Equipment Nikon D7000

You lucky dog you. I still think £900 is a bit much for a crop body dslr but hey.

Oh and the D7000 is not 'on par' it's better than the D300 as far as high iso is concerned.

 

I'm convinced that this will be my next body unless Nikon does something miraculous in a full-frame format at a competitive price point. I love my D700 and plan on it being my primary camera and the D7000 would suit as a backup that seems to be on par performance-wise as opposed to my D200 I'm currently using.

 

Got loads of Nikkor lenses. That just happens to be the one on it when took the shot. I'll be adding a Nikkor 50mm f1.2 AI-S to my collection for video work as well. Besides.. if you ignore the vignetting and pincushioning at 18mm, the Nikkor AF-S 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 G IF-ED is a great lens.

Crop body? You mean APS-C chip size, or the actual size of the body? I see neither as a impediment actually. The resolution of the chip is sufficient to show lens defects in pretty much any lens. I've not felt any pressing need for a FX sized chip.

If you refer to the size of the body... This is an advantage if you ask me. I also use D2xs and D3Xs and I'm sick to death of the size and weight. Smaller the better. It's not THAT small anyway. It sits between a D90 and a D300 in size approximately.

Agreed on the low noise. It's low light performance is a marked improvement over the D300.

 

^ I am only referring to the aps-c sensor, and the fact that a 35mm f2 lens remains a 35mm f2 lens, not a 50mm field of view lens. That and the thinner dof, brighter viewfinder etc. Personally, if they release a D700s, then I might bite, but even then, I doubt it. Not at more than £1570. I've taken a bit of a break from photography lately, so spending any more is out of the question right now.

 

Magnification factor doesn't bother me in the slightest. It's often an advantage, as it's cheaper to get faster long lenses, as a 200mm f2.8 effectively becomes a 300 f2.8. If you are worried about the wide issue... then there's stuff like the AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED.. which isn't even a DX lens, but a full frame coverage lens. Or the AF-S DX NIKKOR 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED.. which is a DX lens. There's also the AF Nikkor 14mm f/2.8D ED prime. As I always buy FX lenses (apart from the 18-70 that came with my old D80) as and when Nikon see fit to launch a decent FX camera that also has decent video functionality I am equipped already, so I'm happy. I can also use the D3x if I am bothered about any of the points you raised. I'm so unconcerned however, that I can see myself using the D3 less and less these days.

I've never really noticed the DOF issue in practice.. probably because I often use fast primes with immensely shallow DOF anyway.

I agree with the viewfinder issue though... although not with their brightness, as I fail to see why they'd be brighter. That's not determined by the size of the mirror/prism, but the lens, and surface of the focusing screen. They ARE much smaller however.

I can live with it though. It's the only fly in an otherwise sublime ointment.

 

I'm gonna have to disagree with you there pookeyhead. Using a crop camera is the same as using a FF camera and cropping out the middle of the image (assuming the FF has the same pixel density etc). It is definatly not the same as using a 300mm F2.8 on a FF.

One clear difference (there are more!) is the Depth of field. Using DOFmaster.com I've made this example.

Nikon D90 (D7000 isn't in the list yet)
20 meters between camera and focuspoint
200mm F2.8
DOF = 1,12m

Nikon D700
20 meters between camera and focuspoint
300mm F2.8
DOF = 0,74m

We can argue all day if this difference is relevant or not, but I hope we can agree that it is not effectively the same image. Cropping an image, does not change the lens used.

As an amateur photographer I believe it is fair to make this comparison as the difference is not that big. If you prefer more tele then a crop camera makes sense. If you, like me, prefer wide angle and portrait's then FF makes perfectly sense as well. I feel my lenses feel "just right" on FF, but that might be psychological.

 

I suppose. I don't often find I need more than 200mm on FF, and have the 70-300VR if I do. If you shoot sports or wildlife, then fair enough. You only start needing more than 200mm when you can't get closer to what you're shooting obv. xD It's brighter/less claustrophobic because of the larger pentaprism for a larger sensor, for a larger mirror box etc etc etc? You can see this where the D700 is taller than the D300. The pentaprism (the hunk of glass/crystal that sits under the popup flash.)

I'm not trying to put your purchase down btw.

 

Assuming the pixel density is the same, yes. However, given a choice between a APS-C sized sensor and a lower resolution FF sensor, I'd still go for resolution. There are other issues also, such as circle of confusion etc, but even a APS-C sensor can show flaws in pretty much any lens.

I'm not saying you're wrong, as you're clearly not.. I'm just saying it's not the big deal you think it is. I have both FX and DX Nikons, and I don't really care which I use. As I said before, on weight and size alone, I think the D3 will take a back seat now, just as the D2x did when I got a D80.

 

Just to clarify, I, as an amateur photographer, don't think it's a big deal at all. But for my purposes a FF makes sense. I can definately understand that a lot of other photographers (amateurs AND pro's) are deliberatly going the APA-C route. And I can't argue with them over that, it is a good choice if you make it for the right reasons.

I just wanted to point out it is technically speaking not the same thing.. even though the difference may not matter for most people. But then again, the performance/quality gained with L-lensens won't matter to most amateurs either... yet they still crave the red-line.

I think the FF is kind of like a holy grail.. more mystical then factually advantage.

 

Indeed. Having both.. I can assure you that is so.