# Full Frame Photography!



## Dave Spencer (10 Aug 2008)

Nikon D700 cameras are on eBay at Â£1700ish. Gentlemen....start your wallets!

My D40 let me down for the first time ever in flashless, low light, hand held the other day (cue the 70-200mm f2.8 Nikkor) . I anticipate a lot of this kind of photography in the future, so a camera that effortlessly copes with much higher ISO without discernible noise, and gives the full benefit of wide angle sounds the way ahead.

Anybody got three grand I can borrow?  

Dave.

P.S. Clueless mincing pansy Canon users need not make flippant remarks (you know who you are).  How much do you have to pay for full frame?


----------



## Mark Evans (10 Aug 2008)

Dave Spencer said:
			
		

> y D40 let me down for the first time ever in flashless, low light, hand held the other day



 i can lend you a grand dave, if you lend me your house.   

5d dont cost  that much for full frame photography IMO. 

i just read this....



			
				Dave Spencer said:
			
		

> P.S. Clueless mincing pansy Canon users need not make flippant remarks (you know who you are).  How much do you have to pay for full frame?



what i'd expect from a nikon user  8) 

mark


----------



## Dave Spencer (10 Aug 2008)

I had you in mind, Mark! I`ll just sit back and wait for the other geezer to come along.  

Dave.


----------



## oldwhitewood (11 Aug 2008)

I too use a Nikon D40 and I must say I love it as a camera. I've gone round the houses thinking about this and wishing I had a better camera, if only I could get the D80 it would make me a better photographer. I stopped using the kit lens, after I read about it being a bit rubbish and got a 30mm sigma F1.4 because I wanted to blur the hell out of everything and get bokeh type effects. Then I got some prime lenses, a 50mm and a 28mm because I didn't think my kit lens was sharp enough (?) and I also got a 55-200mm because I thought I better have a zoom lens too. You know what I sold the sigma and the zoom, because I just didn't warrant using them. The 50mm I use quite a lot, it's a cheap lens, one of the cheapest nikkors but it's really fun to use and fast, focusing is manual of course on the D40 but that is easy too, like using an old school SLR. What I realised after reading Ken Rockwell (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm) is that I've become bogged down with the stuff I've read and confused as to what it takes to get a great shot. I thought hang on I have been thinking about this in completely the wrong way. So now I've totally changed my ideas about the camera and I'm just using the kit lens (18-55mm) to try to develop my technique from a more artistic angle, rather than worrying my lens might get soft at the corners when it's wide open!


----------



## oldwhitewood (11 Aug 2008)

And plus spending Â£1700 on a camera is crazy, that lens you are talking about too costs a fortune man you must be loaded.


----------



## Graeme Edwards (11 Aug 2008)

Dave mate, you dont want to be one of those guys - Neil touched on it a little......."all the gear and no idea" types.
Oh no mate, dont be one of those. Why have you found problems with your currant setup. Can you explain your problem a little more?
Does shooting the camara in RAW make any differance to your problem?

Cant go wrong with a 400D big man


----------



## Joecoral (11 Aug 2008)

Graeme Edwards said:
			
		

> Cant go wrong with a 400D big man



You speaketh the truth
400D BABY!


----------



## Mark Evans (11 Aug 2008)

Graeme Edwards said:
			
		

> Does shooting the camara in RAW make any differance to your problem?



any decent program will amend certain issues but not all. noise can be controlled allot using raw imaging software.



			
				Dave Spencer said:
			
		

> I had you in mind, Mark! I`ll just sit back and wait for the other geezer to come along.



predictable?.... at least i didnt let you down.



			
				Dave Spencer said:
			
		

> My D40 let me down for the first time ever in flashless, low light, hand held the other day



glass mate, its all about the glass... but saying that, when i went from a 10d to a 5d...whoohooo, what a difference.

mark


----------



## Dave Spencer (11 Aug 2008)

Graeme, I like to think I am full of ideas. Does buying better gear equate to becoming clueless?

Neil, I like my D40, but is the D80 a major step up? 

Mark, I carry out a lot of low light photography where I don`t want flash or a tripod. The glass is definitely the most important item, and the 70-200mm f2.8 will be  abig help in this area.

I find myself upping the ISO quite a bit, and my D40 can get noisy. A better quality camera regarding ISO will help here. Full frame will give me full benefit of wide angle photography too, which is impotant considering I love landscape photography.

My first love is to get in amongst the grime of life and photograph that. I couldn`t care less about vignettting, bokeh etc. I want to be able to fire off shots as quickly as possible, and find accessing the D40 menus cumbersome and, where people are concerned, the shot is gone. The D700 has far more to hand, so should make my photography more spontaneous.

I don`t intend upgrading in steps via the D80 and D300, it would be cheaper to full frame at the first outset.

Besides, I am now single after being fleeced after 20 years, so I am going to spoil myself. 8) 

Dave.


----------



## Mark Evans (11 Aug 2008)

if you are bumping up the iso in low light situations , then get the better quality camera. my 5d in lowlight situations is amazing and ive done alot of lowlight work. so yeh go for it.

these are from my camera iso 500 (not all that high i know) but shooting f2 gives some amazing results. its the difference between iso 500 and 800.

the band is the paul jones blues band, paul asked me to shoot the gig. (i know him from my band days) the 3 rd image probably showcases the cameras abilitys the most.
i know with a 10d, i wouldn't get near to the quality of a better camera. food for thought   but your already thinking   














mark


----------



## Graeme Edwards (11 Aug 2008)

Dave Spencer said:
			
		

> Graeme, I like to think I am full of ideas. Does buying better gear equate to becoming clueless?
> 
> Dave.



Not at all Dave. Your first post didn't explain your predicament very well, sorry pal, forgive my ignorance.

Im looking into a better lens for my 350D, its a Canon fit Sigma lens -> http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product ... ku=1012228
Im sure this would be along the same lines as what your thinking, but the locations and subjects we both might choose will be different.


----------



## Dave Spencer (11 Aug 2008)

No probs Graeme, me old mucker. I think the lens is what I need most. If it solves my probs tha camera can go on the back burner.

Nice shots, Mark. I saw Radiohead recently and would love to have got some shots of them.

Dave.


----------



## Steve Smith (11 Aug 2008)

I'd just like to throw my hat in the ring as another canon user!  300D here (ok, I'm a bit "out of the loop" )


----------



## oldwhitewood (11 Aug 2008)

Dave Spencer said:
			
		

> Graeme, I like to think I am full of ideas. Does buying better gear equate to becoming clueless?
> 
> Neil, I like my D40, but is the D80 a major step up?
> 
> ...



It isn't no. To my mind you get a higher megapixel count, brighter viewfinder, a digital display on top (which I think IS very useful) and autofocus with non AF-S lenses. I can see the display on top would be good if you were using a tripod, when I use one, well I have only just started to use a tripod, but I find it a pain to keep crouching down and looking at the display. I also would like one for the autofocus feature but then I could get a secondhand D50 with that, what is the point I ask myself? Logically I think I will probably end up with a D80 in the long run but I don't think I have the talent or the knowledge to warrant one at the moment. 

With the D700 you are certainly going to fire off shots quickly but in public taking candid inconspicuous shots with it? Look at the size of the thing!





If you suddenly whip that thing out people will be running away in terror   

I think for landscape yes but not sure about using it for those type of people shots. The thing I guess you would do is get the D700 and keep the D40 body in your bag as a backup?

Your first point though, you are right buying better gear does not make you become clueless. I'm very new to photography as a hobby but I will say this, to me it seems a bit like being a musician. Say if you play guitar, buying an all singing all dancing guitar won't make you a better musician. It will make it easier for you to play and the quality of the sound it produces might be more tactile shall we say? But a better guitarist? I know some people who can shoot with anything and come up with amazing results, using a cheap fuji or a dodgy plastic holga. They only seem to have to wave their camera in the general direction of something interesting to get a great picture, whereas I could be in the same place and get something dull and boring. They have a natural gift for it, an eye for it I guess. Anyway I'm not making much of a point here so I'll shut up until I know a bit more about what I'm talking about!


----------



## Dave Spencer (12 Aug 2008)

Neil your picture shows it with the battery pack, which does turn it in to a monster. For candids in public, the longer end of the 70-200m will come in to play.

I hope no one misunderstands me. Not for one minute do I think this gear will make me a better photographer. I can`t find anywhere in this thread where I have even come close to implying it. 

I`m not sure about the guitar analogy. I doubt whether the Edge still uses the plastic guitar he got as a kid. I am just finding that the more I push the D40, the more shortcomings I find. The better gear will mean fewer lost shots, not the next Ansell Adams. 

The D40 will always be kept as an excellent back up. I just can`t see the point of a monor upgrade to something like the D80, Neil. Supposing you really get bitten by the bug, which it sounds like you already are, then you are actually spending more on camera bodies than I will be by the time you finally get the camera that gives you what you want.

Dave.


----------



## oldwhitewood (12 Aug 2008)

Yeah you are right. I'm not aiming these comments directly at you you must understand, I'm not that kind of person. It's just I find the subject really interesting and I'm fascinated to read peoples opinions on gear and how it affects them as a photographer.


----------



## Graeme Edwards (12 Aug 2008)

Theres a valid argument going on here. Like whats been touched upon, there are people who can create great images with the most dated gear, and there will be people who have all the gear but cant shoot a nice picture at all.
I understand where your coming from Dave. What apears to be happening is your skills, subject matter and style arnt being represented by the D40. So your exploring the idea if a new body or a new lens. Perhaps though, the real challange is getting the shots you want with the gear you have, that would show great skill IMO. But having the gear makes it easyer for people to access thier own creativity.
Its all subjective, just the like art form its self.


----------



## Dave Spencer (12 Aug 2008)

If I was to only buy the D700 camera body or the 70-200mm lens, I would go for the lens. it would bring more of what I want in to reach.

I remember years ago during my days in Germany when I had a Minolta X300, shooting everything in manual, including focussing. Happy days in which I learnt the basics of DoF etc. I now want a set up that I don`t find limiting. No matter how steady I stand, I can`t get rid of camera shake or noise in low light.



Dave.


----------

