Quandary - DX or FX?

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.

Also I've found some of the (cropped) images to be not quite as sharp as I
would like. This mainly seems to occur in low light shots.

I'm also keen to try some macro photography too, and have been thinking
about a macro lens, perhaps extension tubes or even a bellows.

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.

So, what do you think. Should I spend more time and practise getting the
best out of my D7000 or switch to an FX body now? Cost is not particular
issue - that said I don't want to be wasteful.

Appreciate any feedback.

--
Nige Danton - Replace the obvious with g.m.a.i.l

On 10/04/2013 08:10, 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.

Also I've found some of the (cropped) images to be not quite as sharp as I
would like. This mainly seems to occur in low light shots.

I'm also keen to try some macro photography too, and have been thinking
about a macro lens, perhaps extension tubes or even a bellows.

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.

So, what do you think. Should I spend more time and practise getting the
best out of my D7000 or switch to an FX body now? Cost is not particular
issue - that said I don't want to be wasteful.

Appreciate any feedback.

My take is that weight is important. I once used (for a few minutes) an
FX camera (Nikon D800) with wide range zoom (28 - 300 mm). Compared to
my DX D5000 with 18-200 mm zoom it was /awfully/ heavy. Maybe that
doesn't bother you, though. I do see a trend towards smaller quality
cameras, although some folk say that the days of DX are numbered, but
I'm not convinced about that.

If your problem is low-light, check image stabilisation and shutter
speed. Allow the ISO to drift up a little. Are your shots with the
lens fully open no better than those from your P&S? Yes, full-frame
will be better in low-light than DX given the same lens f/number. For
my lowest light shots, I bought the 35 mm f/1.8 DX lens, and
photographed the northern lights hand-held. Yes, a tripod would have
been better, as would longer exposures, but from a moving ship?


http://www.satsignal.eu/Hols/2010/No...0435-05-a.html

I even managed to make a couple of short real-time videos:


http://www.satsignal.eu/Hols/2010/No...NorthernLights

and it amuses me that when you see the lights on TV, they are almost
never real-time videos, just speeded-up long exposure shots. That, with
all their heavy and expensive professional gear! G
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

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.

Kit lenses are never the best. And no 5x zoom is
either.

Also I've found some of the (cropped) images to be not quite as sharp as I
would like. This mainly seems to occur in low light shots.

Probably due to slow shutter speeds?

I'm also keen to try some macro photography too, and have been thinking
about a macro lens, perhaps extension tubes or even a bellows.

Given what you say below... Most macro lenses are FX
lenses, so that would probably not need to affect a
decision about a new camera body. Also note that DX is
not necessarily a disadvantage when doing macro work.

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.

If you are considering either 1) a move to an FX body,
*or* 2) a professional level camera body, *or* 3) a need
specifically for professional level lenses:

Buy professional level lenses regardless of which camera
you now use. Most if not all of Nikon's top quality
lenses are FX as opposed to DX.

So, what do you think. Should I spend more time and practise getting the
best out of my D7000 or switch to an FX body now? Cost is not particular
issue - that said I don't want to be wasteful.

If cost is not the issue, then functionality should be
the top priority. Given the camera you have is a pretty
good example of a DX body, I would put lenses at the top
of the list. But if you can swing it, buy an FX body
soon. For what you have described, the D4 would not be
as useful as a D800 or D600, but you haven't really said
what else you shoot.

I use both a D4 and a D800, and if I could only have one
it would be the D4. Despite that, 75% of what I do is
done with the D800 because it has more pixels. The D4
is far better for sports or PJ type work.

I would think that having either a D4 or a D800, plus
the D7000 as a second camera would be very functional.
I use a 24-120mm f/4 as a walk around lense, and
usually have either a 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII or an 80-400mm
f/4.5-5.6 on the second camera. Depending on what your
work entails, something similar would give you a great
deal more versatility that what you have now.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 07:10:59 +0000 (UTC), 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.

First, try the no cost solution of either bumping the iso up and/or
trying the auto-iso function to allow you to do it with some
additional control. What shutter/f.l. combos are you shooting.

On 4/10/2013 5:29 AM, me wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 07:10:59 +0000 (UTC), 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.

First, try the no cost solution of either bumping the iso up and/or
trying the auto-iso function to allow you to do it with some
additional control. What shutter/f.l. combos are you shooting.


do all DSLRs have auto ISO.

--
PeterN

On 2013-04-17 13:48:18 -0700, PeterN said:

On 4/10/2013 5:29 AM, me wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 07:10:59 +0000 (UTC), 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.

First, try the no cost solution of either bumping the iso up and/or
trying the auto-iso function to allow you to do it with some
additional control. What shutter/f.l. combos are you shooting.


do all DSLRs have auto ISO.

Well your D300 & D800 both have it.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_196.jpg

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 4/17/2013 5:15 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-04-17 13:48:18 -0700, PeterN said:

On 4/10/2013 5:29 AM, me wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 07:10:59 +0000 (UTC), 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.

First, try the no cost solution of either bumping the iso up and/or
trying the auto-iso function to allow you to do it with some
additional control. What shutter/f.l. combos are you shooting.


do all DSLRs have auto ISO.

Well your D300 & D800 both have it.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_196.jpg


Yup! But not all do.

--
PeterN

On 2013-04-17 14:31:20 -0700, PeterN said:

On 4/17/2013 5:15 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-04-17 13:48:18 -0700, PeterN said:

On 4/10/2013 5:29 AM, me wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 07:10:59 +0000 (UTC), 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.

First, try the no cost solution of either bumping the iso up and/or
trying the auto-iso function to allow you to do it with some
additional control. What shutter/f.l. combos are you shooting.


do all DSLRs have auto ISO.

Well your D300 & D800 both have it.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_196.jpg


Yup! But not all do.

Most Nikon DSLRs do, and most importantly with regard to this
particular discussion the D7000 mentioned above does:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_197.jpg


--
Regards,

Savageduck

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.

--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/

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