Full Frame DSLRs

[osustamm]

My wife is looking to become a semi-pro photographer with the hopes of it being an extra income down the road. I told her i would help with a few things. One being a camera selection.

I know there are some pretty serious photographers on here so i wanted to get some expertise on Full Frame DSLRs.

Right now we have a D90, which is awesome, but wanted to at least look into moving to a more "professional" camera. I've been looking into the Nikon D700 and Canon 5D.

Also, is it worth it to pay the extra cash for the full frame?

 

[PlanetFrnd]

Here's a pair... though I dont know what the 'R' stands for....

 

[jwinslow]

What kind of photographs is she going to be taking? Action vs Scene/Portrait? For action you get better performance out of a 1.3 crop (almost full frame), but for the latter you'd rather have the clarity & detail of FF.

They've come a long ways in the last decade, to the point where the consumer & pro-sumer (level before pro) take amazing pics.

When you say 5D, do you mean the old 5D? Or the 5D mark II?

 

[reagdog]

hahahah - I was thinking the same thing and that's why I opened this thread to see what the R on DSL's were!

[quote='BusNative;170038;9]Here's a pair... though I dont know what the 'R' stands for....

[/quote]

 

[osustamm]

When you say 5D, do you mean the old 5D? Or the 5D mark II?

Most likely the Mark II. I can't say i know the difference between the two.

 

[jwinslow]

Well the original is 3 years older (it seems longer), has half the megapixels, but most importantly doesn't have HD video recording nor anywhere near as good of low light performance (high ISO performance, much higher numbers and much better quality & less grain at those higher #s)

Canon’s original EOS 5D is one month shy of being three years older than its successor, which in the current DSLR market is a lifetime. As such, while the EOS 5D’s image quality remains excellent, it’s noticeably fallen behind current models in terms of features. The new EOS 5D Mark II boasts 21.1 Megapixels to its predecessor’s 12.8, a maximum sensitivity that’s three stops higher at 25,600 ISO, quicker 3.9fps continuous shooting, slightly greater 98% viewfinder coverage, a larger and more detailed 3in VGA screen, Live View, video recording in the Full HD 1080p format, the DIGIC 4 processor with Peripheral Illumination Correction, AF micro-adjustment, an HDMI port, a new battery with accurate feedback on charge, and support for UDMA Compact Flash memory.

 

[osustamm]

Well the original is 3 years older (it seems longer), has half the megapixels, but most importantly doesn't have HD video recording nor anywhere near as good of low light performance (high ISO performance, much higher numbers and much better quality & less grain at those higher #s)

It sounds like the original would be a better comparison to the D700, at least pixel wise.

What is your preference? What do you use?