If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Quandary - DX or FX?
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. 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. If you want low light, low noise - high ISO - you want FX. Don't forget, you can still shoot DX on your FX camera, with Nikon you can choose whatever you want with whatever lens you have, no need to toss anything, and a 24m or 36m FX will give you pretty good DX when you want it. Also you can choose a square format if you want. DOF is enhanced also with FX, and you don't lose your wide angle lenses! A few shots with a 16mm lens on my D600 proved I made a good choice. Cost is no issue? - FX it is! |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Quandary - DX or FX?
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. : : 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. Stick with the D7000 for now, but buy only lenses that can be used with an FX body. (They'll be more telephoto-ish (and less wideangle-ish) on a DX body; but if you keep the 1/1.5 conversion factor in mind, you'll be fine.) Then if and when you decide you need the FX body, you won't have to buy all new lenses. (That may never happen, BTW; you may find that all your dissatisfaction was due to the quality of your current lenses.) Bob |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Quandary - DX or FX?
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Quandary - DX or FX?
On 10/04/2013 22:03, Alan Browne wrote:
[] A friend has stuck to DX and now is in a quandary because the price of a 14mm lens is so high. Had he gone with FX he would have been able to use his existing 20mm kit. The friend might care to look at the Tamron 10-24 mm zoom - quite good for the price: http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/...24_3p5-5p6_n15 -- Cheers, David Web: http://www.satsignal.eu |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Quandary - DX or FX?
On 2013.04.11 06:30 , David Taylor wrote:
On 10/04/2013 22:03, Alan Browne wrote: [] A friend has stuck to DX and now is in a quandary because the price of a 14mm lens is so high. Had he gone with FX he would have been able to use his existing 20mm kit. The friend might care to look at the Tamron 10-24 mm zoom - quite good for the price: http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/...24_3p5-5p6_n15 Passed it on but I don't thing he'll go for a zoom, and the review in that link is not exactly praise for sharpness. -- "There were, unfortunately, no great principles on which parties were divided – politics became a mere struggle for office." -Sir John A. Macdonald |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Quandary - DX or FX?
On 2013.04.10 21:08 , 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. You can always crop a FF to the same end effect. -- "There were, unfortunately, no great principles on which parties were divided – politics became a mere struggle for office." -Sir John A. Macdonald |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Quandary - DX or FX?
In article , Alan Browne
wrote: 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. You can always crop a FF to the same end effect. and with a nikon d800, you get about the same number of pixels as you would if you had a d7000 (15.4 versus 16 mp). |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Quandary - DX or FX?
On 2013-04-11 14:20:28 -0700, Alan Browne
said: On 2013.04.11 06:30 , David Taylor wrote: On 10/04/2013 22:03, Alan Browne wrote: [] A friend has stuck to DX and now is in a quandary because the price of a 14mm lens is so high. Had he gone with FX he would have been able to use his existing 20mm kit. The friend might care to look at the Tamron 10-24 mm zoom - quite good for the price: http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/...24_3p5-5p6_n15 Passed it on but I don't thing he'll go for a zoom, and the review in that link is not exactly praise for sharpness. The Tokina 12-24mm f/4 FF does better than both the Tamron and Sigma in the dpreview conclusion. I use the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, that is a DX lens and I am more than happy with that. http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tokina_12-24_4_n15 -- Regards, Savageduck |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Quandary - DX or FX?
On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 18:09:45 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote: : On 2013.04.10 21:08 , 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. : : You can always crop a FF to the same end effect. FX cameras are heavier; and if you carry two cameras, as I usually do at events, the end effect on your neck muscles may not be the same. :^) Bob |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Quandary - DX or FX?
On 2013-04-11 18:52:02 -0700, Robert Coe said:
Le Snip FX cameras are heavier; and if you carry two cameras, as I usually do at events, the end effect on your neck muscles may not be the same. :^) Bob Then take the load off your neck with a BlackRapid R-Strap, Available in single or double. http://www.blackrapid.com -- Regards, Savageduck |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nikon Quandary: D60 or D200? | SteveG | Digital SLR Cameras | 2 | January 22nd 09 02:28 PM |
Nikon Quandary: D60 or D200? | nospam | Digital SLR Cameras | 1 | January 21st 09 10:16 AM |
Compression quandary / question | Earl Misanchuk | Digital Photography | 4 | September 15th 06 07:52 PM |
Tele-extender quandary: 1.4x or 2x | Norm Dresner | Digital SLR Cameras | 17 | June 12th 05 06:41 AM |