Full Frame better?

I have been shooting under water for a few years now and would like to upgrade to a DSLR. I have a D300s and a D700. I would like to buy a housing for one of them but not sure which would be better for under water. My D700 is better in low light, I think it would be better for ambient light shots but think the D300 with it's cropped senor might be better for macro. I would sure like an opinion or two on the matter.

Thanks,

Aquapaul

I have been shooting under water for a few years now and would like to upgrade to a DSLR. I have a D300s and a D700. I would like to buy a housing for one of them but not sure which would be better for under water. My D700 is better in low light, I think it would be better for ambient light shots but think the D300 with it's cropped senor might be better for macro. I would sure like an opinion or two on the matter.

 

Thanks,

 

Aquapaul

I assume you will want to do both, I would I got some great macro with my old F4 and 105 lens. Unless you get into super macro, I see no problem with the FX. You will loose the neat Tonk. 10-17 for W/A and W/A macro. Let size, weight, & cost be your guides.

Bob

There's been a bunch of discussion and it seems that DX still has a slight edge. Obviously better for macro and the kicker is lens choice for WA. You got the coveted 10-17mm FE, which has no equivalent in FX, and even if not shooting that lens (i never did) you can pop a FX fisheye on a DX body (i.e. sigma 15mm FE) and have an awesome general wide lens.

Doesn't mean FX is at any disadvantage, i just housed my D700 last year and retired the D200. I must admit, i really love the FOV of the 60mm macro on FX.

With the D300s you can also shoot video. Size differences are exaggerated in housings too, so a D700 housing will be slightly bulkier.

Cheers,

Chris

It's a hard thing to search for, but there have been threads on this in the past. Try these:

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=36774

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=33403

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=25625

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=19100

Yes, full frame is definitely better :-P

Cheers

James

James -- I don't that the average photographer will necessarily get better shots from full frame than from having a crop sensor. It's just not that simple an issue.

James.. you are a troll

Both of those cameras will serve you vey well. I personally prefer DX (but I have never used FF!) because I almost never need anymore than ISO 200-400 so FF´s main advantage is useless to me.

You have excellent solutions for both cameras macro speaking but, for WA, you can use the 10-17 on DX and rectilinear WA perform better (less corner problems etc...) on DX too...

Off course, James is a troll!!!

James.. you are a troll

@Aquapaul, there are pros and cons to every camera. As Eric mentioned the answer is not 100% clear-cut and you need to balance various factors in coming to the decision. The one thing I would say is that once you decide, don't beat yourself later with the would ofs/could ofs. I think pretty much all of us at one time or the other do that - "Wish I had this body this time with the lens" scenario. It is going to happen, but either camera is going to be fine ultimately. One other thing to put out there is the rumor that Nikon is releasing some new camera. Who knows for sure. But if you are not going somewhere soon to shoot, and you can hold off, some people may sell their housings and move to the new thing, or the new features may be enough for you to upgrade. But even then, do not worry too much and do not get caught up too much in the "vaporware" of new cameras. The cameras you have will both deliver fine photographs. Take a look around here for people posting images taken with those cameras, they sure look fine to me.

there are pros and cons to every camera. The cameras you have will both deliver fine photographs.

Sums it up extremely well. Sound common sense and good advice.

FWIW, if you can't decide, take a look through your favourite images and go for the camera which has taken more of those favourites. At least you then have a valid reason for your choice .

Mike: busted!

I think the best solution is to have one of each. Cropped sensor w/ Tokina 10-17 for WA and a FF w/ Sigma 150mm for macro.

Of course then you need an assistant to carry one around for you :-) And also to wheel around the wheel barrow full of money you'd need to buy them both.

Cheers

James

Aquapaul,

Buy a housing for either one based on the glass that you already own....Talk to Backscatter and Reef and determine which will give you the best results without breaking the bank.

FF vs. CS will drive you to the nut house and poor house....

Best of luck!

Mike

I have both but I always make a point of taking the WRONG one away with me!

I've shot both, for underwater and for commercial sales. Underwater, I compared the 5dmk1 and the 40D, same housing, same lenses. I posted them here on WP and took out the exif. Not sure if I added 100% crops. Honestly, it was a draw. Currently, for my commercial clients, I've shot the 5dmk2 and the 7D. Tripod mounted, cable release, studio conditions. Once again, blown up to my client's spec of 16x20, 300 dpi, you might...big MIGHT be able to see the difference of the 5Dmk2 in well lit conditions. In lower light, sure, I'd give a stop, to a stop and a half to the 5dmk2. For underwater though, it's hard to give up the flexibility of the Tokina 10-57 as well as the added reach the crop gives a 100macro for flighty critters, add a 1.4TC and you're at 225mm equivalent FOV to a FF camera.

Only reason I'd consider housing the 5dmk2 right now is it's the spare body, the 7d is much friendlier for UW use.

Stu