full frame, my perfect lenses for weddings are as follows.
canon 24-70mm f2.8
canon 50mm f1.8
canon 70-200mm f2.8
That in my opinion covers the lenses need on focal lengths, never have i needed anything else on my full frame camera.
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
01/09/2014 - 30/09/2014
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View September's Photo Month Calendar