# move to FF or not ?



## kfirg (Dec 6, 2013)

hi.

I will be happy if you will help me to decide

i want to move on to FF.

currently i have :

D7000 gripped

Nikon 85mm 1.4G

Nikon 17-55 2.8

 i can afford myself to buy FF unless i will sell my d7000 and my 17-55.

then i will be only with FF body (d610 or d800) and one lens = nikon 85mm 1.4G.

what do you say ?


----------



## runnah (Dec 6, 2013)

Why do you feel the need to switch?


----------



## kfirg (Dec 6, 2013)

only becuase the 85mm 1.4G

on the crop it is like 127.5mm and this is not very useful for me. (only portraits)

i like to shoot modelling photography in the sutdio and outdoors.


----------



## goodguy (Dec 6, 2013)

I think its impossible to answer that, it really is a personal decision.

You should ask yourself in what way my D7000 is not enough for me, if you feel the D7000 is limiting you then by all mean go for it.
A second reason to move from the D7000 to an FX body is because you simply want to and if this is the case then don't ask too many questions and go for it, get the camera and be on your marry way.
I bought many times stuff I didn't need but really wanted, sometime I was sorry and sometime not.


----------



## runnah (Dec 6, 2013)

kfirg said:


> only becuase the 85mm 1.4G
> 
> on the crop it is like 127.5mm and this is not very useful for me. (only portraits)
> 
> i like to shoot modelling photography in the sutdio and outdoors.



Why not use your 17-55? The works out to be roughly 85mm on a crop.


----------



## SnappingShark (Dec 6, 2013)

I was toying with the idea of moving to FF from my D7100, but have decided to stay with the D7100 as the only advantage of FF for me would be the lower noise at high iso and the light sensitivity all round.
Not worth it for me.


----------



## kfirg (Dec 6, 2013)

runnah said:


> kfirg said:
> 
> 
> > only becuase the 85mm 1.4G
> ...



becuase i will get more DOF with the 85mm on FF.


----------



## runnah (Dec 6, 2013)

kfirg said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > kfirg said:
> ...



Low apreture isn't the only way to get a shallow DOF.


----------



## kfirg (Dec 6, 2013)

you are right.

but you cant compare the 55mm on crop (17-55) to the 85mm on FF.

you will get differents DOF.

i really dont know what to do.. i need to think about it.


----------



## astroNikon (Dec 6, 2013)

You are in the same situation I am (or was) In.

about an hour ago or so I ordered a FF, in addition to my d7000.

Reasons for/against:
1 - in my basement, when I use my 85mm which I love the perspective, etc on, I need to take a few more steps back and there's a wall there.
2 - when I use the 85 to take photos I'm so far back I can't talk to my kids for posing, I feel like I need an intercom.  So I use another lens like my 24-85 which I'm more in the 50mm area on it.
3 - I could use my 80-200 zoom too which apperently gives better DOF, which I should test but I haven't
4 - I like taking pics of landscape too but find that a nice nikon 14mm lens costs as much as a FF camera d600 refurb.
5 - There's always a nice return policy, so if there virtually is no difference then I'm going to return it.

So I figured.  buy an expensive lens OR a FF camera an use and existing 17mm
there's always a return policy in case I'm disappointed.

so .. WTH .. it's Christmas time for me anyways.


----------



## robbins.photo (Dec 6, 2013)

kfirg said:


> only becuase the 85mm 1.4G
> 
> on the crop it is like 127.5mm and this is not very useful for me. (only portraits)
> 
> i like to shoot modelling photography in the sutdio and outdoors.



Well if that's the case and your current camera is suiting you fine with all your other needs, have you considered just buying a slightly wider angle lens?  Perhaps a 50 mm or even a 35 mm?


----------



## robbins.photo (Dec 6, 2013)

BrightByNature said:


> I was toying with the idea of moving to FF from my D7100, but have decided to stay with the D7100 as the only advantage of FF for me would be the lower noise at high iso and the light sensitivity all round.
> Not worth it for me.



Same boat here - the low light performance would be nice but not really worth the extra investment for me personally.


----------



## kfirg (Dec 6, 2013)

yes.

but i paid too much money for the 85mm 1.4G and i want to exploit the maximum from this lens on FF.
its good enough on d7000 but i need to go back a lot from my subject when i want to shoot wide open.
this lens is perfect for portraits on d7000 but not for wide open.

i rally think this lens is awesome.


----------



## raventepes (Dec 6, 2013)

Just out of curiosity, which body are you looking at getting?


----------



## kfirg (Dec 6, 2013)

D800 or D610..


----------



## Mach0 (Dec 6, 2013)

kfirg said:


> becuase i will get more DOF with the 85mm on FF.



You'd actually get less DOF for the same framing.


----------



## raventepes (Dec 6, 2013)

Have you thought about maybe getting a refurbished D600 and getting a second lens, like a 24-85? 

$1400...kinda hard to beat! 

Refurbished Nikon D600 Digital SLR Camera Body - Refurbished by Nikon U.S.A. 25488 B


----------



## kfirg (Dec 6, 2013)

currently i dont know if im gonna to buy a second lens. mabye later.

im not from usa - i will buy the body in my country.


----------



## Zyr55 (Dec 6, 2013)

I was in the same situation as you, I have the Nikon 24-70 and was not really happy with it with my D7000. I sold the D7000 and picked up a refurbished D600....Oh boy!!! What a big difference.


----------



## Coasty (Dec 6, 2013)

Personally Im going to make the switch to FF because Nikon USA and Knee-kon International has convinced me that the DX cameras that they said for years were good enough or better than the hyped up FF cameras that Cannon released a few years ago are now obsolete crap that should be disposed of as soon as possible so that I can upgrade to a superior Nikon FF D4 or D800 that will allow me to take much better pictures and make me a better photographer than I could ever hope for with the obsolete garbage that currently occupies my camera bags. Plus, the only cameras that the real pros use are FF and that is good enough for me. Now Ill really stand out at the zoo when Im taking pictures that Ill label as my African safari on Flicker with my D4, SB910, and 600mm f4 and Ill be able to look down on the plebians with their DX cameras. I only wish Nikon would make a pro 600mm in f2.8, cause we all know pros just use f2.8 or better glass.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 6, 2013)

kfirg, If I were you, I would be very tempted to just stay with the DX Nikon system and the 17-55 f/2.8 and the 85/1.4 G lenses, at least for the forseeable future. In a year, or two, used D600 bodies will probably be at $700, and then at that time, you will be able to pick up an FX body with basically zero price premium attached to it.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 6, 2013)

I will go to full frame someday myself. But i know almost nothing about the camera feature differences, however i've heard that the d800 is a very good camera for video.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 6, 2013)

Coasty said:


> I only wish Nikon would make a pro 600mm in f2.8, cause we all know pro&#8217;s just use f2.8 or better glass.



That would be a heavy prime lens and only be usable on a pod.


----------



## TheFantasticG (Dec 6, 2013)

Sure a 600 2.8 would be heavy but only on a tripod? Well, maybe if you have ZERO upper body strength.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 6, 2013)

TheFantasticG said:


> Sure a 600 2.8 would be heavy but only on a tripod? Well, maybe if you have ZERO upper body strength.



It would weight well over 35 pounds...judging by the Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8, which weighs in at 34 pounds...

Sigma APO 200-500 f/2.8/400-1000 f/5.6 Lens f/Sigma 597110

...so yeah, a 600mm f/2.8 would be basically unusable if hand-held.


----------



## TheFantasticG (Dec 6, 2013)

Nah. Just that more to hit the gym... That's good incentive.


----------



## robbins.photo (Dec 6, 2013)

Well, she's not a 2.8, but an F/4

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4G ED VR AF Lens 2173 B&H Photo Video

Only weighs a little over 11 lbs.  And, it has VR - so man up you sissies.. lol


----------



## robbins.photo (Dec 6, 2013)

robbins.photo said:


> Well, she's not a 2.8, but an F/4
> 
> Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4G ED VR AF Lens 2173 B&H Photo Video
> 
> Only weighs a little over 11 lbs.  And, it has VR - so man up you sissies.. lol



Ok... so you take one of these, strap it to the back of a sheep.  Bam!  The worlds first self motivated, self cleaning lens.  Lew!  You rock man!


----------



## kfirg (Dec 7, 2013)

so now i have to choose.. d800 or d610 ?


----------



## rasmussen4 (Dec 7, 2013)

Well, if you're limiting yourself to having to have the 85mm lens (and you're right, it's an awesome lens) then you might as well just bite it and go FF. I mean, if the lens is really the deciding factor here, you might as well save yourself the hassle of trying to move back all the time. However, if the lens is something you could let go of, frankly I've never seen that FF will make much of a difference for me in portrait photography. I never need to reach or go that wide when shooting portraits, I'm always somewhere in the 50mm-100mm range. 

My 2 cents...


----------



## goodguy (Dec 7, 2013)

kfirg said:


> so now i have to choose.. d800 or d610 ?


The D610 is producing picture quality about same as the D800 so if yuo are looking for quality then save your cash and get the D610.
The D800 has pro features that you might not need, if you are a casual shooter and not making money of it then the price difference between these two fantastic cameras might mean an extra good lens for you.


----------



## kfirg (Dec 7, 2013)

thank you.

and what do you think about D600 ? a little more cheaper..


----------



## jaomul (Dec 7, 2013)

FF or crop seems to be an often asked question on any camera forum. As an enthusiast (not pro) i was dragged into this as well. I bought a 1ds to add to my 7d at the time. Even though it was older tech and had a lower iso performance i thought the images were better out of the 1ds than the 7d. Then I swapped it out for a 5d. again i preferred the 5d than the 7d. So in my mind FF was the best and made better looking photos.

Fast forward to a holiday and my main 24-105 lens malfunctioned and I basically had 2kg of camera gear that was not working correctly. I sold some other gear when I got home and bough an Olympus m4/3rd camera thats image quality was as good as my 5d. So i sold all my dslr gear, but after a while realised that I liked the m4/3 system and images but preferred the dslr set up for when I went to specifically taking photographs (ergonomics and optical viewfinder etc).

So whats my point-

Newer smaller cameras now seem to have as good image quality as FF cameras from only a few years ago (which is basically excellent)
Newer hi-spec crop cameras have almost as much direct control and as high specs as FF cameras.
Noise on newer sensors is better than ever and lightroom 4 has excellent noise reduction if required.
DOF and FOV will always be different on dufferent formats, but if this is not to much of a concern for you and you can work around it I think (only an opinion) that for most the need for a fullframe large camera and large lenses is less now than it was in the past. Certainly some need them, but the crop competition now is likely better than fullframes of only a few years back


----------



## kfirg (Dec 7, 2013)

i think i will go with D610.

thanks guys!


----------



## PaulWog (Dec 7, 2013)

If I were invested in the 17-55mm f2.8, I wouldn't make the shift to FF until I sold that thing. If you had a 24mp sensor DX camera, I would consider keeping the DX camera on the switch in case you enjoy telephoto work, but the D7000 probably isn't worth keeping if you switch to FX (my opinion).

Is the switch to FX worth it though? I think absolutely. Especially for you, based on your lens choices (since you dropped such serious cash on an 85mm 1.4G, I can only assume full frame would be valuable to you).

For someone such as myself, I'm also interested in full frame even though it would probably benefit me a little bit less at the moment. I enjoy telephoto work with my D5200 and 70-300 VR, and I think full frame would take away from the usefulness of the 70-300. I do own an 85mm 1.8G, which on crop is also very interesting... I think moving to full frame would enhance its usefulness, but also take something away from what it does for me as well. I'm invested in a 16-85mm VR, which is give or take half the cost of the 17-55, but probably will only resell for 1/3 the cost (whereas the 17-55 should resell for 2/3 or higher the cost), so for me switching is much more difficult. So from my perspective, I'd love to switch to full frame, but I'm not invested the same as you.

Long story short: I say go for it! I would love to and I'm in a worse position to switch.


----------



## goodguy (Dec 7, 2013)

kfirg said:


> thank you.
> 
> and what do you think about D600 ? a little more cheaper..





kfirg said:


> i think i will go with D610.
> thanks guys!



I would go for the D610 too over the D600
If you get a good sample of the D600 then the two cameras are almost identicle but we all know about the dust/oil issue.
While in most cases the D600 is excellent I personally still would go with the D610 for my peace of mind.


----------



## kfirg (Dec 8, 2013)

hi guys.

what do you think about the Sigma 35mm 1.4 In addition for the D610 and the Nikon 85mm 1.4G 

it will be good combo ?


----------



## goodguy (Dec 8, 2013)

kfirg said:


> hi guys.
> 
> what do you think about the Sigma 35mm 1.4 In addition for the D610 and the Nikon 85mm 1.4G
> 
> it will be good combo ?


Dont know the Sigma les but I do know the 85mm 1.4G is the sharpest lens Nikon makes today so its a dream lens!!!


----------



## kfirg (Dec 8, 2013)

goodguy i know that  . thats why im going to FF now.

anyone knows the sigma here ?


----------



## goodguy (Dec 8, 2013)

kfirg said:


> goodguy i know that  . thats why im going to FF now.
> 
> anyone knows the sigma here ?


Oh :er:


----------



## hamlet (Dec 9, 2013)

kfirg said:


> goodguy i know that  . thats why im going to FF now.
> 
> anyone knows the sigma here ?



That is a very exotic camera line. But you will be limited to sigma lenses unless there are some adaptors.


----------



## boomer (Dec 9, 2013)

kfirg said:


> hi guys.
> 
> what do you think about the Sigma 35mm 1.4 In addition for the D610 and the Nikon 85mm 1.4G
> 
> it will be good combo ?



You will absolutely love that combo. I have the D610 with both of those lenses and they're my 2 most used lenses currently. 

Go for the d610 + Sigma 35mm! 

The D610 with 85mm 1.4 & 35mm 1.4 and D7000 with 17-35mm 2.8 sounds like a good set up to me


----------



## manaheim (Dec 9, 2013)

runnah said:


> kfirg said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...



runnah, come over here so I can smack you. 

1. a 17-55 kit lens is NOTHING compared to that 85mm and you know that.
2. An OTHER way to get lower DOF is to go full frame.


----------



## Tailgunner (Dec 9, 2013)

Hum&#8230;is it me or do members who use FF systems always seem to suggest to those of us looking to switch from DX to FF, actually stay with DX? I mean I can't recall anyone asking if they should switch from an FF to DX? I've got a D7100 w/17-55mm 2.8 I'll trade you for a D800&#8230;I'll throw in some cash for a D3x


----------



## Derrel (Dec 9, 2013)

kfirg said:


> hi guys.
> 
> what do you think about the Sigma 35mm 1.4 In addition for the D610 and the Nikon 85mm 1.4G
> 
> it will be good combo ?



BOTH of those lenses are among **the** highest-resolving lenses tested by DxO Mark on the higher-rez Nikon FX cameras. My honest feeling is that the Nikon 85/1.4 is not worth the added price difference over its 1.8 stable-mate for most people. IMMSMC, the Sigma is #3 overall in resolution on the D800, with the 85 1.4G at #1, the 85 1.8 G at #2 overall, out of almost 70 different lenses they tested.

I think the Sigma 35/1.4's pictures look very,very sharp, but only so-so in terms of bokeh rendering...the lens is SUPER-sharp, yes. BITINGLY sharp, but that also comes with a background rendering that to me, seems "harsh and hashy"...especially on natural world things like trees, shrubs, plants, and landscaping objects...I've looked closely at the Sigma 35/1.4's pictures on-line, and demo'd it myself for feel and balance. It has excellent ergonomics, feels well-made, has a good heft, and compared against the Nikkor f/1.4, I think the Sigma is both sharper, and has lower CA.

I dunno...I've owned two Nikkor 35/1.4 Ai models over the decades...35mm and f/1.4 is NICE for low-light, and one of my MAIN walk-around and indoor event lenses these days is the only average Nikkor 35mm f/2 AF-D, which is as I said only "average" test-wise, but the length of lens, and the field of view, are absolutely necessary for "me".

I think a 35mm/85mm pair makes a ton of sense on FX, I truly do. But I think the 35/2 AF-D and the 85/1.8 AF-S G are also a viable option.


----------



## manaheim (Dec 9, 2013)

I have an FF system. 

My take is you should buy the best you can buy with the money you have available. 

I _aggressively _moved to FF and I'm glad I did. I wanted better color representation, better DOF and better ISO handling. I won't touch my D300 these days unless you force me to.

So there you go.

All that said, in two years the crop-sensor systems will probably make my D800 look like a toy.

And THAT'S what you're seeing here as FF people looking like they are flubbing.  they're not... really...It's just that as technologies advance you have to continue to re-evaluate your needs and then compare that to your budget.


----------



## Tailgunner (Dec 9, 2013)

manaheim said:


> I have an FF system.
> 
> My take is you should buy the best you can buy with the money you have available.
> 
> ...



Sorry, I couldn't resist


----------



## ShootRaw (Dec 13, 2013)

kfirg said:


> only becuase the 85mm 1.4G
> 
> on the crop it is like 127.5mm and this is not very useful for me. (only portraits)
> 
> i like to shoot modelling photography in the sutdio and outdoors.


The 50mm 1.8g could solve that issue(75mm focal on d7000)


----------



## kfirg (Dec 18, 2013)

hi again

i need your advice,

im ready for the moving to FF and i have 2 options to choose.

D800 + Nikon 85mm 1.4G

or

D610 + Nikon 85mm 1.4G + Sigma 35mm 1.4


p.s

* i already have the Nikon 85mm 1.4G

thanks again!


----------



## ShootRaw (Dec 18, 2013)

D610....I would wait on Nikons 35mm 1.8g for FX being announced in January...


----------



## kfirg (Dec 18, 2013)

i really was impressed from the sigma 35mm 1.4

but i never had sigma lens..

check this out.

Sigma AF 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM | A (Nikon FX) - Review / Test Report


----------



## ShootRaw (Dec 18, 2013)

I understand that it is a decent lens..But you could run into some backfocusing issues until you adjust settings via the usb dock..
Its worth waiting to see what price point Nikon offers...


----------



## kfirg (Dec 18, 2013)

ok.. 

but nikon offers 1.8 and sigma 1.4


----------



## ShootRaw (Dec 18, 2013)

Yea I know..But depending on what you are shooting..Focus is easier to miss..Usually say on a portrait, F2 to F3 gives you a nice sharp face..


----------



## Derrel (Dec 18, 2013)

kfirg said:


> ok..
> 
> but nikon offers 1.8 and sigma 1.4



Nikon offers consistent, matching lens color rendition between lenses in each series; Sigma offers warm, yellow color rendition that no amount of white balance adjustment can ever totally eliminate. This is one of the things that separates the various lens "families". Schneider, Rodenstock, Zeiss, Canon,Nikon,Sigma,Tamron,Tokina...all have different color rendering characteristics.

Nikon and Tokina lenses tend to be coolish to neutral; every Sigma I have owned (four Sigmas, three of them expensive EX series or 'high-end Sigma',and one consumer, the 18-125mm DC) has been yellow. And again, no, you cannot just "white balance this out" to get the Sigma images to match Nikkor images.


----------



## ShootRaw (Dec 18, 2013)

Nikon is hard to beat..I might be alittle BIAS..


----------

