Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Lenses
General Lenses
Should I step across from FX to DX?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Geoffc" data-source="post: 562032" data-attributes="member: 8705"><p>I currently have a D800, D7100 and Fuji X100T. My Nikon lenses are all FX, including, 105 Macro, 50mm 1.8, 70-200 F2.8, 24-120 F4, 16-35 F4, Tamron 150-600. I rarely print, albeit I would like to start hanging a few on the walls over the coming years if they are worthy. I am currently thinking about getting the D500 at some point in the next 12 months and my wife would also get one. She is currently running a D7100 and suitable range of DX/FX lenses so no issue there. </p><p></p><p>So to my question. Should I sell the D800, 24-120, 16-35 (And even the 50mm which is rarely used) and get a D500 with replacements for the sold lenses in DX comparable format. I'm thinking 16-80 F2.8-F4 to replace the 24-120 and maybe a Tokina 11-20 to replace the 16-35. I had the Tokina 11-16 previously and liked it a lot. </p><p></p><p>My rationale for this is that I don't ever need 36MP, the D800 is not an FX low light monster, the D500 is looking fair in the ISO tests (Not that I'm comparing it to the best FX offerings), I would then be standardised on one system. To the latter point, I could put clicks on the D7100 when I don't need the D500 capabilities.</p><p></p><p>Prior to the D800 I had a D300s and if the D400 had been available to replace it I never would have gone FX as I think the modern DX ISO performance meets my needs. I also don't need the depth of field control that FX gives me as I rarely shoot portraits.</p><p></p><p>So, what do you think, "should I stay or should I go"?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Geoffc, post: 562032, member: 8705"] I currently have a D800, D7100 and Fuji X100T. My Nikon lenses are all FX, including, 105 Macro, 50mm 1.8, 70-200 F2.8, 24-120 F4, 16-35 F4, Tamron 150-600. I rarely print, albeit I would like to start hanging a few on the walls over the coming years if they are worthy. I am currently thinking about getting the D500 at some point in the next 12 months and my wife would also get one. She is currently running a D7100 and suitable range of DX/FX lenses so no issue there. So to my question. Should I sell the D800, 24-120, 16-35 (And even the 50mm which is rarely used) and get a D500 with replacements for the sold lenses in DX comparable format. I'm thinking 16-80 F2.8-F4 to replace the 24-120 and maybe a Tokina 11-20 to replace the 16-35. I had the Tokina 11-16 previously and liked it a lot. My rationale for this is that I don't ever need 36MP, the D800 is not an FX low light monster, the D500 is looking fair in the ISO tests (Not that I'm comparing it to the best FX offerings), I would then be standardised on one system. To the latter point, I could put clicks on the D7100 when I don't need the D500 capabilities. Prior to the D800 I had a D300s and if the D400 had been available to replace it I never would have gone FX as I think the modern DX ISO performance meets my needs. I also don't need the depth of field control that FX gives me as I rarely shoot portraits. So, what do you think, "should I stay or should I go"? [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Lenses
General Lenses
Should I step across from FX to DX?
Top
