Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="spb_stan" data-source="post: 707618" data-attributes="member: 43545">Ok, this is getting somewhere. FX is advantageous with wide angles because it naturally has a wider angle of view. All those subjects would really benefit from a decent wide zoom. For Dx, an ultrawide angle like the low cost Sigma 10-20, 3.5 or the lower cost variable aperture version that goto 5.6 as maximum aperture. That latter version is often the first dedicated wide angle that people get when beginning landscape Used it can be had for $100   It is Dx onl so could be used effectively with the D90 or a more modern D7200. Your camera is older so many people look down their noses at it but it was the frist Nikon of the new series that was essentially ISO less which means there was a linear decrease in signal to noise ration as ISO was increased. That means that exposing corrrectly had about the same DR/signal to noise ratio as greatly underexposing by 4-5 stops to allow getting the shutter speed up, amd boasting exposure gain in post processing to turn the very dark under exposed image to retain its detail and allow a 4 stop increase of shutter speed, and regain the exposure in post processing by boosting exposure 4 stops and end up with  the same signal to noise ratio in the final displayimage. The D90 would be fine with a 10-20mm ultra wide zoom and it would perform better at wide angles than a mid zoom like the kit 18-105. That 18-105 is actually a pretty good lens for optical performance  but is not very good in low light because it does not gather as much light as wider aperture lenses.</blockquote>

Verification