Two23 Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
Untamed wrote:
Neoshazam If I jump to FX I plan on selling my D90, 18-200, 17-55, and 50mm and SB-600 and using the money from that to purchase a 24-70/2.8 and sb-900. I know there will be some out of pocket cost but it wont be as big as if I was starting from scratch.
If I decide to stick to the D90 I'll be getting the 85 1.8
Regarding the D300 and D7100.. Not really wanting to stick to DX.. I want to make sure if I spend money that I'm spending it on something that can grow with me.
For the past year & half I've been using D7100 & Nikon lenses 17-55mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8 VR, 80-400mm AFS. For the past several weeks I've been using a D800E with lenses 24mm PC-E, Sigma 35mm f1.4, Nikon 50mm f1.8, Nikon 85mm f1.8, Nikon 80-400mm AFS. I have some thoughts. First is that the AF system on the D7100 actually seems faster and better in low light conditions. The D7100 actually focuses by moonlight. The AF system is where the D600/610 is weakest and obviously less competent than either D800E or D7100. With the D800E I think I've picked up about a stop & half on the ISO. The shots were pretty clean on the D7100 up to about ISO 2000, and certainly usuable up to ISO 3200. Not much gain there for me.
I've been shooting weddings with the D7100, f2.8 Nikon zooms, and a pair of SB-900. It's a very high quality system. I don't plan on using the D800E and single focal lenses for weddings as I know I'd be missing shots while changing lenses, which is frustrating to me. There are some things you might keep in mind. The first is that no one, and I mean no one, will be able to tell you are using an FX camera rather than a DX. There just isn't that much difference. Second thing is those f2.8 zooms are quite heavy and bulky, and after awhile become a big pain in the ass. Third thing is you will miss the extended reach you would have had from a D7100, for sports. All in all, I would find it hard to justify spending thousands $$ for an FX system for what you are needing. You just won't see a difference unless you routinely shoot above ISO 3200. Why did I pick up a D800E? What I'm after is the ability to make enlargements bigger than 20x30 in., something I'm doing more & more as I sell portraits and architectural/landscape shots. That's the one thing a 36mp camera can do noticeably better for me than the D7100, along with no clearance issues on the 24mm PC-E lens.
As for a camera making me a better photographer, ! My ability and creativity does NOT come from gear. Art comes from the mind and vision of an artist, not gear. I'm just as inspired with a Kodak Brownie made in 1902 or a Leica IIIc made in 1942 as I am with anything currently in production. Once you come to understand you can make compelling images with ANY camera you are handed it's very liberating! I honestly doubt a change from DX to FX will make any difference at all for you. One thing that will have a noticeable effect on your portraits is a solid but simple lighting system, such as a couple of Alien Bees monolights, battery pack, lightstands, and modifiers. For portraits, lighting is the key, certainly not a camera.
Again, for what you are wanting to do, the D7100 is the obvious choice. And then wait to see if Nikon answers the Canon 7D-ii, which would be KILLER!
Kent in SD
HS Soccer shot with D7100, Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR
|