+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 35
  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Challenge Team
    Blacktop's Avatar

    Re: Should I step across from FX to DX?

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodyg3 View Post
    19K? The D500 is 2K.
    He might need 10 of them.


    › See More: Should I step across from FX to DX?
    Thanks/Like kkchan, Danno, hark Thanks/liked this post
     
    D750 ('70's Dolly Parton)
    D500 (Meatloaf)
    Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 AF-D (for sale)
    Nikkor 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5-D
    Nikkor 50mm f/1.8-D
    Nikkor 24-120mm f/4
    Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6 VR
    Pete's Flickr... Blacktop's Photo and a Song .... Blacktops 365



  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Ta2Dave's Avatar

    Re: Should I step across from FX to DX?

    Should I step across from FX to DX?
    Quote Originally Posted by BackdoorHippie View Post
    How does a person who has never picked up an instrument in their life justify a $3000 PRS to take their first guitar lesson?

    How does an old fart with bad reaction times justify a six-figure automobile that they'll never drive over 70mph, expect maybe on an interstate, to drive themselves to play golf on the weekends?

    "Secret sauce" is not something hidden away and pulled out like a bottle of Pappy Van Winkle for only a special few on a special occasion, it's called technological advancement and it takes time and costs money. Full framed bodies always cost more because the sensors cost more to manufacture. Cropped sensors could easily perform as well as full frame if photographers were willing to live with 44% of the MP's. Nikon could have easily given you a DX camera that has the D750's high ISO capabilities if you were willing to shoot at 10 MP's.

    Here's a 24x36 block grid over a photo, the unshaded 16x24 area represents the DX coverage.

    Attachment 215426

    Because the pixels are the same size you can easily collect the same light information, but at a cost of 56% of your image size. You want the same file size, same MP's, and would love to have the same "secret sauce". Well...

    Attachment 215427

    ...now you have to cram all that goodness into a space that's 44% as big. That's a whole lot of physics to overcome. Oh yeah, I forgot, since it's a DX camera you also expect it to be cheaper. Where's that sauce bottle, I need to pour another shot to try and figure out why it is something is always supposed to be had for nothing?

    Getting a DX camera that comes close to what Nikon did with the D750 sensor took time and money, which is why you now have a $2000 cropped sensor rig. What you have is a 10 fps beast that can shoot for(almost)ever in a sport or wildlife situation, and yet with the right glass can hold its own with full framed bodies. A DX body that doesn't prevent you from shooting in a needed situation is probably a photographer's greatest gift. With the right glass and proper skill it's probably the only camera you'd need.

    So how can a slouch such as myself who spends far more than he makes on the photos I take possibly justify a D500 and a D750 (it's not a "backup", it's a second camera) for my photography? Because it's my photography - my art, my vice, and in many ways my voice. I write words - lots of words. I make music - lots of music. I've expressed myself in different ways throughout my life and for the last 5 years this has been the channel I've chosen - or I should say, the channel that's chosen me.

    How does one justify the $50 bottle of wine when the $10 will get them just as drunk? Ah, because the person asking the question doesn't know enough to realize that "drunk" is just the end result and hasn't experienced enough to realize that there's a whole lot going on between Point A and Point B. One would certainly love to find a $10 fare for that same journey, but it's not an easy find. At the same time, the $50 bottle given to the unexperienced and uneducated palate wouldn't provide the same level of satisfaction because they don't have the points of reference to fully understand the nuances.

    You need to do a lot of picture taking to know why something doesn't work for you. If you don't understand when you're up against your limitations and not your tool's then you need to spend more time with the tools you have. Once you grasp that then it's simply a matter of finding the right tool for the job. As I said above, I write words - lots of words. The true justification for having this combination is spewed across 4 years of posts here. The journey is documented. The data collected and presented. Geoff's been part of it - a sounding board at times as we've tackled similar questions at coincident times, often reaching opposite conclusions. Dig if you want.
    This man knows his bourbon!

    And guitars!
    Thanks/Like hark Thanks/liked this post
     
    Cameras- Nikon D7100, D3300.
    Optics- Nikkor af/s 35mm 1.8G, Nikon 18-55 VR-ll, Tamron SP70-300 f/4-5.6 Di VC USD

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    kkchan's Avatar

    Re: Should I step across from FX to DX?

    oops..I meant 2kstill a lot.
    D3, D4, Nikon 1 V1, 20-35/2.8, 28-70/2.8, 80-200/2.8, 50/1.4D, Zhongyi 135/2.8, Dejur 35/2.8, SB800.

  4. #24
    Senior Member

    Re: Should I step across from FX to DX?

    Without quoting everything, the "average Joe" who spends any amount on anything without understanding to some level of completeness the capability of the tools they're purchasing, as well as what needs will be met by the tools, is just an idiot with a credit card.
    Jake

    Hippies Must Use Back Door ... No Exceptions

    D750, D500, D610, D800 @ IR 720nm, Sony a6000 (and a bunch of other stuff)

  5. #25
    Banned

    Re: Should I step across from FX to DX?

    Weight ......D810 + 28-300 equals a D7200 with an 18-140 at least for wedding work but boy is that 810 combination heavy.
    The 7200 and 810 pics mix perfectly and you cannot tell which camera shot which...so if you are getting older and weaker you know what to do ...Personally I hate the D800 horrible noisy clunky thing ...810 I love it . My 800 is going when Nikon bring out something I like and all the extra weight of flash flippers and grips could go if it was not for the weddings....

  6. #26
    Senior Member

    Re: Should I step across from FX to DX?

    Quote Originally Posted by BackdoorHippie View Post
    Without quoting everything, the "average Joe" who spends any amount on anything without understanding to some level of completeness the capability of the tools they're purchasing, as well as what needs will be met by the tools, is just an idiot with a credit card.
    again with the "no true scotsman" routine

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Geoffc's Avatar

    Re: Should I step across from FX to DX?

    Thanks for all the comments and suggestions. Specifically thanks Jake ( @BackdoorHippie ) and Pete ( @Blacktop ) as you both confirmed my thinking that it is not a completely crazy approach to take.

    As we have just moved to a different part of the UK and will have a bit more time on our hands, I think we will see what we are actually photographing over the coming months to see if this approach fits with our actual usage.
    Thanks/Like Blacktop Thanks/liked this post
     
    Kind regards

    Geoff

    Bodies: Nikon D800, Nikon D7100,

    Lenses: Nikon 70-200 2.8 VRII, Tamron 150-600, Nikon 50mm 1.8G, Nikon 24-120 F4, Nikon 16-35 F4, Nikon 105 Macro,
    Nikon 18-200, Tokina 11-16, Sigma 17-50 2.8, 35mm 1.8G, Nikon 10.5 Fisheye, Tamron 90mm Macro, Kenko 1.4 TC.
    Flickr photo site

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    hrstrat57's Avatar

    Re: Should I step across from FX to DX?

    How about a nice mint D4 instead? IMHO your glass would be very happy.

    Or check out the work @Marcel does with the D4 sensor dF!

    I have zero interest in 36mp.
    ​Nikon D700/Nikon D300//MB-D10 Nikkor 28 2.8 Ai, 50 AF 1.4 D, 35-70 AF 2.8 D, 60 AF 2.8 D, 80-200 AF ED 2.8 D, 70-300 AF-S VR, 55-200DX VR, 18-55DX VR, SB-28 SB-600 - Fast D glass = Yes!


  9. #29
    Happy to be Canadian
    Super Mod
    Marcel's Avatar

    Re: Should I step across from FX to DX?

    I think we all at one point or another get caught with this "the more pixels the better" marketing from different manufacturers. Wether we want or not, it keeps bugging us with the ultimate hope to produce better pictures. Unfortunately, more pixels do not produce better pictures. As a matter of fact, it can produce more bad pictures since if the technique isn't flawless it's going to show big time.

    I can only speak for myself, but I've used the D80, 90, 7000, 700, 600 and Df and when I look at some of my shots done with the 12 megapixels D90 and D700, I just love the feel I get from these sensors. When I sold my D90 to get the 7000, I thought my prints would be much better but found out otherwise. I had more blurred images than before. Same with the D600, my lenses showed more flaws than with the D700. So even I had twice the pixel count, I can't say my images were twice as good.

    For someone who needs high frames per seconds and great low light performance, I think the D500 is just a dream camera. The only culprit for me would be the size and weight. I'm not certain I'd rather take a D500 on travel. The D750 or D7200 would be smaller, lighter and probably more fun for amateur usage and travel pictures.

    If you're a pro and live from the work you use your gear with, then you don't have much of a choice. You've just got to invest in the best and keep up with the Jones. For amateurs, anything from a D90 to a D750 is usually good enough, unless one is feeling insecure and hope the newer gear will secure his/her feelings about himself.
    Thanks/Like Geoffc Thanks/liked this post
     
    No Light = no Life.
    Please visit my Gallery and my Flickr Gallery

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    wornish's Avatar

    Re: Should I step across from FX to DX?

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel View Post
    I think we all at one point or another get caught with this "the more pixels the better" marketing from different manufacturers. Wether we want or not, it keeps bugging us with the ultimate hope to produce better pictures. Unfortunately, more pixels do not produce better pictures. As a matter of fact, it can produce more bad pictures since if the technique isn't flawless it's going to show big time.
    Have to disagree a 36mp picture when reduced to 1024 pix long edge doesn't show any more flaws than a 10mp one. But you can do amazing crops. If you want to shoot wildlife then DX beats FX for reach and for frame/sec.
    Thanks/Like Marcel Thanks/liked this post
     
    Dave


    My Photos





Quick Reply Quick Reply

If you are already a member, please login above before posting.

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •