Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="wornish" data-source="post: 433066" data-attributes="member: 15434">I accept the point @<a href="http://nikonites.com/member-31330-j-see.html" target="_blank">J-see</a> makes in post#21 ref light levels but for Birding I think DX beats FX every time. (Unless your shooting in an aviary, or you have a pet parrot <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite11" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes&nbsp; &nbsp; :rolleyes:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":rolleyes:" />&nbsp; ).&nbsp; Just look at the shots the members post on here the DX shots contain more detail and give you more reach.&nbsp; To get the same reach and detail with FX glass costs a fortune, not to mention the weight involved.&nbsp; The 150-600mm lenses from Tamron and Sigma seem to be the sweet spot they give you an effective 900mm on DX, the 800mm Nikon FX costs zillions and weighs tons.&nbsp; If I had the cash I would have both FX and DX.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="wornish, post: 433066, member: 15434"] I accept the point @[URL="http://nikonites.com/member-31330-j-see.html"]J-see[/URL] makes in post#21 ref light levels but for Birding I think DX beats FX every time. (Unless your shooting in an aviary, or you have a pet parrot :rolleyes: ). Just look at the shots the members post on here the DX shots contain more detail and give you more reach. To get the same reach and detail with FX glass costs a fortune, not to mention the weight involved. The 150-600mm lenses from Tamron and Sigma seem to be the sweet spot they give you an effective 900mm on DX, the 800mm Nikon FX costs zillions and weighs tons. If I had the cash I would have both FX and DX. [/QUOTE]

Verification