Poll: FF vs APS

Poll: FF vs APS

  • I will choose the FF sensor

    Votes: 129 85.4%

  • I will choose the APS sensor

    Votes: 22 14.6%
  • Total voters
    151
  • Poll closed .
Dez said:
The lens is advertised for $1030 at Henry's, supposedly on sale. Doubtless it can be found cheaper. I can lift it: affording it requires a bit of thought.

So now I need to save my pennies either for a D800 or 28-300 lens.

RCR does make a good point, though. I could get a better print from my VR lens on a D200 than a D700.

Cheers,
Dez
Click to expand...

If you're going to drop $1000 on a lens for your D700 I'd recommend the Nikon 24-120 f/4G. It doesn't have the same reach, but the IQ is far superior than the 28-300 (also constant aperture).

If I was putting together the sharpest, fastest, cheapest pro kit that I could for the D700 it would be the 24-120 f/4G and a 300mm f/4D. Altogether about $1300.
 
I have been lusting after the 24-70 f2.8 for years now. I have the 17-35 f3.5/4.5, the 35-70 f2.8, the 70-210 f4, and for when I need exercise, the 80-200 f2.8. This could replace the first two quite nicely. The 28-300 fills a different purpose however, that of do-anything-with-one-lens zoom. I made good use of the VR 18-200 as sole lens on my D200 during a trip to London years ago. This would be to fulfill the same role now that I have moved to a D700. The 18-200 is the only Nikon lens I have without an aperture ring, and I'm a tad leery of the G lenses (I have heard that G stands for "Gelded" but I suspect Nikon would not agree), but the 24-120 f4 looks interesting. I see it is far more expensive than the 24-120 f3.5/5.6 lens it replaces; does the difference in performance justify the price?

Cheers,
Dez
 
Dez said:
I have been lusting after the 24-70 f2.8 for years now. I have the 17-35 f3.5/4.5, the 35-70 f2.8, the 70-210 f4, and for when I need exercise, the 80-200 f2.8. This could replace the first two quite nicely. The 28-300 fills a different purpose however, that of do-anything-with-one-lens zoom. I made good use of the VR 18-200 as sole lens on my D200 during a trip to London years ago. This would be to fulfill the same role now that I have moved to a D700. The 18-200 is the only Nikon lens I have without an aperture ring, and I'm a tad leery of the G lenses (I have heard that G stands for "Gelded" but I suspect Nikon would not agree), but the 24-120 f4 looks interesting. I see it is far more expensive than the 24-120 f3.5/5.6 lens it replaces; does the difference in performance justify the price?

Cheers,
Dez
Click to expand...

G does not stand for "Gelded" that's just a stupid statement that got regurgitated from Ken Rockwell. Unless you plan on sticking the lens on an old film Nikon the aperture ring isn't needed anymore. There's no downside at all if you're only using them on a DSLR. The lens is actually more streamlined.

The 24-120 f/4G is well worth the price. It's a "gold-ring" lens, which places it as a Nikon pro lens. It blows the old variable aperture 24-120 lenses out of the water. It's on a different level, which is reflected in price.

When I first used the lens I was ready to hate it. I typically would never use a lens with that much range, but I used one to shoot a music festival this fall because I was tired of carrying so much gear and I was won over. It's sharp as all get out and the f/4 aperture is fast enough for most work with the D700. The range is wide, but not so wide that the IQ is effected like with the 28-300.
 
Yes, Mr. Rockwell does have a way with words, and I doubt if anyone ever accused him of hiding his personal opinions in his reviews.

Anyway, getting back to the topic, I think RCR summed it up nicely saying that there doesn't need to be an either/or here. Different tools exist for different purposes, and hopefully you buy what you need for what you want to do. Me, I use the DSLR if I'm serious, a lovely old RF camera if I'm having fun and want to pretend I'm Cartier-Bresson, and even a 4/3 camera when I'm neither, but just in case.

Cheers,
Dez
 
shadowfox said:
Sure.
But not what I asked.
Click to expand...

What you asked is what sensor size I would choose. You didn't provide a suitable answer ... "The one wrapped in a camera that inspires/enables me to produce great photos."

My baseline is that I couldn't care less what size sensor my camera uses if the camera enables me to make great photos.

G
 
Been shooting FF for a number of years now, but needed a smaller kit for travel. Instead of my D700 w/24-70 f2.8G I decided to try the D7100 w/17-55 f2.8G. Was shocked by the quality difference in the test images I shot. Even putting the 24-70 on the D7100 didn't help as there was a marked loss in quality from the same lens on the D700.

So I'm sticking with FF from here on in. Just wish I could make it a smaller/lighter kit.

Merry Christmas everyone.

Best,
-Tim
 
Timmyjoe said:
Been shooting FF for a number of years now, but needed a smaller kit for travel. Instead of my D700 w/24-70 f2.8G I decided to try the D7100 w/17-55 f2.8G. Was shocked by the quality difference in the test images I shot. Even putting the 24-70 on the D7100 didn't help as there was a marked loss in quality from the same lens on the D700.

So I'm sticking with FF from here on in. Just wish I could make it a smaller/lighter kit.

Merry Christmas everyone.

Best,
-Tim
Click to expand...


The D700 sells for $3400.
The same manufacturer sells the D7100 for $1100.


EDIT: they are also not the same sensor design. The D700 pixels are about 3X the size of the D7100 pixels.
 
If I'm going to get framed, I want a full frame. That's what I'll need to fit into! Ha!

Full frame gives me more info to work with. I average around 13 megs per RAW file. Perhaps, it's bcause of the camera, I find the photos are much better, better color and other stuff with my full frame camera.
 
So I'm sticking with FF from here on in. Just wish I could make it a smaller/lighter kit.

Merry Christmas everyone.

Best,
-Tim
Click to expand...

You can find a Leica or Sony FF and it should lighten your load quite a bit, you wallet may feel a bit lighter as well!

Happy and Safe Holidays!
 
jsrockit said:
Can you describe in what way you saw differences?
Click to expand...

Shot with D700 & 24-70 f2.8G

D700w24-70a.jpg


Shot with D7100 & 17-55 f2.8G

D7100w17-55a.jpg


For some reason I can't post any pictures on this thread. Anyway, you can go to the links to see the pics.

In the D7100 shot, the details are soft, there's CA all over the branches, and the colors are off.

Best,
-Tim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

gzisis69
Help with new street photography setup
Replies
3
Views
844
ddutchison2
ddutchison2
R
Initial thoughts of a new to me Pixii A2572+
2 3
Replies
53
Views
4K
randomphotoguy
R
J
  • Article Article
The Kowa SET R2: A leaf shutter SLR for $150 or 7 lens cine set only $111, 000 KOWABUNGA !
Replies
1
Views
514
NIKON KIU
NIKON KIU
CameraQuest
LOL Canon EF Sales crush mirrorless competition, No Kidding
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
3K
Dogman
Dogman
A
Pana Leica 12mm f1.4 vs Pana 24mm f1.8, thinking
Replies
3
Views
274
Archiver
A
Back
Top Bottom