# How to get to full frame without breaking the bank



## Peeb (Jul 16, 2015)

The full frame camera bug has bitten. 

Do I "NEED" one? No.
Will it make me a better photographer?  No.
Will it make me happy?  Why yes, I believe it would!


Currently have a Canon t3i with the following lenses:

18-55 'kit' lens EF-S
55-250 EF-S  (with image stabilization)
60 EF-S 2.8 macro 'prime' lens

28 EF 1.8 prime lens
75-300 EF zoom

If I trade out the crop sensor T3i, I need to trade the EF-S lenses too, right?  No go with these lenses in the FF format without trickery?

I assume the EF lenses stay workable, but the telephoto has no image stabilization, which I really would miss. 

I'm a hobbyist that grew up shooting 35mm film, so it would feel right at home to get back to the full frame experience (no more 1.6x converting in my head!).

Canon 6D?  Used 5D Mark ii?

Net of trade, can I get this done under a thousand?

EDIT- if putting ALL the gear on the trading block and starting fresh is the logical play- I'm not opposed to Nikon, in fact that was my drug of choice in the 70's!  It's Ford/Chevy to me- no clear winner, just means to an end.


----------



## KmH (Jul 16, 2015)

Buy an older, used camera.
EF-S lenses will not mount on EF camera bodies.

Nikon DX lenses will mount on FX bodies - D700, D3, D3s.


----------



## Peeb (Jul 16, 2015)

KmH said:


> Buy an older, used camera.
> EF-S lenses will not mount on EF camera bodies.
> 
> Nikon DX lenses will mount on FX bodies - D700, D3, D3s.


Yeah- I thought about a used D610.  Nikon makes such a nice camera!


----------



## TrolleySwag (Jul 17, 2015)

I have a t3i and just bought a 5d mki for $330. So far is a trade up. Just need better lenses than the 2 I have now. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T337A using Tapatalk


----------



## sashbar (Jul 17, 2015)

Will it make you happy? No.
End of story.

P.S. If you, as you say, do not need it (just like 95% of amateurs out there) , if it will not make you a better photographer, then why do you think spending your hard earned money on a big heavy black box with several buttons and a big round hole will make you happy???

It is a genuine question btw. I just find that buying "serious stuff" when you do not need it, is some sort of a therapy that never works.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 17, 2015)

You can get into the FF Market for about $800 if you buy a used D600.  Giving you still one of the best sensors, currently, on the market.


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 17, 2015)

Braineack said:


> You can get into the FF Market for about $800 if you buy a used D600.  Giving you still one of the best sensors, currently, on the market.


Agreed.
A used D600 is the most cost effective Nikon option for full frame. I have two of them, both purchased used, and have been extremely pleased.

On the Canon side, you can look for deals on the  5DI  the 5DII.


----------



## Jerry_ (Jul 17, 2015)

If money is an issue and 1k$ your limit, then don't do it.
You might get a Nikon (don't know for Canon) FX body with a basic lens for that money.
This is likely not to make you happy and will require you to buy extra (expensive) lenses.

If your budget is close to the double, then you might consider the move.

Will it change your photographic style: yes, if you make the effort to learn all the features of your camera
Will it make you happy: eventually, but not due to the camera body, but due to your improved photographic style (see paragraph above)


----------



## Bryston3bsst (Jul 17, 2015)

sashbar said:


> Will it make you happy? No.
> End of story.
> 
> P.S. If you, as you say, do not need it (just like 95% of amateurs out there) , if it will not make you a better photographer, then why do you think spending your hard earned money on a big heavy black box with several buttons and a big round hole will make you happy???
> ...



This.....this.....this......is what you need to read and heed. Buying a FF camera when you don't need it and thinking it will make you happy is not at all a good program. The exception, of course, would be that you have a bank account like Mick Jagger.....then by all means do it up right.

Is the equipment you currently own limiting your ability as a photographer? I've owned a 600D (T3i) and I got tremendous results with it. 

Forgive me but your reasoning for this purchase is not sound at all. But, at the same time, it's really none of my business. However, you did ask. 

I've always believed that you buy better equipment when your current kit is somehow limiting your abilities. 

Just some thoughts based on experience.


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 17, 2015)

The one BIG thing people seem to forget is with Canon you have to buy the more modern & expensive lenses.

With Nikon, you can buy older pro lenses.  Manual focus lenses, screw mechanism AF & AF-D lenses.  You can get some nice and super sharp "starter" pro lenses for $99.  

No need to buy a modern built-in lens focus motor, no aperture this and that lens.  You can save significant money on a Nikon body and get into FF without breaking the bank.  And those same lenses work on certain DX bodies too (with certain caveats).

I own both a DX crop d7000 and a FF d600.  Love the FF .. it's just nicer.  I enjoy photography more with it, I really do.  All the neighsayers will say that I'm wrong and such .. but there's other ppl on this board when they went to FF it really accelerated their creativity. Of course, you can be creative with any camera.  There's just something different.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 17, 2015)

Jerry_ said:


> If money is an issue and 1k$ your limit, then don't do it.
> You might get a Nikon (don't know for Canon) FX body with a basic lens for that money.
> This is likely not to make you happy and will require you to buy extra (expensive) lenses.



The D600 plus the ~$50 24-105mm is fantastic.
or the ~$200 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G.
or the ~$200 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G.
or :insertaplethoraofcheapoptionshere:

you don't _have_ to buy expensive lenses, FF or Crop.  Why would a basic lens not make you happy?


----------



## KenC (Jul 17, 2015)

The other approach would be to keep the body you have, but put some money into better lenses, starting with the ones you use most.  You'll probably see a bigger improvement in IQ for the same or less money.


----------



## Bryston3bsst (Jul 17, 2015)

The downside to using EF lenses on a crop body is that the field of view is greatly diminished.


----------



## Peeb (Jul 17, 2015)

Bryston3bsst said:


> This.....this.....this......is what you need to read and heed. Buying a FF camera when you don't need it and thinking it will make you happy is not at all a good program. The exception, of course, would be that you have a bank account like Mick Jagger.....then by all means do it up right.
> 
> Is the equipment you currently own limiting your ability as a photographer? I've owned a 600D (T3i) and I got tremendous results with it.
> 
> ...





sashbar said:


> Will it make you happy? No.
> End of story.
> 
> P.S. If you, as you say, do not need it (just like 95% of amateurs out there) , if it will not make you a better photographer, then why do you think spending your hard earned money on a big heavy black box with several buttons and a big round hole will make you happy???
> ...


I don't "need" the T3i, but it makes me deliriously happy.  Getting great images is my passion- not my livelihood.

I get awesome images from my iPhone 6, but I hauled my DSLR and a bag full of lenses all over Yellowstone this summer taking pics.  This was not necessary- I did not need to do it- but it made me happy.  I shot everything RAW, and had hours of fun working with my favorites in photoshop.  I didn't 'need to do that either.

I'm rediscovering the joy of photography and I ran into limitations last year with my Nikon D40 that forced me to upgrade to a more modern DSLR and I was amazed at the advances in tech.  It's really improved my IQ.  I'm just interested in getting a bit more data/image to work with.

So getting a 'better' camera than the T3i is REALLY something I don't 'need', but if I can spend $1000 and get an incrementally better image next time- then yes I would like that.  Not sure why that offends.

I've been shooting since I took a college course in photography in 1978 and I actually already know that a few of the images I captured on my Canonette Giii viewfinder camera were superior to the ones I took shooting SLR thru Zeiss glass.

I'm also a wannabe musician, and I didn't 'need' an American Fender Strat to compose and perform music that speaks to me, but that's what I bought 15 years and I'm SO happy that some guitar know-it-all didn't talk me out of it on the premise that a better guitar would never teach me how to be a better musician.

Of COURSE you've gotta pay your dues and learn your craft.  Do you think I believe that I will become a 'better' photographer with new gear?  I know that I won't.  Might some of my images have better properties though?  Of course.


----------



## ronlane (Jul 17, 2015)

I'd look for a used 5D mk ii and offer them $1,000. They may be asking a couple hundred more but if you start pulling out $100's they may change their mind.


----------



## sashbar (Jul 17, 2015)

Peeb said:


> Bryston3bsst said:
> 
> 
> > This.....this.....this......is what you need to read and heed. Buying a FF camera when you don't need it and thinking it will make you happy is not at all a good program. The exception, of course, would be that you have a bank account like Mick Jagger.....then by all means do it up right.
> ...



Now we are talking  
But why this disbelief in your own improvement then? Lack of time?


----------



## JustJazzie (Jul 17, 2015)

I moved into FF on a whim and yes, it made me happy. Could I have done just as well on a crop body? Probably. But I pink sparkly heart love my camera. Did I go against conventional advice and spend way more on my body than my 28-105 afd? Yup! Guess what. Now it doesn't matter that my aperture is "slower" because my incredible ISO makes up for it. I can throw my camera into manual with auto Iso (but user capped in the menu) and only worry about my ss and aperture. This enables me to focus on other important variables.

I'd say go for it if it's feasable. Pick up a used d600 as suggested, and a 28-105 e.5-4.5 for $150 and enjoy yourself until you can grow a lens collection. 

I love this lens because it's sharp, great colors, super lightweight and has a REALLY fun and handy "macro" mode 1:2 ratio that makes it a practical general walk around lens. You just can't beat the used price. I've had mine a year or so and haven't taken it off my camera. 

Lots of people say you don't need that much camera. Which I am sure is true. Sometimes though, New gear can motivate you get out and shoot more- which helps you improve.


----------



## Bryston3bsst (Jul 17, 2015)

Oh gosh, so this is just a validation thread. How stupid of me for not seeing where this was going in the first place. 

Enjoy your new equipment.


----------



## JacaRanda (Jul 17, 2015)

Bryston3bsst said:


> The downside to using EF lenses on a crop body is that the field of view is greatly diminished.


 
A result, but not necessarily a downside.


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 17, 2015)

JustJazzie said:


> ... But I pink sparkly heart love my camera...



There you have it folks.  You can't get any better than "pink sparkly heart love" for a camera


----------



## Peeb (Jul 17, 2015)

Bryston3bsst said:


> Oh gosh, so this is just a validation thread. How stupid of me for not seeing where this was going in the first place.
> 
> Enjoy your new equipment.


This is not a "should I do this" thread.
This is a "How do I get this done" thread.

I'm not looking for validation from you, friend.
I'm looking for advice from people who know more than I do.

Thanks for all the kind replies, folks.


----------



## JustJazzie (Jul 17, 2015)

astroNikon said:


> JustJazzie said:
> 
> 
> > ... But I pink sparkly heart love my camera...
> ...


Well there IS the purple sparkly heart awards, but Nikon would have to hire me to design a camera and possibly defy laws of physics in their production of said model, but I suppose that is a topic for another thread. ;-)


----------



## Bryston3bsst (Jul 17, 2015)

JacaRanda said:


> Bryston3bsst said:
> 
> 
> > The downside to using EF lenses on a crop body is that the field of view is greatly diminished.
> ...



How so? How is a narrower field of view a good thing? And please don't regurgitate the additional reach' thing. Unless, that is, you're a fan of the old 'digital zoom'. Which is effectively what you have.

I guess to some the restricted field of view is tolerable. It wasn't for me.


----------



## sashbar (Jul 17, 2015)

astroNikon said:


> JustJazzie said:
> 
> 
> > ... But I pink sparkly heart love my camera...
> ...



Honestly, I can never grasp that concept of a camera love, never mind pink sparkly heart one. A camera is always an annoying, but nesessary medium between me and an image. But that's me, I am unable to grasp a lot of things in this world.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 17, 2015)

JustJazzie said:


> But I pink sparkly heart love my camera.


----------



## Bryston3bsst (Jul 17, 2015)

Peeb said:


> Bryston3bsst said:
> 
> 
> > Oh gosh, so this is just a validation thread. How stupid of me for not seeing where this was going in the first place.
> ...



Which is exactly what you're getting. But it's interesting that the advice you choose to listen to are the ones that are saying 'do it, do it'. Which is exactly my point. I mistakenly thought that you were undecided and as a result I was agreeing with another poster in thinking that your reasoning for doing this was flawed. 

Clearly, by your own admission, you've already decided to this. How you get it done is up to you and your wallet. I'll leave you be.

Again, enjoy your new stuff.

Disagree away, folks.


----------



## waday (Jul 17, 2015)

Bryston3bsst said:


> Which is exactly what you're getting. But it's interesting that the advice you choose to listen to are the ones that are saying 'do it, do it'. Which is exactly my point. I mistakenly thought that you were undecided and as a result I was agreeing with another poster in thinking that your reasoning for doing this was flawed.
> 
> Clearly, by your own admission, you've already decided to this. How you get it done is up to you and your wallet. I'll leave you be.
> 
> ...


@Bryston3bsst, I think there was an honest and quite unintentional disconnect between the original post and some of the initial replies (such as that by @sashbar and yourself). If you read the OP, @Peeb is looking for a way to get to FF for under a thousand. The OP did not indicate that Peeb was undecided in any way, in fact, it was just the opposite--very much trying to move towards FF and away from crop. Peeb was not soliciting feedback on the decision to move to FF, just on how to get there without breaking the bank. It's advice that can help many that want to get better equipment but can't afford new.

BTW, no hard feelings on the 'disagree' buttons... I believe there were a bunch of threads or posts when people started using it when it was introduced. I think the consensus was that most people use it to 'disagree' with what was said rather than to criticize anyone (at least that's what I want to believe, haha).


----------



## JacaRanda (Jul 17, 2015)

Bryston3bsst said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> > Bryston3bsst said:
> ...


 
It's a good thing when one shoots wildlife or sports and can't afford a $10k super telephoto lens.
Sorry if my regurgitation bugs you.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 17, 2015)

FF cameras have larger viewfinders than the crop-frame economy cameras that use small pentamirror designs. I'm not familiar with your Canon, but it might be a pentamirror design; I am sure that its viewfinder image is smaller than any FF d-slr from Canon or Nikon. What FF does over APS-C is changes the way lenses work...how far away you stand with a 35, 50, or 85, how easy it is to use some of the common zooms in social situations; the 75-300 length is ridiculously too long on APS-C at say an outdoor BBQ or Fourth of July Parade when used on APS-C; the field of view narrowing of the 1.6x crop really has a big impact of a number of common "full-frame lenses". The way primes lenses perform, the way they must be used, and the way common full-frame zoom lenses perform--that is where the single biggest difference lies between APS-C and FF cameras. Most companies have many more FF lenses than DX-specific lenses.

Affordability: Canon 5D classic is most affordable, at $350-$550; some of the older Canon 1Ds bodies are pretty low cost nowadays, like the 16.7 MP model. Nikon D700 and D600 used are now in the $750-$850 range. Canon 5D-II maybe $1000 or so.

Will FF make you better? No, but it is easier to shoot in social photography situations with many lenses, and the lens lineups for FF are better, wider, more filled with legacy lenses that actually work easily in normal situations; for the first few years of APS-C d-slrs, there were not many good lenses for APS-C cameras; wide-angle and normal and telephoto all had glaring gaps. For studio and portraiture, APS-C is a real PITA. For long-range shooting, APS-C is very nice to have.


----------



## Bryston3bsst (Jul 17, 2015)

waday said:


> Bryston3bsst said:
> 
> 
> > Which is exactly what you're getting. But it's interesting that the advice you choose to listen to are the ones that are saying 'do it, do it'. Which is exactly my point. I mistakenly thought that you were undecided and as a result I was agreeing with another poster in thinking that your reasoning for doing this was flawed.
> ...


 No hard feelings at all. I appreciate your having the fortitude to speak directly to me as I guess many here don't care for the way I word things. So thank you.


----------



## Bryston3bsst (Jul 17, 2015)

JacaRanda said:


> Bryston3bsst said:
> 
> 
> > JacaRanda said:
> ...



Doesn't bug me at all. It's just incorrect.

I know you think I'm full of crap so maybe call or email Canon or Nikon engineering.  They can probably explain it better that I can.

But you can continue to believe what you like. I think it's called flying in the face of reason.


----------



## ronlane (Jul 17, 2015)

Bryston3bsst said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> > Bryston3bsst said:
> ...



Bryston, I'm not trying to be a smart@$$, but what you are saying is basically that you use an ultrawide lens for all of your photos. Because any lens with less field of view than what your eyes can see (which is more than 180 degrees) would restrict your field of view.

I don't see using a FX lens on a crop sensor to be any different than using a TC on on a FX camera. I don't know a lot of people that have over $10K to go out and purchase the Super Telephoto lenses for sports or for birds/wildlife.


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 17, 2015)

Actually with Wide Angle,
using a crop camera with a 10-xx mm lens  would be far cheaper than a FF with a 14-xx mm lens.  So roughly the same FOV but crop has options to make it alot cheaper.

the widest lenses I have are my 18-105 DX for my d7000 and a 18-35 FX for my d600.

But even buying a d3x00 and a tamron 10-24 would be super cheap
as even a used FF d600 is going to cost 3x or more the price of a used d3100/3200 body.

A good used AF-D 18-35 FX like I have is roughly the same price as a used tamron 10-24 DX.    So, when on a budget, the body price makes a difference with the DX being less money.  And you already have a Canon crop body.

*if* specific UWA and price is the only consideration i'd might stick with DX
But if one has dreams of FF then there's only one long term solution.


----------



## Peeb (Jul 17, 2015)

Bryston3bsst said:


> Peeb said:
> 
> 
> > Bryston3bsst said:
> ...


No one 'advised' me to go FF, I came to that conclusion on my own, and that decision process is not the subject of this thread.

Thanks for your clarification.  I merely disagreed with your original statement because you were wrong.  

I 'liked' your follow up comment, because- well, I liked it.   Be well.


----------



## JacaRanda (Jul 17, 2015)

Bryston3bsst said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> > Bryston3bsst said:
> ...


 
Wrong!  I don't think you are full of crap.


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 17, 2015)

ronlane said:


> I don't see using a FX lens on a crop sensor to be any different than using a TC on on a FX camera. I don't know a lot of people that have over $10K to go out and purchase the Super Telephoto lenses for sports or for birds/wildlife.


Or for $1,100.00 just go buy a tamron/sigma 150-600 and be done with it.


----------



## ronlane (Jul 17, 2015)

astroNikon said:


> ronlane said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see using a FX lens on a crop sensor to be any different than using a TC on on a FX camera. I don't know a lot of people that have over $10K to go out and purchase the Super Telephoto lenses for sports or for birds/wildlife.
> ...



For birds/wildlife, that seems to be a great option for most people. However, for shooting H.S. Football at night, I don't think it's fast enough. (I struggle with my f/4)


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 17, 2015)

ronlane said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > ronlane said:
> ...


That's one advantage my FF has over my DX body.  Low light ability.  For doing evening sports my d600 has helped so much over my d7000 using f/2.8 and f/4 lenses.  Even with the variable Tamron 150-600 the d600 doesn't have issues in handling higher ISOs like the d7000.


----------



## ronlane (Jul 17, 2015)

@astroNikon, and that is why I am wanting to go FF. (But I'm going to try to get a 300mm f/4 before I go, that way I'll have the 300 lol)


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 17, 2015)

ronlane said:


> @astroNikon, and that is why I am wanting to go FF. (But I'm going to try to get a 300mm f/4 before I go, that way I'll have the 300 lol)


The nice thing about Nikon is getting older lenses.  My 300/4 AF is an older screw focusing lens.   Not the fastest, not the lightest, not the best.  But low cost comparative to the new in-body focus motored 300/4s.  I spent $300 for it versus $1400 or more for newer used variations of it.


----------



## Bryston3bsst (Jul 17, 2015)

ronlane said:


> Bryston3bsst said:
> 
> 
> > JacaRanda said:
> ...



You're not being a smart ass at all. Your statement "_ any lens with less field of view than what your eyes can see (which is more than 180 degrees) would restrict your field of view._" is profound. Of course it does. Most all lenses do. Wouldn't it be great if we had lenses, and bodies for that matter, with the field of view, focal length capabilities and dynamic range of our eyes? God's a pretty darn good engineer to design our eyes to work they way they do. Of course I realized not everyone can afford the long glass. My only contention is the unfortunately popular belief that using a crop body camera increases any given lens' focal length. It quite simply does not. It decreases FOV by the crop factor.  Your 200mm focal length is still 200mm however you have the FOV of a 320mm lens....assuming a 1.6 crop.

With regard to lenses, we still certainly need the focal length when shooting distant subjects. Unfortunately, optics are such that as focal length increases FOV decreases. I don't think any optical company has ever designed long glass with a 100+ degree FOV. At least I have never heard of one. Can you imagine a lens that's a foot and a half long with a glass hemisphere on the end like a 6mm has? 600mm with a 125 degree FOV all for only $500,000! Hey, I'm there!

So.....let's carry on.


----------



## ronlane (Jul 17, 2015)

Hmm, I don't think my wife is going to let me have that half million dollar 600mm without her spending an equal amount on a house and property. lol.

Very good points @Bryston3bsst.


----------



## Bryston3bsst (Jul 17, 2015)

Peeb said:


> No one 'advised' me to go FF, I came to that conclusion on my own, and that decision process is not the subject of this thread.
> 
> Thanks for your clarification.  I merely disagreed with your original statement* because you were wrong. *
> 
> I 'liked' your follow up comment, because- well, I liked it.   Be well.



_WRONG......WRONG YOU SAY????? _How dast you! Why.........that's simply not possible. I thought I was wrong once but I was mistaken. So......that for you......


----------



## Peeb (Jul 17, 2015)

So.... back to FF cameras.

If I'm willing to trade by mail, did I hear that adorama takes used gear?


----------



## gr8five (Jul 17, 2015)

If you think strongly you want to go ff then you should do it and once you there you won't want to go back. Good luck, and yes adorama does take trades.


----------



## beagle100 (Jul 17, 2015)

yeah, just get a refurbished 6D for $1,099 and call it quits
(until the 6D2)


----------



## DanOstergren (Jul 18, 2015)

I shoot with a 5D MK I, and am incredibly happy with it. It renders images beautifully, and for what used body's are going for these days you just can't beat that price for a good full frame camera. As well, you could get yourself a nice lens or two with the money you'd have left over after buying a 5D. It's not the most advanced DSLR, but for me what matters is the final image, and it does not disappoint.


----------



## chuasam (Jul 18, 2015)

Have a bigger bank account


----------



## DanOstergren (Jul 19, 2015)

chuasam said:


> Have a bigger bank account


You can get a great full frame camera for less than $500.


----------



## chuasam (Jul 19, 2015)

DanOstergren said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > Have a bigger bank account
> ...


Film camera


----------



## table1349 (Jul 19, 2015)

This would work if you have nothing to do with the next 20 years to 30 years of your life.


----------



## Peeb (Jul 19, 2015)

Presently thinking of offering the whole cropped-body+lenses for trade and switching over to a Nikon D610 and slowing re-building my lens collection.

There would be some benefits to staying with Canon, but I really liked the D610 when I borrowed and tried one.


----------



## waday (Jul 19, 2015)

chuasam said:


> Have a bigger bank account





chuasam said:


> Film camera





gryphonslair99 said:


> This would work if you have nothing to do with the next 20 years to 30 years of your life.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 19, 2015)

waday said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > Have a bigger bank account
> ...


----------



## DanOstergren (Jul 19, 2015)

chuasam said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > chuasam said:
> ...


Oh you.


----------



## chuasam (Jul 20, 2015)

Peeb said:


> Presently thinking of offering the whole cropped-body+lenses for trade and switching over to a Nikon D610 and slowing re-building my lens collection.
> 
> There would be some benefits to staying with Canon, but I really liked the D610 when I borrowed and tried one.


why do you feel that you even need a full frame camera to begin with?


----------



## Peeb (Jul 20, 2015)

chuasam said:


> Peeb said:
> 
> 
> > Presently thinking of offering the whole cropped-body+lenses for trade and switching over to a Nikon D610 and slowing re-building my lens collection.
> ...


1. A broader dynamic range and better low light/high ISO performance yielding a higher quality image than a crop sensor.

2. Shallower depth of field than a crop sensor DSLR, which can be a beneficial aesthetic (more bokeh).

3.  I shot 35mm on film for three decades, and the field of view I get when I shoot, say a 55mm lens on a cropped body just 'looks' wrong to what my eye is accustomed to.  I shoot a lot of landscapes and the cropped body views just don't comfortably fit (if I shot more wildlife, the 'reach' of the cropped body would appeal more).

4. Hoping for better image quality in general (this desire has remained constant throughout my photographic journey that started 4 decades ago with a Canon Canonette Giii viewfinder camera that was a pretty fine piece of kit).  The 'compare' websites I've seen consistently rate the D610 well over my current T3i.

5.  Why are so many folks on this board concerned with my motivation?


----------



## chuasam (Jul 20, 2015)

Duh! Of course the D610 will beat a T3i.
Because you want a big camera but lack the budget to match.
It's like saying I want a fancy sports car but I can only afford $2,000 for it.


----------



## Peeb (Jul 20, 2015)

chuasam said:


> Duh! Of course the D610 will beat a T3i.
> Because you want a big camera but lack the budget to match.
> It's like saying I want a fancy sports car but I can only afford $2,000 for it.


Hah!  I never said I couldn't afford it- I just would prefer to get there as cheaply as possible.  

EDIT:  just went and re-checked my original post to confirm.  I just wondered if I could take all the cropped body gear listed there as trade-in, plus a grand and make the leap.  That seems doable, right?


----------



## PaulWog (Jul 20, 2015)

Peeb said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > Duh! Of course the D610 will beat a T3i.
> ...



That's what I did, except I used Craigslist to sell my crop gear. Worth it. But now I want more lenses.


----------



## BananaRepublic (Jul 20, 2015)

1 Save a dollar a day for 3000 days, allowing for inflation milk & cigarettes

2 Buy second hand.


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 20, 2015)

You'll get more money selling your lenses by yourself than sending them in.
Look at places that sell used lenses, KEH, Adorama, etc
then, for a rule of thumb think half of online selling price (?) for your trade in value.   

But I've never traded in a lens though so ask other people that have.  In the past I've sold all my own lenses.


----------



## Dave442 (Jul 20, 2015)

I would look to have $2000 and sell what you have (hopefully that is worth $1000) for a used D600 and a used lens or two.


----------



## Daniel The Cool (Jul 20, 2015)

Me personally from experience, I would keep using the Canon until you master it (Meaning get good results to the point you're ready to move up). FX there alot you need to learn with it (Hell I'm still learning with my Nikon D610) and the old saying It's Not The Camera, It's The Person Behind the camera. Well just a suggestion


----------



## Peeb (Jul 20, 2015)

Daniel The Cool said:


> Me personally from experience, I would keep using the Canon until you master it (Meaning get good results to the point you're ready to move up). FX there alot you need to learn with it (Hell I'm still learning with my Nikon D610) and the old saying It's Not The Camera, It's The Person Behind the camera. Well just a suggestion


Thanks, Daniel.  Done and done.  That's why I'm wanting to move on.

I've been through:

Kodak Instamatics (approx. 1972- the adventure begins!)
Polaroid Land cameras
Canon Cannonet GIII
Yashika FR (my first SLR, circa 1978)
Nikon FG20 (1980s)
Canon EOS Rebel Film Camera (2000)
Nikon D40 (2001)
Canon T3i (2014)

I can't even recall the myriad of wide-angle, telephoto, zoom, specialty lenses I've been thru (some amazing- some awful).

I've had formal and informal training, and shot film and digital all across the US and Western Europe (even a short stint in your NYC!).  Really wanted to like the T3i, but just can't quite love it.

This isn't a thread about a newbie who thinks a new toy will make him smarter or more artsy- I realize that it's first the artist, then the glass then the box (in that order in my opinion).

PS- at my age, 'waiting unitl I get better' is not a viable option- who knows if I'll even be able to still focus on the far horizon tomorrow- heck, I won't even buy green bananas!  The time for results is now.   I've got the means to do this and it's gonna happen one way or another.  Thanks to all for your kind input on how you would proceed.  I don't disagree with your sentiment, Daniel.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 20, 2015)

Dude, this is photography.  Break the bank now and get it over with.  You know you're going to do it sooner or later anyway.  No point in postponing the inevitable.


----------



## Bryston3bsst (Jul 21, 2015)

tirediron said:


> Dude, this is photography.  *Break the bank now and get it over with.*  You know you're going to do it sooner or later anyway.  No point in postponing the inevitable.



Yea......c'mon.......start buyin', start shootin'!

Let's see some pictures with the new camera!


----------



## chuasam (Jul 21, 2015)

Curious - you keep switching between Canon and Nikon


----------



## Derrel (Jul 21, 2015)

chuasam said:


> Curious - you keep switching between Canon and Nikon



Facile comment. Utterly so. Those are the two biggest-selling brands, and have been since, oh, 1974. How did you miss the Kodak,Polaroid, Yashica models? The guy is old enough to be your grandfather, and he happened to buy TOP-selling models each time he was in the market for a new camera, over an over FOUR-DECADE time span!

OMG--a horrible thought just hit me--he might also have alternated between Coke and Pepsi during that time frame as well!! He might have alternated between Charmin and Angel Soft toilet paper too! And, OMG--what if he also alternately bought  BUTTER in the 1970s and then MARGARINE in the 1980's when everybody said butter was horrible for one's health--and then went back to butter in the 1990's, after margarine and partially hydrogenated oils were determined to be bad for one's health!

;-)


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 21, 2015)

Derrel said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > Curious - you keep switching between Canon and Nikon
> ...


Just trying to see if there's a correlation here .. are you also stating that Canon is bad for one's health ??


----------



## Bryston3bsst (Jul 21, 2015)

astroNikon said:


> *Just trying to see if there's a correlation here *.. are you also stating that Canon is bad for one's health ??



Correlation between what?


----------



## Derrel (Jul 21, 2015)

Bryston3bsst said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > *Just trying to see if there's a correlation here *.. are you also stating that Canon is bad for one's health ??
> ...



Correlation between bad joke efforts and AstroNikon's post count? (I'm going with that...)


----------



## Bryston3bsst (Jul 21, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Bryston3bsst said:
> 
> 
> > astroNikon said:
> ...


Wooooo........you go girl!


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 21, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Bryston3bsst said:
> 
> 
> > astroNikon said:
> ...


Just trying to learn from the master and catch up with you Derrel ...


----------



## waday (Jul 21, 2015)

Coke is better than Pepsi.

Also:


----------



## Peeb (Jul 21, 2015)

you guys crack me up!   No conspiracy here-  loved ones keep giving me Canon cameras, and I keep purchasing Nikons  

 No hate for Canon, just kind of like the Nikons.  At one point, Paul Simon told me they were good


----------



## Derrel (Jul 21, 2015)

Peeb said:
			
		

> you guys crack me up!   No conspiracy here-  loved ones keep giving me Canon cameras, and I keep purchasing Nikons
> 
> No hate for Canon, just kind of like the Nikons.  At one point, Paul Simon told me they were good



Yes, indeed, Canon always has made some fine give-away type cameras! over the decades, all of the major camera makers offered some pretty nifty cameras. At one time, Polaroid cameras and film sold insanely well, according to a "state of the industry" article I read last year, reprinted from the late 1960's era. I was shocked by how many Polaroid cameras the company sold at one point.

The Nikon FG-20 was a good seller for Nikon. The Canon Rebel film cameras were very popular and good sellers when I worked in camera sales some 25+ years ago, and last year I picked up a Rebel XT film camera and Sigma 70-200mm AF zoom for $19.95; the little Rebel XT was actually a wonderfully-designed camera in my opinion, with really simple controls and a great size for carrying, good ergonomics, simple to use, and priced great. I recall Paul SImon 's song Kodachrome very well! So sad that the film had to disappear forever--I shot Kodachrome 64 or 64 Professional almost exclusively for most of my color slide film use in the early-to-mid 1980's period, although in 4x5 sheet film I burned a good deal of Ektachrome 100 Professional.

As to moving from APS-C to FF in d-slr: I am all for that for many people. I made the change myself after six years of APS-C, and I really have enjoyed going BACK TO what I had learned on and shot for 20 years...I prefer the bigger viewfinder image and the lens/shooting situation relationships the FF has to my own experience with how a lens is expected to be used.


----------



## chuasam (Jul 21, 2015)

Derrel said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > Curious - you keep switching between Canon and Nikon
> ...


He's only 12 years older than I am.
Makes no sense to keep switching between brands because you keep having to rebuild a lens system.
Constantly switching between systems is the sign of someone chasing something and not getting it.


----------



## Peeb (Jul 21, 2015)

chuasam said:


> He's only 12 years older than I am.
> Makes no sense to keep switching between brands because you keep having to rebuild a lens system.
> *Constantly switching between systems is the sign of someone chasing something and not getting it*.


Look, friend:

if you want to make up scenarios as to how/why I'm not a great photographer, let me make this easy for you: I am not a great photographer.  I've lacked a consistent 'brand' of camera over the decades because I have neither the focus (pardon the pun) or commitment to have developed this over  time.

I just have fun capturing memories and talking about photo gear. 

EDITED: to remove snarkiness on my part.  Sorry.


----------



## Peeb (Jul 21, 2015)

BTW, I totally agree with Chuasam that it makes no sense to switch back and forth due to the loss of use of any inventory of lenses you've built up.  He's absolutely right about that.  On the other hand, when I move to FF, I am losing the ability to use the canon EF-S lenses, so Canon made that switch a little easier.


----------



## chuasam (Jul 21, 2015)

What I'm trying to say is worry less about gear and just take photos.
For what it's worth, the industry is slowly moving away from full frame and moving towards mirror less. 

I have a full frame camera when I doing paid stuff but when I'm on vacation, or "off duty" I actually use a micro4/3rds camera.


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 22, 2015)

Yeah, you can move to Full Frame Mirrorless  at some point in the future 

Instead of switching brands, you can switch technologies


----------



## Peeb (Jul 22, 2015)

astroNikon said:


> Yeah, you can move to Full Frame Mirrorless  at some point in the future
> 
> Instead of switching brands, you can switch technologies


I agree with Chuasam to a point.  I borrowed a friends D3x with Nikkor zoom- what a ton that thing weighs!  I dreaded carrying it around.  At some point, I would love to have EITHER

A) A full frame camera PLUS a mirrorless camera OR
B) what you said- full frame mirrorless.

Tech keeps getting better!


----------



## Derrel (Jul 22, 2015)

chuasam said:
			
		

> Makes no sense to keep switching between brands because you keep having to rebuild a lens system.
> Constantly switching between systems is the sign of someone chasing something and not getting it.



Quite the theory you're advancing. Consider the following information, based on my forty years' worth of experience in cameras/photo: First off, look at the time intervals:

Nikon FG20 (1980s)
Canon EOS Rebel Film Camera (2000)
Nikon D40 (2001)
Canon T3i (2014)

Four cameras over the 1984-2014 time span? Two Nikons and two Canons? That's four cameras over about a thirty year time frame! Wow!

You seem to be confused about the "lens system" that regular shooters "build"....it's often one zoom, then a second one, both cheapies.

I actually understand the FG-20, Rebel, D40, T3i progression *over a thirty-year time span*.


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 22, 2015)

Myself, I used to swap between Kodak and FujiFilm disposable cameras all the time!!  before a Nikon d70, then more recently a d7000 then d600.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 22, 2015)

A super low-budget setup with the Canon 5D classic and mixed-brand arrangement of manual focus, adapted lenses. From lower left: $12 yard sale Super Lentar 35mm f/2.8 m42 threadmount with A/M on-lens stop-down controller; Vivitar 55mm f/2.8 1:1 macro in m42; Canon 4D classic with Asahi 55mm f/2 Super-Takumar in m42; Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 Ai-S; Tall, back left is Asahi Super-Takumar 135mm f/3.5 in m42, and back far right is Asahai SUper Takumar 200mm f/4 m42; Olympus $28mm f/2.8.



 

The Vivitar Series1 macro lens has a hugely extending, precision, silky mechanical helicoid focusing system and wonderful markings!


----------



## chuasam (Jul 22, 2015)

Derrel said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Tell me more about the D40 from 2001


----------



## Peeb (Jul 22, 2015)

I can speak to the D40.  Still have it, and it never sees the light of day.  I think it was actually 2006 instead of 2001.

The 18-55 kit lens (at least on mine) was not very sharp, and it's only 6.1 MP.  Also, no internal focusing motor, so it doesn't play nice with other Nikons.

Not a fan, personally.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 23, 2015)

A few years ago, I was shooting a D200 with a 18-200 and a 50 1.8 for my only lenses - and I wasn't able to get the quality that I wanted.
My children got together and bought me a D700, 24-70, 70-200 and a 50 1.4 and I was in heaven.
But I couldn't disentangle what part of the improvement was due to the fine lenses and what was due to a much better sensor.

With the newer camera bodies and sensors - even in crop frame - switching to FF may not give you the boost in quality that you are expecting.
If there is a financial component, the argument for upgrading both body and lenses vs just upgrading lenses and using lower cost crop frame bodies might be even harder to make.

(If this has been said before, pardon me.  When there are 5 or 6 pages of replies there are usually people grinding their own axes and I don't read them)


----------



## Peeb (Jul 23, 2015)

It's a trade-off, I suppose.  Crop body cameras lack the wide angle I want, but they have lovely 'reach' for the long shots...


----------



## JacaRanda (Jul 23, 2015)

Peeb said:


> It's a trade-off, I suppose.  Crop body cameras lack the wide angle I want, but they have lovely 'reach' for the long shots...


 
Be careful with the crop body and reach comments.  Some people don't take kindly to the notion.


----------



## Peeb (Jul 23, 2015)

JacaRanda said:


> Peeb said:
> 
> 
> > It's a trade-off, I suppose.  Crop body cameras lack the wide angle I want, but they have lovely 'reach' for the long shots...
> ...


Wasn't sure whether to tag that comment as funny or useful...


----------



## chuasam (Jul 23, 2015)

JacaRanda said:


> Peeb said:
> 
> 
> > It's a trade-off, I suppose.  Crop body cameras lack the wide angle I want, but they have lovely 'reach' for the long shots...
> ...


Damn big Pharmaceuticals. Thalidomide was not safe for anti-nausea.


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 24, 2015)

Peeb said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> > Peeb said:
> ...


You can get 10mm UWA options for crop bodies now, which is equivalent to 15/16mm FF.


----------



## Peeb (Jul 25, 2015)

OK- so my first goal was to get my 'view' back to that of tradition 35 mm (so that I'm not getting 1.6x the reach on each lens).  Maybe I could either: (a) get a crop body camera with panorama mode, or (b) spring for a wider wide angle.

Another primary goal for me is the ability to enlarge a print quite a bit for a large piece of art.  I suppose a fine quality crop body slr (say, Nikon 5300) could still accomplish?


----------



## chuasam (Jul 25, 2015)

I've shot billboard ads with images shot on a D700 and cropped by almost 30%. I'm sure you can do a large art piece with a D5300.


----------



## gr8five (Jul 27, 2015)

Sounds to me like a ff body and lenses will put you back into your comfort zone, so do it and enjoy.


----------



## Peeb (Jul 27, 2015)

I've looked a bit more into the DX lens line, and it's come a long way since the old D40 in 2006.  

Went to a photo shop and physically matched the D610 and D5300 and it's REALLY tempting to shed some size/heft and just go with the little one.  

The FX series lenses I looked at are not just more expensive, they are HEAVY.  I know that they are sturdier, better built, and with better optics, but I gotta be honest with myself regarding likelihood I tote them.

I'd love the best possible IQ, but I won't get any images if I leave the whole rig at home.


----------



## chuasam (Jul 29, 2015)

I totally agree.  If given a chance to start from scratch, I would be heavily tempted to get the Fuji X system instead. 

My D810 is really a legacy that started from my f100 I used in college which progressed to a D300 when I went full digital and then D700 because they did not continue that body line. 

For a backup system, I'm waffling between the X system and the m43rds. Sony offers good cameras for the size but their lens system is rubbish and impossible to procure. 

My GF of 8 years is an established professional equestrian photographer and her system complements mine. We are able to share gear if we schedule our shoots right. 

Full frame does provide really good image quality but unless you sell your images or regularly print at very large sizes, it's really just a pain to carry. 

I was recent on vacation in England and for the times I was in London and I used my D810 a grand total of once. Too many stairs and too little space. I used a borrowed Panasonic Lumix GM1 for the vast majority of the time. The images printed beautifully on my 13x19" printer.


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 29, 2015)

Peeb said:


> I've looked a bit more into the DX lens line, and it's come a long way since the old D40 in 2006.
> 
> Went to a photo shop and physically matched the D610 and D5300 and it's REALLY tempting to shed some size/heft and just go with the little one.
> 
> ...


With the d5x00 you lose dual control wheels and buttons for changes as it uses menus.
The d7x00 gives you the same controls as the FX bodies.

Also don't just look at modern lenses for everything.
Look at some older AF-D lenses.  With the "larger" body (d7x00, d6x0) you get an in-body focus motor that can use these older lenses.

Compare a 50mm/1.8 AF-D to a 50/1.8 AF-D G and you'll be astonished by the size difference with the AF-D being quite smaller.  Also 24mm/2.8 AFD, 35/2.8 AFD are great small primes.

I also use a 24-85/2.8-4.0 AF-D lens versus the much bigger & heavier 24-70/2.8.  I've also used the small 35-70/2.8 AF-D.

You can get some good small size lenses in AF-D if you research it more and lose alot of that weight and bulk.


----------



## Peeb (Jul 29, 2015)

astroNikon said:


> Peeb said:
> 
> 
> > I've looked a bit more into the DX lens line, and it's come a long way since the old D40 in 2006.
> ...


Of course, the in-between choice is the D7200!

I don't like that it's bigger and heavier than the D5300 but I DO like that it has it's own focus motor, which opens a lot of doors....


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 29, 2015)

Peeb said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > Peeb said:
> ...


I would not have been able to afford the various lenses I have if it was not buying a body with a focus motor in it and AF-D type lenses.
18-35 AF-D  vs 18-35 AF-S  approx $350 vs $740
either 35-70/2.8 or 24-85/2.8-4    vs  the 24-70/2.8  approx $350 vs $1400+
and the list goes on ...
it adds up quickly.  The better body paid for itself very quickly.  Sure the newer ones are optically better but you pay for that too.


----------

