Portraiture on APS-C is generally easier and cheaper as you do not need such a long lens. Depth of Field control on modern APS-C sensors is absolutely fine for such things

Certainly not easier. Dubious as to cheaper as you need more expensive, faster lenses.

Depth of field has nothing to do with whether a sensor is modern or not, it’s purely a function of distance to subject, aperture, field of view and format.

Asp-c may well be completely adequate for portraiture, but to suggest it’s superior to ff is just wrong.

Get a blue one with knobs on. Choice made.

Depth of field has nothing to do with whether a sensor is modern or not, it’s purely a function of distance to subject, aperture, field of view and format.

You are both right – but I think Danny’s point might be that the modern sensors in some cases allow you to crank up the ISO (to some extent). Therefore allowing you to use a smaller aperture (which will affect DoF) and higher ISO and still get usable results.

A lot of people stick to base-to-800 ISO. Some people can produce clean images right up to 3200, depending on setup.

You are both right – but I think Danny’s point might be that the modern sensors in some cases allow you to crank up the ISO (to some extent). Therefore allowing you to use a smaller aperture (which will affect DoF) and higher ISO and still get usable results.

No, we’re talking abut portraiture. He’s suggesting apsc is better for this. You won’t be stopping down to small apertures and cranking up iso.

Discussing ‘modern’ sensors is meaningless. If you’re comparing ff to apsc you’ll be comparing sensors of the same generation. If you want to compare old ff sensors with newer apsc sensors then they may well be a match for or even superior is all aspects, except for depth of field control. Hence my continued bewilderment that anyone would suggest apsc is a superior choice for portraits.

Not sure any of this is really relevant. My sensor is smaller than aps-c and even with 35mm f3.5 I don’t even get a person’s whole face in focus. How shallow DoF do you want?

Need Danny to clarify his views. But for a lot of people FF is overkill, both £££ and the size/weight etc.

Danny is probably saying a modern crop sensor is good enough for a lot of peoples needs. But we need him to clarify 🙂

A sweet spot for a lens to obtain best IQ is not necessarily wide-open though.

The internet has lots of low DoF images. For instance at f1.4. This makes some people furious. I don’t care much myself – as humans do all sorts of things and disagree over all sorts – it really grates with some though.

Can of worms

How the camera handles from its weight (with lens) plus its button placements.

What annoys me about the D7000 is the placement of the WB and ISO buttons which isn’t fixed in the D7100 other than that everything falls easily to hand. I’ve also got an OM-D which with the additional grip handles quite well apart from the odd placement of the power button.

The Nikon has the superior focusing for moving objects, the Olympus is quicker focusing for static items. The Nikon is easier to get DoF the Olympus is harder not to get everything in focus you can shoot wide open most of the time.

The Olympus has in built image stabilisation (like Pentax) which means with a suitable adapter you can use just about any lense. It’s also a lot lighter than the Nikon but the battery charge lasts a fraction of the time of the Nikon.

Picture there’s nothing really in it, I just use what is suitable at the time or what is to hand or charged.

Go for what you feel comfy with and enjoy oh and don’t forget Tokina for a lens choice too, I’m mulling over the 11-16mm and as my D7000 has the internal auto focus motor to drive the older lenses that lack an internal autofocus motor I should be able to save a few quid.

The point is with aps c is that a 50mm lens gives the equivalent field if view as an 80-85mm lens on an ff camera, a 130ish equiv from a 90mm lens etc so for the average photographer who wants versatility ff can be complete overkill.

The three manufacturers I have had experience of (Canon, Nikon, Sony) all do a budget 50mm f1.8 lens (all around £90) and that on an aps c body is perfect to get in to portraiture.

A pro in a studio of course will want ff or even medium format but the expense / weight outweighs the benefit a hobby shooter is likely to get from such a set up compared to a good aps c body and excellent glass.

I had the option to go ff when I upgraded my camera but stuck to aps c. The sensors now are excellent, low light performance very good and the cost manageable. DoF is plenty good enough and controllable enough for most situations.

Plus, it is so important to remember that give an aps c camera to a pro and he / she will take better photos than a hobbyist with the worlds best ff set up.

Cheers

Danny B

the Olympus is harder not to get everything in focus you can shoot wide open most of the time.

With the Oly lenses there isn’t much penalty in using max aperture. Plus it’s not hard to get the background blurred really, even with the kit lens. But then again I’ve never tried FF 🙂

Just don’t discount anything by looking at stats and theories, that’s all I’m saying.

Just aside from the raging debate, my D600 is smaller and MUCH lighter than my other full frame Nikons. Almost feels like a toy in comparison.

In your position (OP) I’d be going FF every time. The 35mm lens you have is very well reviewed but the full frame 35mm f2 lens is cheap, readily available and also pretty good.

Glass-wise, if you’re sticking it in a rucksack on rides, stick with a prime or sacrifice quality and compactness and get a 3rd party superzoom.

If you’re looking to be shooting action stuff in gloomy woods, you will love the high ISO capabilities of full frame.

Just read that the D600 is 6mm longer and just 85g heavier than the D7100. So size really isn’t an issue here.

One very important consideration is image file size. The D600 can produce RAW files of 45Mb+. And the file format might not be compatible with older OS’s and software. And if you want to work extensively with RAW files, you’ll need a fairly powerful computer with a decent amount of memory (8Gb+).

even with 35mm f3.5 I don’t even get a person’s whole face in focus. How shallow DoF do you want?

When you can’t even get a person’s eyelashes and eyeball in equal focus. 😉

I’d take a 600 over my 800 and if its anything like as good in the dark you’d live it. Just not the cost.

Yeah I think it’s a lot to do with the cost of going full frame that’s putting me off. Popped into London camera exchange today and had a quick play with a D7100 fitted with the 16-85 Nikkor.
Really nice. Not much different to my D90.
The lens seems pretty small, so good for whipping out of a backpack but still a very useable range with apparently very good image quality.

Thanks for the advice so far all, really appreciate the tips.