FX for a casual shooter?

Started Feb 17, 2014 | Discussions thread
InTheMist Veteran Member • Posts: 3,078
That's not casual.

Penny123 wrote:

Thank you for providing a selection of photos to prove your point. By casual I mean that I don't take photos for anyone bar myself, I don't take anything abstract or arty styles. I have no intention of ever shooting people or in a studio etc.. I shoot photos that are appealing to me, landscapes, portraits or my dog, flowers, night photography. I have taken over 27,000 since last April and have my camera with me whenever I go out. I use it almost daily in the summer months. I don't shoot sports, the fasted action I get is my dog running but she is getting older now and it is becoming a rarer occurrence but then that makes it all the more important to capture those shots. I like to take portraits of her in woodland with the autumn colours or for example at the moment among the snowdrops, it is these situations the camera really struggles. I have a look at the dpreview iso comparison and between the two to my eye iso looks a bit better on the D600 but the D7100 images look a bit sharper.

I also enjoying using the 70-200 to get a narrower dof for portraits with a bit more impact but I also like portraits where it is evident where we are.

If I got a D7100 I would keep all the lenses I have but if I went with a D610 I would most likely get the 24-120 f/4 as a general walk around along with my current 70-200 2.8 vrii and then replace my dx 40mm with the fx 60mm at some point.

I'm enjoying this discussion so I spent some time on your flickr. Very nicely done. You have a very high commitment to your photography, not only your beautiful images but also gear: you have a 70-200/2.8 and a dedicated macro lens. 27k photos in under a year is well past casual.

Still, I think you should get a D7100 and forget FX for a couple reasons:

1) Telephoto
A 70-200 on FX "feels" not nearly as long, and I see that you shoot a lot of telephoto. Such an awesome lens - almost something worth buying a camera around! Would you be lost if your 200 suddenly felt like only 150mm? Because that's what would happen as you go up to FX. Of course you could always buy a 1.4x teleconverter and get back to what you're used to.

2) Sharpness
Besides that, your landscape shots are really very good - way beyond "casual" and the D7100 has a small edge on sharpness, as you pointed out. You'll also benefit from one stop additional depth of field on DX.

Seriously, your landscape shots are something special.

3) Macro
I see that you used a 40mm f/2.8 macro lens for many of your flower shots. That's a DX lens that you would have to replace. Again, you'll lose more depth of field stepping up to FX.

4) Your 16-85 is also a DX lens, if I remember correctly.

Ok, honestly, the D90 is a few generations behind, so you would see a visible difference with a D7100. But your "casual" images are already exceptional and I don't see any pressing reason to change anything more than maybe updating your body.

Still, your images are good enough that you could be the one giving the advice!

(P.S. I actually prefer the 24-85 over the 24-120/4 for a FX walkaround if you decide to go that way and want to save some cash)

-- hide signature --

It's more important how an image looks as a thumbnail than how it looks at 100%.

 InTheMist's gear list:InTheMist's gear list
Leica M Monochrom (Typ 246) Leica M-Monochrom Nikon 1 AW1 Nikon Df Nikon D810 +18 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow