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
Nikon DSLR Cameras
D7000
Upgrade to FX from D7000
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="spb_stan" data-source="post: 615604" data-attributes="member: 43545"><p>First post, and being a contrarian: I did not read anything in your post that suggests that you have exhausted the D7000 or doing something that would give visually more compelling images going to FX. It is expensive and it is very rare a subject or print size that a difference can be seen. If you really want to extend your photography, camera bodies are not the answer, lighting and lenses however are a much better investment for best return. A couple good primes, such as any of the excellent f/1.8G primes will be a big step up over the slow zooms. For example if you do portraits, a 85 1.8G is really hard to beat for less than 2-3 times the price and gives a field of view on DX that is very nice for head shots. </p><p>Lighting is the best return on investment, better than lenses in value. A few speed lights and low cost flash controllers and a few modifiers can result in pro studio images with a bit of learning and practice and only cost a couple hundred dollars.</p><p>Can you post an image you like but feel would be more compelling shot with Fx?</p><p>Regarding the cameras, every one mentions is better than the D700 for image quality but the D700 is a great handling camera. If it fails however, many of its parts are becoming unavailable. If you are serious about fine art, stock, studio work, the D800, used is the best deal. If you want a general purpose Fx, the D750 is an excellent performer. The image quality of the D610 for general photography is excellent also and a used one is a bargain. </p><p>IF you want to spend $5000 on lenses and a used FX body, and not hurt, go for it but if you are tight for the lens investment, don't move to FX. The lenses you want are all well over $1000 each. Closer to $2000.</p><p></p><p>Regarding image quality, any camera made is easily capable to capturing any image you see on gallery walls. It is NOT the camera that makes the images worth viewing. I switched from film to DSLR only 10 years ago and had no F mount lenses but build up a decent collection of fx lenses and have at least $15,000 invested to cover what you have now.The lenses I would like, I can't afford...like but not need. If starting with digital now, I would stay with Dx until needed if ever, and get a few very good lenses and 1 light general purpose zoom: 20 1.8g, 35 1.8g 85 1.8g and a light slow aperture plastic zoom. If doing more landscape, an ultrawide zoom like a 10-20 or 1-24. Aperture is not terribly important on an ultrawide since landscape is usually done on a tripod and longer exposures stopped down is the norm. The light 1.8G lenses listed about are better than any zoom. There might not been a better AF 20mm lens in existence than that Nikon 20. I have the very good 14-24 2.8 and at 20mm that low cost prime is better in all respects. </p><p></p><p>Lets hear more of what you are shooting and in what conditions, and see some images you think would be better with Fx. We might be able to help you up your game and save you a lot of money.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="spb_stan, post: 615604, member: 43545"] First post, and being a contrarian: I did not read anything in your post that suggests that you have exhausted the D7000 or doing something that would give visually more compelling images going to FX. It is expensive and it is very rare a subject or print size that a difference can be seen. If you really want to extend your photography, camera bodies are not the answer, lighting and lenses however are a much better investment for best return. A couple good primes, such as any of the excellent f/1.8G primes will be a big step up over the slow zooms. For example if you do portraits, a 85 1.8G is really hard to beat for less than 2-3 times the price and gives a field of view on DX that is very nice for head shots. Lighting is the best return on investment, better than lenses in value. A few speed lights and low cost flash controllers and a few modifiers can result in pro studio images with a bit of learning and practice and only cost a couple hundred dollars. Can you post an image you like but feel would be more compelling shot with Fx? Regarding the cameras, every one mentions is better than the D700 for image quality but the D700 is a great handling camera. If it fails however, many of its parts are becoming unavailable. If you are serious about fine art, stock, studio work, the D800, used is the best deal. If you want a general purpose Fx, the D750 is an excellent performer. The image quality of the D610 for general photography is excellent also and a used one is a bargain. IF you want to spend $5000 on lenses and a used FX body, and not hurt, go for it but if you are tight for the lens investment, don't move to FX. The lenses you want are all well over $1000 each. Closer to $2000. Regarding image quality, any camera made is easily capable to capturing any image you see on gallery walls. It is NOT the camera that makes the images worth viewing. I switched from film to DSLR only 10 years ago and had no F mount lenses but build up a decent collection of fx lenses and have at least $15,000 invested to cover what you have now.The lenses I would like, I can't afford...like but not need. If starting with digital now, I would stay with Dx until needed if ever, and get a few very good lenses and 1 light general purpose zoom: 20 1.8g, 35 1.8g 85 1.8g and a light slow aperture plastic zoom. If doing more landscape, an ultrawide zoom like a 10-20 or 1-24. Aperture is not terribly important on an ultrawide since landscape is usually done on a tripod and longer exposures stopped down is the norm. The light 1.8G lenses listed about are better than any zoom. There might not been a better AF 20mm lens in existence than that Nikon 20. I have the very good 14-24 2.8 and at 20mm that low cost prime is better in all respects. Lets hear more of what you are shooting and in what conditions, and see some images you think would be better with Fx. We might be able to help you up your game and save you a lot of money. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Nikon DSLR Cameras
D7000
Upgrade to FX from D7000
Top