New body, or new lenses?

[Radium_Angel]

To start, I am primarily a studio photographer, so I can control lighting, etc.

My main gear is crop-sensor Nikon bodies (D7000, I dislike for the flimsy feel, even with the battery grip attached, and a D2x, which I adore.) with some very nice glass.

However, I also use a crop sensor Canon 10D with grip, for my infrared work, and I just picked up a Canon 1DS Mark II, which is full frame, and very nice.

 

So, given ~1000$ to spend, do I upgrade to a full-frame D3x body, and reuse all my lenses (which all happen to be designed for full frame)

or

Do I invest in new glass for my Canon 1DS Mark II?

 

Decisions I am uncertain about. What say you folk?

[aspnet]

which lenses do you already have and what is your type of photography? In studio I guess portraits but do you print images or is just digital files?

[Radium_Angel]

3 hours ago, aspnet said:

which lenses do you already have and what is your type of photography? In studio I guess portraits but do you print images or is just digital files?

Just digital currently.

I mainly use a 50mm, but I have a 40mm, 17-35mm, 28-80mm, 135mm

And I do fetish work, but it all involved people, which is why the 40/50mm is most often used.

[Zodiark1593]

Given the age of the other bodies you're using, it seems logical to invest in glass for the 1DS if you're planning on using that for a primary shooter, especially since you're already in for a considerable sum on the body.

 

Though investing in a seperate lens system for the same sensor format (35mm) doesn't seem to be very cost effective unless you're selling something else as well. If the newer camera was a Medium Format, my answer would be a "Yes" on the glass.

 

 

[ThePointblank]

You should probably look to consolidate your two camera systems to one brand, either Canon or Nikon. Unless you really have the budget to invest in both, it's not worth keeping a secondary system around.

[Radium_Angel]

8 hours ago, Zodiark1593 said:

considerable sum on the body

I got it for free.

8 hours ago, Zodiark1593 said:

if you're planning on using that for a primary shooter

Well that's the trick isn't it? I was a Nikon shooter (and occasionally medium format and large format film as well) until I came upon the 10D converted to IR, which has been great fun to use (see attached picture as an example) but only with a single lens for it, a 50mm f/1.8, which works for my needs.

 

Then along comes the Canon and I'm finding the Full Frame a nice bonus to my work, so then the question being  my original post.

7 hours ago, ThePointblank said:

Unless you really have the budget to invest in both

I do, but I"m mainly curious if the Nikon D3x is a better choice for full frame than the 1ds mk ii, or if I just add new glass (EF only it seems, darn Canon for switching lens mounts so often) to the Canon.

 

I was hoping to run across someone who had used both bodies and could speak from experience.

[ThePointblank]

I wouldn't recommend getting the Nikon D3X because it's a really old camera.

 

You probably would have better performance with a brand new camera, such as a Nikon D7500. A newer camera, such as the D7500, would offer a ton of creature comforts that would make shooting more fun and quicker.

 

If you want something full frame, a Nikon D610 or D810E would be a better fit used, or if you can, get a D750. used/refurbished.

[Radium_Angel]

1 hour ago, ThePointblank said:

I wouldn't recommend getting the Nikon D3X because it's a really old camera.

 

You probably would have better performance with a brand new camera, such as a Nikon D7500. A newer camera, such as the D7500, would offer a ton of creature comforts that would make shooting more fun and quicker.

 

If you want something full frame, a Nikon D610 or D810E would be a better fit used, or if you can, get a D750. used/refurbished.

I have a D7000 with battery grip and I *hate* it, it's flimsy and got shit for a buffer. But mainly, it's flimsy. Feels like it's made from cheap plastic. The image I posted above is from my Canon 10D, straight from the camera. As you can see, using an old camera doesn't bother me in the slightest. The 10D was released in 2003, making it 16 years old. 

 

I love my D2x because it feels like it was made out of a single block of cast iron, and could take abuse if it needed to. The 1DS mk ii feels the same way, solid, well built, impervious to damage. Unlike the D7000. The D7500/D610/D750 seems like it's made from the same mold and similar dimensions. Looks plasticy and cheap. 

 

[brandishwar]

So you have a 1Ds that you got for free. You already have glass for your 10D, presumably. Is that FF or crop glass? If the latter, having the FF glass would allow you to take full advantage of the FF resolution. But the D3x will be better overall than the 1Ds Mk II given comparisons I'm reading online, plus you already have the FF glass for it.

 

The question really comes down more to what you feel you need. If you use the D2x primarily, you'd probably be better served upgrading to the D3x. You're still talking about a 10+ year-old camera, so perhaps the D750 might serve you better overall, since it's a much newer generation and a better sensor. I'm seeing used D750 bodies for under $900 USD, though you'd need the grip to gain the second shutter button. But something to consider.

[Radium_Angel]

2 minutes ago, brandishwar said:

Is that FF or crop glass?

Both the 50mm f/1.8 and the pancake 40mm are full frame (AFAIK)

The D3x has 24MP, given I work in a studio, what advantage would the D750 give me?

[ThePointblank]

25 minutes ago, Radium_Angel said:

Both the 50mm f/1.8 and the pancake 40mm are full frame (AFAIK)

The D3x has 24MP, given I work in a studio, what advantage would the D750 give me?

A whole bunch of features:

• Wireless connectivity
• Articulating touch screen
• Face detect autofocus
• Higher ISO sensitivity and performance
• More frames per second
• Lighter weight

It will be the better studio camera for you, and it would also make a good camera for taking out as well.

[brandishwar]

19 minutes ago, Radium_Angel said:

Both the 50mm f/1.8 and the pancake 40mm are full frame (AFAIK)

The D3x has 24MP, given I work in a studio, what advantage would the D750 give me?

1. Newer image processor - Expeed4A versus Expeed - which should net better image quality overall even at the same resolution, plus it'll have additional image processing features that won't be in the D3x image processor. Plus improved autofocus.

 

2. Better low-light performance - even in a studio, this could provide some creative opportunities you may not have otherwise considered

 

3. Still supported by Nikon

 

4. Uses SD-XC instead of CF, which give better storage for the price, support for higher storage capacities, and probably faster compared to the D3x CF interface - though if you always shoot tethered, this might not be a concern.

[Radium_Angel]

3 hours ago, ThePointblank said:

A whole bunch of features:

• Wireless connectivity
• Articulating touch screen
• Face detect autofocus
• Higher ISO sensitivity and performance
• More frames per second
• Lighter weight

It will be the better studio camera for you, and it would also make a good camera for taking out as well.

-don't use wireless (unless you mean automatic integration with my studio light's wireless capabilities)

-don't use touch screens (hate them)

-don't use face detect autofocus

-don't need, I control the light

-don't need high speed in a studio setting

-I like heavy cameras, better stability for me.

 

3 hours ago, brandishwar said:

1. Newer image processor - Expeed4A versus Expeed - which should net better image quality overall even at the same resolution, plus it'll have additional image processing features that won't be in the D3x image processor

Now this....this is information I can use. Thank you.

 

3 hours ago, brandishwar said:

tethered

I am starting to explore this, but given my collection of CF cards (and even a few classic microdrives) different memory card support is a negative for me, gotta go out and buy all new cards! >_<

 

Nonetheless, I'll search about on the D750, see if I can lay hands on one, and try it out.

[Zodiark1593]

4 hours ago, brandishwar said:

1. Newer image processor - Expeed4A versus Expeed - which should net better image quality overall even at the same resolution, plus it'll have additional image processing features that won't be in the D3x image processor. Plus improved autofocus.

 

 

Does the improved image processing even matter if one is shooting RAW? Just curious.

[brandishwar]

2 hours ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Does the improved image processing even matter if one is shooting RAW? Just curious.

Yes since the image processor is what takes the analog light signal and converts it to digital data in the RAW file. An improved image processor means better analog to digital signal conversion. It also means a better signal to noise ratio at higher ISOs. And if you have the camera output JPEGs instead of RAWs, it has a better starting RAW file from which to bake the JPEG.

[brandishwar]

3 hours ago, Radium_Angel said:

I am starting to explore this, but given my collection of CF cards (and even a few classic microdrives) different memory card support is a negative for me, gotta go out and buy all new cards! >_<

Yeah it's a negative against the D750 versus the D3x given what you currently have, but given the current price of SD cards, it isn't really that much of a negative. And the D750 supports SD-XC, meaning you should be able to use the ultra-high capacity cards on the market, whereas I think the D3x would support 64GB CF cards at most according to what I've found.

[Zodiark1593]

3 hours ago, Radium_Angel said:

 

 

I am starting to explore this, but given my collection of CF cards (and even a few classic microdrives) different memory card support is a negative for me, gotta go out and buy all new cards! >_<

 

 

Well, I've bought a 64 GB Sandisk MicroSD card (with adaptor) for about $13 a few months ago... I find it quite amusing as I also have a 64 MB Sandisk Shoot and Store SD card from 15 years ago I bought at about the same price.

 

38 minutes ago, brandishwar said:

Yes since the image processor is what takes the analog light signal and converts it to digital data in the RAW file. An improved image processor means better analog to digital signal conversion. It also means a better signal to noise ratio at higher ISOs. And if you have the camera output JPEGs instead of RAWs, it has a better starting RAW file from which to bake the JPEG.

Thank you for the tidbit. I figured the conversion occurred either on the sensor itself, or an entirely separate chip en route to the ISP. Proprietary RAW formats are also compressed via a lossless algorithm, so the ISP probably has dedicated hardware to do this.

[LyondellBasell]

On 8/7/2019 at 7:14 PM, Radium_Angel said:

Just digital currently.

I mainly use a 50mm, but I have a 40mm, 17-35mm, 28-80mm, 135mm

And I do fetish work, but it all involved people, which is why the 40/50mm is most often used.

If the 135 you have is the f/2 DC, I'd suggest getting a D850. You'll be able to use it for portraiture since it will be a true 135 and not act like  200-something equivalent it does when you're using the d7000, and you can fully exploit its sharpness with a higher resolution sensor.

 

Or if you're really comfortable with 50mm, maybe look at picking up the EOS R with the RF 50 1.2L. I can personally verify that it's an incredible combination.

[Radium_Angel]

16 hours ago, LyondellBasell said:

If the 135 you have is the f/2 DC

God I wish I had the DC version...

What I have is a beautiful (chased silver) manual focus Tamron 135mm f/2.8 with an Adaptall mount.

(#9 and #10 images here, that's the lens, just for reference. https://www.dyxum.com/dforum/samples-tamron-adaptall-automatic-135mm-f2-8_topic112744.html)

 

The prices have come down *slightly* on used DC lenses, and I'm thinking about it, but I"m not there yet...

[ThePointblank]

On 8/8/2019 at 5:48 PM, Radium_Angel said:

-don't use wireless (unless you mean automatic integration with my studio light's wireless capabilities)

-don't use touch screens (hate them)

-don't use face detect autofocus

-don't need, I control the light

-don't need high speed in a studio setting

-I like heavy cameras, better stability for me.

 

1. Wireless connectivity means you can setup the camera to connect to your wireless network, and tether it directly to your computer via WiFi. That means, by the time you shoot, the file is already being transferred to your computer for editing.

 

2. Having a articulating touch screen is a major convenience tool if you are shooting in awkward circumstances. For example, I've just came back from a photo shoot out at an airfield, and having a articulating touch screen was a major convenience factor during the shoot; for example, in one shoot, other people were laying on their stomachs looking at the viewfinder trying to focus on the subject. Since I had a articulating touchscreen, I could just set the camera down and angle it on the ground, and use the touch screen to use touch focus to focus on the subject, then release the shutter, without having to lying down on my stomach.

 

3. Face detect autofocus means quicker focus acquisition, and if the subject is moving, it can track the face through the frame.

 

4. Having good high ISO capabilities means as mentioned before, cleaner files at the lower ISO's, but it also means you have more latitude to push highlights or shadows in post-processing. Also, if you are doing a more low key shoot with less lights, you don't have to worry about noise in the image files.

 

5. Again, it's a feature, especially for moving subjects as you can rattle off multiple files on a moving subject, and you increase the chance you will find a file that's to your liking.

 

6. When you start dealing with the heavier lenses, and have to carry them all day for a shoot, any ounce you can shave off is a bonus to your arms.

[Zodiark1593]

3 minutes ago, ThePointblank said:

 

 

2. Having a articulating touch screen is a major convenience tool if you are shooting in awkward circumstances. For example, I've just came back from a photo shoot out at an airfield, and having a articulating touch screen was a major convenience factor during the shoot; for example, in one shoot, other people were laying on their stomachs looking at the viewfinder trying to focus on the subject. Since I had a articulating touchscreen, I could just set the camera down and angle it on the ground, and use the touch screen to use touch focus to focus on the subject, then release the shutter, without having to lying down on my stomach.

 

 

That articulating screen is a godsend. Beyond the listed uses, it is also great for ninja shooting on the street without even glancing at the person, perfect for the introverted shooter like myself.

 

[Radium_Angel]

6 hours ago, Zodiark1593 said:

ninja shooting

Which works great, if I did those things. But since I work in a studio....

As it stands, I did a long shoot yesterday and have decided to sell my Canon gear and get something Nikon Full Frame, so there's that.

[Zodiark1593]

3 hours ago, Radium_Angel said:

Which works great, if I did those things. But since I work in a studio....

As it stands, I did a long shoot yesterday and have decided to sell my Canon gear and get something Nikon Full Frame, so there's that.

Yeah, an articulating display would be pretty useless in a studio. If you're so inclined, an external display would be plenty viable in such a setting as well.

[Radium_Angel]

27 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

an external display would be plenty viable in such a setting as well.

Yes, tethered shooting. I'm experimenting with it, it has a lot of uses actually.

Off-topic, wanna buy some slightly used Canon gear? 

[Zodiark1593]

1 hour ago, Radium_Angel said:

Yes, tethered shooting. I'm experimenting with it, it has a lot of uses actually.

Off-topic, wanna buy some slightly used Canon gear? 

Will have to check with my shareholder on that. She's rather picky, and definitely loves her greens, and carrots.

 

(She's a rabbit btw).