Hmm. New camera body or a new lens?
- Thread starter Breaker
- Start date
Well depends if you need the MP, whether you print large. Yes you get more detail but depends. People like to pixel peep IMO 10mp is fine, was using that for newspaper print for years and you can fit loads on the cards. 15-16mp is more than enough, the D800 is ridiculous. Got a 5D MKIII and those are too large imo 
but that thing is sharp!
Also a 24mp full frame raw image will be 35 odd mb so once its processed your looking at 100mb per image
plus the extra computation and space. Add a few layers 2-400mbs an image.
but that thing is sharp!Also a 24mp full frame raw image will be 35 odd mb so once its processed your looking at 100mb per image
plus the extra computation and space. Add a few layers 2-400mbs an image.Ok Ok! You've talked me into it! 
Lens it is then!
I may get the battery grip for the D90 also to balance the weight as that lens is a weighty one! I'm off to see the track cycling this weekend in Manchester so may hire one of those lenses from Lens Pimp to see how they work indoors with sports.
May be too late though thinking about it!
Lens it is then!
I may get the battery grip for the D90 also to balance the weight as that lens is a weighty one! I'm off to see the track cycling this weekend in Manchester so may hire one of those lenses from Lens Pimp to see how they work indoors with sports.
May be too late though thinking about it!
Actually, talking about megapixels, my Sony NEX5 has more megapixels than the D90 but the images are not as sharp. I mainly see the difference when processing RAW files to HDR. The Nikon shots don't seem to "blow out" as much after he conversion or generate as much noise. I guess that's more to do with the lenses though.
tomscott said:Also a 24mp full frame raw image will be 35 odd mb so once its processed your looking at 100mb per image
Pfft, I've created psd's over 100mb when it was only 2048x2048, hand drawn stuff though :roll:
One thing that scares me from properly getting into photography is the lense prices, that and seeing people constantly searching out new gear and spending thousands.
Well ye theres pixel density too... you have to remember if your looking at a 12mp image at 100% and looking at a 16mp image at 100% its not a true comparison. 12mp vs 16mp is roughly 75% the mp count/pixel density. So to be looking at a true comparisons you need to zoom the 12mp images to 125% and the 16mp at 100% thats why it seems sharper.
Also with that pixel density the more you have the more noisy an image is. The more pixels per cm the more likely you are to produce noise. Which is why having more is not good really, the more you cram the worse it gets. My 40D is much less noisy than my 7D at base ISO 100-400 (where it counts, so I don't like using it) but is much much better at higher ISO as its much better controlled through advancement of tech.
Thats where full frame comes into play, a full frame sensor is roughly 1/3 larger than APC so if you have a 12mp FF sensor like the D300S those pixels are much more spread out and bigger so the quality is much better. So if you think a 5DMKIII has 23mp and a 7D has 18MP the 7Ds density is much higher over the size of the sensor so noise is much more apparent 20mp on FF is about the perfect compromise. 12-14mp on APC.
Quality is directly related to sensor size, this is why all these compacts with 20+mp are awful because there sensors are about 1/4 the size of APC so their densities are ridiculously high. So MP is not what image quality is all about.
The thing with sensor size is that it also affects other areas of photography. The larger the sensor the more light gathering capability you have, so shooting at F2.8 on a crop is like shooting F4 on a full frame camera... which is why most standard zooms start at F4 like the 24-105mm F4. It also affects Bokeh, the larger the sensor the more the depth of field you get, if you have an F2.8 lens on a crop APC it will look more like F4.6 on full frame, so you get much thinner Depth of field on FF. This is because the image circle created by the Full frame lenses needs to be multiplied by 1.6, it gives the sweet spot right in the centre and covers a larger area of the sensor. Also why you get vignetting on full frame cameras, it uses more of the glass to the edge. Also why Full Frame glass is so good on crop because your using the much sharper centre of the glass. A 17-40mm F4 is super sharp on a crop camera but is very soft on FF unless you shoot F8 or higher.
Also because of their better light gathering capabilities ISO is off too ISO 6400 on a 7D is comparable to ISO 1600 on FF. So you can get away with using slower lenses by putting the ISO up one or two stops and not loosing any more quality compared to crop. But also FF is much more expensive because if you use cheaper glass it FF shows every problem with a lens, be it vignetting, chromatic aberration, distortion. So you need better glass to resolve the sensor.
So really I would go for a D300s unless you need the other features of the D600. But remember you need the best of the best lenses to resolve high MP full frame sensors!
Hope that long winded technical confusion helps :S
Also with that pixel density the more you have the more noisy an image is. The more pixels per cm the more likely you are to produce noise. Which is why having more is not good really, the more you cram the worse it gets. My 40D is much less noisy than my 7D at base ISO 100-400 (where it counts, so I don't like using it) but is much much better at higher ISO as its much better controlled through advancement of tech.
Thats where full frame comes into play, a full frame sensor is roughly 1/3 larger than APC so if you have a 12mp FF sensor like the D300S those pixels are much more spread out and bigger so the quality is much better. So if you think a 5DMKIII has 23mp and a 7D has 18MP the 7Ds density is much higher over the size of the sensor so noise is much more apparent 20mp on FF is about the perfect compromise. 12-14mp on APC.
Quality is directly related to sensor size, this is why all these compacts with 20+mp are awful because there sensors are about 1/4 the size of APC so their densities are ridiculously high. So MP is not what image quality is all about.
The thing with sensor size is that it also affects other areas of photography. The larger the sensor the more light gathering capability you have, so shooting at F2.8 on a crop is like shooting F4 on a full frame camera... which is why most standard zooms start at F4 like the 24-105mm F4. It also affects Bokeh, the larger the sensor the more the depth of field you get, if you have an F2.8 lens on a crop APC it will look more like F4.6 on full frame, so you get much thinner Depth of field on FF. This is because the image circle created by the Full frame lenses needs to be multiplied by 1.6, it gives the sweet spot right in the centre and covers a larger area of the sensor. Also why you get vignetting on full frame cameras, it uses more of the glass to the edge. Also why Full Frame glass is so good on crop because your using the much sharper centre of the glass. A 17-40mm F4 is super sharp on a crop camera but is very soft on FF unless you shoot F8 or higher.
Also because of their better light gathering capabilities ISO is off too ISO 6400 on a 7D is comparable to ISO 1600 on FF. So you can get away with using slower lenses by putting the ISO up one or two stops and not loosing any more quality compared to crop. But also FF is much more expensive because if you use cheaper glass it FF shows every problem with a lens, be it vignetting, chromatic aberration, distortion. So you need better glass to resolve the sensor.
So really I would go for a D300s unless you need the other features of the D600. But remember you need the best of the best lenses to resolve high MP full frame sensors!
Hope that long winded technical confusion helps :S
Did anyone else have to just about every line of that 3-4 times for it to make sense? 
Don't worry tomscatt, I got it!
Yes, I was thinking of the D300s, but on reflection I think a pro lens on the D90 would give me better results at the moment.
Mind you, reading that I'm wondering if it really is worth paying for a f2.8 lens? Nikon have an f4 70-200 out now.
http://www.examiner.com/article/nikon-announces-70-200f4-vr-lens-with-price-availability
Yes, I was thinking of the D300s, but on reflection I think a pro lens on the D90 would give me better results at the moment.
Mind you, reading that I'm wondering if it really is worth paying for a f2.8 lens? Nikon have an f4 70-200 out now.
http://www.examiner.com/article/nikon-announces-70-200f4-vr-lens-with-price-availability
Good I have trouble explaining myself sometimes.
Well depends, I have the F2.8 L and love it. Really nice to have it there, if you ever go to zoos etc it sits on 2.8 because the light is so bad. I shoot events/weddings too so 2.8 is a necessity, also nice to get the shallow DOF effects. But you do pay for it, but once you start using it you cant get away from it!
The F4s are great, I would say for crop get the 2.8 you wont regret it, worth the extra money. But I know on the canon side the 70-200 F4 is one of the sharpest zooms you can buy it is also lighter and has IS which is useful. Plus with the 2.8 you can add a 2x extender and have a 400mm F5.6 when needed without carrying two lenses. Or 640mm on crop with the 1.6 factor.
Although I wouldn't recommend a 2x extender use for all situations if you need 400mm then I would get a 400mm but the results are still good and its much lighter and more convenient. The new extenders are getting so good and with the new lens tech that the new 70-200mm F2.8 IS II with a 2x MKIII extender will be nearly as sharp as the 100-400mm on the canon side. But I expect similar on the Nikon side too.
They can also be useful macros took this with a 3 way extender
IMG_9407 by tom_scott88, on Flickr
I took this with mine and the 2x extender for a bit of undercover work for the Newspaper on a new developement. Proper papping from behind a wall :evil:
IMG_0474 by tom_scott88, on Flickr
Took this one too, nice because I sat about 200 yards away lying on the floor, set up with a couple of speedlights. Did that to compress the background as it wasn't very pleasant and the road undulated so I got this blur effect at the bottom, shot at F5.6. Can get some great effects with them really versatile.
BMW Z4M Coupe with CSL wheels by tom_scott88, on Flickr
I have trouble explaining myself sometimes.Well depends, I have the F2.8 L and love it. Really nice to have it there, if you ever go to zoos etc it sits on 2.8 because the light is so bad. I shoot events/weddings too so 2.8 is a necessity, also nice to get the shallow DOF effects. But you do pay for it, but once you start using it you cant get away from it!
The F4s are great, I would say for crop get the 2.8 you wont regret it, worth the extra money. But I know on the canon side the 70-200 F4 is one of the sharpest zooms you can buy it is also lighter and has IS which is useful. Plus with the 2.8 you can add a 2x extender and have a 400mm F5.6 when needed without carrying two lenses. Or 640mm on crop with the 1.6 factor.
Although I wouldn't recommend a 2x extender use for all situations if you need 400mm then I would get a 400mm but the results are still good and its much lighter and more convenient. The new extenders are getting so good and with the new lens tech that the new 70-200mm F2.8 IS II with a 2x MKIII extender will be nearly as sharp as the 100-400mm on the canon side. But I expect similar on the Nikon side too.
They can also be useful macros took this with a 3 way extender
IMG_9407 by tom_scott88, on Flickr
I took this with mine and the 2x extender for a bit of undercover work for the Newspaper on a new developement. Proper papping from behind a wall :evil:
IMG_0474 by tom_scott88, on Flickr
Took this one too, nice because I sat about 200 yards away lying on the floor, set up with a couple of speedlights. Did that to compress the background as it wasn't very pleasant and the road undulated so I got this blur effect at the bottom, shot at F5.6. Can get some great effects with them really versatile.
BMW Z4M Coupe with CSL wheels by tom_scott88, on Flickr
Get the Lens!
I also had a D90 until recently. Pained me to change it.
I got a D7000 display model with grip off a friend from a camera shop, and its a great camera, but its not AMAZINGLY better than the D90, its better but.... you know.
My theory is Get the Lens because if you put that lens on any of Nikons DSLR of the last 5 years it will dramatically improve image quality and performance (in the right hands), but changing body's wont. The only real major factor that improved would be the advantages of going Full Frame.
That lens will be good for Decades lol
In 5 years Nikon time will be selling entry level cameras with a Full Frame sensor and 30+ meg pix for £450 lol
I also had a D90 until recently. Pained me to change it.
I got a D7000 display model with grip off a friend from a camera shop, and its a great camera, but its not AMAZINGLY better than the D90, its better but.... you know.
My theory is Get the Lens because if you put that lens on any of Nikons DSLR of the last 5 years it will dramatically improve image quality and performance (in the right hands), but changing body's wont. The only real major factor that improved would be the advantages of going Full Frame.
That lens will be good for Decades lol
In 5 years Nikon time will be selling entry level cameras with a Full Frame sensor and 30+ meg pix for £450 lol