Quandary - DX or FX?
On 4/10/2013 9:08 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:00:46 +0000 (UTC), Joe Makowiec
wrote:
: On 10 Apr 2013 in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, Nige Danton wrote:
:
: I'm in a bit of a quandary. I've currently got a D7000 and an
: 18-105 lens. Ive recently (this year) switched back to SLR's after a
: decade of using digital point and shoot. I'm certainly pleased with
: D7000, but am finding the 18-105 to be a bit too slow in low light
: (indoors without flash) and am thinking of buying a faster lens.
:
: I have a D7000, and I've found that I can get acceptable to very good
: results up to about ISO 1600, so try shooting at a higher ISO.
:
: snip
: My quandary is this. I'm not (at all) sure that I'm satisfied with a DX
: format and really don't want to buy new lenses and accessories and then
: find myself needing to re-buy them if/when I buy an FX body.
: snip
: Appreciate any feedback.
:
: What is the ultimate destination of the pictures? If you're printing and
: blowing up your pictures substantially, there might be some merit to an
: FX camera. If you're going mainly to screen, and not taking small crops
: out of the center of the image, DX should work fine.
Building on Joe's point ...
A DX camera can be advantageous for event photography (where you may be trying
to capture faces from across the room), because it amplifies the effect of a
telephoto lens. But not so much for landscapes, where you may need the wider
view of FX.
Bob
One can alwyas shoot an fx in dx mode.
--
PeterN
|