p.1 #1 · Add FX to DX system or not worth the effort?
Hey all, I am seeking some advice. I am into travel / landscape style photography- I currently own a D200 and a D70. I also happen to have $2000 worth of coupons to an online electronics retailer, so I am thinking about upgrading my camera bodies.
My lenses:
Sigma 24mm 2.8 AF
Nikon 50mm 1.8 AF
Sigma 10-20 DX---thinking about replacing in any event
Nikon 35-70mm 2.8D
Nikon 17-55mm 2.8 DX
Nikon 70-210 F4 AF- should sell this
Nikon 70-300mm VR
I'm a little lacking on the wider end of FX, and my normal zoom on the FX camera would be a little limited. Also, if I took two bodies with me, would I be lugging the 17-55 2.8 as a backup? If you were me- what would you do? D300 high ISO worth an upgrade?
p.1 #4 · Add FX to DX system or not worth the effort?
No. Its all or nothing, when it comes to lenses. Having something like the 17-55 (a very nice lens) on a lesser body is a waste in my opinion. Sell the 17-55 and 35-70 and you're close to a 24-70mm and definitely enough for a 28-70mm, both excellent full frame lenses. You can keep a DX body as a backup (because DX bodies take FX lenses fine) but the opposite doesn't work.
If you have a 24-70, you can use it on the D700 or the D200 depending on your mood and its just perfect. If you stick with the 17-55, you can run it in crippled mode (no point) on the D700.
I say:
Sell the D200 because it still has some value ($800)
Sell the 17-55 because its DX ($900)
Sell the Sigma 10-20 (since you wanted to, $400 or so)
Sell the Nikon 35-70 because its going to be redundant ($350)
Sell the 70-210 because its redundant ($200?)
Keep the D70, 50mm 1.8, 24 2.8 and 70-300 VR.
Buy the D700 because its wicked awesome.
Buy the 24-70 or 28-70 because they're wicked awesome.
Put primes on the D70 for a lightweight travel kit.
p.1 #8 · Add FX to DX system or not worth the effort?
What is it you're looking to achieve? Do you want to get an FX camera for the sake of getting an FX camera or is there a particular reason you need it? Is your D200/D70 inadequate in something in particular you're trying to do? The D200 and D70 are good travel and landscape cameras as they are so you need to say a bit more about what you need to do. Otherwise, the permutations are too many and all have advantages over each other.
If I was to do FX for travel, it would be D700, 28/2 AI, 50/1.4 AF, 105/1.8 AI (or 105/2 DC). Job done. For backup another D700 and a 35-70/2.8. But I don't do too wide or too long anyway. So that's just me.
Your current setup is very good for landscapes anyway, just get a good tripod.
p.1 #9 · Add FX to DX system or not worth the effort?
Mostly challenging light in darker situations looks somewhat noisy- especially if you miss exposure a little. That's really the main reason.
Aug 13, 2008 at 04:30 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · Add FX to DX system or not worth the effort?
Osprey01 wrote:
Mostly challenging light in darker situations looks somewhat noisy- especially if you miss exposure a little. That's really the main reason.
They make this wonderful thing called a tripod! For travel and landscape it's ideal rather than pumping the ISO. FX buys you one stop, a tripod buys you as much as you need.
Also, consider one of the new DX offerings. The D300 has excellent high ISO performance relative to the D200 / D70. And either of your two exisisting cameras make a nice backup body to the D300. Having one format is easiest, so go DX or FX but avoid doing both or risk a heavy camera bag. By sticking with one format you can lighten your lens load as well. For instance:
Sell these three lenses as they are redundant with better or equal lenses you already have:
Sigma 24mm 2.8 AF
Nikon 35-70mm 2.8D
Nikon 70-210 F4 AF- should sell this
This would leave you with these four lenses which is quite the capable DX kit, but still relatively compact.
FX is all the rage, but it's pricy. Sticking with DX might be lighter and definitely less expensive to get into and maintain (upgrade) over time. A tripod might buy you more performance than a new camera too.
p.1 #11 · Add FX to DX system or not worth the effort?
Osprey01 wrote:
Mostly challenging light in darker situations looks somewhat noisy- especially if you miss exposure a little. That's really the main reason.
p.1 #13 · Add FX to DX system or not worth the effort?
Oh, I have a Gitzo 2540 and Arca Swiss Z-1. I asked in another thread about good ways to carry them around, either attached or in a camera bag or separate from the bag.
The tripod doesn't help with this kind of thing:
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · Add FX to DX system or not worth the effort?
Osprey01 wrote:
Oh, I have a Gitzo 2540 and Arca Swiss Z-1. I asked in another thread about good ways to carry them around, either attached or in a camera bag or separate from the bag.
The tripod doesn't help with this kind of thing:
Sure it does, if you use it. And why such a large heavy tripod for travel? Get something like a Gitzo 1258 with a RRS BH-40 or an Acratech UBH-V2. They also make small tripod bags that sling over the sholder or hook onto the current camera backpack.
Another option is a monopod, which also buys you at least a stop or more and is far smaller and lighter than a tripod. It's much less bulky than a tripod and can be carried anywhere and strapped to anything. And, you can usually get a monopod into places they do not allow tripods. I have a Gitzo 3550.
p.1 #15 · Add FX to DX system or not worth the effort?
Ok, there are some places where you cannot setup a tripod. So, a D700 would help. Or a D300. Which is better? Don't know. Tests show the D700 is probably the better at higher ISO. So what would you do to get a D700?
In that case, I'd say sell the D200, 10-20, 17-55, 24 and 70-210 and get a D700 and any of the 14-24, 17-35 or 20/2.8, depending how wide you want to go in FX. You still have the 35-70 as a standard zoom and the 70-300 for the long stuff. The 50/1.8 is not my favourite, I prefer the 50/1.4 but you still have that too.
You also have the D70 for backup and with either of the 17-35 or 20 plus the 50 you get a nice light kit for street shooting.
p.1 #16 · Add FX to DX system or not worth the effort?
Not sure if you need AF for travel + landscape. I would ditch everything and get the D700 + ZF25, ZF35, ZF50 and then the long zoom of your choice.
Aug 13, 2008 at 08:52 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · Add FX to DX system or not worth the effort?
If you truely feel FX is what you need, Pano's advise is sound. I would sell the D200 and keep the D70 as backup. Get a D700 as the primary camera. As for lenses, for an FX kit
SELL
Sigma 24mm 2.8 AF
Sigma 10-20 DX
Nikon 17-55mm 2.8 DX
Nikon 70-210 F4 AF
p.1 #18 · Add FX to DX system or not worth the effort?
A couple of points:
First of all, people here and on the canon forum somehow seem to look down their noses upon the Olympus 4/3rds system and their small 2x crop sensor. It makes sense, but doesn't make any sense at the same time.
There is a difference, and it is quite noticeable in several ways but can be a blessing or a curse, depending on the intended shooting and the desired style. The difference between the DX and FX is a larger jump than the difference between the DX and 4/3rds system. FOR BETTER OR WORSE.
The 17-55 is about 26mm on the wide end. If you put it on the D700 you have the exact same angle of view on the lens by default but with only a bit over 5 megapixels ( and I make fantastic 11x14's out of the D2h) or you can use it on the full size of the FX sensor from about 27mm up to its 55. So changing lenses is far from a necessity.
Sometimes I wonder if many of us aren't simply looking for a way to get new gear - rather than taking pictures.
Yeah, the FX sensor delivers something that the others can't - but of course so does the DX ... and the 4/3rds for that matter. Pick you poison. There are no knockout punches here.
p.1 #19 · Add FX to DX system or not worth the effort?
And that part about the tripod .... that is a no brainer. Two tripods .... really.
Aug 13, 2008 at 09:54 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · Add FX to DX system or not worth the effort?
Pavel wrote:
And that part about the tripod .... that is a no brainer. Two tripods .... really.
Who said two tripods? I asked why such a heavy tripod for travel & lanscape with such light lenses? A 1258 works just fine unless you are using something larger than a 200 f/2.8 OR if you are doing micro work @ 200mm. A Gitzo 2540 and Arca Swiss Z-1 is overkill for the OP's stated setup unless he plans on getting heavier lenses or doing lots of macro work. I suppose if weather in inclement then a heavier tripod is nice, but a weight hanging from the ballancing hook works better.
On the other hand, why not two tripods? One for heavy work (big lenses, macro work, etc) and one for travel. Makes sense to me.
Also, a monopod works quite well too ... it does make sense to have both.
However, it does not appear the OP is interested in going down that route and is satisfied with his Gitzo 2540 and Arca Swiss Z-1.
I asked why such a heavy tripod for travel & lanscape with such light lenses? A 1258 works just fine unless you are using something larger than a 200 f/2.8 OR if you are doing micro work @ 200mm. A Gitzo 2540 and Arca Swiss Z-1 is overkill for the OP's stated setup unless he plans on getting heavier lenses or doing lots of macro work. I suppose if weather in inclement then a heavier tripod is nice, but a weight hanging from the ballancing hook works better.