Goodbye, DX

[480sparky]

This evening marks a turning point in my photo gear. I had made the decision a few months ago to convert to all FX gear. As of tonight, all my DX equipment (with the exception of the 10.5 fisheye) has been sold and is sitting in boxes ready to ship out tomorrow.

Goodbye, D60. Goodbye, Nikkor 18-105. Goodbye, D7000. Goodbye, Nikkor 10-24. You were good to me.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

.



Now, to order another D600!

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Randy]

Better not try a d7100 then

 

[showtime]

the 10.5 is the reason i kept a DX body after going full frame :biggrin:
plus i can use the D2Xs for a little extra reach when i need it :wink:

 

[Mr Baz]

Have to admit I think quite a few folks might move to full frame if the prices drop over the next few years. Some feel that the days of high end APS-C are limited and that given a choice between a high end crop or a mid level full frame most will go full frame.

Bar nature/wildlife shooters I think in 10 years time most DSLR's will be full frame.

 

[480sparky]

the 10.5 is the reason i kept a DX body after going full frame :biggrin:
plus i can use the D2Xs for a little extra reach when i need it :wink:

You can always shoot in DX mode.

I plan on eventually replacing it with a 16 2.8D,though.

 

[7006]

I understand, soon I am going to be saying bye bye DSLR.

 

[Mr Baz]

I understand, soon I am going to be saying bye bye DSLR.

What would you use then?

 

[7006]

If I win the lottery tonight, I will use a photographer. And a driver. And a pilot.
In the more likely event that I do not, a mirror less camera, I am an amateur.

 

[480sparky]

If I win the lottery tonight, I will use a photographer. And a driver. And a pilot.
In the more likely event that I do not, a mirror less camera, I am an amateur.

So what would happen if you put a mirror lens on a mirrorless camera?

 

[7006]

So what would happen if you put a mirror lens on a mirrorless camera?

Probably the same thing as if I took a picture of my reflection in a mirror.
And does it mean that when I used my 500mm mirror lens on my DSLR it became a mirror-squared?

 

[480sparky]

Probably the same thing as if I took a picture of my reflection in a mirror.
And does it mean that when I used my 500mm mirror lens on my DSLR it became a mirror-squared?

Mirror³. Mirror lenses contain two mirrors. :biggrin:

 

[Steiner]

You can always shoot in DX mode.

I plan on eventually replacing it with a 16 2.8D,though.

I think the 10,5 has a bit better IQ, not much, but it is there, and it can focus much closer.

 

[Steiner]

This evening marks a turning point in my photo gear. I had made the decision a few months ago to convert to all FX gear. As of tonight, all my DX equipment (with the exception of the 10.5 fisheye) has been sold and is sitting in boxes ready to ship out tomorrow.

Goodbye, D60. Goodbye, Nikkor 18-105. Goodbye, D7000. Goodbye, Nikkor 10-24. You were good to me. http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc172/480sparky/Emoticons/emot-raise.gif.



Now, to order another D600! http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc172/480sparky/Emoticons/smiley_emoticons_fips_hurra2.gif

Hope you will be fine with the descision.

I have a hard time to see the fantastic benefit from FF/FX, exept for long exposure in the dark/night, if you do a lot of this, perhaps it pays off ?

Yes the iso-performance is better, and the viewfinder is much better.

There is shallower DOF - advantage and disadvantage depending about what you shoot.

The FX is expensive, the FX is heavy to carry around. OK the D600 is an exeption, but still heavier, but you could be right in the future - think about the Sony RX-1, but then again, then the technique can also make the APS-C lighter.

Exept for the ISO-performance = About a stop better, and perhaps long exposures at night:


The IQ is the same, I am not sure you can see better IQ from the D600, than the D7100 in not high iso-shooting and not long night exposures ?

And it is much cheaper and lighter.

Yes, Nikon have to make better DX-lenses in some areas, but then use FX-lenses, you still have the benefit of the less expensive and less heavy body.

 

[Randy]

Hope you will be fine with the descision.

I have a hard time to see the fantastic benefit from FF/FX, exept for long exposure in the dark/night, if you do a lot of this, I think it pays off ? = Perhaps this is what you are after ?

Yes the iso-performance is better, and the viewfinder is much better.

There is shallower DOF - advantage and disadvantage depending about what you shoot.

The FX is expensive, the FX is heavy to carry around. OK the D600 is an exeption, but still heavier, but you could be right in the future - think about the Sony RX-1, but then again, then the technique can also make the APS-C lighter.

Exept for the ISO-performance = About a stop better, and perhaps long exposures at night:


The IQ is the same, I am not sure you can see better IQ from the D600, than the D7100 in not high iso-shooting and not long night exposures ?

And it is much cheaper and lighter.

Yes, Nikon have to make better DX-lenses in some areas, but then use FX-lenses, you still have the benefit of the less expensive and less heavy body.

the d7100 sure confused the discussion a lot, I was just about convinced on FX only but the D800 still does a much better job handling crazy DR and my favorite LS lenses like the 24-70 and 70-200 are 24 & 70:smile:
I think there is once again a place for both fx and dx in my camera bag