When my wife said I could. I tell her that she can get almost all her money back when im gone. I show her some of the threads like i bought this 85mm lens and a year later sold it for more than I paid for it(we need more of this). She just smiles at me and says ok. Thanks for the help everyone. Not sure if I like that kind of a smile though.

n0msky said:
I am wondering, as you guys have mentioned above about FX being able to produce more shallow DOF and better bokeh and to shoot at high ISO , is it worth enough to spend more than $3,000 just to get those advantages, especially for those who just doing photography as hobby?

YES!

spraynpray said:
Thanks Seven, I'l tell the wife I'm OK to buy one then....

No! You have permission to buy two.......one for you and one for your old mucker Skinty!!! :-)

Geoff_K said:
Wait until I start to add lenses to go with it. THAT will tell how much she loves me.

I wouldn't want to take that chance..... ;-)

After 3 years of shooting HS football and basketball with my D90 I decided it was time to move to FF. Luckily I have a very understanding wife as this is just a hobby for me.

Wait until I start to add lenses to go with it. THAT will tell how much she loves me.

PB PM said:
If you have the disposable income, and love photography, why not? .

+1

other wise no, enjoy what you have

n0msky said:
I am wondering, as you guys have mentioned above about FX being able to produce more shallow DOF and better bokeh and to shoot at high ISO , is it worth enough to spend more than $3,000 just to get those advantages, especially for those who just doing photography as hobby?

To answer your question, no. When you buy a DX camera such as the D7000 you get about the same complexity as the D600 at (currently) less than half the cost. Buy the D7000, use it, learn the difference in the way it affects you in your fields (i.e. macro, sports, portraits, landscapes cityscapes, nightime etc. then make the decision. If you buy an FX lens to go on that DX body, you can take it with you if you go to an FX body.

As said before, DX is a positive advantage in many fields of photography, not a disadvantage across the board. View the PAD thread to see what cameras people are using and you will see that the difference in quality of the images is more to do with talent and lens than body or sensor size.

Be logical - it is when you lose control of your mind that the cost of this hobby gets way out of hand ;-/

If you have the disposable income, and love photography, why not? It also depends on what you want to do with your images.

Although I primarily shoot as a hobby, I also provide images for charities websites and a few clients. Having the ability to shoot high quality images in low light can be very helpful, given those uses. Unless you get caught up in the, I must upgrade every time a new camera comes out, mindset you can keep using that body for years to come.

I am wondering, as you guys have mentioned above about FX being able to produce more shallow DOF and better bokeh and to shoot at high ISO , is it worth enough to spend more than $3,000 just to get those advantages, especially for those who just doing photography as hobby?

spraynpray said:
Thanks Seven, I'l tell the wife I'm OK to buy one then....

Now come on guys...

YOU don't buy one, you have her buy one for you as a Christmas present.

bjrichus said:
I know a photographer who uses two D3 bodies for EVERYTHING. He has more FX glass in his gear boxes than most stores keep!

We spoke about the D4 a few months ago and while he likes the results, he thinks that for his work, he cannot justify the upgrade. Yes, over time they would pay for themselves, if he swapped out the 3's for 4's but he doesn't HAVE to, so no NEED to.

I can't argue with him ...

Same thing here. I looked at the D600 and accept for video, could not see the benefit over an older FX body.

With a grip, the D600 was close to $2500.

I picked up a D3 with less than 7500 clicks on it for $2000. I already have a D7000 for video. No brainer.

Thanks Seven, I'l tell the wife I'm OK to buy one then....

spraynpray

As you know, we love spending other peoples money

you have our permission to buy a D800

There are of course pros and cons for both formats but with a D800 I could shoot crop mode, but there is no button on my D7000 for switching to 36Mp FX mode.....

Paxton said:
Thanks for all the feedback!

The moment that prompted this thread was when I attached my 50mm 1.8g to a D600 and took some shots and compared it to my DX camera - there was a big difference between the out of focus elements between the two formats. The FX bokeh just blows my DX out of the water.

This was the very first thing that I noticed when I attached my 24-70mm f/2.8 to my D800 and shot a closeup at f/2.8. I'd been shooting that lens on a D7000 and never knew what I was missing.

R8R said:
The D3 gave me everything I wanted.

I know a photographer who uses two D3 bodies for EVERYTHING. He has more FX glass in his gear boxes than most stores keep!

We spoke about the D4 a few months ago and while he likes the results, he thinks that for his work, he cannot justify the upgrade. Yes, over time they would pay for themselves, if he swapped out the 3's for 4's but he doesn't HAVE to, so no NEED to.

I can't argue with him ...

msmoto said:
And, now to the D400 thread....LOL

Ha! It does kind of feel like the "faithful" (me included) are waiting for the 400 to drop from heaven, doesn't it? I wonder just how many will just shrug and buy a D600/800?

After some thought and a weekend of post processing, as I came from film (both 120 and 35) over a decade ago, I am (finally) returning to it. DX is good but leaving all the advantages of digital to one side, the images just don't match up to FX, which in turn lacks "something" that was in my better 35mm film shots, and in turn lacks a lot of what is in my 120 shots.

Definition? Gradation? Thought process? Distortion (thinking valves/tube HIFI vs I.C./transistors for that) and 'warmth'??? Lord alone knows, but they are just not the same thing.

If I could afford it, I'd buy one of every format and be happy with my gear, but have to use borrowed FX gear from work and 40+ year old film cameras. You know you are hauling a steel Nikormat and AI lenses about all day... Just like you do with a D4. LOL!

Paxton said:
As the title states - if there was a defining moment where you realized that you were being held back by a DX format camera, what was that moment?

My moment was the realization that the D400 is never going to happen - or not soon enough anyway. I found the D7000 incompatible with my hand size (the D300S was better in size but so much worse at high ISOs, which I need to utilize).

For me, there is no sense in getting a DX-format camera anymore, as I found out that my travel camera, the Olympus OM-D, is almost equal to the D7000 in image quality, despite the smaller sensor.

So FX for me it is, and most probably a D800.

I still haven't realized it yet...although I have been impressed by my friends D800E landscape shots. Maybe eventually? Still don't have the money to dump into more FX glass though.

Err and FX body for that matter ;-)

heartyfisher said:
Cool pics..

Re your photos.. Can I suggest you try a rear curtain flash sync for your photos that uses flash. will make them look like they are going forward rather than going backwards :-)

Thanks for this thought ... the pix from last July with the very ordinary flash results in the empty velodrome were my first action pix for about 150 years (joke) and I had no idea of the situation before I got there. So they're a bit ... ordinary

Thanks for all the feedback!

The moment that prompted this thread was when I attached my 50mm 1.8g to a D600 and took some shots and compared it to my DX camera - there was a big difference between the out of focus elements between the two formats. The FX bokeh just blows my DX out of the water.

msmoto said
...

And, now to the D400 thread....LOL

LOL !

Look FX is a great format .. I started out with fx and MF (You know the smelly dark rooms and romantic red lights! ) but as msmoto says .. dx gives me all I need. For the subjects I shoot, some of the DX 'disadvantages' are huge advantages. The the rest of advantages I only need like 1% of the time. I would rather spend the money that would have provided me that 1% capability on other equipment which would enhance my capabilities by 30% or more..... still that D600 looks like a nice cheap camera that in a couple of years I will be able to get at a very good price :-) so I may grab one later. Having both FX and DX is nice and you basically almost double your lense capability by having both formats. I used to do that .. I would carry both my film SLR and my DSLR with a 2 or 3 lenses.. eg carrying a 50mm lens make it a normal on FX and a nice short Portrait lens on DX. its like having 2 lenses!

But DX formant for me will be my main format .. ok .. off to the D400 thread ;-)

msmoto said:
I suspect about 99% of the NRF members could could everything they need to on DX. But, only about 50% believe this. Including me....

The D3 gave me everything I wanted. Speed, durability, a wide comfortable grip (I"m 6'4" with large hands), a big viewfinder, a huge legacy selection of fast primes and zooms, etc.

Could I make nice pics with DX? Sure. I love the D7000, still use it. It's just faster and more comfortable with a big FX body.

Lol... for me my 14-24mm on a D7000 isn't wide enough :P

@ NSXType-R Ah, yes, what I meant was FX is about the largest format for long telephoto work. And, indeed, DX gives one a distinct advantage IMO provided we are comparing DX crop to full DX frame. I believe the final image will be better on a DX sensor vs. a DX crop mode of an FX sensor provided the quality of the sensor is the same.

And, now to the D400 thread....LOL