Upload & Sell: Off
Thank you all again for the comments, they are all sensible and considered. I must admit after reading a lot of this I wonder if there really is much difference in an image with equivalent lenses for the format. Enough difference that you could tell, after all if the picture is a good picture that is all that matters in the end...I think!
What I mean is, if you had a 50mm lens on a D700 or D800 and a 35mm on a D300s, at a normal size how hard would it be to see a significant difference?
You get a stop more depth of field with DX than you do with FX. For landscapes, this means you can shoot one stop faster shutter speed and get the same DoF. I honestly doubt that anyone looking at your photos would ever be able to tell any difference between the two. They will be able to tell if you used a tripod vs. not using one--that can be a MAJOR difference (sharpness.) They probably can tell the difference if you used a better lens vs. a cheaper wide range zoom (especially if you enlarge or crop.) But still, good photos come down to use of light. I have a state of art D7100 and Nikon's pro f2.8 lenses, and a professional level Gitzo cf tripod and AcraTech head*. And yet, some of my more interesting photos so far this year have come from a Kodak Brownie No. 2 Model F made somewhere around 1929. Bottom line for me is this. I have the cash to buy any camera and lenses I want. I'm just not seeing enough difference to justify me spending big money on an FX camera and even more money on the top quality FX lenses that would make the most of them. If I shot weddings full time I would make the switch, but as is I only shoot about 10 or so per year. I'm positive I wouldn't be able to charge more if I had a D800, and I'm equally positive my clients would never be able to tell the difference. They actually rave about the shots I make for them with a 1951 Rolleiflex or a 19th century Petzval lens (shot on 4x5.)
We like to think that just by spending some money on more expensive camera gear our shots will be a lot better, but it just doesn't work like that. Spending time with a guy like Ian Cameron (who I linked earlier) will teach you a lot about using LIght, and new ways of thinking. Landscapes is the least demanding type of photography for photogear. You can do it well with any camera made since 1839.........
Kent in SD
*of the gear I just listed, I
consider my tripod & head
most crucial to making
good landscape shots.