Full frame or APS?

[wizzo]

Would members recommend a full frame camera for wildlife and landscapes or does it make little difference? I'm aware of crop factors etc but want the best quality I can get. Sorry for all these questions guys
The cameras I'm looking at is the Nikon D300s or D700.

[RobSutton]

Originally Posted by wizzo

Would members recommend a full frame camera for wildlife and landscapes or does it make little difference? I'm aware of crop factors etc but want the best quality I can get. Sorry for all these questions guys
The cameras I'm looking at is the Nikon D300s or D700.

Both unfortunately. I use a full frame Canon EOS5DmkII for landscapes and a cropped sensor EOS40D for wildlife shots (largely macro lens shots of plants, fungi and insects and a few bird shots). I like the extra crop factor the EOS40D gives for wildlife shots but for landscapes the extra quality of the full frame 5D makes a real difference when I do very big enlargements. If I was starting again and was going for just one camera it would be a cropped sensor one first I think. I think either Nikon would more than match any quality issues providing you have decent lenses on them.

[pressld2]

Rob's answer is spot on - full frame for landscapes but the crop factor is great for wildlife.

One other consideration is how much use you might make of high ISOs. These will give better results on a full frame. In fact the D700 will give you the same high ISO performance as the D3 as it's the same sensor and processor. The D300 (and I assume the D300s is the same) is still pretty good at controlling noise at high ISOs but with the same number of pixels packed into the smaller sensor it can't match the performance of the D700.

Dave P.

[Richard G.]

Depends what your ultimate goal is?

Agree with the other guys that technically it's FX for Landscapes and DX for Wildlife. However, you can get perfectly good landscapes from a DX body/lens combo and with a very expensive Nikon 600mm f/4 I expect you could get very good wildlife images from an FX body.

Are you a hobbyist trying to make nice A3 prints at home or an aspiring pro trying to sell prints or stock though?

[wizzo]

Thanks Rob & Dave. I suppose that in an ideal world I'd get both, but that's going to mean comprimising on lens quality, at least to some extent. As Rob says, it may be best to start with the D300 and see if I'm happy with the results. Why can't Nikon or Canon make models with interchangable sensors? Now there's an idea!

[wizzo]

Hi Richard. I used to be a semi-pro portrait and wedding photographer. That was many years ago I hasten to add. Digital photography is completely new to me, but I guess for the most part, this is going to be primarily a hobby. However, old habits die hard, and I'd be lying if I said, I don't have ambitions to eventually make a few bob from taking pictures again. Wizzo

[RobSutton]

Originally Posted by wizzo

............ Why can't Nikon or Canon make models with interchangable sensors? Now there's an idea!

Funny you should say that - not Canon or Nikon but Ricoh have just done that

Ricoh GXR interchangeable unit camera, previewed: Digital Photography Review

[Richard G.]

Originally Posted by wizzo

I suppose that in an ideal world I'd get both, but that's going to mean comprimising on lens quality, at least to some extent.

For me, your lens choice has a much bigger impact on image quality than your camera choice. Maybe you could come up with a couple of kit lists based on each format and see what the bottom line is, there's an interesting article by Thom Hogan along these lines here.

My suggestion would be to buy the best glass you can afford though, even if that means saving up to get the complete set. It's also much easier to justify a big purchase, if you're confident of being able to fund this later with the quality of the resulting output.

[Jim Ford]

Originally Posted by RobSutton

Funny you should say that - not Canon or Nikon but Ricoh have just done that

Ricoh GXR interchangeable unit camera, previewed: Digital Photography Review

Really weird and misconceived idea - putting the sensors in the lenses!

Lenses last and rarely become obsolete. Sensors don't and rapidly become obsolete. People change bodies as new features and better sensors are introduced, but keep their lenses. To marry the sensors to the lenses seems to be just plain stupid!

Jim

[RobSutton]

Originally Posted by Jim Ford

Really weird and misconceived idea - putting the sensors in the lenses!

Lenses last and rarely become obsolete. Sensors don't and rapidly become obsolete. People change bodies as new features and better sensors are introduced, but keep their lenses. To marry the sensors to the lenses seems to be just plain stupid!

Jim

Good lenses last? Does sound like a bit of a gimmicky sort of thing to do. It will be interesting to read the reviews when they appear.