Armoured
Well-known
For the OP: since you have some DX lenses, I would suggest you shouldn't rule out other DX bodies, like the d7000. There wasn't a lot of info to try to determine why you'd need full-frame, but both or either could be viable for you. There's still a lot of cropping possible...
What makes him a sucker?
jordanatkins
Established
Agreed, DX is still a great system, the D7000 is an amazing camera with enough resolution for serious cropping... and the D7100 will be coming soon, if you (OP) have patience to wait for them to trickle into stores.
I'm actually selling my D7000 in the classifieds right now! I got a good deal on a D3 (couple hundred dollars less than a D600!) and I already have a bunch of older D lenses for my F100, so I don't need it or the DX lenses anymore.
Armoured
Well-known
Ah, forgot the reason I posted on the D7000 (for the OP): it meters AI/AIs glass perfectly fine.
I sympathise though - I'm pondering the D600 but think I'd rather spend the money on lenses and the time on film shooting. (OK, it's not like the D600 actually _costs_ time, but I mean time thinking about it).
SausalitoDog
Well-known
Only one post seems to focus <g> on the DX/FF issue.
There is not point in using a DX lens on an FX body - it will only get half the resolution that the body is capable of. You should consider a D300s or consider selling the lenses for one or two FX lenses.
There is nothing wrong with the DX format - it is great for tele shots where you get benefit from the 1.5 correction factor - it is not so good for wide angle where you lose some coverage...but then the FX body loses some coverage on the tele lenses.
There is not point in using a DX lens on an FX body - it will only get half the resolution that the body is capable of. You should consider a D300s or consider selling the lenses for one or two FX lenses.
There is nothing wrong with the DX format - it is great for tele shots where you get benefit from the 1.5 correction factor - it is not so good for wide angle where you lose some coverage...but then the FX body loses some coverage on the tele lenses.
Armoured
Well-known
It seems to me this comment is only true if you're starting from the assumption that the lenses being used are FX. If you're using a DX lens (which will be designed to get less coverage), you are not 'losing' coverage - but you will benefit from a smaller lens.
Whetherthe lenses available for DX in wide will be of equally high quality or exactly what you want (given wider number of FX lenses, etc).
But it does mean that if you want to shoot wide angle in DX, you may need to have a lens specifically fr that format - a bit harder for those os us trying to hedge their bets for future possible shifts to FX.
ray*j*gun
Veteran
The D90 has always provided plenty of performance. However I have begun to use my AI and AIs glass more and more with it and it sort of sucks not to have real metering..... that's what got me looking at newer bodies which led me to consider the D600. However I am considering more contemporary DX cams now as a result of this thread.
Want to thank everyone again for the input!!
Want to thank everyone again for the input!!
Armoured
Well-known
I think it makes a lot of sense to at least try one of the newer DX bodies that will meter AI lenses first, since you'd have to redo your lens kit if you jumped to full frame. If it really doesn't work for your needs, swapping up later won't leave you too badly out of pocket.
The 7000 is still a very capable camera, and the newer version getting strong reviews. (Having used mine in serious winter conditions recently - strapped to my back on a snowmobile on a frozen lake, operating with mittens - it has some legs). For the money, and for many, a second body might make (more) sense compared to a jump in format.
As for the discussion about wide angle lenses, I recently purchased the 10-24mm DX lens. For the money, it's about the difference in cost between the d7000/d7100 and the D600 (not cheap but not outrageous), by most accounts a strong lens, not too large and would be hard (and expensive!) to acquire a lens with comparable characteristics on FX.
Most importantly, it gives me the wide-angle coverage I'd really been lacking without too much expense or starting over. Even though I don't have that many DX lenses, my overall lens 'kit' fits pretty well with a DX body, and moving to FX would present some quandaries.
That said, I still lust for the full-frame and understand it makes sense for many (and I doubt many who do move up regret it). But for now, when I seriously want to play in FX-land, I get out the F100.