Quandary - DX or FX?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Nige Danton, Apr 10, 2013.

  1. Nige Danton

    Nige Danton Guest

    I'm in a bit of a quandary. I've currently got a D7000 and an 18-105 lens.
    Ive recently (this year) switched back to SLR's after a decade of using
    digital point and shoot. I'm certainly pleased with D7000, but am finding
    the 18-105 to be a bit too slow in low light (indoors without flash) and am
    thinking of buying a faster lens.

    Also I've found some of the (cropped) images to be not quite as sharp as I
    would like. This mainly seems to occur in low light shots.

    I'm also keen to try some macro photography too, and have been thinking
    about a macro lens, perhaps extension tubes or even a bellows.

    My quandary is this. I'm not (at all) sure that I'm satisfied with a DX
    format and really don't want to buy new lenses and accessories and then
    find myself needing to re-buy them if/when I buy an FX body.

    So, what do you think. Should I spend more time and practise getting the
    best out of my D7000 or switch to an FX body now? Cost is not particular
    issue - that said I don't want to be wasteful.

    Appreciate any feedback.

    --
    Nige Danton - Replace the obvious with g.m.a.i.l
     
    Nige Danton, Apr 10, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Nige Danton

    me Guest

    On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 07:10:59 +0000 (UTC), Nige Danton
    <> wrote:

    >I'm in a bit of a quandary. I've currently got a D7000 and an 18-105 lens.
    >Ive recently (this year) switched back to SLR's after a decade of using
    >digital point and shoot. I'm certainly pleased with D7000, but am finding
    >the 18-105 to be a bit too slow in low light (indoors without flash) and am
    >thinking of buying a faster lens.


    First, try the no cost solution of either bumping the iso up and/or
    trying the auto-iso function to allow you to do it with some
    additional control. What shutter/f.l. combos are you shooting.
     
    me, Apr 10, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Nige Danton

    Joe Makowiec Guest

    On 10 Apr 2013 in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, Nige Danton wrote:

    > I'm in a bit of a quandary. I've currently got a D7000 and an
    > 18-105 lens. Ive recently (this year) switched back to SLR's after a
    > decade of using digital point and shoot. I'm certainly pleased with
    > D7000, but am finding the 18-105 to be a bit too slow in low light
    > (indoors without flash) and am thinking of buying a faster lens.


    I have a D7000, and I've found that I can get acceptable to very good
    results up to about ISO 1600, so try shooting at a higher ISO.

    <snip>
    > My quandary is this. I'm not (at all) sure that I'm satisfied with a DX
    > format and really don't want to buy new lenses and accessories and then
    > find myself needing to re-buy them if/when I buy an FX body.

    <snip>
    > Appreciate any feedback.


    What is the ultimate destination of the pictures? If you're printing and
    blowing up your pictures substantially, there might be some merit to an
    FX camera. If you're going mainly to screen, and not taking small crops
    out of the center of the image, DX should work fine.

    --
    Joe Makowiec
    http://makowiec.org/
    Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
    Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
     
    Joe Makowiec, Apr 10, 2013
    #3
  4. Nige Danton

    nospam Guest

    In article
    <-september.
    org>, Nige Danton <> wrote:

    > I'm in a bit of a quandary. I've currently got a D7000 and an 18-105 lens.
    > Ive recently (this year) switched back to SLR's after a decade of using
    > digital point and shoot. I'm certainly pleased with D7000, but am finding
    > the 18-105 to be a bit too slow in low light (indoors without flash) and am
    > thinking of buying a faster lens.


    increase the iso or buy a faster lens. the former is a *lot* less
    expensive (as in free) than the latter, so try that first.

    > Also I've found some of the (cropped) images to be not quite as sharp as I
    > would like. This mainly seems to occur in low light shots.


    are they handheld? if so, that's probably camera shake. get a tripod or
    monopod, or increase the iso so you can use a faster shutter speed.

    another possibility is that you aren't post-processing them properly.

    > I'm also keen to try some macro photography too, and have been thinking
    > about a macro lens, perhaps extension tubes or even a bellows.


    many options there.

    > My quandary is this. I'm not (at all) sure that I'm satisfied with a DX
    > format and really don't want to buy new lenses and accessories and then
    > find myself needing to re-buy them if/when I buy an FX body.


    nothing you've said so far suggests an fx camera would solve your
    problems.

    also keep in mind you can buy fx lenses now in case you think you might
    change to fx at some point in the future.

    if you do switch to fx, your 18-105 would need to be replaced since
    it's a dx lens, but it isn't an expensive lens so it doesn't matter
    that much, and it would actually work on an fx camera, but with the fx
    camera in crop mode.

    > So, what do you think. Should I spend more time and practise getting the
    > best out of my D7000 or switch to an FX body now? Cost is not particular
    > issue - that said I don't want to be wasteful.


    spend more time learning the d7000.
     
    nospam, Apr 10, 2013
    #4
  5. "Nige Danton" <> wrote in message
    news:-september.org...
    > I'm in a bit of a quandary. I've currently got a D7000 and an 18-105
    > lens.
    > Ive recently (this year) switched back to SLR's after a decade of using
    > digital point and shoot. I'm certainly pleased with D7000, but am finding
    > the 18-105 to be a bit too slow in low light (indoors without flash) and
    > am
    > thinking of buying a faster lens.
    >
    > Also I've found some of the (cropped) images to be not quite as sharp as I
    > would like. This mainly seems to occur in low light shots.
    >
    > I'm also keen to try some macro photography too, and have been thinking
    > about a macro lens, perhaps extension tubes or even a bellows.
    >
    > My quandary is this. I'm not (at all) sure that I'm satisfied with a DX
    > format and really don't want to buy new lenses and accessories and then
    > find myself needing to re-buy them if/when I buy an FX body.
    >
    > So, what do you think. Should I spend more time and practise getting the
    > best out of my D7000 or switch to an FX body now? Cost is not particular
    > issue - that said I don't want to be wasteful.
    >
    > Appreciate any feedback.
    >
    > --
    > Nige Danton - Replace the obvious with g.m.a.i.l


    Excellent photos can be taken with a DX camera when set up and used
    properly. Having said that, with money as no object, I'd go FX.
     
    George Anthony, Apr 10, 2013
    #5
  6. Nige Danton

    nick c Guest

    On 4/10/2013 12:10 AM, Nige Danton wrote:
    > I'm in a bit of a quandary. I've currently got a D7000 and an 18-105 lens.
    > Ive recently (this year) switched back to SLR's after a decade of using
    > digital point and shoot. I'm certainly pleased with D7000, but am finding
    > the 18-105 to be a bit too slow in low light (indoors without flash) and am
    > thinking of buying a faster lens.
    >
    > Also I've found some of the (cropped) images to be not quite as sharp as I
    > would like. This mainly seems to occur in low light shots.
    >
    > I'm also keen to try some macro photography too, and have been thinking
    > about a macro lens, perhaps extension tubes or even a bellows.
    >
    > My quandary is this. I'm not (at all) sure that I'm satisfied with a DX
    > format and really don't want to buy new lenses and accessories and then
    > find myself needing to re-buy them if/when I buy an FX body.
    >
    > So, what do you think. Should I spend more time and practise getting the
    > best out of my D7000 or switch to an FX body now? Cost is not particular
    > issue - that said I don't want to be wasteful.
    >
    > Appreciate any feedback.
    >


    If you are able to afford the changeover then without question the FX is
    the way to go. In any event, consider procuring FX type lenses in lieu
    of DX type lenses. However, be aware that FX lenses being much larger
    than DX lenses may interfere with using the cameras built-in flash. A
    flash to seriously consider obtaining is the Nikon SB700. Yep, having a
    couple or three of them won't hurt at all. Spaced in a suitable manner
    one just might or could light-up a museum hall.

    I suppose it may be of some interest to you as to what I use and am very
    satisfied with using as working equipment set-ups, varying lenses as
    needed at the time of photographing a scene.

    I generally use a Nikon 17-35 f2.8 lens on my FX camera and a 24-120 f4
    (full frame) lens on my DX camera, switching cameras as the lens befits
    the scene I intend to capture. All my lenses, except one, are FX lenses.
    The DX lens was a gift.

    My overall suggestion would be to plan your procurement on eventually
    obtaining an FX camera and/or getting into using FX lenses and support
    equipment (whatever they may be). As in the case with using film of a
    bygone era, bigger is better.
     
    nick c, Apr 10, 2013
    #6
  7. Nige Danton

    nick c Guest

    On 4/10/2013 3:13 PM, nick c wrote:
    > Snip
    >
    > I generally use a Nikon 17-35 f2.8 lens on my FX camera and a 24-120 f4
    > (full frame) lens on my DX camera, switching cameras as the lens befits
    > the scene I intend to capture. All my lenses, except one, are FX lenses.
    > The DX lens was a gift.


    Correction:

    Actually, I have two DX lenses. I bought a Nikon 18-55mm kit lens (kept
    in another bag) for $60 to use on the beach, whenever I get to the
    beach. If I ever drop it in the sand or in salt water, it's a gonner.
    But for $60, well ..... (shrug)

    >
    > Snip
     
    nick c, Apr 10, 2013
    #7
  8. Nige Danton

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 07:10:59 +0000 (UTC), Nige Danton <>
    wrote:
    : I'm in a bit of a quandary. I've currently got a D7000 and an 18-105 lens.
    : Ive recently (this year) switched back to SLR's after a decade of using
    : digital point and shoot. I'm certainly pleased with D7000, but am finding
    : the 18-105 to be a bit too slow in low light (indoors without flash) and am
    : thinking of buying a faster lens.
    :
    : Also I've found some of the (cropped) images to be not quite as sharp as I
    : would like. This mainly seems to occur in low light shots.
    :
    : I'm also keen to try some macro photography too, and have been thinking
    : about a macro lens, perhaps extension tubes or even a bellows.
    :
    : My quandary is this. I'm not (at all) sure that I'm satisfied with a DX
    : format and really don't want to buy new lenses and accessories and then
    : find myself needing to re-buy them if/when I buy an FX body.
    :
    : So, what do you think. Should I spend more time and practise getting the
    : best out of my D7000 or switch to an FX body now? Cost is not particular
    : issue - that said I don't want to be wasteful.
    :
    : Appreciate any feedback.

    Stick with the D7000 for now, but buy only lenses that can be used with an FX
    body. (They'll be more telephoto-ish (and less wideangle-ish) on a DX body;
    but if you keep the 1/1.5 conversion factor in mind, you'll be fine.) Then if
    and when you decide you need the FX body, you won't have to buy all new
    lenses. (That may never happen, BTW; you may find that all your
    dissatisfaction was due to the quality of your current lenses.)

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Apr 11, 2013
    #8
  9. Nige Danton

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:00:46 +0000 (UTC), Joe Makowiec
    <> wrote:
    : On 10 Apr 2013 in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, Nige Danton wrote:
    :
    : > I'm in a bit of a quandary. I've currently got a D7000 and an
    : > 18-105 lens. Ive recently (this year) switched back to SLR's after a
    : > decade of using digital point and shoot. I'm certainly pleased with
    : > D7000, but am finding the 18-105 to be a bit too slow in low light
    : > (indoors without flash) and am thinking of buying a faster lens.
    :
    : I have a D7000, and I've found that I can get acceptable to very good
    : results up to about ISO 1600, so try shooting at a higher ISO.
    :
    : <snip>
    : > My quandary is this. I'm not (at all) sure that I'm satisfied with a DX
    : > format and really don't want to buy new lenses and accessories and then
    : > find myself needing to re-buy them if/when I buy an FX body.
    : <snip>
    : > Appreciate any feedback.
    :
    : What is the ultimate destination of the pictures? If you're printing and
    : blowing up your pictures substantially, there might be some merit to an
    : FX camera. If you're going mainly to screen, and not taking small crops
    : out of the center of the image, DX should work fine.

    Building on Joe's point ...
    A DX camera can be advantageous for event photography (where you may be trying
    to capture faces from across the room), because it amplifies the effect of a
    telephoto lens. But not so much for landscapes, where you may need the wider
    view of FX.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Apr 11, 2013
    #9
  10. Nige Danton

    RichA Guest

    Unless you are talking about buying a D3x or D4, I'd forgo FX until
    they straighten out the problems with the bodies.
    Unfortunately, Nikon also lacks a really good DX body right now since
    the D300s has (I believe) been cancelled and the D7000/1 are not in
    the same league build-wise.
    If sports aren't you're thing, and you don't plan on building a vast
    arsenal of lenses, Pentax's K5s is a better body than the D7100.
     
    RichA, Apr 11, 2013
    #10
  11. Nige Danton

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    > > A DX camera can be advantageous for event photography (where you may be
    > > trying
    > > to capture faces from across the room), because it amplifies the effect of a
    > > telephoto lens.

    >
    > You can always crop a FF to the same end effect.


    and with a nikon d800, you get about the same number of pixels as you
    would if you had a d7000 (15.4 versus 16 mp).
     
    nospam, Apr 11, 2013
    #11
  12. Nige Danton

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 18:09:45 -0400, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:
    : On 2013.04.10 21:08 , Robert Coe wrote:
    : > On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:00:46 +0000 (UTC), Joe Makowiec
    : > <> wrote:
    : > : On 10 Apr 2013 in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, Nige Danton wrote:
    : > :
    : > : > I'm in a bit of a quandary. I've currently got a D7000 and an
    : > : > 18-105 lens. Ive recently (this year) switched back to SLR's after a
    : > : > decade of using digital point and shoot. I'm certainly pleased with
    : > : > D7000, but am finding the 18-105 to be a bit too slow in low light
    : > : > (indoors without flash) and am thinking of buying a faster lens.
    : > :
    : > : I have a D7000, and I've found that I can get acceptable to very good
    : > : results up to about ISO 1600, so try shooting at a higher ISO.
    : > :
    : > : <snip>
    : > : > My quandary is this. I'm not (at all) sure that I'm satisfied with a DX
    : > : > format and really don't want to buy new lenses and accessories and then
    : > : > find myself needing to re-buy them if/when I buy an FX body.
    : > : <snip>
    : > : > Appreciate any feedback.
    : > :
    : > : What is the ultimate destination of the pictures? If you're printing and
    : > : blowing up your pictures substantially, there might be some merit to an
    : > : FX camera. If you're going mainly to screen, and not taking small crops
    : > : out of the center of the image, DX should work fine.
    : >
    : > Building on Joe's point ...
    : > A DX camera can be advantageous for event photography (where you may be trying
    : > to capture faces from across the room), because it amplifies the effect of a
    : > telephoto lens.
    :
    : You can always crop a FF to the same end effect.

    FX cameras are heavier; and if you carry two cameras, as I usually do at
    events, the end effect on your neck muscles may not be the same. :^)

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Apr 12, 2013
    #12
  13. Nige Danton wrote:

    > I'm in a bit of a quandary. I've currently got a D7000 and an 18-105 lens.
    > I'm pleased with D7000, but am finding the 18-105 to be a bit too slow in
    > low light (indoors without flash) and am thinking of buying a faster lens.


    I'm not an authority on these things, but the nikon 50/1.8D (or G) is a marvel
    on DX and works fine for close portraits. There is also the 35/1.8 DX, which
    gets excellent reviews. These two give you tons of light on a DX camera,
    just what you need for indoor without flash. And they're inexpensive, sub USD
    200 I think. Maybe not 18 wide and not zooms, but very bright.

    Before you shell out on a D600 or D800, give these little friends a go. The
    50/1.8 is FX, so even if you still think that you'll go FX after trying them
    out, you can keep it for your future equipment. If you want to hedge your
    bet on the 35 too, you can go for the slightly more expensive 35/2D, also FX.

    What I'm saying is that, while I can see the convenience of using a zoom all
    the time, I'd say it is almost a waste of money to own a DSLR and not having
    a few - inexpensive, but awesome image quality - primes in your possession.

    Your D7000 will shine, and if it doesn't Thom Hogan says it is not the camera
    that is failing you. :)

    http://bythom.com/nikond7000review.htm

    Having that said, if money is no issue, I can sympathise with getting a FX
    camera. Not because the D7000 cannot deliver, but because you get a big bright
    viewfinder again.

    --
    Fredrik Jonson
     
    Fredrik Jonson, Apr 12, 2013
    #13
  14. Nige Danton

    PeterN Guest

    On 4/10/2013 5:29 AM, me wrote:
    > On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 07:10:59 +0000 (UTC), Nige Danton
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> I'm in a bit of a quandary. I've currently got a D7000 and an 18-105 lens.
    >> Ive recently (this year) switched back to SLR's after a decade of using
    >> digital point and shoot. I'm certainly pleased with D7000, but am finding
    >> the 18-105 to be a bit too slow in low light (indoors without flash) and am
    >> thinking of buying a faster lens.

    >
    > First, try the no cost solution of either bumping the iso up and/or
    > trying the auto-iso function to allow you to do it with some
    > additional control. What shutter/f.l. combos are you shooting.
    >


    do all DSLRs have auto ISO.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Apr 17, 2013
    #14
  15. Nige Danton

    PeterN Guest

    On 4/10/2013 9:08 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:00:46 +0000 (UTC), Joe Makowiec
    > <> wrote:
    > : On 10 Apr 2013 in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, Nige Danton wrote:
    > :
    > : > I'm in a bit of a quandary. I've currently got a D7000 and an
    > : > 18-105 lens. Ive recently (this year) switched back to SLR's after a
    > : > decade of using digital point and shoot. I'm certainly pleased with
    > : > D7000, but am finding the 18-105 to be a bit too slow in low light
    > : > (indoors without flash) and am thinking of buying a faster lens.
    > :
    > : I have a D7000, and I've found that I can get acceptable to very good
    > : results up to about ISO 1600, so try shooting at a higher ISO.
    > :
    > : <snip>
    > : > My quandary is this. I'm not (at all) sure that I'm satisfied with a DX
    > : > format and really don't want to buy new lenses and accessories and then
    > : > find myself needing to re-buy them if/when I buy an FX body.
    > : <snip>
    > : > Appreciate any feedback.
    > :
    > : What is the ultimate destination of the pictures? If you're printing and
    > : blowing up your pictures substantially, there might be some merit to an
    > : FX camera. If you're going mainly to screen, and not taking small crops
    > : out of the center of the image, DX should work fine.
    >
    > Building on Joe's point ...
    > A DX camera can be advantageous for event photography (where you may be trying
    > to capture faces from across the room), because it amplifies the effect of a
    > telephoto lens. But not so much for landscapes, where you may need the wider
    > view of FX.
    >
    > Bob
    >


    One can alwyas shoot an fx in dx mode.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Apr 17, 2013
    #15
  16. Nige Danton

    PeterN Guest

    On 4/17/2013 5:15 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2013-04-17 13:48:18 -0700, PeterN <> said:
    >
    >> On 4/10/2013 5:29 AM, me wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 07:10:59 +0000 (UTC), Nige Danton
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I'm in a bit of a quandary. I've currently got a D7000 and an
    >>>> 18-105 lens.
    >>>> Ive recently (this year) switched back to SLR's after a decade of using
    >>>> digital point and shoot. I'm certainly pleased with D7000, but am
    >>>> finding
    >>>> the 18-105 to be a bit too slow in low light (indoors without flash)
    >>>> and am
    >>>> thinking of buying a faster lens.
    >>>
    >>> First, try the no cost solution of either bumping the iso up and/or
    >>> trying the auto-iso function to allow you to do it with some
    >>> additional control. What shutter/f.l. combos are you shooting.
    >>>

    >>
    >> do all DSLRs have auto ISO.

    >
    > Well your D300 & D800 both have it.
    > < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_196.jpg >
    >


    Yup! But not all do.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Apr 17, 2013
    #16
  17. Nige Danton

    PeterN Guest

    On 4/17/2013 6:12 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2013-04-17 14:31:20 -0700, PeterN <> said:
    >
    >> On 4/17/2013 5:15 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>> On 2013-04-17 13:48:18 -0700, PeterN <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On 4/10/2013 5:29 AM, me wrote:
    >>>>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 07:10:59 +0000 (UTC), Nige Danton
    >>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> I'm in a bit of a quandary. I've currently got a D7000 and an
    >>>>>> 18-105 lens.
    >>>>>> Ive recently (this year) switched back to SLR's after a decade of
    >>>>>> using
    >>>>>> digital point and shoot. I'm certainly pleased with D7000, but am
    >>>>>> finding
    >>>>>> the 18-105 to be a bit too slow in low light (indoors without flash)
    >>>>>> and am
    >>>>>> thinking of buying a faster lens.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> First, try the no cost solution of either bumping the iso up and/or
    >>>>> trying the auto-iso function to allow you to do it with some
    >>>>> additional control. What shutter/f.l. combos are you shooting.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> do all DSLRs have auto ISO.
    >>>
    >>> Well your D300 & D800 both have it.
    >>> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_196.jpg >
    >>>

    >>
    >> Yup! But not all do.

    >
    > Most Nikon DSLRs do, and most importantly with regard to this particular
    > discussion the D7000 mentioned above does:
    > < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_197.jpg >
    >
    >


    True, but minimum shutter speeds can limit its usefulness.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Apr 17, 2013
    #17
  18. Nige Danton

    nospam Guest

    In article <516f1f81$0$10837$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > >>>> do all DSLRs have auto ISO.
    > >>>
    > >>> Well your D300 & D800 both have it.
    > >>> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_196.jpg >
    > >>
    > >> Yup! But not all do.

    > >
    > > Most Nikon DSLRs do, and most importantly with regard to this particular
    > > discussion the D7000 mentioned above does:
    > > < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_197.jpg >

    >
    > True, but minimum shutter speeds can limit its usefulness.


    not at all. that's exactly why auto-iso useful.
     
    nospam, Apr 17, 2013
    #18
  19. Nige Danton

    me Guest

    On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 18:17:37 -0400, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >On 4/17/2013 6:12 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >> On 2013-04-17 14:31:20 -0700, PeterN <> said:
    >>
    >>> On 4/17/2013 5:15 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>>> On 2013-04-17 13:48:18 -0700, PeterN <> said:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 4/10/2013 5:29 AM, me wrote:
    >>>>>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 07:10:59 +0000 (UTC), Nige Danton
    >>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I'm in a bit of a quandary. I've currently got a D7000 and an
    >>>>>>> 18-105 lens.
    >>>>>>> Ive recently (this year) switched back to SLR's after a decade of
    >>>>>>> using
    >>>>>>> digital point and shoot. I'm certainly pleased with D7000, but am
    >>>>>>> finding
    >>>>>>> the 18-105 to be a bit too slow in low light (indoors without flash)
    >>>>>>> and am
    >>>>>>> thinking of buying a faster lens.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> First, try the no cost solution of either bumping the iso up and/or
    >>>>>> trying the auto-iso function to allow you to do it with some
    >>>>>> additional control. What shutter/f.l. combos are you shooting.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> do all DSLRs have auto ISO.
    >>>>
    >>>> Well your D300 & D800 both have it.
    >>>> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_196.jpg >
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Yup! But not all do.

    >>
    >> Most Nikon DSLRs do, and most importantly with regard to this particular
    >> discussion the D7000 mentioned above does:
    >> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_197.jpg >
    >>
    >>

    >
    >True, but minimum shutter speeds can limit its usefulness.


    In the D200/D300 which I own you can set a max iso and min shutter
    speed.Shhot aperture priority and you also have control of that within
    all the defined limits. Lower level Nikons may not implement this the
    same way and Canon does not follow this full implementation either.
     
    me, Apr 18, 2013
    #19
  20. Nige Danton

    Trevor Guest

    "PeterN" <> wrote in message
    news:516f0d4d$0$10818$-secrets.com...
    > On 4/10/2013 9:08 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    >> A DX camera can be advantageous for event photography (where you may be
    >> trying
    >> to capture faces from across the room), because it amplifies the effect
    >> of a
    >> telephoto lens. But not so much for landscapes, where you may need the
    >> wider
    >> view of FX.

    >
    > One can alwyas shoot an fx in dx mode.



    Or simply crop later in PS.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Apr 18, 2013
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Earl Misanchuk

    Compression quandary / question

    Earl Misanchuk, Sep 15, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    443
    Matt Ion
    Sep 15, 2006
  2. Cheekycharlie

    Laptop Quandary

    Cheekycharlie, Jul 4, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    580
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=
    Jul 5, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page