Second attempt: New DX or used FX

I am just about ready to upgrade....

I have a D40 + 18-105VR + 35 1.8

It's been good, but I have the need for speed. Usable ISO of 800 just isn't enough for a lot of the shooting I do.

The new D5100 looks great and obv will work with my lenses... though I am thinking about dumping the 18-105 and getting a 17-50 2.8 but that's another thread. So there's that.

But I have always really liked FX ever since I played with my friend's 5DI, and could afford a 5D with a standard 2.8 zoom & 50 1.8. Esp if I sell all my Nikon stuff (1 body + 4 decent lenses).

Now obviously sensors & in camera processing have come a long way since the first 5D. But even with its "awful" sensor efficiency + ergonomics, from my time with one it's still an awesome body. I haven't got to play with the D5100 and the lenses I want yet, but something tells me it won't match up to the 5D.

So what should I go with? New DX or old FX?

Well I don;t see how anyone but you can decide which body you want.

Personally I've thought about full frame and I don't have a need for that. In terms of high ISO a D5100 is state of the art and you won't beat it with a 5D mark I. If you're into landscape there's a possible argument for it, but I'd still expect a D5100 to be good enough ( maybe better if you factor in your lenses ).

You've already got some excellent glass, by the way, and it would be very expensive to match that on full frame ! That's a big plus for your existing lenses and sticking with DX.

I don't know exactly why you're thinking of dumping the 18-105 VR, but if the 17-50 f2.8 is attractive because it offers better low light options then I'd go with a new body instead - the high ISO will do that and the 17-50 is not as sharp or versatile as the 18-105 VR (IMO). If you want the 17-50 for wide aperture ( narrow depth of field ) work then that's a different matter.

--
StephenG

Why not a used DX? Look at the D300x...it has the best ergonomics, AF, and flash system.

--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D50, Nikon D300
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info
"He had a photographic memory which was never developed."

sjgcit said:

Well I don;t see how anyone but you can decide which body you want.

Click to expand...

Obviously, but people w/more experience can provide some insight.

Deleted1929 said:

Personally I've thought about full frame and I don't have a need for that. In terms of high ISO a D5100 is state of the art and you won't beat it with a 5D mark I. If you're into landscape there's a possible argument for it, but I'd still expect a D5100 to be good enough ( maybe better if you factor in your lenses ).

You've already got some excellent glass, by the way, and it would be very expensive to match that on full frame ! That's a big plus for your existing lenses and sticking with DX.

Click to expand...

Ehhh.... I'm not sure I agree. At the end of the day it's about what the sensor can resolve... unless I understand wrong, the bigger photosites of a full frame sensor, even one with super high resolution, mean the glass doesn't have to be as good as it would be to get the same level of sharpness on a DX sensor.

Deleted1929 said:

I don't know exactly why you're thinking of dumping the 18-105 VR, but if the 17-50 f2.8 is attractive because it offers better low light options then I'd go with a new body instead - the high ISO will do that and the 17-50 is not as sharp or versatile as the 18-105 VR (IMO). If you want the 17-50 for wide aperture ( narrow depth of field ) work then that's a different matter.

--
StephenG

Click to expand...

I've never really been blown away by the 18-105 TBH. I played with some 3rd party 2.8s and came away impressed. Def looked better than my 18-105 FWIW.

Plus, speed wise, FX sensors are just inherently faster physically. All that light a DX crops gets collected by FX.

IDK... I am debating just renting the two setups for a week and trying them out... but I am just looking for someone w/experience w/both to say "setup x is not even worth investigating"

Looking for any input

sportyaccordy said:

Looking for any input

Click to expand...

After you dissed sjgcit? I ain't up for it
--
Leonard Migliore

well ya know you did ask and got the opinion of someone with a little more experience, you didn't agree with it. Kinda seems to me like you're leaning towards the FX and are looking for conformation that, that is the choice you should make. Most people here are going to point out the newer tech is normally better tech, especially in the DSLR arena. In a couple years, new camera's are going to be even better, especially better than a 6 year old camera.

IMO if you want a new to you camera, that you are not just going to want to replace wishing you had gotten something better, then you should probably get a brand new camera. If you really want to save some money stick with Nikon since you already have some lenses. Or if you don't go new get something used that is last generation new like the d90. I bet used you can get them for a deal. then you can have a much upgraded camera without being short a lot of cash that you can use later down the road to buy a much better fx camera. or just keep your d40 and save up for a better newer fx.

my 2cents

sportyaccordy said:

At the end of the day it's about what the sensor can resolve

Click to expand...

This is a common route many people take and I always say it's misguided.

Good images are images viewed as a whole, not broken into pixels. Good images are primarily about light, shadow and colour and the semantic/emotional content of the image. That's my view anyway.

You might consider how many D200's ( and D300's ) are in service with wedding photographers. That's DX, not FX.

sportyaccordy said:

I've never really been blown away by the 18-105 TBH. I played with some 3rd party 2.8s and came away impressed. Def looked better than my 18-105 FWIW.

Click to expand...

Your experience is quite at odds with mine and that of the technical reviews and experienced user comment I've seen. And I do own some pro grade lenses ( f2.8 and f1.4 stuff ).

Were you being impressed by the build quality or the optics, I wonder ?

Anyway good luck with your choices.

--
StephenG

sjgcit said:

Deleted1929 said:

At the end of the day it's about what the sensor can resolve

Click to expand...

This is a common route many people take and I always say it's misguided.

Good images are images viewed as a whole, not broken into pixels. Good images are primarily about light, shadow and colour and the semantic/emotional content of the image. That's my view anyway.

You might consider how many D200's ( and D300's ) are in service with wedding photographers. That's DX, not FX.

Deleted1929 said:

I've never really been blown away by the 18-105 TBH. I played with some 3rd party 2.8s and came away impressed. Def looked better than my 18-105 FWIW.

Click to expand...

Your experience is quite at odds with mine and that of the technical reviews and experienced user comment I've seen. And I do own some pro grade lenses ( f2.8 and f1.4 stuff ).

Were you being impressed by the build quality or the optics, I wonder ?

Anyway good luck with your choices.

--
StephenG

Click to expand...

I was impressed by the optics. I mean the tests were really informal, just some shots in B&H, but the sharpness stopped down + the speed wide open really impressed me.

My dream would be a D700, which I could somewhat rationalize as a final camera purchase... but $2500 is just too hard for me to swallow right now. I've learned elsewhere it's better to get what you want... but the D40 is def not enough... I think I will just get the D5100 body and work with that for now.

You might look at a used D90 as well. They're nice cameras. Whether you prefer the D5100 over a D90 depends on your personal needs. I like the more extensive controls on the D90 myself.

--
StephenG