Kerry Pierce
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
Makten wrote:
As usual almost all replies claiming the difference between DX and FX to be unimportant, comes from DX camera owners. I wonder why... 
I have owned and used the d300 and d700, since last November. I have no emotional attachment to either one. In many, many cases, the differences are indeed, unimportant. It's just silly to view everything at 100% on a computer screen and pretend that each and every shot that you make depends upon the sometimes minute differences that can be seen at 100%.
Normal people make normal size prints and normal people have budgets. The vast majority of prints are not very large. That's how I evaluate both cameras, by the prints that I make. I routinely print 12x18 and smaller, which I believe to be the norm, perhaps even a bit on the high side. I very rarely print larger.
There is no doubt that the noise performance of the d700 is better at high ISO, but it certainly is not magic. There are far too many other factors involved. For one thing, there are many fewer good lenses available for FX than there are for DX, which is no small matter. Poor lighting usually makes for poor photos, even on FX......
For me, it's a joy to have both cameras and I simply don't understand why some people bash DX as if it is trash, incapable of producing excellent photos. IMO, in many cases, DX is capable producing photos that are every bit as good as FX.
You and luminosity and some others have an emotional attachment to FX, which is fine, but it doesn't allow for pragmatic evaluation. You keep mentioning the cheap lens on FX equals a top lens on DX, ie the tamron 28-75 vs 17-55, etc. IME, that is simply not true. I've never used the nikkor 17-55 that you mention, but I do own the 35-70, 28-70 and 24-70 nikkors and I own the tamron 17-50. I also bought and returned the tamron 28-75. There is no doubt in my mind that the 28-70 and 24-70 nikkors will produce more keepers, on either format, than will either of the tamron lenses. Assuming that the 17-55 is on par optically with the nikkor 28-70, I see no reason to believe that it would give away anything to the tamron and would beat it with AF performance.
The bottom line, as I see it, is that both are fine cameras and both would serve the average person equally well. That is not to say that both cameras are equal, because they certainly are not. That's why I own both, because each has differing strengths and weaknesses than the other and they complement each other very well.
Now, if I had an unlimited budget and could physically carry the big lenses and support systems that are needed to negate the crop factor, then I probably wouldn't bother with DX. But, that's not a realistic outlook for me.
|
None of those lenses are as "modern" as the 24-120vr. The 24-120vr was introduced in 2003, 50 f/1.8 in 2002, 24-85 AF-S in 2002 now discontinued in favor of the 24-85 AF-D that was introduced in 2000, 18-35 AF-D in 2000. The 70-300 is a good alternative to the 70-200, but the 80-400 is another beast that was introduced in 2000. 