# Is there a reason to upgrade dslr?



## hamlet (Dec 15, 2013)

Is there a point to ever put down my d3200 and buy one of the higher model dslr's? I don't really see it myself.


----------



## SCraig (Dec 15, 2013)

Yes there is.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 15, 2013)

There could be things i'm unaware of, but of the things i am i have found a way to get around my cameras limitations.


----------



## Tailgunner (Dec 15, 2013)

Yes. 

The controls on my new D7100 for example was well worth the switch from my D3100 alone. It also has better High ISO handling and the second memory card is nice as well.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 15, 2013)

So more for the convenience factor is what you're saying? There is no real practical reason to upgrade.


----------



## MeddlinG (Dec 15, 2013)

Well, upgrading from d3200 to d7100 is convenience.

Upgrading to full frame increases low noise capabilities.

It's up to you to decide whether your camera is limiting you.


----------



## SnappingShark (Dec 15, 2013)

Yes, there are practical reasons.

You may decide that you want the sharpest, fastest glass. You could use these on your d3200, but Full Frame would make them way more special.

You may decide that you need programmable dials as you find yourself always heading back to that same subject.

You may get frustrated that you need to change battery every 500 shots on your d3200, a d4 for example would give you over 2000 shots per battery!

You may want to shoot both raw and jpeg - in which case, a camera with a second memoryslot will allow you to separate them.

You may find you use speedlights more and more - making that pop up thing on the top of your camera quite redundant, and a waste of space.

Many more reasons, BUT, they are all reasons you will encounter once you reach the potential of your current camera, and realize you want to go further...


----------



## hamlet (Dec 15, 2013)

MeddlinG said:


> Well, upgrading from d3200 to d7100 is convenience.
> 
> Upgrading to full frame increases low noise capabilities.
> 
> It's up to you to decide whether your camera is limiting you.



That could be a good reason, but the iso comparison on for example: d800 and d3100, the differences are unremarkable even @ iso 64k.


----------



## DarkShadow (Dec 15, 2013)

What they said.


----------



## matthewo (Dec 15, 2013)

if your looking for a huge jump in image quality I doubt you will find it changing cameras. even the lowest end dslr are very good at producing great images when used within their optimal range of ISO and the images are not cropped a lot. you will probably see more differences with the lenses you use with the camera then that actual performance of the cameras sensor.

other then that, after using a d800 and d7000, I bought a d5100 again as a secondary body(was my first dslr and liked it). boy that didn't last long, it felt terrible in the hands after using my d800 for a year, way to small, not enough buttons to change settings, had to go into too many menus. I sold it. but it had nothing to do with the image quality, it was basically all physical design of the camera body. well that and the autofocus was a little slow and shutter lag as well as the tiny view finder.

I plan to get a d7100, that and the d7000 is just a great camera. IMO at the prices the d7000 are right now make it a great value for performance.

also the shots I have seen from the d7100 at higher ISO are pretty amazing, Im sure the my D800 is better, but not much... its hard to justify using my d800 and not buying a d7100, as optimal sharpness of much glass is DX center frame, as well as the crop factor and pixel density if im going to be cropping anyways for wildlife photography


----------



## hamlet (Dec 15, 2013)

BrightByNature said:


> Yes, there are practical reasons.
> 
> *You may decide that you want the sharpest, fastest glass. You could use these on your d3200, but Full Frame would make them way more special.*
> 
> ...



The one in bold is the only one i can concede because there could be something there i don't understand yet. The rest are redundant to me because they have never been a problem to me personally.


----------



## pgriz (Dec 15, 2013)

Personally, I upgrade the gear when I've reached the limits of what I can do with it.  That depends on the type of shooting one does.  If fast action under low light levels is what you do, then having the most recent sensors with excellent high-ISO performance and good "bright" lenses is definitely required.  I don't shoot that, and for 99% of the shooting that I do, the current gear gets me the image.  To make better images, I need to improve on the composition, the lighting, timing, posing, and so on, that are not camera-dependent. 

On the other hand, the camera ergonomics are important too.  A pretty good reason to upgrade would be to get a camera where the menu system, the location of controls, and the overall handling makes the operation of the camera intuitive and easy.  In my case, I can work all the controls without looking at them, and I know where to find what I need in the menu system very quickly, so the ergonomics are "good enough".  Of course, there's always the attraction to shiny new toys, and it's a lot of fun to play with the new gear.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 15, 2013)

The viewfinder of the D3200, with its small and relatively dim penta*mirror*, pales in comparison to say, an FX camera with a penta*prism* viewfinder. The ability to see through the camera with a larger, brighter, crisper viewfinder image is one of the main differences between a lower-priced camera with a pentamirror, and a camera with a viewfinder system that is state of the art, as opposed to an economy-designed finder. The clarity, brightness, and the eye relief of the better cameras, the ones that Nikon equips with the ROUND EYEPIECE, is one of the physical design advantages of the higher-end Nikon bodies.

The actual imaging sensor of the D3200 is currently pretty much state of the art. But it is trapped in a $500 body. Also, if you want to do things like FP-Synch flash, shooting flash at high shutter speeds in bright light, the D3200 is simply unable to do that. The D3200 also cannot command remote Nikon flashes either. Those features are reserved for higher-line models.


----------



## kathyt (Dec 15, 2013)

Yes. Buy the best and newest gear you can afford. Hell, go into debt for that matter. The girls will flock to you.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 15, 2013)

Derrel said:


> The viewfinder of the D3200, with its small and relatively dim penta*mirror*, pales in comparison to say, an FX camera with a penta*prism* viewfinder. The ability to see through the camera with a larger, brighter, crisper viewfinder image is one of the main differences between a lower-priced camera with a pentamirror, and a camera with a viewfinder system that is state of the art, as opposed to an economy-designed finder. The clarity, brightness, and the eye relief of the better cameras, the ones that Nikon equips with the ROUND EYEPIECE, is one of the physical design advantages of the higher-end Nikon bodies.
> 
> The actual imaging sensor of the D3200 is currently pretty much state of the art. But it is trapped in a $500 body. Also, if you want to do things like FP-Synch flash, shooting flash at high shutter speeds in bright light, the D3200 is simply unable to do that. The D3200 also cannot command remote Nikon flashes either. Those features are reserved for higher-line models.



People have done a lot with much less. As for the flash sync? I'm currently in the process of learning how to get around this problem, it is possible for me to shoot at whatever shutter speed i want with a little macgyvering here and there.


----------



## Tailgunner (Dec 15, 2013)

hamlet said:


> So more for the convenience factor is what you're saying? There is no real practical reason to upgrade.



I guess you could look at it that way:

The D7100 has 70% longer batter life vs the D3200, so that means more shots and less charging. 
The controls are easier to use, thats less time spent fumbling with the D3200. 
Twin 32GB or twin 62GB is more room than a single memory card on a D3200.
The D7100 is weather sealed, the D3200 is not.
The D7100 has a built in focus motor for use with older glass or professional glass that does not include a AF motor, the D3200 does not. 

But:

The D7100 has slightly better High ISO performance over the D3200
25,600 ISO vs 12,800 ISO on the D3200
The D7100 is faster: 6fps vs 4fps using high res w/jpeg. 

And just think, this is Nikon's Enthusiast DX camera. Switching to FX is going to have WAY more convenience and better performance than the D7100. The better ISO performance on the FX is more than worth the upgrade. I personally plan on switching to a D610 or D800 soon.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 15, 2013)

hamlet said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > The viewfinder of the D3200, with its small and relatively dim penta*mirror*, pales in comparison to say, an FX camera with a penta*prism* viewfinder. The ability to see through the camera with a larger, brighter, crisper viewfinder image is one of the main differences between a lower-priced camera with a pentamirror, and a camera with a viewfinder system that is state of the art, as opposed to an economy-designed finder. The clarity, brightness, and the eye relief of the better cameras, the ones that Nikon equips with the ROUND EYEPIECE, is one of the physical design advantages of the higher-end Nikon bodies.
> ...



You really have absolutely no idea what a D3x or a D4 a 5D Mark III or a D800 brings to the party...


----------



## TheFantasticG (Dec 15, 2013)

hamlet said:


> So more for the convenience factor is what you're saying? There is no real practical reason to upgrade.



Sometimes I think you post to intentionally troll people.

How do you speak in such absolutes? That's what you did by saying "There is no real practical reason to upgrade." All it does is show your real ignorance of what higher level bodies offer to even the average shooter. What you should have said was, "There is no real practical reason *for me* to upgrade." As that would have been an accurate statement. Now with the post from Derrel and others you shouldn't be as ignorant.


----------



## vikrampathaknewyork (Dec 15, 2013)

Sure if you want to consider photography as a profession !





by fashion photographer new york city Vikram Pathak


----------



## sashbar (Dec 15, 2013)

It is never easy to answer this question, because different people buy cameras for different reasons.

Most people really needing an upgrade do not ask, they know it, and they know what they want. So to me the question itself is a good indicator that the upgrade is not needed. 
I tried to have a look at your pictures to see where your photography is at the moment.  I am at a loss here, because all I found was one picture of a sinking boat. You have never posted in the Galleries section, even in Just for Fun. I apologise if I missed your photos, but I just could not find anything.  

So I can only draw two opposite conclusions here:
  1. Your TFP portfolio, that consist of one picture that I found, does not suggest that you need to upgrade. 
 2. If I take all your posts into consideration, it indicates that you are very much into a photo gear.  If that is the case then yes, buy a new camera, you will have a lot of fun. 

 If it is not the case, why not forgetting about upgrades and starting to post your photos in the galleries? In that case the fun will last much longer than the pleasure of owing a new gear.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 15, 2013)

Derrel said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



There could be things i'm unaware of, but so far everything boils down to having less of a hard time getting your shots, but certainly nothing that cant be done on a entry level camera.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 15, 2013)

sashbar said:


> It is never easy to answer this question, because different people buy cameras for different reasons.
> 
> Most people really needing an upgrade do not ask, they know it, and they know what they want. So to me the question itself is a good indicator that the upgrade is not needed.
> I tried to have a look at your pictures to see where your photography is at the moment.  I am at a loss here, because all I found was one picture of a sinking boat. You have never posted in the Galleries section, even in Just for Fun. I apologise if I missed your photos, but I just could not find anything.
> ...



I'm not sure where you looked? Here are all the things i've uploaded: hamlet Gallery - The Photo Forum Photo Gallery


----------



## Tailgunner (Dec 15, 2013)

hamlet said:


> There could be things i'm unaware of, but so far everything boils down to having less of a hard time getting your shots,* but certainly nothing that cant be done on a entry level camera*.



So what is the point of this thread?


----------



## hamlet (Dec 15, 2013)

TheFantasticG said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > So more for the convenience factor is what you're saying? There is no real practical reason to upgrade.
> ...



Unlike Derrel, you rarely have anything constructive to say. Your posts (ive seen) are distractions and of no importance to whatever discussion is ongoing.


----------



## jaomul (Dec 15, 2013)

If you see no reason to upgrade then you should not upgrade. Others have different opinions which are as valid to them as yours are to you


----------



## hamlet (Dec 15, 2013)

Tailgunner said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > There could be things i'm unaware of, but so far everything boils down to having less of a hard time getting your shots,* but certainly nothing that cant be done on a entry level camera*.
> ...



Idle curiosity. I'm just trying to justify to myself why i should upgrade. To the extent i've been shown here and abroad, an upgrade is unnecessary for me, my camera can handle whatever i've got in mind for it.


----------



## Designer (Dec 15, 2013)

hamlet; there is another very important reason to upgrade your gear, and that is simply that you want it.

If you want it, and can afford it, then go for it.  You will either learn the art and craft of photography with better gear, or you won't, but at least you will have the better gear.


----------



## Tailgunner (Dec 15, 2013)

hamlet said:


> Tailgunner said:
> 
> 
> > hamlet said:
> ...



OIC, I'm going to add you to my ignore listidle curiosity.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 15, 2013)

Designer said:


> hamlet; there is another very important reason to upgrade your gear, and that is simply that you want it.
> 
> If you want it, and can afford it, then go for it.  You will either learn the art and craft of photography with better gear, or you won't, but at least you will have the better gear.



Ow for sure. I'm never here to speak for anyone but myself, if you can then you should upgrade, its gonna make it easier for you to do whatever you have in mind.


----------



## sashbar (Dec 15, 2013)

hamlet said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> > It is never easy to answer this question, because different people buy cameras for different reasons.
> ...




)))  when I looked at the Gallery before writing the post, there was 0 photos. Go figure.. My bad.  ))  

Alright.  I had a look.  I believe there is no need to upgrade as yet.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 15, 2013)

sashbar said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > sashbar said:
> ...



Yeah, if you click on gallery it won't give you anything for some reason. But before you say anything, the flaws in these pictures are becoming more apparent to me. My focus, lighting, dof angle are all over the place. With every picture i take these things become more apparent to me. Hopefully in a couple of years i'll put out better pictures with more practice.


----------



## sashbar (Dec 15, 2013)

hamlet said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> > hamlet said:
> ...



I promised to myself that with me it will always be "Photorgraphy first, gear distant second". I believe that it is the right approach.  I just think that if you ( me, they, everyone) start thinking less about what gear to add and more about  how to take a better picture, the progress will be much much faster.  And in the end it will be more satisfying.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 15, 2013)

sashbar said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > sashbar said:
> ...



I'm always thinking about how to get better pictures when i'm either out on the field or in lightroom, today i was just curious about gear.


----------



## TheFantasticG (Dec 15, 2013)

hamlet said:


> Unlike Derrel, you rarely have anything constructive to say. Your posts (ive seen) are distractions and of no importance to whatever discussion is ongoing.



I have plenty of constructive things to say. I just don't sugar coat them. *<Ahem!>* . I'm not mean, I just like to "keep it real" and I don't post like I know WTF I am talking about when I don't. Your posts have not justified a worthy discussion, to be honest. I think one of the above posters is right that it is simply about the gear to you, thus far at least. That's fine. But don't go spouting in threads like you've been around the block (I.E. Hundreds of hours behind the camera and editing) and have the bruises to show it when it is painfully obvious you haven't.

Unless you've spent many dozens of hours on multiple forums that I frequent then you have seen very little of what I post. Have you even bothered to look in the macro section? Incase you didn't know they is a macro section... I've posted many tens of dozens of pictures in there. Some good, some bad, but at least I post up what I have shot. Not to mention, pretty proud of how far I have come in the last three years.

Don't worry your little gear-soaked head, Hammy. As soon as I get back to a PC with the ability I will be adding you to the ignore list so I won't have look at these silly threads anymore.


----------



## astroNikon (Dec 15, 2013)

hamlet said:


> TheFantasticG said:
> 
> 
> > hamlet said:
> ...



Ouch.

If you believe an upgrade is unnecessary for you, then you are right.  Don't upgrade to anything.

But others are putting in their general comments about upgrades.

The 5x00 series and below lack alot for Off Camera Flash,and quick at your finger tip features.  These may not be important until you realize that you can get that picture much faster, rather than possibly losing it due to a few seconds.  Even capturing that perfect sunrise/sunset where things are just "right" taking several shots with a couple setting because you can change super fast, versus having to traverse in a menu system and possibly missing that "perfect" shot.

and battery life .. I remember one of your threads was trying to get longevity from your camera.  So no matter what you do with your d3200 you can get double or more that with the same effort on a higher end camera.  Think of it that way.  a certain effort put onto a better body will give you MUCH MORE with the same effort.


----------



## astroNikon (Dec 15, 2013)

hamlet said:


> Yeah, if you click on gallery it won't give you anything for some reason. But before you say anything, the flaws in these pictures are becoming more apparent to me. My focus, lighting, dof angle are all over the place. With every picture i take these things become more apparent to me. Hopefully in a couple of years i'll put out better pictures with more practice.



You really live in a great place with great architecture - external and internal.  It seems that you like to take those type of photos.
You have come along way since you first came to TPF
just stop dissing everything alot of people have to say.

you need to learn to be _critical of your own work_ in order to understand what people are saying, then improving will come faster.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 15, 2013)

TheFantasticG said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > Unlike Derrel, you rarely have anything constructive to say. Your posts (ive seen) are distractions and of no importance to whatever discussion is ongoing.
> ...



Good, then perhaps people can have a normal discussion without you having the need to "keep it real" and derail my whole discussion to some petty grievance.


----------



## robbins.photo (Dec 15, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> Yes. Buy the best and newest gear you can afford. Hell, go into debt for that matter. The girls will flock to you.



Aha!  So that's what I'm doing wrong.  Thanks Kathy.  And now, off to Ebay to become a total chick magnet.. 

lol


----------



## robbins.photo (Dec 15, 2013)

Derrel said:


> You really have absolutely no idea what a D3x or a D4 a 5D Mark III or a D800 brings to the party...



Umm.. balloons?  Or maybe a nice pinata?  It's not a party without a pinata, after all.. rotfl


----------



## robbins.photo (Dec 15, 2013)

Ok, and now for the OP.

Hamlet, if the 3200 is getting the job done for you then great.  I've got a 5100 myself and so far it's met my needs admirably.  Eventually of course I would like to upgrade, I'd like to get something with better capabilities than I have at the moment.  I'd love to have a D800 or something along those lines, I think the lowlight capabilites would be fantastic - but truth is I don't shoot enough stuff in low light to really justify the cost.  I'd also be very happy with something in the D7100 / D7000 range.  Having the control systems available without having to go through the menu, dual memory card slots, etc - all of these would be really nice features to have.

The point here is that the 3200 might suit your needs, for now.  But other people have different requirements and as such a D3200 might not be enough to meet there needs.  If it's getting the job done for you, great.  But it's not the end all be all one size fits all camera for everyone.


----------



## o hey tyler (Dec 15, 2013)

hamlet said:


> There could be things i'm unaware of, but so far everything boils down to having less of a hard time getting your shots, but certainly nothing that cant be done on a entry level camera.



Actually yes. Plenty that can't be done on an entry level body. You have significantly less control over your depth of field as well as worse ISO performance. Those are things with simply no, and I repeat NO workaround for. You can't improve your ISO performance and you can't temporarily change your format size.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 15, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > There could be things i'm unaware of, but so far everything boils down to having less of a hard time getting your shots, but certainly nothing that cant be done on a entry level camera.
> ...



The examples i've seen of the noise on higher models are unremarkable. However the dof is something i have no experience with on full frame, that could be genuine reason to upgrade.


----------



## runnah (Dec 15, 2013)

I have yet to see you post any photos. I would suggest actually using the camera you have before your worry about upgrading.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 15, 2013)

runnah said:


> I have yet to see you post any photos. I would suggest actually using the camera you have before your worry about upgrading.



Have some bokeh on the house


----------



## amolitor (Dec 15, 2013)

hamlet said:


> That could be a good reason, but the iso comparison on for example: d800 and d3100, the differences are unremarkable even @ iso 64k.




This is a wildly incorrect statement. Like, off the charts wrong. There's well over a stop of difference between the D800 and the D3100 sensors at any given signal to noise ratio. That is an immense difference.


----------



## amolitor (Dec 15, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> ... you can't temporarily change your format size.



You can brenizer up any equivalent format you like! This doesn't work so well for motorsports, but if your subject will hold still it ain't so bad.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 15, 2013)

amolitor said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > That could be a good reason, but the iso comparison on for example: d800 and d3100, the differences are unremarkable even @ iso 64k.
> ...



It could be my inexperienced eye. Have a look so you can judge for yourself:

iso comparison: D3200 & d800.


----------



## amolitor (Dec 15, 2013)

I will say that I think the case for trading up from a $400 body to a $1000 body is gonna be a pretty tough case to make. The differences are fairly modest. Incremental improvement in high ISO performance, incrementally better control layout, incrementally more powerful control of this and that.

If there's some show stopper, like "I Really Need Full-On Nikon CLS" then, sure. If you Really Need two control wheels because you shoot in such and such a setting a lot, then, sure. If you just really want a more expensive piece of gear then, sure.

If you just have a vague idea that the $1000 body is going to push you to some next level, well, it ain't. The D3200 is a pretty amazing piece of gear.


----------



## amolitor (Dec 15, 2013)

hamlet said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > hamlet said:
> ...



Yes, it is your inexperienced eye. I think the D3200 pictures have some sort of noise reduction going on, because while there's not a HUGE amount of noise at ISO3200, the picture is unusably muddy. At ISO3200 the D800 still has very light noise, and a lovely crisp picture.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 15, 2013)

amolitor said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > amolitor said:
> ...



Now that you mention it, when i remove noise in lightroom my picture loses sharpness. That could be the reason i'm not all that impressed.

example:


noise reduction off:






noise reduction on:


----------



## Derrel (Dec 15, 2013)

just sayin' ...


----------



## hamlet (Dec 15, 2013)

You should have that fog looked at 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





To be clear about this: i have retracted my statement about iso irrelevance, i've been shown the error of my ways. Perhaps in the future i'll get a upgrade, but for now this will do.


----------



## ratssass (Dec 15, 2013)




----------



## EIngerson (Dec 15, 2013)

hamlet said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > I have yet to see you post any photos. I would suggest actually using the camera you have before your worry about upgrading.
> ...




So, a blurry image with no subject is now called "bokeh"?.Interesting.


----------



## robbins.photo (Dec 15, 2013)

Derrel said:


> View attachment 62224
> 
> just sayin' ...




Funny, it doesn't _SMELL _like TPF... rotfl


----------



## PaulWog (Dec 15, 2013)

Your D3200 should be more than enough for you. You seem to enjoy landscape types of photography with non-existent bokeh: That's where crop sensors can really shine in ways. Crop sensor cameras end up with less depth of field than full frame. A full frame camera at f4 will produce more bokeh than a crop sensor camera at f4, when comparing equivalent fields of view. Hamlet, I know you have a tendency to read past information, so please if you don't understand any of what I just said, make sure you do; it has everything to do with your question. On a full-frame camera, you can more easily get nicer separation between your subject and the rest of the picture; what that means is nicer bokeh.

Not only do you get better depth of field, but you also end up using larger focal length lenses to get shots done. On a crop sensor, you have to use a 35mm lens to get what a full frame gets done on a 50mm. Of course, the 50mm lens produces better bokeh. So not only are you getting a nicer amount of bokeh due to the thin depth of field on the full frame camera, but you also get better bokeh due to how you get to use each lens.

Of course, you could take this logic to the extreme. You could say "well, then there's medium format... it's like another step up". Medium format is to full frame as full frame is to crop sensor, to put it into simpler terms. At a certain point, you have to pick how thin of a depth of field you want, and how large you want to go on your lenses. Also, the pockets only run so deep for anyone.

The reasons why I want to move to full frame at some point are as follows:
- thinner depth of field (Bokeh!!)
- better lens options (50mm = 50mm field of view!!)
- way nicer high ISO performance
- better build quality, controls, built-in features, focus system, & weather-proofing (of course, most of this could be had with a D7100 as well

Remember that there are a couple upsides to crop sensors:
- larger depth of field: sometimes you want this, so you can shoot at f5.6 or f7 without excessive out of focus areas
- crop factor: this is often desired, you get more reach


----------



## hamlet (Dec 15, 2013)

PaulWog said:


> Your D3200 should be more than enough for you. You seem to enjoy landscape types of photography with non-existent bokeh: That's where crop sensors can really shine in ways. Crop sensor cameras end up with less depth of field than full frame. A full frame camera at f4 will produce more bokeh than a crop sensor camera at f4, when comparing equivalent fields of view. Hamlet, I know you have a tendency to read past information, so please if you don't understand any of what I just said, make sure you do; it has everything to do with your question. On a full-frame camera, you can more easily get nicer separation between your subject and the rest of the picture; what that means is nicer bokeh.


I am currently limited physically by my lens. I do enjoy bokeh a lot, its not always possible with my current lenses on bigger subjects. But here is one: 









> Not only do you get better depth of field, but you also end up using  larger focal length lenses to get shots done. On a crop sensor, you have  to use a 35mm lens to get what a full frame gets done on a 50mm. Of  course, the 50mm lens produces better bokeh. So not only are you getting  a nicer amount of bokeh due to the thin depth of field on the full  frame camera, but you also get better bokeh due to how you get to use  each lens.
> 
> Of course, you could take this logic to the extreme. You could say  "well, then there's medium format... it's like another step up". Medium  format is to full frame as full frame is to crop sensor, to put it into  simpler terms. At a certain point, you have to pick how thin of a depth  of field you want, and how large you want to go on your lenses. Also,  the pockets only run so deep for anyone.
> 
> ...



The dof and the iso are perhaps the only two reasons i could see myself upgrading.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 15, 2013)

When i buy the 70-200 then i'll be posting pictures like this: http://img.wonderhowto.com/img/40/42/63416119327772/0/howto-make-magical-bokeh-photographs.w654.jpg


----------



## Coasty (Dec 15, 2013)

After waiting years for Nikon to release the D400, I had to find a stop gap. The 12 mega pixels just weren&#8217;t keeping up with the Cannon dorks on my boat with their 18 mega pixels. My D7000 was just to hold me over till the wonderful D400 came out. It never did, but I kind of like the D7000. Mostly metal, weather sealed, ok buffer. The things I don&#8217;t like are it feels smaller, so I need the battery grip to hold it, and I&#8217;m not too big a fan of the &#8220;consumer&#8221; grade dial, iso on the back by my nose, and no AF-ON button. Other than that, it&#8217;s not a bad camera and was an acceptable upgrade from the D300.


----------



## TheFantasticG (Dec 15, 2013)

Still haven't gotten to a decent PC yet....



amolitor said:


> I think the D3200 pictures have some sort of noise reduction going on, because while there's not a HUGE amount of noise at ISO3200, the picture is unusably muddy. At ISO3200 the D800 still has very light noise, and a lovely crisp picture.



IIRC, I read an article about modern Nikon DSLRs have built in noise reduction from ISO 1250 on ward no matter what settings you have. I don't remember if turning on more reduction options were additive or over ruled the built in noise reduction. It was probably a year ago give or take six months I read the article. Pics looked good enough so I didn't bother doing my own tests to see.

I'm on a slow internet so you can google it at your own leisure.


----------



## matthewo (Dec 15, 2013)

hamlet said:


> When i buy the 70-200 then i'll be posting pictures like this: http://img.wonderhowto.com/img/40/42/63416119327772/0/howto-make-magical-bokeh-photographs.w654.jpg



Oh a colorful background with a soft subject with clipped highlights and shadows.  I hope you can aspire to better


----------



## hamlet (Dec 16, 2013)

matthewo said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > When i buy the 70-200 then i'll be posting pictures like this: http://img.wonderhowto.com/img/40/42/63416119327772/0/howto-make-magical-bokeh-photographs.w654.jpg
> ...



These flaws your talking about are invisible to me. Is there some literature i can perhaps read that can teach me to see what you're seeing?

And to be fair to that pictures sharpness, its a picture that was taken of one of those fast hovering little bird, its amazing they even got a picture of it. Here is a picture i am able to produce with my 50mm.







As you can see this is what i would get with the correct setup, but i was only able to produce this on something with absolutely no dof.



And this is what happens when i use my 50mm on something with even a little dof:






The sides of the head are out of focus and my background isn't as blown out as i'd wish to be.


----------



## manaheim (Dec 16, 2013)

Invisible to *you*.

That's the key. You're not good enough to know if or when your camera is failing you. That's not an insult. It's normal.

If and when the flaws become visible... and if and when those flaws are a problem for you... then you identify what you need to solve them, and (if available and in your budget) you buy that equipment.

Stepping outside of photography for a moment...

I have a low-end professional grade Trumpet. A Vincent Bach silver. Beautiful horn. Was about $2500 new when a standard student brass horn was about $300.

I was sitting next to a younger fellow playing and he said "Gee that's a nice horn." I said thanks and he asked if we could trade for a bit. "Sure, why not?"

His horn was nowhere near as nice, but with effort I could make it sound pretty good because I had a good fifteen years of playing on this kid. His efforts on my horn sounded about the same as his efforts on his.

After a while he handed it back. He scoffed at me and said "What a rip off... that thing doesn't play any better than mine." I smiled and went back to my playing, relieved to have my better tool back.

Experience makes a very big difference.


----------



## EIngerson (Dec 16, 2013)

hamlet said:


> matthewo said:
> 
> 
> > hamlet said:
> ...



A couple things on this one. The sides of the head are blurry because your depth of field is very shallow. The focal point is also the tip of the nose. (always use the eyes because that's where the viewers eye naturally looks.) The background you're going for isn't blown out, it blurred, meaning more separation from the subject. (blown out is a term used for something that's over exposed) The way to achieve the look you want is to have the background further away from the subject while increasing your aperture get the depth of field deep enough to cover the entire head on the portrait. 

It's not actually that bad of an image, you just have to be able to read it better and make adjustments to get what you want.


----------



## runnah (Dec 16, 2013)

Nope, you need to spend at minimum $10k on new gear.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 16, 2013)

@EIngersan

I know that, but my goal was to isolate my subject, it becomes less and less isolated if i do what you say on my 50mm. I've got the pictures to prove my point:


----------



## runnah (Dec 16, 2013)

manaheim said:


> Invisible to *you*.
> 
> That's the key. You're not good enough to know if or when your camera is failing you. That's not an insult. It's normal.
> 
> ...



Is that what they mean when they say "toot your own horn?"


----------



## EIngerson (Dec 16, 2013)

hamlet said:


> @EIngersan
> 
> I know that, but my goal was to isolate my subject, it becomes less and less isolated if i do what you say on my 50mm. I've got the pictures to prove my point:



Your subject is isolated just as much, if not more than the other one. You've just framed it different. Your camera is further away from the subject. Move it towards the subject and don't forget, the closer you are to it the shallower your depth of field. You might have to close your aperture to cover the subject the closer you get.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 16, 2013)

Maybe i'm doing something wrong, but that doesn't work on things that are three dimensional. This is as out of focus i can get my background.


----------



## EIngerson (Dec 16, 2013)

hamlet said:


> Maybe i'm doing something wrong, but that doesn't work on things that are three dimensional. This is as out of focus i can get my background.



You didn't do anything wrong. You have a pretty wide field of view behind a small subject. You're not going to get much more bokeh than that. If you want to get more, get a 70-200, zoom out to 200 and frame the subject to almost fill the frame. Your blur is fine, if you crop that image tight to the subject you'll see what you're looking for.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 16, 2013)

That's what i thought too, but i wasn't too sure because i have a pension to make decisions without all the facts at my disposal. But its good to know that its not just me, my lens has reached the limits of what it can do for me.


----------



## kundalini (Dec 16, 2013)

hamlet said:


> Is there a point to ever put down my d3200 and buy one of the higher model dslr's?


No.


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 16, 2013)

*http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/feedback-suggestions/347128-tpf-internet.html#post3116367*


----------



## robbins.photo (Dec 16, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> *http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/feedback-suggestions/347128-tpf-internet.html#post3116367*



More to the point I think, did Al Gore invent TPF?


----------



## pgriz (Dec 16, 2013)

The amount of out-of-focus you get is one thing.  The "bokeh" which is the quality of the out-of-focus stuff, is another.

The amount of blurring you get is related to the DOF.  And DOF is related to sensor size, aperture, focal length, distance of subject and distance of background.  f/8 on a view camera (8x10) will give a very different DOF than will f/8 on a P/S sensor.  DOF with a 18mm lens at f/5.6 is very different than the DOF with a 300mm lens at f/5.6.  DOF at f/1.2 is very different from DOF at f/11.  All these things interact to give you the degree of "separation" between foreground and background.

Here's a test.  Put something at your len's minimum focusing distance (which I think is about 0.6m), and have the background at least 100 m. away.  Shoot at your widest-open aperture (which I think is f/1.8 if I'm not mistaken).  That's shot 1.  Do not change the position of the camera (it should be mounted on a tripod).  Now move the subject back 1 meter (3 ft), while not changing anything else except for the focus.  Shoot again.  That's shot 2.  Now move the subject to say 3 more meters.  Refocus.  Shoot.  That's shot 3.  Now compare the background appearance of shots 1-3.  I'll tell you what you will find, but I'll let you do the experiment first before I make my comments.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 16, 2013)

The subject is less and less isolated the farther i move from it.


----------



## pgriz (Dec 16, 2013)

Yes, but that's not what I was hoping you'd see.  Do the actual photography and post it.  Preferably your background should some lights in it.  What you will see that as your focus location changes, the size (and maybe even the shape) of the out-of-focus areas change as well.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 18, 2013)

EIngerson said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe i'm doing something wrong, but that doesn't work on things that are three dimensional. This is as out of focus i can get my background.
> ...



I took you up on your advise and got the 70-200 vrii, it should arrive pretty soon. I have a lot of questions about this lens. Like how far can you close your aperture until the background becomes visible when filling the target with the frame? I've never shot beyond 55mm, this should be an interesting few months to come with this new lens. and i will of course find a way to incorporate it into my hamtography sessions.


----------



## EIngerson (Dec 18, 2013)

hamlet said:


> EIngerson said:
> 
> 
> > hamlet said:
> ...



You're going to love that lens.


----------



## ratssass (Dec 18, 2013)

> I took you up on your advise and got the 70-200 vrii, it should arrive  pretty soon. I have a lot of questions about this lens. Like how far can  you close your aperture until the background becomes visible when  filling the target with the frame? I've never shot beyond 55mm, this  should be an interesting few months to come with this new lens. and i  will of course find a way to incorporate it into my hamtography  sessions.



....there goes the neighborhood.   ...just kidding,Hammy.I only have the lowly Sigma version,but I enjoy it.I'm sure you'll love yours,also!


----------



## kundalini (Dec 18, 2013)

hamlet said:


> I took you up on your advise and got the 70-200 vrii, it should arrive pretty soon.


Congratz on the new lens. This lens will open your eyes quite a bit. I have the VR1 version.



hamlet said:


> I have a lot of questions about this lens. Like how far can you close your aperture until the background becomes visible when filling the target with the frame? I've never shot beyond 55mm, this should be an interesting few months to come with this new lens. and i will of course find a way to incorporate it into my hamtography sessions.


This is where you want to set up a regimented course of test shots to see for yourself with your own lens and camera combination. A pencil and notebook are worth having on hand. Setup a single subject at a specified distance from the plane of the sensor (I usually start at the minimum focusing distance) and start at a focal length of 70mm. Set your shooting mode to Manual so that all matters are constant until you decidedly make a change in ONE setting. Run through the aperture settings from f/2.8 to f/22 (I suggest full stop changes because the 1/3 & 2/3 differences will not matter all that much and it's much less time and trouble). Do this until you have reached 200mm. Now at this point before going to your next focal length, I suggest to take a blank shot and note the change in your notebook. I will place my hand directly in front of the lens and snap. Move to 90mm or whatever you find you think you will need to use for the comparisons. Guess what, you're not done. Move your subject one, two, three meters or whatever distance you decide. Rinse and repeat. Continue moving the subject further away. Rinse and repeat.


----------



## PaulWog (Dec 18, 2013)

hamlet said:


> I took you up on your advise and got the 70-200 vrii, it should arrive pretty soon. I have a lot of questions about this lens. Like how far can you close your aperture until the background becomes visible when filling the target with the frame? I've never shot beyond 55mm, this should be an interesting few months to come with this new lens. and i will of course find a way to incorporate it into my hamtography sessions.



I am thoroughly jealous. I don't see many situations in which I'd be willing to lug the thing around for recreational shooting, but nevertheless... such a crazy lens.

With a telephoto lens such as the 70-200, you'll get bokeh quite easily at 70mm and above. You could shoot at f4.5 at 70mm and still get some decent background separation.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 20, 2013)

The 70-200 vrii arrived today finally.

Here is an example i shot hand-held at iso 6.4k, 200mm, aperture 3.2.


----------



## PaulWog (Dec 20, 2013)

Why would you shoot at ISO 64000 with a VR lens? What shutter speed were you trying to get?


----------



## hamlet (Dec 20, 2013)

1/100


----------



## Solarflare (Dec 20, 2013)

hamlet said:


> Is there a point to ever put down my d3200 and buy one of the higher model dslr's? I don't really see it myself.


 If you have to ask, then definitely no.

You need to upgrade when something about your camera really hinders your making photographs. Higher models have more direct control, so if you shoot more often, you can work faster with them. OTOH the learning curve is steeper - if you dont use them that often, the direct controls wont help you, since you cant operate them.


----------



## SCraig (Dec 20, 2013)

hamlet said:


> Here is an example i shot hand-held at iso 64k, 200mm, aperture 3.2.


Just an FYI since I've seen you post something similar to this numerous times:

Your ISO was NOT "64k" it was 6400.  "k" denotes "Kilo" or a 1000 multiplier.  Using the reference "64k" denotes 64000 not 6400.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 20, 2013)

That is correct. But boy is this a heavy lens. Looking through my lens at 200mm, i can tell that my arms aren't that stable as i thought, i'm moving all over the place.


----------



## RichieT (Dec 20, 2013)

hamlet said:


> That is correct. But boy is this a heavy lens. Looking through my lens at 200mm, i can tell that my arms aren't that stable as i thought, i'm moving all over the place.



Hamlet
Part of the problem (and another factor for your upgrade question) is that you have a heavy lens on a light body which is unbalanced. A heavier body will balance better and allow smoother movement, sort of like how a longer barreled shotgun swings smoother than a short barrel. I had the same problem with my Sigma 70 - 200 on my D40X, too front heavy. When I switched to the D300, it balanced much better and was easier to control even though the whole outfit was heavier. As for reasons to upgrade the body, only you can make that call. If you don't feel your stuff is holding you back, you won't notice much change. I went from the D40X to D300 because I was shooting sports and quickly found the limitations of the D40x, mediocre focusing, low light performance and other limits I didn't realize till I upgraded. I was happy with the D300 for years. This year I upgraded to the D800 for no good reason other than I wanted to. Like Derrel said, you don't know what the higher end cameras bring to the party. I feel the D800 jump in IQ over the D300 is almost as great as the jump from D40x to D300. I didn't realize how much better until I got it. To me, the main factor for upgrading is whether your present equipment is holding you back, but there could also be other reasons you're not aware of yet. Hope this helps.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 20, 2013)

To be frank the only issue i have with my camera (as you said) is definitely the weight, its too light and it won't stabilize. Right now the only complaint i have is that focus my focus isn't always consistent, i autofocus dead-on my target and it focuses either on something in the back or front of my target. But that could easily be subscribed to my lack of skill, but i don't have the need to upgrade right now. Perhaps i'll MacGyver a little seat on my camera body for poof to balance it all out.


----------



## RichieT (Dec 20, 2013)

I don't know how you have your auto focus set, but unless I'm shooting fast objects, I leave it set to the center focus point. I put the point on what I want to focus, lock focus and recompose the shot. That eliminated the camera telling ME what IT wants to focus on.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 20, 2013)

RichieT said:


> I don't know how you have your auto focus set, but unless I'm shooting fast objects, I leave it set to the center focus point. I put the point on what I want to focus, lock focus and recompose the shot. That eliminated the camera telling ME what IT wants to focus on.



I have to practice the recomposing part. I am really happy with my d3200.


----------



## robbins.photo (Dec 20, 2013)

hamlet said:


> RichieT said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know how you have your auto focus set, but unless I'm shooting fast objects, I leave it set to the center focus point. I put the point on what I want to focus, lock focus and recompose the shot. That eliminated the camera telling ME what IT wants to focus on.
> ...



Recomposing is pretty easy once you do it a few times.  I do change focus points myself sometimes especially when I shoot portrait mode

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk


----------



## hamlet (Dec 20, 2013)

robbins.photo said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > RichieT said:
> ...



I went to shoot an indoor school event yesterday, it was so much fun taking pictures, time just flew. But it became pretty obvious how much i have still yet to learn. It was my first indoor event, i hope that if i do more events then i can get better.


Here is a picture of the event:







Taken with 50mm 1.4g


----------



## hamlet (Dec 20, 2013)

EIngerson said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > @EIngersan
> ...



I went to take the same picture with my new 70-200mm vrii.

145mm





200mm


----------

