DX vs FS: Significance for Landscapes

[Pfreddee]

I currently own a Nikon D7000. I have two choices (basically) if I want to move from my current camera to something else. I can buy a D7200 or a D750. One is DX, the other is FX. So far, so good.

I am wondering what are the practical differences between the two systems. I'm not interested in lab tests. I'm interested in what the members who have used both have noticed when shooting landscapes. What advantages or disadvantages (if any) exist, in your opinion, between the two systems? Has using one or the other made a significant difference in your work? Can you tell me about it?

Thank you to all who reply.

Pfreddee(Stephen)

 

[sevo]

For classic landscape photography you do not need to upgrade to FF (unless you go for a MP count not available in DX). The lack of good DX wides is a matter of the past, DOF differences do not matter, as you'd want to stop down until everything is in focus (where DX even has a slight advantage), and camera speed is irrelevant (you can always use base speed for minimal noise, as you already need a tripod for composition).

 

[Pfreddee]

Thank you, Sevo!

With best regards,

Pfreddee(Stephen)

 

[Ronald M]

DX cameras have a tiny viewfinder image, about 1/2 life size.
There has not been a pro build one made for years. The new D500 may negate both these statements, cost $2000.

A 750 is far better in low light. Deals are out for 750 + 24/120 for $2300. I use this all the time.