FX for a casual shooter?

Started Feb 17, 2014 | Discussions thread
calson Veteran Member • Posts: 9,365
Re: FX for a casual shooter?

I have the D800e and the D7100 and but for being DX the D7100 is as good for everyday shooting as the D800e.

5 years ago it was impossible to get good high ISO performance and noise controlled without going to a full frame digital sensor. The D2x was good up to ISO 640 for pro work. The D3 was good up to ISO 4000 by way of comparison. The first thing I did with the D7100 was use it to take pictures of people at ISO 3200 and IS) 6400 under tungsten lighting, which is the acid test. Skin tones were very good even at ISO 6400.

The big difference between FX and DX is the lenses that are available. There are many more options for FX lenses from Nikon and third parties. The downside is that the FX lenses are more expensive and much larger and much heavier.

The 10-24mm f3.5 is not at the same level as the 14-24mm f2.8 lens but for 95% of the pictures most people actually take it is more than good enough. Where the DX lens options fall down a bit is with the 17-55mm f2.8 DX lens and for optimum DX image quality I would go with a 24-70mm f2.8 lens instead and use it with the 10-24mm when I needed a larger picture angle. The plus side of a DX camera is that when mated to the 70-200mm lens it has the picture angle of a 105-300mm lens which is great for sports and wildlife and landscape photography.

I think that the D7100 is by far the best camera for the money you can buy from Nikon today. It is half the cost of the D610 and a third the cost of the D800e but capable of producing 20x30 prints in a heartbeat. It is five times the camera that was the D2x and which cost me $5500 (hurts to remember).

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