Upload & Sell: On
binary visions wrote:
Nikon's weight is without a battery.
Part of why I was asking was because I am struggling with the idea of buying a D800 to cover all of my needs. I like DX for wildlife (more pixel density), but I really wouldn't mind being able to use my 50mm (which, IMO, is too narrow on DX), or be able to use my 200-400 as a real 200mm without sacrificing the pixel density at the long end as compared to my D300.
I have a bit of DX glass that I don't quite want to replace yet (especially my Sigma 10-20), so...Show more →
If you lived near Detroit, I'd be happy to let you sling some of that glass on my d800. You might be happy with the DX mode. Some wildlife shooters are using d800's, others are hanging on to their d300's. I guess that it depends on what kind of wildlife shooting you do and probably some usability factors.
I like to shoot wildlife, field sports, indoor sports and just general long lens usage. I don't like the DX mode, on any of my FX cameras. DX mode on an FX camera has everything compressed into the center of the frame, small, sometimes hard to see. The image in a DX camera viewfinder is magnified, easy to see, easy to precisely place the AF points and easier to keep the AF point where I want it when tracking. Of course, the FPS thing is also very important to me.
I'm surprised that Steve Perry hasn't chimed in, except that I don't recall having seen his posts in a while. He was a d3x customer and also wanted a d400.
IMO, the point of using pixels for reach doesn't work well with the d800. It works in a pinch, but I'd rather have the entire frame in the viewfinder, not 40 or 50%. So far, I'm very happy with the d800, as an FX camera. It will most likely retire my d700 and be used alongside my d300, just as the d700 was for 4 years. I like having both formats available to me.