Let me put it this way, few of us buy entire systems in one fell-swoop. We tend to buy lenses incrementally . . . we buy them as our disposable income savings pile up, and as we learn what we really want and need. The OP stated his interest in eventually moving to FX, and buying an 85mm f/1.4 and 35mm f/1.4. All I'm saying is that if you know you're planning to move to FX someday, your money is better spent buying an FX body right from the start. Again, this is what I think would've been best for me. Certainly, others will have different preferences, and varying budgetary priorities.
expert advice needed! (body upgrade)
(61 posts) (17 voices)-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
TaoTeJared said:
That is two very different systems for different purposes - it's comparing apples to oranges.Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 DX: $600 VS. 14-24mm f/2.8G ED FX: $1,260
AF-S Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 VR DX: $900 VS. 24-70mm f/2.8G ED FX: $1,890
Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 DX: $500 (used) VS. 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR I (used) FX: $1,600
Nikon D7000 $1,200 vs. Nikon D700 body: $2,200
Total: $3,200 vs. $6,950That is a difference of $3,750 and not even near the $100 you suggested for a comparable systems.
If someone wants to try out macro:
40mm f/2.8G DX Micro-NIKKOR $280 vs. 60mm f/2.8D AF Micro-NIKKOR $600 = $320 Diff
85mm f/3.5G ED VR $530 vs. 105mm f/2.8G VR AF Micro-NIKKOR $990 = $455 Diff
To try both, the difference is $775Point being - if you are starting out, It is much cheaper to go to DX that allows a beginner to try more types of photography for less and I believe that offsets 1 stop improvement of ISO noise.
Where can I get 14-24 for $1,260???
I live in CAPosted 1 year ago # -
sorry I started with that one but I changed the price to the 16-35 f4 and didn't the change the focal range - 00ps.
Posted 1 year ago # -
-
studio460 said:
Let me put it this way, few of us buy entire systems in one fell-swoop.I think this highlights the difference between a profession and non profession and why a non professional is likely to better off with DX
The Profession is probably going to need a complete range of lenses, two bodies and two or three flashes from word go. If a client wants a huge print, he can't say sorry, I only shot Dx, nor can he say, sorry I don't have a lens to do that
With Dx, the hobby photographer is going to get a lot more bang for his bucks
That said, if you take your hobby seroisly and are happy to spent £10,000+ on kit then FX is the way to go
Posted 1 year ago # -
sevencrossing said:
With Dx, the hobby photographer is going to get a lot more bang for his bucks
That said, if you take your hobby seroisly and are happy to spent £10,000+ on kit then FX is the way to go
However, to begin with for only 5,000 pounds (USD7850), one can purchase the following: 70-200mm $2400, 24-120mm $1300, 16-35mm $1150, and the D800 $3000...... all the very best quality. This would be a heck of a beginner's kit. And all these will work for DX extremely well, so, it is possible to purchase the lenses, a good DX body and at some later date, an FX body. The only problem might be a wide angle, which then puts you back into the price of FX as it will cost another $800 for a 10.5mm or something like that. And if primes are what you like, fast f/1.4-2.0 lenses, mmmm..... it does get costly. Someone mentioned lighting, another few thousand. Geez, maybe you are correct, seven crossing, $15,000 can go in a hurry!
Posted 1 year ago # -
-
Back in 1988 I was in asia for half a year. I had a Nikon FA with a 50mm - got a lot of good slides out of that FA.
You can get a good used D700 and a 50mm for under two grand and take it from there. There are lots of good used 24mm AF and 35mm AF lenses out there. FX dosent have to break the bank.
It is all in our minds - we think we need to cover everything from 10mm to 600mm. It dosent have to be that way.
Happy shooting
Posted 1 year ago # -
Henrik1963 said:
Back in 1988 I was in asia for half a year. I had a Nikon FA with a 50mm - got a lot of good slides out of that FA.You can get a good used D700 and a 50mm for under two grand and take it from there. There are lots of good used 24mm AF and 35mm AF lenses out there. FX dosent have to break the bank.
It is all in our minds - we think we need to cover everything from 10mm to 600mm. It dosent have to be that way.
Happy shooting
I will have to agree with this. Used D700 ($2000), new AF NIKKOR 35mm f/2D ($400), new AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8G ($500)
So, the beginning at less than $3,000. And, this will do a lot if one wants to BEGIN the FX process. However, going up the scale... to do sports, a minimum of the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 at about$900. used. Then if the extra wide is desired, and so on and so on...... Maybe the real consideration is to establish a budget, carefully fit what is wanted into the budget, and go for it!
Posted 1 year ago # -
Just a suggestion if a person wants to jump to FX:
New D800 ($3,000) and new 28-300 zoom ($1,000) = %4,000 to cover a lot of area in FX.
To go wider and faster you can spend less than $250 for a used 24mm AF-D 2.8 prime.
To go faster (new f2.8 zooms) you have to spend a lot of money; but the old 35-70 AF-D 2.8 can be found for about $500 and the old 80-200 AF-D 2.8 zoom can be found for less than $1,000.
You could save a thousand dollars by substituting a used D700 in place of the new D800.
Posted 1 year ago # -
DX vs FX, the never ending discussion, uh ? Well, I agree with most of what has been said here. Yes, FX is better, and yes DX gets you more bang for your buck.
For me, the biggest advantages of DX are size and cost (you can't beat the D7000 + 18-105 + 35/1.8 for travel !) and the biggest advantage of FX is low-light photography (well, above 800 ISO).
In the end, I agree with Studio460, I think stretching for the D700 is a better choice for me too. But I think, as many others have said, that the D7000 is a better value all around. Hey, it's half the price of the D700 ! 1000$ less ! And it has newer technology (higher DR at base ISO and video).
If your budget is max $ 2k, FX is not an option at the moment. You won't go far with just a body. On DX, you can get a D7000 with the kit lens (the 18-105 is perfect for daylight photography. Slow but very sharp and convenient), a 35mm f/1.8 DX, a SB 700, a tripod, a ND filter, etc. There is no arguing here I think.
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
