Upgrading... one step at a time or bite the bullet and spend the big bucks?

[DznyFan]

Your thoughts...

If you know you want to upgrade from an entry level DSLR to an enthusiast/prosumer level, but still might want more when it's all said and done... do you just go ahead and spend the extra $1000 now and go for the brass ring full frame? Or one step at a time and upgrade again later?

Just curious!

 

[YesDear]

Let me answer that in two ways. First if money were not the issue, then the answer for me would be easy. YES.

Since money is a consideration for me, I would answer it this way. I have been taking pictures for over 35 years. I have been shooting digital for 10. I consider myself technically competent when a camera is in my hand. I shot in a DX format for two reasons. Full frame was not available with Nikons (what I shoot) until about two years ago. Switching to full frame is not just the body but also the glass. For the quality of glass I would want, the cost will be way over $1000 for the body. Why buy a full frame body when most of my glass is DX and I will not be able to take advantage of the sensor I paid so much for.

Also to be to the point, if your skill level is at a novice level as well, I think you are wasting money and technology. We have discussed many times on this board that while better technology can give you a better image, it is the skill to understand and use the technology that makes the difference in the end. If you shoot in auto or program mode most of the time, you have spent money to be impressed with what you have rather than what you can do with it.

The last paragraph was not directed at you because I do not know your skill level. The way you phrased the question is what caused the response.

 

[DznyFan]

Yes Dear -thank you for your response.
Personally - level - intermediate, I would say. I understand aperture, shutter speed, and ISO. I understand composition. I rarely use auto and never program. I have been shooting for 30 years, and recently got re-involved with the hobby seriously about 3 years ago, and have been learning ever since. Still have a lot to learn. My personal pet peeves are quality and noise. My glass is fair not GREAT but not bad, either. I mainly wanted to open up this discussion to see everyone's opinion on what they would do if they had an option.

 

[DisneyGirl4188]

Hi!

If I had the money, I would get a full frame. You aren't a beginner and you know what you are looking for in a camera.

Of course, lenses are a huge part too, so (for me) I want a few more (and better quality) lenses, before considering getting another body (granted, if I came into a bunch of money, I would be doing both ).

 

[NateNLogansDad]

I'm a rookie so my opinion doesn't really mean too much, but personally I'd go with better glass. It seems to me the price of a lens doesn't really depreciate if you take decent care of it but a camera body looses value as the technology gets better with each model that is newer than the one you purchased.

 

[boBQuincy]

If you shoot in auto or program mode most of the time, you have spent money to be impressed with what you have rather than what you can do with it.

I use Program mode at least 90% of the time! Never Auto, because it does not support RAW. Besides, I use Canons so what is the point of trying to improve anyway?
But realistically, I agree with your point about spending $$$ just because. There is not much point in buying better equipment if we are not going to better ourselves to be able to use it's capabilities.

To answer the OP, look at what your current setup is not doing and at what your proposed setup will allow you to do. If the mid-range supports your needs (and your needs for the foreseeable future) then there is not much reason to go for the gold.
Unless you just want it, which is a valid reason to me!

 

[YesDear]

Bob

Do you believe that if you were to break bad and purchase a full frame body and respective glass that you would leave it in program mode most of the time?

OP, given your level of experience if you were wanting to really get into photography heavily as a hobby and did not have a large amount of DX glass, then I would seriously consider full frame. I eventually want to go to full frame because of the sensitivity of the sensor. Remember you can take amazing pictures today with a DX camera.

 

[boBQuincy]

Bob

Do you believe that if you were to break bad and purchase a full frame body and respective glass that you would leave it in program mode most of the time?

Yep!

After 8 years of dSLRs (Canon 30D, 10D, 30D, and Xsi) and many years of film SLRs before that, I find that Program mode gives the same exposure and often the same settings that I would have selected myself in Av, Tv, and (gasp) Manual! Besides that, when I find myself in rapidly changing lighting conditions or when I need to capture something that is happening very quickly I know I can depend on Program to get the shot, when that 1-2 seconds to adjust Manual may miss the shot.

Even when carefully setting up for a scene I usually use Program, checking the settings to see if they are what I want. If not I dial in some exposure compensation and maybe some program shift. It is only when I know I will need a certain aperture or shutter speed for many images in a row that I switch to Av or Tv. When I eventually go to full frame, as I expect I will one day, I doubt I will change my photography methods.

Will you still be seen with me after all that?

 

[YesDear]

Absolutely!

The difference with you is that you understand the process to know that what you are doing is what you want. There is a difference in using program because you do not know any better and using it because you get what you want and know when to make changes.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Never Auto, because it does not support RAW.

This got me curious - the Xsi won't shoot RAW when in auto? Do you mean it automatically switches to jpg? I had looked at buying the Xsi when it came out and never realized this.


To the OP - I'd say if money isn't a concern and you are fairly certain you will want to upgrade anyway then go for the camera you want. A hobby is for enjoyment so why not?! It's the whole want and need thing - no, the pro level camera isn't a requirement for taking great pictures - nor will it guarantee it. But the want will be in the back of your mind while you are using the mid-step camera and knowing that you are going to change anyway and wondering why you didn't just do it to start out with. At least that's how it works for me!

 

[Code]

Like everyone else, if money were no object I'd be using FF. But the price difference is more than just the body... if I wanted all the capabilities I have on APS-C on FF, the lenses would add at least $2k more to the difference. And I'd still probably want an APS-C body for the crop factor.. yikes.

 

[DznyFan]

Hi Amber! Thank you!

now it's getting interesting. This is what I wanted to see - debate and differing takes on a hypothetical situation with opinions and information I can consider - that I might not have thought of myself. It's not that money is NO object, if that were the case I'd just spend about 5K and be a happy camper. FF is nice, but not a requirement. Superior resolution, however, is. Thank you all for your input!

Code, if you'll recall we visited last year prior to my leap into DSLR - and here I am a year later wanting to upgrade already. Granted, I should have just bought the 700 then, but alas, my budget couldn't handle it. This year, yeah, I can go a couple grand (A850) but then again, looking at lenses, perhaps I might be better served upgrading both (A550 & lens) instead of putting all my eggs in one basket.

Kat - yeah, that's how it works for me, too... (it'll get me into trouble!) I don't want to be in the same position in a year from now.

 

[boBQuincy]

This got me curious - the Xsi won't shoot RAW when in auto? Do you mean it automatically switches to jpg? I had looked at buying the Xsi when it came out and never realized this.

Yes, in what Canon calls "full auto" (and in the other "basic zone" modes as well) most of their dSLRs will not allow RAW. It is not a big deal, Program is about the same as Auto except it allows RAW and also allows us to get ourselves in more trouble.

John, you are of course correct, we should learn to use all the advanced modes. Only then can we let the camera decide *and* we will know if it is not doing what we want and can correct it ourselves.

 

[dmccarty]

WHY do you need a full frame(FX) camera?

I have been taking photos for about 25 years now starting with Canon manual equipment. When Canon forced me to completely redo my camera system for AF I just moved to Nikon. The old FD lenses would not work on the new AF cameras unlike Nikon. Since I had to buy everything over moving to AF I went with Nikon.

The Nikon glass I bought and still use today was bought in the 90's with one exception which is a 50mm f1.4 lens I bought last year to take to WDW. I would guess 3-4 years back I finally moved to digital when I bought a D200. At that point I figured the DSLR's had matured to a point that the next model camera would not be that much better. The D200 felt like my old F100 as well.

All of my "old" FF aka film lenses worked just fine on the D200. And in some ways maybe better since the DX sensor is using the sweet center spot of the lens. Of course the lenses were now 1.5 times longer which is good and bad. Its good at the long end but not so much on the short end so I guess it just works out.

I was happy with my D200.....

Can you see guess what is next?

I ALWAYS have needed faster film/ISO speed. I tried to take college level gymnastics photos with Porta 800 film pushed to 3200. Spent over $300 on film and processing for not one good frame.

But I learned alot.

I still had a need for faster ISO and when Nikon announced the D700/D3's I about had a cow. I did not see faster ISO as being a camera feature that would improve so much. I figured it would be mega pixals of which the D200 was fine for me. But oh that higher ISO.....

I bought a D700 and sold my D200. I am regretting selling the D200 BTW.

The D700 has taken photos that the D200 or my old film cameras just could not have done. Its the faster ISO that made the difference not the FX feature on the camera.

So back to my first question. WHY do you need a FX camera? Or do you need the higher ISO that is in the Nikon FF cameras?

My two cents would be to buy good quality FX lenses that you can use now on your camera. If you should ever need a FX camera they will be better and cheaper tomorrow compared to today. DSLRs are just computers to which we attach our lenses.

The lenses I have that I bought in the 90's are worth as much now as when I bought them. The only zoom I have is the 35-70 F/2.8 which is a very good lens. I was shooting basketball over the weekend with this lens and the D700 which was a perfect combination. The D700 had the ISO which was needed. The 1600/3200 ISO photos are very good. And the FF made a difference since if the camera was a DX that 35-70 would not have been wide enough.

The 24-70 F2.8 lens is $1,800. I paid $650 for my 35-70 F2.8. Focus speed was not an issue at all. Worked just fine. No way I would sell the 35-70 f2.8 to buy the 24-70 F2.8 for three times the money.

Even with the D200 my "old" lenses focused as fast as needed for soccer and other fast moving subjects.

So I would say invest the money in the lenses if you can then worry about the DSLR. Nikon sure is making the fast glass very expensive over the last few years so that maybe easier said than done.

Later,
Dan

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Code, if you'll recall we visited last year prior to my leap into DSLR - and here I am a year later wanting to upgrade already. Granted, I should have just bought the 700 then, but alas, my budget couldn't handle it. This year, yeah, I can go a couple grand (A850) but then again, looking at lenses, perhaps I might be better served upgrading both (A550 & lens) instead of putting all my eggs in one basket.

Kat - yeah, that's how it works for me, too... (it'll get me into trouble!) I don't want to be in the same position in a year from now.

What lenses do you currently have DznyFan?

Yes, in what Canon calls "full auto" (and in the other "basic zone" modes as well) most of their dSLRs will not allow RAW. It is not a big deal, Program is about the same as Auto except it allows RAW and also allows us to get ourselves in more trouble.

Thanks for the info Bob. In all my reviews I read while looking at the Xsi I never saw that. Even went back and looked now but still didn't. Not until I did a google on it. Must just be a long standing thing with Canon so it's not mentioned much.

 

[DznyFan]

WHY do you need a full frame(FX) camera?
Later,
Dan

Dan, I don't NEED the full frame. I should have bought better when I got into the DSLR and I wouldn't be wanting to upgrade already. I don't want to be in that position again. I don't mind the crop factor, I'm not looking for more pixels, I'm just intetested in better resolution and I know the upper end bodies will give me that. Everyone, however, has got valid points in that it won't make ME a better photographer (or anyone else for that matter) A good band doesn't make a bad singer a better singer, it just means that the band is good, and I understand that.
I guess it's preferrable that I get good paint and good paintbrushes, instead of just good paint.

What lenses do you currently have DznyFan?

Kat - I have my Sony kit lens -the 18-70 from when I bought the A200, two Minolta 70 - 210 3.5s (I think - might be 4.5s), a Sigma 70-300 4, a Minolta 50mm 1.7, an older Sigma 75-200mm 2.8/3.5, Sigma 28 – 90mm 3.5/5.6 macro, and two other small old minolta kit lenses (can't even recall what they are!)
I went to one of our two local camera shops today and kicked some tires, and I think have come to a decision. They had the Sony CZ 16-80 3.5, and it was AMAZING. I also got to play with the new Sigma 70-200 2.8 (WOW!!!!) on the body, as well as the new model sony 70 - 200 4/5.6. I almost stuck that big ol' sigma under my arm and ran out of the store!! They pretty much sold me on the Zeiss (well, using it and looking at the results sold me) so between that and the body, goodbye, budget!! I fell in love with the A550, and the 7FPS continuous is jaw dropping.

 

[boBQuincy]

I am not sure what gain you are expecting to get from an upgraded body. You mention that better resolution is your goal but not more pixels. All things equal, resolution is measured in pixels. Of course all things are not always equal, however DXOmark shows little difference in quality between Sony's APS-C sensor cameras. There is a bigger jump by going to the full frame sensor but much of that is in high ISO performance.

There is certainly a difference in sensor performance between entry, prosumer, and pro bodies but it may not be as much as you are expecting.

 

[DznyFan]

Bob, I think it's semantics, but, yes, better quality overall (sharper) images, resolution, whatever term you wish to use, is my goal - not necessarily a higher MP number. is there a direct correlation? of course. But sometimes, I've found more pixels doesn't always mean better quality, I discovered when I was comparing images for my current body - yes, the one I'm replacing. It seems like a lot depends on the sensor (and the lenses, of course) If the quality is similar to, or better than higher MP, I don't have to have that bigger number just for the sake of the number. My biggest gripe with the A200 is noise when I'm forced to shoot with a high ISO, if I don't have the opportunity to set up the shot like I should. Often times I don't get to because DH isn't that patient.... Will I get better images from a full frame 850? no question. I think a lot of folks here were right, though, in suggesting that I take a good hard look at the glass I have.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Kat - I have my Sony kit lens -the 18-70 from when I bought the A200, two Minolta 70 - 210 3.5s (I think - might be 4.5s), a Sigma 70-300 4, a Minolta 50mm 1.7, an older Sigma 75-200mm 2.8/3.5, Sigma 28 – 90mm 3.5/5.6 macro, and two other small old minolta kit lenses (can't even recall what they are!)
I went to one of our two local camera shops today and kicked some tires, and I think have come to a decision. They had the Sony CZ 16-80 3.5, and it was AMAZING. I also got to play with the new Sigma 70-200 2.8 (WOW!!!!) on the body, as well as the new model sony 70 - 200 4/5.6. I almost stuck that big ol' sigma under my arm and ran out of the store!! They pretty much sold me on the Zeiss (well, using it and looking at the results sold me) so between that and the body, goodbye, budget!! I fell in love with the A550, and the 7FPS continuous is jaw dropping.

I can give a big thumbs up to the 16-80. Really one of my favorites and I have some other nice lenses. It brings something extra to the pictures - it's sharp and great colors and the focal length is so perfect on the crop cameras. I played around with the A550 last week while I was looking at a lens - wow! Some great features and I thought it was a very comfortable to use. I kept trying to figure out how to justify getting it but am still working on that part. DH says I'm an electronics junkie and I think I may have to concede the point.

One thing I'll point out is that the 16-80 is a DT lens so if the pull of the A850 starts again you will not be able to use it as a full frame although it could still be used in crop-mode. However it sounds like you've found in the A550 the camera that will suit you well. 7 frames per second is very cool indeed!

Excellent choices IMO - have fun with the new gear!

 

[boBQuincy]

Bob, I think it's semantics, but, yes, better quality overall (sharper) images, resolution, whatever term you wish to use, is my goal - not necessarily a higher MP number. is there a direct correlation? of course. But sometimes, I've found more pixels doesn't always mean better quality, I discovered when I was comparing images for my current body - yes, the one I'm replacing. It seems like a lot depends on the sensor (and the lenses, of course) If the quality is similar to, or better than higher MP, I don't have to have that bigger number just for the sake of the number. My biggest gripe with the A200 is noise when I'm forced to shoot with a high ISO, if I don't have the opportunity to set up the shot like I should. Often times I don't get to because DH isn't that patient.... Will I get better images from a full frame 850? no question. I think a lot of folks here were right, though, in suggesting that I take a good hard look at the glass I have.

OK, now I understand what you are looking for, and it all comes together. Take a look at DXOmark and see how much higher a rating the full frame models get for high ISO, since that is what you are after then those models are for you. Big pixels are good pixels, it's just a shame they are so much $$$!

And I won't go into how impatient DW gets when I wait for yet another monorail to go by!