nolaguy Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
zippylock wrote:
Hello All,
I am looking to add a backup camera to my equipment and looking for some advice. I currently shoot with a D700, plus 24-70, 70-200 VR2, 50mm 1.8. My wife shoots with a D7000, so we also have a 18-55 55-200, and 18-140, I think. While its mostly for fun, I do also shoot a couple paid weddings a year, family portraits, and tons of nature stuff, basically a little of everything.
I hike often now, and my D700 + lenses are really too heavy so I don't carry it much. I have been looking to make my bag lighter so ill carry it more, but also add a good back up body. Looking at the Nikon options now, there are many. I was originally set on a D750 which seemed like the logical choice, however, I'm still stuck with a heavy FX body and lenses. I then held a D7200 which I liked, going this route would allow for much lighter DX lenses, correct? Now I see there is the D500, which would be the perfect DX backup i'd assume. Ive been shooting more landscapes now because of my increased outdoor style. For landscape shots though, the 7200 seems like a cheaper, but still good DX choice, paired for the 18-35 or 10-24 which people seems to like?
However, where I'm stuck is, is it just me or is there really an IQ difference between the FX and DX cameras? Maybe this is old thinking since new DX models have come a long way, but I have always loved FX shots more. I'm not sure if its the overall smoother bokeh and backgrounds, better ISO or what... this has made me afraid to try a DX again for the fear I wont like the images. When comparing a landscape shot with my wife's D7000 and my D700, the D700 pictures clearly take the cake, especially when golden light is used/sunsets. If I was to get a D7200 or D500, would this be closer to my D700s smoothness and IQ? I looked at the D7200 image thread but its mostly animals, not landscapes. Has anyone who has gone from a FX to DX been disappointed? Am I crazy, or now that I love FX, I will not be able to go down and shot the same stuff in the same way? Does any one else think like this? What did you do or what did you decide?
If I went D750, I'm assuming id have to go prime to be lighter, so 20mm 1.8 or something? Would this produce better images across the board then a D7200 with XX? I don't have endless funds so I have to be body and lens conscious...
Sorry for the ramble, Im just lost with my next choice and looking for help on what you have all done in the last couple years... ...Show more →
Zippy, I shoot both and in my opinion, assuming ISO similarities, for 90% of what we capture and how the shots are used, the image quality difference between the two is negligible. Nevertheless, emotionally, FX gives me more warm and fuzzies.
So I use DX for reach and FX when I like to imagine I'm drowning the image in bigger buckets of photons and want to leave no portrait stone unturned. But I think the truth is, very few people can discern the difference. There are too many other factors that affect image quality more and if I had to shoot DX forever, it really wouldn't bother me.
Whatever advantage I gain with FX I probably screw up in post anyway.
Regards,
Chuck
|