Moving on up...

M

mikeyg36

Senior Member
Hello, I'm new here. I took up photography as a hobby about a year and a half ago with my D5100. I have the 18-55 kit lens and the 55-300 that was bundled in some kits of it. It has been a great camera, but I feel that I'm starting to outgrow it. I was waiting for the D7100 to be released, and now that it is out, I feel that I'm faced with a a hard choice. I will be taking a difficult digital art class next year and for the years to come, and I will also be taking a trip to Italy in the summer. I'm torn between the D7100, and the D600. My fear is that I will outgrow the 7100 and I'll want to move into the FX cameras after I get it. I would also be buying the 18-105 lens for my D5100 if I don't make a decision before I go to Italy. What do you guys think?
 
D

Dave_W

The Dude
Well, I typically advise people to move to FX but given that you only have DX lenses, a move to FX may end up being pretty costly. That said, the D series lenses are plentiful and fairly inexpensive and of course the FX "G" series primes are very affordable. Let me ask you this - Do you see yourself continuing with this hobby? Or is this just a thing you do to document events like vacations, birthdays and such?
 
M

mikeyg36

Senior Member
Well, I'm not sure where this hobby will be in 10 years, but I definitely see it accelerating quickly in the next 5. I know it would get expensive going to FX, but I think it would be better now than later, especially after I drop $400 on a new DX lens.
 
M

Mfrankfort

Senior Member
D600. There are some pretty good deals on the camera/lenses going around. I got the D600 with 70-300, and 24-85 lens for under 3k. Another lens I use alot is the 50mm 1.8g, which you can get new for around 200, or used for around 100. Great lens, for fairly cheap. I just got back from vacation, and used the 24-85 on about 80% of the pictures. Really good lens for being a "kit" lens. Unless you are going for mostly 300mm+, you'll be amazed with the FX. You get so much more in the picture, it's truly amazing.
 
G

gqtuazon

Gear Head
Mfrankfort said:
D600. There are some pretty good deals on the camera/lenses going around. I got the D600 with 70-300, and 24-85 lens for under 3k. Another lens I use alot is the 50mm 1.8g, which you can get new for around 200, or used for around 100. Great lens, for fairly cheap. I just got back from vacation, and used the 24-85 on about 80% of the pictures. Really good lens for being a "kit" lens. Unless you are going for mostly 300mm+, you'll be amazed with the FX. You get so much more in the picture, it's truly amazing.
Click to expand...

^^ What he said. :)
 
M

Mfrankfort

Senior Member
I got mine at Costco. It's actually 100$ cheaper than when I got it. I believe it's 2799. It has a 500$ rebate, but Adorama also had the same kit when I was looking.
 
G

Geoffc

Senior Member
I went FX at the end of last year "because that's obviously where you will want to be". Now some time has passed I'm more of he view that each has it's place. I sometimes grab the D300s over the D800 as its more convenient and even better at some things.

I also think the high ISO noise thing is becoming less of a gap between DX and FX.

The D600 takes stunning images, in my opinion as good to my eye as my 800. I got the latter for ergonomics not IQ. Also the 600 in crop mode is less output than my D300, whereas the 800 is more.

If you shoot sports or wildlife a lot I think DX is a better choice unless you can afford big expensive glass to fill your FX viewfinder.

If you got a 7100 it would last you a good few years, unless you had buffer size issues in the short term.

I think what I'm saying is not to assume that one is hands down better than the other, each has its place.
 
M

mikeyg36

Senior Member
Geoffc said:
I went FX at the end of last year "because that's obviously where you will want to be". Now some time has passed I'm more of he view that each has it's place. I sometimes grab the D300s over the D800 as its more convenient and even better at some things.

I also think the high ISO noise thing is becoming less of a gap between DX and FX.

The D600 takes stunning images, in my opinion as good to my eye as my 800. I got the latter for ergonomics not IQ. Also the 600 in crop mode is less output than my D300, whereas the 800 is more.

If you shoot sports or wildlife a lot I think DX is a better choice unless you can afford big expensive glass to fill your FX viewfinder.

If you got a 7100 it would last you a good few years, unless you had buffer size issues in the short term.

I think what I'm saying is not to assume that one is hands down better than the other, each has its place.
Click to expand...

I don't see myself shooting a lot of sports or wildlife. The only time I had to shoot in continuous was when I was shooting a hummingbird. I would rather spend money on the FX lenses than the DX ones and have them go to waste when I upgrade to FX. Does the D600 work well in crop mode with DX lenses? Also, what are the differences between FX and DX besides the crop factor. Thanks.
 
M

Mfrankfort

Senior Member
The difference, aside from the crop factor. Is Size. The DX is smaller.. With the advancements in technology.. there isn't much a FX can do that a DX can't, aside from the 10k camera's that shoot 5000fps. You do get some better low light in FX for the obvious reason of bigger sensor = more light. I love the wide angle of a FX. I don't do much wildlife. And sporting events are too expensive in Detroit. haha.
 
M

mikeyg36

Senior Member
Mfrankfort said:
The difference, aside from the crop factor. Is Size. The DX is smaller.. With the advancements in technology.. there isn't much a FX can do that a DX can't, aside from the 10k camera's that shoot 5000fps. You do get some better low light in FX for the obvious reason of bigger sensor = more light. I love the wide angle of a FX. I don't do much wildlife. And sporting events are too expensive in Detroit. haha.
Click to expand...

​Thanks for your help. I have a tough decision...
 
Top