Dug E Pi

I need some help deciding. I have a crop Nikon now (D3400 and D3100) and am pursuing more photography. Second shooter at weddings and many event shoots (Sci-Fi Conventions). Where I feel better equipment will help my shots is low light ie. audiences, receptions where flash is not always an option. I'm saving and budgeted (in a few months) less than $1000. This can get me a used D610 body maybe D750 or a Sigma 50-100 1.8 for crop cameras. Noise is my concern so am I better off with the body or lens. De-noise programs are much better than in the past so the lens? Body so there is less noise to begin with? Lenses I have now are 50mm 1.8, kit 18-55, kit 70-300, 85mm1.8 (manual focus), Tamron 18-200mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC. 99% of shots will be for social media situations. Thanks for your input.

billnourse Loc: Bloomfield, NM

How are you liking your results with the 50mm f1.8 or the 85 f1.8? That should give you an idea as to whether the lens would be the solution or a FF camera. If these lenses are giving you the results you are looking for, then maybe a new lens is in order. If they don't, then the 50-100 is not going to do it either.

I went from crop to FF and never looked back. To me there is just no comparison to image quality and low light capability.

Bill

orrie smith Loc: Kansas

In my opinion, the D750 would be a great choice. It is newer than the d610 and is a great camera. Unfortunately, you have at least two lenses, the 18-55 and 18-200 that will not work well with a full frame camera. Another option you may want to consider is saving a little longer and look into a D500. That would allow you to use all of your present lenses and it is a great camera that handles higher ISO very well. If you do not mind adding lenses down the line, the D750 may still be your best choice. Good luck with your future ventures.

jackpinoh Loc: Kettering, OH 45419

The noise advantage of the D750 over the D3400 is about 1.25 stops. The noise performance of the D750 and the D610 are nearly identical. The noise performance of the D3400 and the D3100 are also not significantly different.

The Sigma 50-100 f/1.8 has two stops or more better performance than your current zoom lenses. In addition, you would need to buy new, and more expensive, full frame lenses for a full frame camera, or operate the camera in crop mode with your crop sensor lenses (operating a full frame camera in crop mode would result in a significant reduction in image resolution and still have poorer noise performance than your current camera with the Sigma f1/8 lens).

So the bottom line is: Buy the Sigma lens.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Looks like a killer lens, but I'm surprised it's not stabilized.

Dug E Pi

good point. 70-200 f2.8 with image stabilizing would get 2 to 3 stops (I've seen claims up to four stops) so would that would beat 1.8 non stabilized?

Dug E Pi

Results are pretty decent with both primes but I do need more distance for stage shots.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

I would get a REALLY nice flash system and learn to use it really WELL!
Unless all your shots are gonna be really shallow DoF you can’t take advantage of a really fast lens and in shots of two or more people only one will be in focus.
But you do need a FF. Nothing worse than a guy trying to be a pro with and amateur camera. Pros need professional equipment!!! Good luck!!
SS

billnourse Loc: Bloomfield, NM

What he said. Especially in low light, which you mentioned, the crop frames just will not keep up with a FF. You mentioned the 750. If I was a Nikon shooter that would be one of my choices.

Bill

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

The IS just helps you with camera movement, not subject movement, while the faster lens wide open or nearly so allows a higher shutter speed which addresses both (assuming the narrow DOF is not an issue).

To answer to the OP’s question, buy the full frame body - the D750 if you can. It will move you to the next level. You already have 2 fast lenses and you can start saving for the 70-200 f2.8 that you’ll eventually need.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

Someone on this forum mentioned the Sigma 50-100mm f1.8 not too long ago. And stated it was a great lens for close up action sports. I never heard of that lens until then. The only drawback. It is for crop sensor cameras.

cochese

Just because someone shoots with crop sensor cameras does not mean they are not a pro. There are many crop sensor cameras out there that will blow FF cameras of only 3 or 4 years ago out of the water.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Putting looking back (or never looking back) when changing formats aside for a moment, you should get the camera that will give you what you are looking for. If you are doing weddings and on a budget, it's hard to pass on a Nikon D3S full frame camera, which should set you back around $1000 for a clean used one with not too many clicks. Even later models, like the D4 and D5 are not much better when it comes to low light/high ISO performance. You'll like the handling, frame rate 2000 shot or better battery life, and other creature comforts, it was, and for many, still is a standard for wedding and event gigs. I am not aware of a smaller sensor camera that can compare with a D3S when shot at 12,800 ISO. I owned a D700 which is for all intents and purposes a D3, and also had a D3S for a short while, and found the D3S to be excellent, even compared to a downsampled D800 or D810 image.

This supports my experience with these cameras:

https://photographylife.com/nikon-d4-vs-d3s-vs-d3-iso-performance-comparison

One of the problems with getting a really fast lens is that many F1.4 and F1.8 lenses are not great performers when used wide open. Center sharpness is usually ok, but edges and corners are usually bad to awful. By F2.8 - F4 they do clean up considerably. A slower lens, like an F2.8 or F4 may not give you good corner to corner performance until F5.6 or F8.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

You may be mistaken if you think that going full frame will get you better low light performance. I would research this topic before you jump into a full frame just for this reason. I just purchased a D7500 for my daughter (around $1200) which has the same low-light capability of the D500. She's been able to do some amazing things in her first month with it just using an f4.5-6.3 lens. If you REALLY want to get into a camera with super-duper, out of this world low-light capability....take your savings and use your plastic for the D5. You may actually make money on the shots you get with that camera.

billnourse Loc: Bloomfield, NM

The the D7500 and the D500 are both crop frames so I would expect them to have about the same low light capabilities. The D5 is FF so I would expect it to have "Super-duper out of this world low light capability". Well, maybe not that good, but better than the two crops you mentioned.

DXOMark rates cameras for their low light abilities, and in most every instance the FF is at least 1 f stop better than a crop. That alone was reason for me to go to FF.

Bill