Which camera to use? Every photographer faces that question at some point, and generally we try to buy the best gear we can afford. I’ve gone through numerous digital cameras, and at present own ten different cameras of all shapes and sizes. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages, but I have fun with all of them. But when it comes to my “signature” style of saturated color night photography and light painting, I only use one camera. At the time I bought it, my Nikon D300 provided me with the best balance of features and image quality that I could afford. I prefer shooting digital over film for night work for several reasons (which I will reserve for a different post), but suffice to say the flexibility in white balance/color correction, exposure latitude, and not having to be stuck with an entire roll of one type of film keeps me shooting digital at night.
Now, with the introduction of the D700, it has become financially viable for me to buy into a full-frame (35mm sensor) DSLR system. I (like most digital SLR owners) have been using a “cropped sensor” or DX camera. The D300 has, for all intents and purposes, the same body as the D700. It has the same number of megapixels. But the D700 offers those inherent full-frame advantages that people are willing to pay so much for: lower noise at high ISOs, shallower depth of field, a larger viewfinder, wider angle lenses… I must admit, it’s extremely tempting.
However, I’ve decided to hold off at least until we see the hypothetical “D700x”, a full frame camera that packs 24+ megapixels like the new D3X. It’s not a purely financial decision, either. Upon careful consideration I found that for my style of shooting, the benefits of FX are less applicable, and sometimes even counter-productive, for my specific type of shooting.
Less Noise at High ISOs
Now, you’d think a guy who spends most of his time shooting at night would place a high premium on a camera with great low light sensitivity, right? Well, for my kind of work, it’s a moot point - I only shoot at the “native” ISO of the camera I am using. With the D300 and D700, that’s ISO 200. Having the ability to shoot relatively clean files at ISO 6400 might be nice, but I would NEVER use a high ISO for the specific style of night work that I do. I want files that print 20"x30" with no visible noise. It may be true that the D700 gives slightly cleaner results at 200 as well, I have no idea. But the files from my D300 appear totally noiseless in 20x30 prints, so it is of no practical value to me at all.
100% crop of a D300 shot at ISO 200
Larger Viewfinder
The D700 gets a big point in my book for having a larger viewfinder than the D300. Framing compositions at night is challenging, and generally the bigger and brighter the viewfinder, the better. My ability to get compositions right without cropping went up steeply after upgrading from a D70, with a tiny, dark finder to my D300. However, the D700 has a hidden disadvantage here as well - while the finder is a bit bigger, the accuracy takes a hit. The D300 finder has higher magnification and 100% coverage - that is, what you see is exactly what you get. The D700, however, has only 96% coverage and slightly lower magnification. That means I risk having to crop more to “fix” compositions that are slightly off due to the inaccuracies of the finder. On balance, not a true benefit for the way I work.
D300, Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D lens
Wider Angle Lenses
It’s a fact that landscape photographers love wide angle. And on FX, a lens of a given focal length “acts” wider. For instance, a 17mm lens on FX is really effing wide, but on a DX crop camera it is only medium wide. Also, wider angles are possible with FX - there is no DX equivalent of the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8, or the Sigma 12mm zoom. You would need an 8mm rectilinear lens to equal the 12mm field of view on DX, and such a beast sadly doesn’t exist. However, for my style of working, a 12mm DX lens (which would be similar in angle of view to an 18mm lens on FX) is plenty wide enough. I’ve actually found myself using longer lenses more and more lately - much of my new work has been shot using a Nikkor 85mm lens. I’m in the market for a longer prime as well, probably a 135mm Nikkor AIS lens. On FX these lenses would lose some of their effective reach, and I would have to step up to longer, more expensive glass to make up the difference.
D300, Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D lens
Less Depth of Field
This is the big one for me. FX cameras have less depth of field for a given viewing angle and f/stop. This can be a great thing when you want to isolate detail, for instance in portraiture or food photography. But for landscape, more DOF is almost always better. The practical result of a switch to full frame for me would be that I would have to use smaller f/stops to get the entire scene in acceptable focus. Probably up to a whole stop smaller. That means instead of shooting 5 minutes at f/8, I’d be shooting 10 minutes at f/16 f/11. Not a huge deal, but then add on in-camera noise reduction, which doubles the exposure, and I’ll be spending 20 minutes per shot. That would cut my productivity for any given time spent shooting in half. True, working slowly can help you make better, more considered decisions, but trust me, night shooting is slow enough as it is ;)
Almost infinite depth of field at f/6.7
The one thing that full frame cameras could provide me with that I really do want is higher pixel counts. I like to print LARGE - I’ve got a trio of 20"x30" prints going up in a gallery in Brooklyn next month, and had a 24"x36" print in my last show. I am one of those users who really can use all the resolution they can get. The 24mp sensor in the D3X would give me a solid, real-world benefit that would be applicable to my style of shooting - but sadly $8k for a camera is a bit out of my reach at the moment. So I’ll wait for the hypothetical “D700x” or “D800” and enjoy my very nice professional tools in the meantime.
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
