Railfan Technology > Full frame DSLR

I'm looking for advice on full-frame DSLRs, looking to purchase one within the next few months. I'd prefer to spend less than $2,000 on a body if possible. Any suggestions?

Why full frame?

Do you have lenses that work on a specific digi brand?
If so, buy a body that fits your lenses.

I buy new, but I've had good luck with used equipment,
and it's a lot cheaper than new. I like Nikon, and I
see that I can buy a used D600 for around $900, and
a used D700 for maybe $700. If the D600 has shutter /
dust and oil issues, Nikon will repair for free; heh!
They fixed mine.

10 to 12 Megapixels will do an excellent job, and the
full frame stuff just guilds the lily. Your main
focus should be on good lenses, followed by a good
tripod.

The field is really wide open, so what do you have, and
what do you want?

John.

I got a Nikon D610 a year ago and have never looked back. I have a near new D7000 I use for a back-up, but seldom pick it up after getting the 610. Also you can get the D610 for under $1500.00 at B&H ($1496.95, free shipping). The problem with the shutter on the D600 was fixed on the D610. I have taken well over 2000 shots with mine and it has never missed a one. PM me if you would like to ask some question about it.
later...Wes

Wes Chiles
Topeka, KS

You can also p/u a Canon 6D refurb by Canon for under 1K.  It's 20 mp. That is the current minimum standard.  Most Nikons are 24-36mp;Canon 20-50 mp; Sony 24-42 mp.  The Nikons use Sony sensors. 
Tho my 6D is on the low end of the current scale, it is a creditable shooter.  Most of my Canonista friends are hoping for a 6D mk II at about 28-36 mp or a 5D MkIV at......

NormSchultze Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can also p/u a Canon 6D refurb by Canon for
> under 1K.  It's 20 mp. That is the current
> minimum standard.  Most Nikons are 24-36mp;Canon
> 20-50 mp; Sony 24-42 mp.  The Nikons use Sony
> sensors. 
> Tho my 6D is on the low end of the current scale,
> it is a creditable shooter.  Most of my Canonista
> friends are hoping for a 6D mk II at about 28-36
> mp or a 5D MkIV at......

At the Original Poster's suggested max budget, he might actually be able to slip into a 5DIII.  Have seen a few deals (body only) at just around the $1900 mark.  With that, he'd get much better focusing than the 6D.

That depends, of course, what glass he has.  If he's starting from scratch with no compatible lenses, a 6D kit would be a better choice to get him started.

Don't full-frame cameras produce better pics in low-light settings? 

I like my 1dx since I get full use of my 16-35 with no cropping 

exopr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't full-frame cameras produce better pics in
> low-light settings? 

That's generally correct. Probably not fair to compare an older full frame with a current tech crop sensor.

I shot with a Canon 5DII for 5+ years. Looking to upgrade to a full frame with better autofocus. Hoping for a good deal on a 5DIII in the next month. In March, it will be 4 years since the Mark 3 was announced so I'm hoping we're getting close to a Mark 4.

Ryan Wilkerson
Fair Oaks, CA

exopr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't full-frame cameras produce better pics in
> low-light settings? 

Correct, image quality is theoretically better on a full frame sensor (assuming all other factors are equal) due to larger pixels/reduced noise. Practically this only becomes obvious to the eye at the limits of low light performance. So image quality at high ISO numbers falls off slower with full frame sensors than cropped/APS-C ones.
However, the penalty is a physically bigger camera, generally higher cost and (unless you spend a fortune on the top-of-the-range-models) the maximum burst rate is usually quite a bit slower. Also, a zoom lens will effectively have less of a telephoto zoom factor than with a cropped sensor.

It all comes down to personal preference but i would say that for the majority of photographers in most conditions you won't see an improvement in image quality with full frame because in most lighting conditions the performance of a good APS-C camera is more than good enough to make the image quaity as good to the human eye as with full frame. 

 



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 12/24/15 09:41 by exhaustED.

I find my 6D quite adequate for MOST railroad shooting. The focus is not quite fast enough for the high speed sections of the NE Corridor, it struggles passing the 'Acela Test'.  The solution, of course, is using manual focus and pre-focusing. Other than that, the 6D is very good.  If you shoot Canon, you can get significant discount thru the Canon Loyalty Program.  You have to call canon and talk to a real human !  And you have to send in a Canon camera...doesn't have to be any particular model or working.   Visit you local thrift stores and get a cheap p/s.  The Canon refurbs come w/one year warrantee, same as new, but for a lot less.

Two sites worth visiting: www.dpreview.com. www.canonpricewatch.com.  

exopr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't full-frame cameras produce better pics in
> low-light settings? 
In general, yes.  The issue is noise level as ISO speeds are increased, and full frame sensors almost always handle higher ISOs with less noise.  However, the ISO speeds of the more recent crop sensor bodies are sufficient for 95% or more of photography.  Note, too, that regardless of sensor size, digital noise increases the more underexposed a photograph is, especially in dark areas. 

The key is a firm grasp of the exposure triangle (aperture, shutter speed, ISO speed) and what the tradeoffs are as each is increased or decreased based on need (ie, shutter speeds 1/250 or faster for moving trains) and what happens when the other settings are adjusted to compensate.  Simply increasing the shutter speed and opening up the aperture (lower f-stop number) may stop the motion blur, but result in a very narrow depth of field where only the nose of the locomotive is in sharp focus.  I've taken handheld, indoor, almost-in-the-dark shots as slow as 1/10, but the non-blurred rate due to hand shake or subject movement is like 1 out of 50!  Yes, 1 keeper out of 50!

Remember, too, that the full frame cameras are always heavier than their crop sensor cousins.  Carrying/holding/using one for longer than an hour can become painful.  Also, few full frame cameras (if any) have a pop-up flash, if that's part of your bag of tricks.  For low light shots, consider getting (and learning to use) an external flash (or a bunch of them, remotely triggered).  Then higher ISO speed-caused noise will not be an issue.

Lastly, look at the used and/or refurb versions of the cameras you may be interested in.  Both B&H Photo and Adorama are extremely reputable dealers of new and used equipment.  Canon also sells refurb units directly and I assume Nikon does as well.

       

You also need a full-frame sensor if you have a lot of older glass you'd like to use and have it render at the proper focal length. This is one of the reasons Nikon has made full-frame sensor bodies, to allow some backwards compatibility.

NZ

I would say go for it. I have had the Nikon D600 since it came out and have had no regrets with the full frame sensor. It was helpful that two of the Nikon senses that I had purchased to use with my D90 were full frame compatible (FX). The DX lenses will still work, but you will have the crop factor.

The crop factor would drive me nuts when trying to take photos in tight spaces as the focal factor on my wide angle lens would be increased by 1.5x. That pretty much rendered my 50mm lens useless, as it was essentially a 75mm lens. Now my 24-80 lens that came with the D600 is really a 24-80. It does make a big difference after you start using a full frame sensor camera. Any focal length that you are losing by not having the 1.5x extra can be made up by cropping the photo post processing. The 24mp leaves plenty of real-estate to do that cropping.

Gary

Posted from iPhone

Most all of the replys to your original question I agree with and give good advice.  With DSLR's I have direct expereince with the Canon 20D, 60D and most recently the full frame 6D. The Canon 6D produces excellent photographs and is very sharp when the focus is carefully and properly executed by using a combination of manual and automatic focus methods depending on composition and the angle of the train coming into view in relation to the glare of the headlights.  However, there will come a time when lugging around the bulky DSLR will become a "beast of burden."  That time has come for me but I am in my young fifties now and I wanted something lighter and less bulky when traveling and climbing up mountain sides for that oh so spectacular vista.  Please consider the Mirrorless format as it is generally smaller, lighter and less bulky and to a degree, less expensive than DSLR's.  I am very particular about the equipment I use as I don't want to suffer from lack of quality equipment to get the disired shot after traveling halfway across God's creation at the expense of considerable time and resources.  I did my research and settled on an Olympus OMD EM5mk2 mated to a couple of high quality zoom lenses and for the life of me, I cannot tell the difference between the photos taken with my 60D and the Olympus.  The Canon 60D uses the APS-C sensor format and the OMD EM5mk2 uses the slightly smaller Micro Four Thirds format. The 60D is 18 megapixles and the Oly OMD EM5mk2 is 16.10 megapixles.  Again, I cannot tell the difference between photos taken between the two formats.  Another quality Mirrorless brand is Panasonic, which is also Micro Four Thirds and Panasonic and Olympus lenses are interchangable.  Sony and Fuji make their own excellent Mirrorless models and their sensor format is propiretary to their brands.  Returning to my point, don't limit yourself to just the DSLR format. Mirrorless cameras have made phenominal gains in the last couple years and you will be hard pressed to see any image quality difference verses your buddy's photos taken with the traditional DSLR, full frame, or not.  After a long weekend of getting the shot your back and shoulders will most certainly feel the difference.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 12/24/15 23:58 by Wizard.

Very interesting comparison: http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/07/30/lets-cut-the-crop-zack-arias-on-the-full-frame-vs-aps-c-debate


rfprr

 

SN711 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The crop factor would drive me nuts when trying to
> take photos in tight spaces as the focal factor on
> my wide angle lens would be increased by 1.5x.
> That pretty much rendered my 50mm lens useless, as
> it was essentially a 75mm lens.

I use my 50mm f/1.4 on a DX Nikon for portraits. It's pretty ideal.

I have the 6D and Canon L lenses. I got it mostly for the low light capability's of full frame. I have been completely satisfied. The center focus spot is the fastest low light focusing device I have ever used.

I am surprised no one has mentioned the Sony a7 full frame line of cameras. Sony makes 40% of the worlds camera sensors, including some of Nikon's. Nobody is better at it.

I have acquaintances who have gone Sony a7 and they are thrilled with the small mirrorless size, with big full frame low light performance. 6400 ISO is a slow speed on the a7's.

The latest and best is the a7R II. However that of course costs. $3200. But there are a7's in the $1000-2000 range.

You can get a Metabones lens adapter for Canon lenses, or better get Sony-Zeiss lenses.

Dennis

Dennis Livesey
New York, NY