Full Frame Camera

I would look at the D7100... that is what I am looking at for myself as well. It is full frame and I loved it! My friend has it and I got to play around with it for a bit. :) Choosing a new camera is always a torn decision ;)

i would stick with nikon. i would look into their system myself if i wasn't already into canon. i think sony is a down grade from a company that always made cameras. its not a bad camera, but i think he gets a kickback.

but it really depends on what you need, you want to see comparison images on high iso shots. if you already have nikon lenses and flashes, then going to sony would be a pain. i wouldn't buy it in the store either. a full frame is a big purchase. take your time online and look at the pro's and cons of each. decide against what you have and what you need it for. how good the iso is, etc.

the only thing i don't like about nikon is the lack of programming modes (from my last research, don't know what they have now).


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

Learning what you want to say with your photography is more important than equipment.

What kind of professional usage? Fashion? Food? Portraits? Wedding? Photojournalism? Product? Landscape? Architecture? Sports?

What kind of equipment does the school have and do they have lenses to let you borrow? Professionals use Nikon and Canon because they offer a full line of lenses. Professional choose a brand because the company offers lenses of the type they require for their work.

Sony is trying to get in on this market but its an uphill climb. Just look at any CreativeLive class, sidelines of any sports event or fashion shoot etc. - all Canon and Nikon.

What I currently like the most is landscape and wildlife. But I guess that in Fashion, Portrait and Wedding photography you can earn more money.
I like the D800 but I've been reading that apparently some of the D800 have a issue with the autofocus. Also apparently the focus of the D750 seems to be extremely good which is the main point why I could choose the D750. On the other hand I like the high amount of pixels in the d800 to be able to crop a lot.
Now if there was someone who shot both already the D800 and the D750 I would be happy to hear about it.
I almost don't find anything about the Autofocus performance of the D800. All I read is the thing about the issue.

I have a Nikon D600 (Full Frame). I bought it as a package deal with several lenses from Costco about 2 years ago. As I'm sure was mentioned previously, although there are some exceptions, once you have selected an expensive, high quality brand such as Nikon, it may be more expensive down the road if you purchase different brands which you may not be able to interchange lenses or other paraphernalia.

Upgrading to a "full frame" may have it's benefits for photography in general, but I wouldn't necessarily consider that a "must have" in terms of your upcoming photography course.

i wouldn't jump into wedding or fashion because of the money. fashion needs a lot of good lighting and background stuff and a studio. and clients. and weddings, you need the personality to arrange them.

higher pixels doesn't mean its a better camera. look at each at a 100% to see if it really makes a difference or not. generally i find the more pixels i have - i still don't crop. you lose image that way and flexibility in the future. if you want a good crop, get closer to the subject, fill the frame there.

be sure you look at any updates the camera might have gotten by now.


sony vs nikon -- is like saying, i'd like to go to mc donalds for pizza. while they might have ok pizza, i'd rather go to pizza hut, someone that specializes in it.


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

Can't go wrong with a D610, the cheapest full framer out there right now. That's what I have.
Shelby, The D7100 isn't full frame.

If you want to eat you are going to have to learn to shoot people. I can't imagine going to school for photography and not learning studio lighting.

Are you taking a single course or getting a degree?

Shelby, D7100 is a crop sensor. Saving up for the D7200 myself as full frame is generally out of my budget.

I was looking into a used 610, as it gets stellar reviews everywhere I've read, so might be another option. I just got myself a 17-55 2.8 dx lens though so will likely stick with crop sensor.

I do portrait, the occasional wedding (not my fav thing to do), and product photos... all self taught, all with my d5100. Youtube & practice have been the best (free) teachers haha.

Daniel,

As mentioned, you don't need a camera upgrade for any photo class. What you have is fine. What may happen, during your classes, is that you'll see or learn something that would help you make the right choice, later.

With that said, IF you want to compare cameras, go back to the camera store and with their gear, and on a tripod, shoot a few images with each one, same shutter speed, ISO, and Fstop and then compare on your screen. What I've done in the distant past, is have the other 2 camera bodies on the counter, so you know which camera is taking the image, rather than looking at the file data, if you mix them up.

My advice to you and others, skip the cost of the class and find a Pro in your area and then go work for him/her, for free and learn that way. Much more comprehensive and FREE! I've had people work for me that have gone on to Professional careers of their own.

Rich

I will get a degree. Photography BA

Portfolio trumps degree. Creatives are hired for what they can do, not their degree. Just sayin'.

I would first see what brand the school uses. If the professors know that you are serious, they will sometimes loan you lenses to go with their preferred bodies. My school lent out Canon Rebels. Because I was a lab assistant they lent me a Mark II. They also had a lot of specialized Canon lenses, so I was able to try out Canon soft focus, macro, and tilt-shift lenses without any expense. Since you are pursuing a B.A., I would ask your professors for input before you commit to an upgrade.

When asking about cameras it's the same as asking about different cars. Most will say that the one they have is the best. They wont admit it was a mistake getting it.
If you have Nikon lenses then I would stay with Nikon. You can use them on a full frame camera.
I had the D800 but as I traveled a lot it really was too big and heavy. I now have the D750 and I find it is a great camera.

Daniel, I shoot with a D750 and had a similar choice when I upgraded. I was also considering the D810. The reasons I close the former were cost (the savings nearly paid for my Nikkor 16-35mm wide zoom) and also because the D750 is better in low light due to its larger pixels. Images are insanely sharp for a camera of its price, and the color rendition is also excellent. Here are the first pics from the new camera:







Edward, you're right as far as it goes. I've got a BFA in photography, and would add that college art instruction, ideally, will increase the depth and breadth of your understanding of the medium. The rest is up to you.

that's the reason i'm still with canon, i had a powershot pro90, a long time ago, but got an expensive flash to go with it. i didn't want a new system and because of that flash, i'm now with canon. either camera is fine. usually people stay simply because of compatible lens issues.

however, i know in canon's case - not all lenses can be used on a full frame. i don't know if the same is true on nikon. the stick too far in and get in the way of the mirror, only certain ones works on my camera. its something to double check.


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

its hard to teach art when your in school. i'm sure they will talk about the business, light, models and so on. but the artistic side remains with the individual.

---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

Mike, you're right about the lenses. Nikon's DX series will only fill the frame on crop sensor cameras, while their full-frame (now called FX) lenses will work with all bodies. Similar to Canon in that regard.

it makes it confusing and annoying looking at the lenses. i see so many great things they are making for crop frame cameras, but not full frame. i would love a camera that can accept both even if it were to sacrifice something. like make it into a temporary cropped camera. breaking the mirror would be a total bummer.


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

Mike, Nikon's full frame cameras automatically crop the sensor when using DX lenses. I thought Canon's did the same. What will crop sensor lenses do that those intended for full frame won't? What "great things" are you referring to?

I thoroughly enjoyed shooting with my Canon 5DM2 but wanted better low light performance.

I've been shooting happily with the Sony A7ii for over a year and before Christmas bought the new A7Rii. They both perform well in low light, high ISO conditions but the 42mp files from the A7Rii are awesome and I can shoot hand held at night. I love the compact size of both, but if you can afford it the A7Rii is better than the A7ii in all regards. The down side would be the limited lens selections and high prices for the lenses. The Canon lenses will auto focus with the Metabones adaptor but they are slow to focus.

I don't shoot events but the mirrorless cameras have a shutter lag that could cause you to miss some shots where there is action. A friend reported that flashes from other photographers cameras affected her A7 at celebrity events. Another photographer I know shoots architectural interiors and corporate portraiture. He uses the Canon tilt shift lenses and other Canon lenses with the Metabones adapter and two A7Rii's bodies. He's extremely happy.

I hope that helps.

they stick too far into the camera and get in the way with the mirror folding. physically they are too long, from my understanding. i look through the tamron catalog, and there are certain sizes i'd like. a much wider lens with a slightly shorter zoom - like a 17-270, but its not compatible with my camera. only with crop frames. i'd switch out my lens if i could get that, it would be far more useful i think.


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

Just a note on the low light issue, Lynn. The Mark III is really much better at low light than the Mark II. I shoot Civil War balls -- low light and movement -- it works great!

i have a 5d mk3, i'm wondering if there is a IV coming out, some think it will not be called that. i like some of the specs of the 5DS, but not all of it. for me i need great iso ability, and the mk3 works pretty well, but i always want better.

---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

Get the D750
I use the D4S as I like action wildlife photography but my good friend had both the D4S the D750 and the D810.
He uses the D750 for 80% of his shooting, the D4S for very very low light conditions or action and the D810 mostly stays in the bag.
The D750 is very versatile and 24MP is a very nice happy medium allowing a bit more cropping if necessary.
The D800 series requires an EXTRArdinary amount of long lens technique to actually benefit from the 36MP sensor. You need a SOLID tripod, remote trigger and often double the shutter speed you think you need in order to get the sharpest of sharp images.

http://www.dpreview.com/products/nikon/slrs/nikon_d810a

Special version of Nikon D810 for astrophotography.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7282239436/nikon-d810a-an-astrophotographers-perspective

Unless you are specifically unhappy with your camera, it will probably be adequate for your course, I would delay buying the new camera until after you are at the university and can see cameras the other students have, listen to their feedback, and listen to the recommendations from your professor. Also, before spending thousands on a new camera that you aren't sure you would like, you could try renting it for a weekend and go shooting with it.

also be sure to get the right card. some are too slow for newer cameras and can't keep up with the speed of your finger.


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

I owned an A7R and I'm just in the process of selling it. It's not a bad camera by any means, just not suitable for me. I bought it initially to see whether I could move to mirrorless for my type of work, which is predominantly landscape, seascape and long exposures. I also do portraiture and it was fine for that. I found it too clunky to work with and the menu system was a mess. That hasn't been improved in the A7R2. I'll be sticking with my D810 for the foreseeable future. Good luck with your search.

Nikon has the D810A which is made specifically for deep space/astrophotography. So no, Canon is not better suited for deep space photography in that respect. As for other cameras for Canon and Nikon I am sure they are pretty much on par with each other, however Nikon for now is the high ISO and dynamic range leader.

also note that you probably won't find a camera that specializes in everything. and considering new ones come out every few years, you may end up getting a new one by the time you graduate, and it might have the features you need.

astro photography will only work if you live in an area that has a really clear sky btw. i don't know where you live, but if you have light pollution - it won't look like anything. and you can't just sell pictures of the moon.

also a specialty anything - will probably cost you extra and it may not pay off in the long run. like i think they have or had a canon that removed the IR blocks on the camera (or you can get it modified by someone). if your into IR photography, then you can use it. my canon can't do IR photos because of the block. the small camera i have, can do it. but i never go into IR that much.


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

This is an example of how noisy it gets

I guess astrophotography in the uk i can forget :D :D :D

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but in my opinion I'd recommend staying with Nikon because it's what you're already invested in. I see so many people changing brands willy-nilly because this ones got better this or that. All of these "better" features are only there for those obsessed with the MTF charts and the hard core pixel peepers.

Also in my opinion, better glass is a much better investment in image quality than a new body will be.

yep pretty noisy - what iso was that? couldn't be 100.

better glass is a good option, a faster lens means shorter exposure times, lower iso's, cleaner and sharper images. still though that's a big investment.


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

Well ISO during the night I can't keep at 100. And it was shot with aperture 1,8

put it on a tripod, and let the exposure sit, it may take a while for the shot to finish. best to do it on a night that's not windy or of things that don't move.

almost any camera will have issues if you expect the iso to look good in shadow. on a daylight shot you can overexpose a little bit and make it darker later, this will hide the noise. for dark shots you need to leave the shutter open longer.


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

You don't really want to stay in Brasilia during the night with a tripod.
I have a tripod and love to use it. But some situations just don't allow it

its a judgement call.

either you have noise and an image that can't print at all. or you stand the chance at getting mugged. a newer camera will not help you here. while iso is pretty good, it won't get you a clean image like that, it might let you go a little faster though.

i don't do night shots mostly for the same reason. if your getting the new camera just for that though, you might be disappointed.

you may want to rent the camera and test it first - images that you want to get.

it also helps to have a stable lens, which can allow for more hand holding.



---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

sadly most prime lenses of nikon do not have image stabilisation. So I lighter have my aperture of 1.8 or a zoom lens with a smaller aperture. Do canon prime lenses have stabilisation?

primes usually don't. because they are primes, usually bright enough to not need it. wides won't have them either because i think you don't get as much depth out of them anyway, and can be used open. its usually for medium to long zooms. i have one on mine, because it goes to 300. the old version was impossible to use.

the fancier lenses like the 100-400 i think that's the range i think has dual range. where you can turn off one angle. like i think you can turn off the side to side, leaving on the other one. so you can track an animal more accurately. but its a very heavy, expensive lens, as most of the canon are.

i use a tamron 28-300 - its stable and works pretty well. though i've had to send it in for repairs for this and that reasons, it has a 7 year warranty on it. i'll probably buy a new one when this one gives up. their 28-75 2.8 is almost prime like, but doesn't have a stabilizer.

but if your shooting on a tripod, you have to turn it off anyway, or the lens will move on its own for some reason. when you can, you want to avoid using any lens wide open, or the image will blur, you will lose your depth, and the light will bloom like it did in the bridge shot.

---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

oh ok. thank you for the last advice about the bridge shot. was very helpful.
I also like tamron a lot. I have the 70-300mm VC. and I love it.

Mike, both my Nikon 16-35mm and 24-120mm have vibration reduction. Most of their newer lenses have dual VR, Normal and Active. They also have panning detection, which can differentiate between intentional and accidental movement (such as shaky hands). They also know when they're on a tripod, so you no longer have to disable the VR.

I've used VR in many situations, and it all works as advertised. Isn't technology wonderful?

I don't believe that most photographers use a large aperture prime lens wide open most of the time. The real advantage is better optical quality across the frame. If you only consider exposure, since VR allows you to shoot two or three (sometimes four) shutter speeds slower than without it, the extra stop or two of brightness (compared to an f2.8 or f4 lens) gained by a fast prime is less than the benefit of VR. Having said that, I'd welcome VR on primes, too.

The nikon 50mm 1.8 is sharpest at 5,6. there is a noticeable quality difference to 1,8.

i guess canon is behind on that stuff, they must have added phone tech to it now. but my lenses are old, so i guess things changed.

i've only shot handheld. the VC makes a big difference, all my lenses should have that.

1.8 is wide open, its like getting your eyes checked and they put those drops in your eyes to make them dilate, and you can't see anything after that, that's what 1.8 does.



---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

Although getting to be dated I really like my 5D Mark III. The problem with it is the price tag. Even for a 4 year old camera I believe the body still retails for $3k. It has been a great all around camera for me though and have no regrets. Can't wait for the 5D Mark IV and hoping I can afford it at the same time.

they can keep the prices high because everyone used them as cheap movie cameras. everyone seems to use it because you can have different lenses and its small and mountable. they say it replaced $30,000 cameras. buzzfeed does all their youtube on these. of course now more people have the ability, but i think they were first.

i'm still wondering when the new canon's come out and if they do plan on updating it. i also wonder if the nikon 810 is comparable to the canon 5d mk3, other than 22vs36mp.

if i replace the canon it will cost around $3200 probably. a new lens after rebate is like $750 and a new flash is like $300 or so even for a small one.

my equipment is wearing out, the lens is quite old, though i think they replaced it a few times over the years it went to repairs. but it was probably replaced with a refurb. i'm still wondering if its worth upgrading and changing over to a different brand. i need to check out what it can do, if its worth it or not. its not like my old camera is bad, and its only a few years old if that. its a lot of money up front to get most of the stuff i use all in one shot. i'm hoping canon will release something so i can at least look and compare


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

Mike,

If you're considering spending $3-4,000 on a camera system, then consider the Nikon. Go to a camera store and bring a flash card and shoot a few shots with the Nikon gear and then your Canon and then compare on your screen,

Rich

Nikon offers some great deals from time to time. When I bought my D750 a few months back, Nikon was offering $1,000 off the body and 24-120mm f4 lens. Granted, it's not an f2.8, but the results have been fantastic. The camera has 24mp, which doubles what I'd been shooting with for years. Besides that combo, I also bought the 16-35mm, extra battery and card, a grip, plus a few other things. The total cost came to about $3,100 with $940 in trade for two crop sensor lenses. So, for about four grand, I came away with a super full-frame body and two really nice lenses. Can't beat that with a stick!

i'm still waiting to see what canon has to offer before making a decision.


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

Also consider Mike Nikon's D750 has way better dynamic range and better color depth than Canon.

Mike, The DR on the D810 will definitely be better than the 5D MKIII. The High ISO noise from what I have seen is pretty good, 5D may have a little advantage there being that is is less megapixels. If I were to switch from Canon to Nikon I would go with the D750, it is pretty much the king of budget FF right now as far as noise and all around performance. D810's 36 mp is way more than most need, and besides you would have to lower the quality to keep the image under 25mb for here. Heck, my 24mp D610 sometimes pushes the limit.