FX for a casual shooter?

Started 7 months ago | Discussions thread
capanikon
Senior MemberPosts: 1,745Gear list
Like?
Re: FX for a casual shooter?
In reply to Penny123, 7 months ago

Penny123 wrote:

I am just wondering if there is any huge advantage to using FX as a casual shooter

FX and "casual" don't really go together that well. Usually FX is something that more enthusiastic photos use.

to some of the newer DX models, ie D7100. I had a D40 and have been using a D90 this past year, I have had some focus issues but never really got to the bottom of if it was me or the camera. It has been to nikon and they found errors but never said what so I have it back with me. Focus issues aside I am starting to find the iso rather restricting. I have been using iso 800 at a push but really notice the quality fall especially if I need to start pulling shadows ad adjusting exposure. I take quite a lot of shots in woodland and Scotland can be pretty dull at times so to keep a good shutter speed I am often having to push it up a bit.

AF: Try turning off multi-guess AF and manually select the AF point instead. The center AF sensor is the best. Also, read the manual and practice a lot.

ISO: Get a tripod and shoot base ISO.

I mainly shoot portraits of my dog and landscape with a bit of everything else thrown in. I feel my photos have gotten better this past year but nowhere near the high standard I see on here and I will always purely be doing this as a hobby. What I am looking for is a camera that will last me the next 4 years (at least) and I have narrowed it down to the D610 or the D7100. FX seems appealing as a camera to develop my skills with but is it overkill for what I do? What I am after is a camera with excellent image quality (most new cameras fit this) and one where hopefully I can use ISO 800 or above but the images look just as good as if it were iso 200.

The differences between FX and DX from most significant to least are:

1) FX is more expensive.

2) FX lenses look like they used to on 35mm film bodies.

3) Noise is one stop lower.

4) DOF is one stop shallower.

I also read that you need superior glass and good technique for the 24mp. I have a 40mm, 16-85 and 70-200.

Probably true. Higher resolution sensors means errors and defects in a lens are easier to see.

On the other side of the coin what put me off FX is I have no way to try before I buy and I would need to see how it suits me with the different dof and clustered focus points. Am I correct in thinking that if I bought a 24-120 fx lens that would give me the same field of view of my 16-85? I would also need to assess if I would miss the extra reach that I get with my 70-200 on a cropped sensor.

16mm x 1.5 = 24mm. 85 x 1.5 = 127mm. So yes.

For my needs and what I am looking for what do you think D610, D7100 or hold tight with the D90 and see what might come out later in the year?

Any of those options will work ... up to you!

 capanikon's gear list:capanikon's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ED-IF Nikon AF-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED Nikon 1 Nikkor VR 10-30mm f/3.5-5.6
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow