>Just take a picture with FX and DX camera from the same
>generation and look at them. Or maybe you shouldn't because it
>may cost you a lot of money... Comparing specs on paper and
>convincing yourself that DX is good and FX is better only at
>high ISO will be cheaper. I'm not trying to be sarcastic.
>I traveled with a D90 this summer and tried to convince myself
>that it's good enough, until I took up the D700 again and
>looked at the images it makes.

We will agree to disagree. A number of well known pros, including Bjorn Rorslett who spend tons of money on camera equipment (both DX and FX) and enjoy a good reputation for being very conscious about image quality generally agree with what I said:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/D3/D3_rev06.html

I have also read an article by Thom Hogan along these lines as well.

Edit: found the Hogan article where he states:
"Currently, the D3 is my "most of the time" camera and the D300 gets used when I need to go light or need more pixel density (wildlife shooting, mainly)."

http://www.bythom.com/d700announce.htm

Pixel peeping and all, DX image quality (presuming low ISO shooting conditions) is arguably superior. I have compared them, that is my opinion. Spending more money won't convince me that my image quality is better.

Jason

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.