Go to a  "printer friendly" view of this message which allow an easy print Printer-friendly copy Go to the page which allows you to send this topic link and a message to a friend Email this topic to a friend
Forums Lobby GET TO KNOW YOUR CAMERA & MASTER IT Nikon D7100, D7000 (Public) topic #28091
View in linear mode

Subject: "Why Stick with DX 7100" Previous topic | Next topic
mickeyb48 Gold Member Nikonian since 08th Oct 2012Mon 10-Jun-13 02:47 AM
65 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
"Why Stick with DX 7100"


Dacula, US
          

Well tomorrow is the big day for getting a new second body. I was going for the 800 as my first pick, but had a hard time with the price, and weight. 600 is my second choice, just still mulling over the dust issue. The local camera shop in town said they haven't heard anything about dust in a long time. My third option is a D7100. So it's between the 600 and 7100.

All the specs look great on the 7100. I have my kit lens that came with my 7000, and a couple of FX zoom lens.

So why have so many decided to stick with DX?

Oh and how is the low light on the 7000?

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Replies to this topic
Subject Author Message Date ID
Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
km6xz Moderator
10th Jun 2013
1
Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
mickeyb48 Gold Member
10th Jun 2013
2
Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
km6xz Moderator
11th Jun 2013
3
Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
mjhach Silver Member
11th Jun 2013
7
Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
agitater Gold Member
11th Jun 2013
4
Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
billD80 Silver Member
11th Jun 2013
5
     Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
mickeyb48 Gold Member
11th Jun 2013
6
Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
Floridian Silver Member
11th Jun 2013
8
Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
mjhach Silver Member
11th Jun 2013
10
     Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
mklass Platinum Member
12th Jun 2013
11
     Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
mjhach Silver Member
14th Jun 2013
23
     Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
mklass Platinum Member
14th Jun 2013
25
     Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
elec164 Silver Member
14th Jun 2013
26
     Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
mjhach Silver Member
15th Jun 2013
39
     Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
agitater Gold Member
14th Jun 2013
27
          Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
mklass Platinum Member
14th Jun 2013
28
          Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
mjhach Silver Member
15th Jun 2013
40
          Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
mjhach Silver Member
14th Jun 2013
29
               Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
agitater Gold Member
14th Jun 2013
31
                    Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
txstone12 Gold Member
15th Jun 2013
34
                    Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
agitater Gold Member
15th Jun 2013
35
                    Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
unclemikey Platinum Member
15th Jun 2013
36
                    Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
agitater Gold Member
15th Jun 2013
38
                    Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
mjhach Silver Member
15th Jun 2013
41
     Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
plankowner110 Silver Member
14th Jun 2013
24
     Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
Floridian Silver Member
12th Jun 2013
12
     Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
mjhach Silver Member
12th Jun 2013
17
     Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
mjhach Silver Member
12th Jun 2013
18
          Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
Floridian Silver Member
12th Jun 2013
19
     Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
billD80 Silver Member
12th Jun 2013
15
     Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
singlerosa Silver Member
12th Jun 2013
16
     Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
km6xz Moderator
13th Jun 2013
21
Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
mklass Platinum Member
11th Jun 2013
9
Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
golfercat Silver Member
12th Jun 2013
13
Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
mickeyb48 Gold Member
12th Jun 2013
14
     Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
plankowner110 Silver Member
13th Jun 2013
20
     Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
unclemikey Platinum Member
14th Jun 2013
30
     Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
agitater Gold Member
14th Jun 2013
32
          Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
unclemikey Platinum Member
14th Jun 2013
33
               Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
mjhach Silver Member
15th Jun 2013
42
                    Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
unclemikey Platinum Member
15th Jun 2013
44
                         Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
mjhach Silver Member
16th Jun 2013
45
     Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
unclemikey Platinum Member
15th Jun 2013
37
          Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
mklass Platinum Member
15th Jun 2013
43
Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
PCassidy Gold Member
13th Jun 2013
22
Reply message RE: Why Stick with DX 7100
Al G
16th Jun 2013
46

km6xz Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, including Portraits and Urban Photography Nikonian since 22nd Jan 2009Mon 10-Jun-13 06:34 AM
3292 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#1. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 0


St Petersburg, RU
          

What sensor format is best for someone is determined by what they shoot. Those who need the most reach and usually shoot in decent light are well rewarded by getting a D7100.
A portrait, landscape or fashion photographer will benefit from the advantages of Fx.
Why are you getting a second body? What does it need to provide that your main camera does not?
I like Dx because it has smaller file sizes, and what a 200 mm lens field of view becomes, but I prefer my Fx d800 for landscape, people shots and anything where wide is an advantage. For me, a good 1-2 combination would be the D800 have a partner in the bag of a D7100 or the recently renewed rumors for the D400.
What do you need in performance changes from the D7000?

I find that there is little difference in image quality between any of these recent cameras if normal sized prints are viewed from a normal distance. The advantages reside in the extremes of large prints or in darkness. If you are not getting the images you seek from the D7000, and if you are not shooting in the dark or cropping radically, maybe the money should be put into things that make a bigger difference: lighting systems/accessories, lenses, a good workshop or advanced course, etc. Camera makers rely on the fact that people change cameras way too often, before they learn to get the best out of what they had, for their profits.
Maybe if you post an image or two that illustrates what you seek to change in your photography it would give us a better idea of what to recommend.

Stan
St Petersburg Russia

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
mickeyb48 Gold Member Nikonian since 08th Oct 2012Mon 10-Jun-13 06:44 AM
65 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#2. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 1


Dacula, US
          

Thanks for the info Stan. Last night I uploade some pictures for the first time. Hope this will help.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
km6xz Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, including Portraits and Urban Photography Nikonian since 22nd Jan 2009Tue 11-Jun-13 04:02 AM
3292 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#3. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 2


St Petersburg, RU
          

After looking at your posted photos I was struck by the question of "why fix what is not broken?". I really like your photos, with interesting perspective, good framing/composition, exposure and post processing. What more could one ask for?
If I were you and was itching to satisfy NAS, I would look at additional lenses, maybe wider ultrawide or good prime for low light and narrower DOF. You have 2 very good Nikon zooms and a couple versatile mid level zooms now but think you would benefit from having an ultra wide like a 10-24 or 8-16.
None of those shot would have looked much different if shot with a D800 except they would have a wider field of view.
If you really want to go FX, you have two lenses that would be excellent on the large format sensor. Fx certainly would not hurt but it is not going to make a big difference in the photos except where low light is a real problem now for you now. For your longer exposure low ISO shots like the waterfalls, the D7000 has world class absence of noise so that is not going to change if getting a D800. I have a D800 and really like it but I also really like my D90 and D7000 and have about an equal number of shots with each that I really like. Whether you want to hang a large print on the wall or not is seldom determined by technical aspects of the camera that shot it, but the subject and its compelling interest does. For example the shot of the family in the aquarium was not going to be more interesting or personal if shot with MF or a D800, the noise, exposure, color are right now and revealing which camera took it would mean nothing to a viewer. The subject, perspective and story are the reasons that image works well. The first butterfly shot is a tricky exposure problem and you and the camera nailed it. It is really good.
If you were into sports or wildlife shooting, I would be encouraging you to consider a D7100 for its excellent AF and cropping flexibility but your subjects fit what you have now.
If you had unlimited budget, I would suggest a D800e and all top primes but I doubt you or any of us have an unlimited budget so I usually suggest items that are the best cost/perceived enhancement ratio. That is why I often suggest more speedlights and a workshop on lighting as a more effective use of funds for the biggest improvement in imaging.
Stan
St Petersburg Russia

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
mjhach Silver Member Nikonian since 17th Dec 2010Tue 11-Jun-13 01:41 PM
489 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#7. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 1


Simcoe, CA
          

THis is really good advice, Stan. This should essentially quash NAS for NAS's sake. But there will always be those with the disposable income to buy whatever's new out there.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

agitater Gold Member Nikonian since 18th Jan 2007Tue 11-Jun-13 11:17 AM
3956 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#4. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 0


Toronto, CA
          


>So why have so many decided to stick with DX?

Because if someone already has a D7000, he's got a camera capable of capturing superb photos. I like a couple of your photos too - well composed, rich color, beautifully detailed. I suspect that a new camera won't make a difference to your photography, not when you've already got a D7000.

A second body is useful if you don't like changing lenses. A second body is useful as a backup.

For people who already own a D300 body or an even earlier body, there are remarkable improvements in low light capability in the D7000 and other, newer bodies. The D7000 is also a big step up in dynamic range compared to the older bodies.

I think that a DX Nikkor 10-24 or 12-24 wide angle zoom might be a better consideration. You'll be able to use your D7000 to immerse viewers in your scenes.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
billD80 Silver Member Nikonian since 22nd Jan 2007Tue 11-Jun-13 12:26 PM
2141 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#5. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 4


US
          

I won't be moving to FX anytime soon because I have excellent DX glass and want my 300/4 to behave like a 450mm. Apart from High ISO ability, I wouldn't see the next most affordable D600 as a step up from the D7100.

www.billkeane.zenfolio.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
mickeyb48 Gold Member Nikonian since 08th Oct 2012Tue 11-Jun-13 01:14 PM
65 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#6. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 5


Dacula, US
          

Thanks for the input on,the pictures I took. I was a little intimated after looking at all the galleries. I've only been back into photography for a few months. I lost out buying a Harley (wife and doctor), so I told the wife photography again. I used to shoot film on a FE2 and FM, before the days of children. I'm really enjoying photography again having a blast. Just bought a Canon Pro-100 printer, I've been impressed with the 13x19 pictures.

I was considering a second body not to change lens, but what I read about the 7100 I was intreaged about the quality it was putting out. So if I decide just too get an ultra wide lens, I would like another great quality FX lens like the ones I have. What
Manufacture would you recommend. I really enjoy learnig so much from these forums.

Thanks

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Floridian Silver Member Nikonian since 11th Feb 2007Tue 11-Jun-13 06:28 PM
2707 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#8. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 0


Tallahassee, Florida, US
          

>So why have so many decided to stick with DX?

I'm sticking with DX because a DX setup is smaller and lighter. I'm happy with the results I get and don't want to carry a bigger and heavier set of lenses. (Also, DX is less expensive, and in my case, I already have a lot of DX lenses.)

My view combines Stan's "Why fix what's not broken" with the advantages of a smaller and lighter setup.

I can see the advantages of FX for some people, but in many cases I think people want to go FX because they think it is somehow better, even though it would show minimal if any improvement in the photos they are actually taking.

Randy

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
mjhach Silver Member Nikonian since 17th Dec 2010Tue 11-Jun-13 11:46 PM
489 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#10. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 8


Simcoe, CA
          

Question RE: number of DX lenses??

I often read that members have X number of lenses and I often see overlaps of FL and f/ . I have to ask why. I am not employed in a photography career, just a hobby, and I have a Nikkor 18-200mm VRI for 4 years and then got a 35mm f/1.8, and Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5-4 and just last week got a 85mm f/3.5 macro and this range seems to be fine. If your a birder, then I can see having an arsenal >300mm lenses for reach, but other than that, I don't see the point of having more than 6 lenses at the most. Could anyone enlighten me please?

LIke the FX lenses 24-70, 70-200 Nikkors, which of the DX's are similar in quality and I dont' think there are any that are metal construction, are there? and I have to ask why not? Does anyone know? Did the DX format come before the FX?

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
mklass Platinum Member As a semi-professional involved in all manner of photographic genres including portraiture, sports, commercial, and events coverage, Mick is always ready to help Nikonians by sharing his deep knowledge of photography and printing. Nikonian since 08th Dec 2006Wed 12-Jun-13 01:06 AM
5814 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#11. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 10
Wed 12-Jun-13 02:23 AM by mklass

Tacoma, US
          

>Question RE: number of DX lenses??
>
>I often read that members have X number of lenses and I often
>see overlaps of FL and f/ . I have to ask why. I am not
>employed in a photography career, just a hobby, and I have a
>Nikkor 18-200mm VRI for 4 years and then got a 35mm f/1.8, and
>Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5-4 and just last week got a 85mm f/3.5
>macro and this range seems to be fine. If your a birder,
>then I can see having an arsenal >300mm lenses for reach,
>but other than that, I don't see the point of having more than
>6 lenses at the most. Could anyone enlighten me please?
>
>LIke the FX lenses 24-70, 70-200 Nikkors, which of the DX's
>are similar in quality and I dont' think there are any that
>are metal construction, are there? and I have to ask why not?
>Does anyone know? Did the DX format come before the FX?

The simple and only correct answer is NAS.

It's also possible to use the mountain climber analogy: "Because they're there."

However my explanation is different horses for different courses.

Since I admittedly have a ridiculous number of lenses, I'll offer a few examples:

I have a Sigma 35mm f/1.4 and a Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX. The DX lens is small, light and perfect to stuff in a bag for travel with my smaller DX camera and use in low light. The Sigma is my FX lens for paid jobs where I want the best IQ and also for my own work when I need a great lens for my D800e.

I have a Nikon 18-300 f/3.5-5.6DX as well as the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 DC and Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6 SP. The Nikon is the lens I take when I want one lens to carry in a ThinkTank Digital Holster 30. The other two are when I have more room I am willing to carry a little more weight and a bigger bag, but want better IQ and faster lenses.

I have the Nikon 14-24, 24-120 f/4 and 70-200 VR II, plus the 1.7 II and 2 III TCs. I've got primes at 18, 35, 50, 60, 85, 105 and 135 (ignoring the 24 and 85mm PC lenses) Those primes are great when I know I have a static subject and/or room to move. The others are great when I don't.

The only sensible explanation is NAS. But I can make a logical case for every lens that I own. It makes sense to me... but might not to you. It also makes no sense to my wife. Heathen!

By the way, there is a proposed government regulation that no one shall own more than 6 lenses. If you have more than that, you have to give them to someone with less, whether or not they have a camera. I believe this proposal originated in Canada, but we're trying hard to become more like you down here.


Mick
http://www.mickklassphoto.com
or
Visit my nikonians gallery

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
mjhach Silver Member Nikonian since 17th Dec 2010Fri 14-Jun-13 01:25 PM
489 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#23. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 11


Simcoe, CA
          

I did some experimenting with my 18-200mm VRI and the 35mm f/1.8 recently and detected (a little pixel peeping on my LCD screen) that the image produced of a coffee cup (Tim Horton's of course, Canadian) seemed sharper with the 18-200 at the same FL as the 35mm. What gives with that? I also each full open at their respective native f/ values. I thought the 18-200mm would be way less sharp? Now, I do see that the AF would respond better with the f/1.8 over the f3.5 of the other. Even AF fine tuning didn't yield any sharper image. When backing off PIXEL peeping, both came in with the same IQ as best as I could see on the LCD.





Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Attachment #1, (jpg file)
Attachment #2, (jpg file)

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
mklass Platinum Member As a semi-professional involved in all manner of photographic genres including portraiture, sports, commercial, and events coverage, Mick is always ready to help Nikonians by sharing his deep knowledge of photography and printing. Nikonian since 08th Dec 2006Fri 14-Jun-13 02:05 PM
5814 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#25. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 23


Tacoma, US
          

Well, you're shooting at 1/30sec and one lens has VR while the other doesn't. (I'm guessing these were handheld?)

If these were handheld, try on a tripod with VR off on the 18-200, or shoot handheld at a higher shutter speed. Even with a short focal length, as 1/30 a little shake will cause a problem.

IF you shot these on a tripod, then it's an interesting result.


Mick
http://www.mickklassphoto.com
or
Visit my nikonians gallery

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
elec164 Silver Member Nikonian since 15th Jan 2009Fri 14-Jun-13 03:23 PM
1966 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#26. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 23


US
          

>I did some experimenting with my 18-200mm VRI and the 35mm
>f/1.8 recently and detected (a little pixel peeping on my LCD
>screen) that the image produced of a coffee cup (Tim Horton's
>of course, Canadian) seemed sharper with the 18-200 at the
>same FL as the 35mm. What gives with that?

Personally, I don't see it that way.

First,there was a slight difference in EV between the two shots. The 18-200mm shot was at f/4.2 and ISO 100 and the 35mm shot was at f/4.5 and ISO 122. But that aside, you have to consider that even at the exact same settings there is no guaranty that similar exposure will be obtained because we don't know if the transmissivity of the two lenses are the same.

When I brought both images into a single document in PS as separate layers, made a curves adjustment to the 35mm shot to more closely match the 18-200mm shot and nudged the one layer to match up the mugs (there appeared to be a slight misalignment and different amount of magnification) the 35mm lens appeared to not only be as sharp if not sharper; but appeared to render finer detail with significantly less distortion then the 18-200 did.

At least that's my humble opinion.

Pete

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
mjhach Silver Member Nikonian since 17th Dec 2010Sat 15-Jun-13 02:44 PM
489 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#39. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 26


Simcoe, CA
          

THanks so much for your in-depth examination of my images. Appreciate the feedback. Yes I agree, they were handheld while I was having my not-Tims coffee.

THis is why I really like VR and am hesitant to buy anything without, not that I'm particularly shaky, but it just takes that edge off and you can't always have a tripod on your back, unless its a Gorilla Pod or similar.

I am really pleased with my copy of 18-200mm, but it does fall short when trying to AF in less than bright light.

Mike

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
agitater Gold Member Nikonian since 18th Jan 2007Fri 14-Jun-13 04:06 PM
3956 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#27. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 23
Fri 14-Jun-13 04:07 PM by agitater

Toronto, CA
          

>I did some experimenting with my 18-200mm VRI and the 35mm
>f/1.8 recently and detected (a little pixel peeping on my LCD
>screen) that the image produced of a coffee cup (Tim Horton's
>of course, Canadian) seemed sharper with the 18-200 at the
>same FL as the 35mm. What gives with that?

Michael - I disagree somewhat with Mick, although technically he's not wrong at all really. Still, I think all you've discovered is that Nikon doesn't make blurry or even vaguely unsharp lenses. MTF charts, reviews by qualified photography hounds, edge-to-edge analyses using every conceivable aperture, rock solid shooting platforms locked down with cement blocks for weights/mirror up/still air/no seismic activity within 10,000 km/blah, blah, blah, don't alter the fact that it is essentially impossible to buy a Nikon lens of any kind currently on the market that isn't totally tack sharp in the centre.

So I'd say, don't be surprised or apprehensive or even questioning about your initial test results. Instead, be completely satisified that both your 18-200 VR and your 35mm f/1.8 are working precisely as designed.

If you want to start comparing contrast characteristics, colour quality and so on, you may not find very many differences between the two lenses again. On paper, the 35mm f/1.8 should do somewhat better, but in the real world (as opposed to Nikon's test bench or the test benches operated by serious reviewers), you'll only rarely see a difference.

If you want to compare distortion characteristics such as pincushion or barrel edge distortions, the 35mm f/1.8 will win because it's characteristics are easier to correct in photos made with an older Nikon camera body. With all the newer camera bodies (from the D7000 on, I think), the Automatic Distortion Control built into the bodies corrects almost all noticeable distortion when using most modern AF Nikon lenses. So that difference also gets tossed out the window most of the time.

The most important differences between the Nikkor 18-200 VR (I or II) and the Nikkor 35mm AF-S f/1.8 is that sweet and shallow depth of field offered by the 35, lighter weight offered by the 35, the zoom range of the 18-200, the VR of the 18-200, the nicer bokeh of the 35 from f/1.8-f/3.5. The thing is, none of the differences have anything to do with sharpness - the thing that, IMO, too many photographers worry about far too much.

On an entirely different note, I became totally ticked off with Tim's when they started boiling the coffee. I think it was about 4 or 5 years ago that some 'genius' at TDL Group in Oakville told all the franchises and corporate stores that they had to increase the holding temperature of the coffee. I think they made the stuff undrinkable. I've got two different Tim's tenants, both of whom told me that the idea was to ensure the coffee stayed hot long enough to be the correct temperature after a ten minute drive to another location. I think the boiling/too-high-temp absolutely ruins the coffee.

Frankly, I think that Tim's monkeying around with what used to be perfectly good coffee is definitely a more serious issue than the differences between the 18-200 and the 35 f/1.8.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
mklass Platinum Member As a semi-professional involved in all manner of photographic genres including portraiture, sports, commercial, and events coverage, Mick is always ready to help Nikonians by sharing his deep knowledge of photography and printing. Nikonian since 08th Dec 2006Fri 14-Jun-13 05:18 PM
5814 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#28. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 27
Fri 14-Jun-13 10:26 PM by mklass

Tacoma, US
          

Howard,

Thanks for putting all of this in perspective (even though you ARE being somewhat "disagreeable".) The true problem is coffee.

If that stuff isn't right, we can't wake up to get those early morning shots, nor stay awake for the evening golden hour. Too much or too strong and we will shake, causing blurry images. Doesn't matter what lens or camera you use (although a donut is a viable alternative to a beanbag for stabilization, particularly jelly).

You folks in the Great Frozen North haven't been plagued with lukewarm coffee as we have down here in the Promised Land due to lawsuits from it being too hot? If not, we'd be glad to send you some lawyers so you can move into the modern world. Just give me your address and I will ship them 3rd class mail.

Mick
http://www.mickklassphoto.com
or
Visit my nikonians gallery

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
mjhach Silver Member Nikonian since 17th Dec 2010Sat 15-Jun-13 02:47 PM
489 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#40. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 28


Simcoe, CA
          

Just be sure the jelly donut doesn't leak. Sugar is really tough to get out of lenses.!!

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
mjhach Silver Member Nikonian since 17th Dec 2010Fri 14-Jun-13 06:25 PM
489 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#29. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 27


Simcoe, CA
          

Well put, Howard. They also ruined perfectly good donuts years ago when they stopped processing them at each location. I'm almost a MacDonalds convert wrt to their coffee. It's not got that bitter touch that Tim's has, but this conversation isn't anything to do with lenses etc., does it?

I guess once again, I'll put my NAS on the top shelf, slightly out of reach.

I just saw some great closeups of caterpillers and flowers that a young person took with a Canon P&S and they were really great. Why then have we all spent $1000s on high tech big heavy bodies and lenses?? Just a rhetorical statement - I guess it just feels better to carry a high tech device - still the brains behind the camera is the best accessory.

See ya,
Mike

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
agitater Gold Member Nikonian since 18th Jan 2007Fri 14-Jun-13 09:33 PM
3956 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#31. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 29


Toronto, CA
          

>I just saw some great closeups of caterpillers and flowers
>that a young person took with a Canon P&S and they were
>really great. Why then have we all spent $1000s on high
>tech big heavy bodies and lenses?? Just a rhetorical
>statement - I guess it just feels better to carry a high tech
>device - still the brains behind the camera is the best
>accessory.

Good question. I think I regularly need to direct a few brain cells worth of effort making note of the strengths and limitations of any particular D7100 + lens combination I choose in order to get the most out of it. I think that goes for everybody here too (except the Nikonians who are already doing it of course). Understanding the gear we've already got, thoroughly, is I think a vastly more rewarding effort than the simple expenditure of money on yet another lens or filter or some other accessory. Basically I'm saying that as much as we all enjoy photography with a D7000 or D7100, actually getting the best photos out of the things is more a matter of choosing the best body + lens combination in the first place for a given subject or scene.

I've got an 18-200 VR II mounted on my own D7100 and the results are astonishing to me - as good as it gets, handheld, shooting in Manual/Auto ISO at 1/500s of faster, even when compared to my D800 + Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 in the exact same mode. Basically, when we shoot in light that allows a particular zoom lens to flex its muscles anywhere in the strongest part of its focal range, and when we work at handheld shutter speeds suitable for the high resolution sensor to capture sharp images, and when we use stable handheld shooting technique, all that's left is interesting compositions of interesting subjects (in other words, the gear has nothing to do with it - it's all about the photographer).

For the past few years, I've been taking notes at all the major photography exhibitions. UK Environmental Photograper of the Year Awards exhibition, Nat Geo exhibitions in North American and Europe, various Wildlife Photographer of the Year exhibitions, the annual Sony World Photographer of the Year exhibition (most recently in London, UK at Somerset House), and dozens of other big exhibitions. Painstaking notes about any technical details provided alongside each photo, i.e., the camera and lens used to make the photo, and any other details about exposure. What I've found, almost without exception, is that the vast majority of award winning photos are made with camera models that have been on the market for at least three years, often with lenses that have been around far longer. The point is that while the most experienced and skilled photographers can often hit the ground running with any brand new gear, over 90% of the contest winners and runners up, and over 90% of the professional shots chosen for inclusion in major exhibitions, consist of photos made with 'older' gear that the photographers know thoroughly well because they've been using the gear and analyzing their results and making adaptive changes to their shooting and exposure choices all along.

To add insult to injury for all Nikonians suffering from any degree of NAS, the youth categories in all of these exhibitions which consist of shots made with everything from entry level DSLR bodies + kit lenses to advanced P&S/prosumer cameras, vary in quality from the shots made by older photographers primarily only in the maturity of composition and subject choices. Sharpness, large size entries (a benefit derived mainly from sufficient sharpness + sufficient sensor resolution I admit) and other factors just don't enter into the situation. It's always about composition, drama, theme, light, color, symmetry, assymmetry, and common-to-unusual subjects captured in interesting ways.

I think the D7100 is a fantastically versatile tool. The 35mm f/1.8 is less versatile than the camera. If I use the 35 strictly for its strengths though, few other lenses (if any) can beat it. Same goes for the 18-200 - less versatile than the camera, but put it to use in the right light, using a fast shutter, and staying away from the weak spots and weak edges in its zoom range and its simply very hard to beat. A technically better lens won't make a boring or pointless composition any less so. It's always the photographer who makes a great photo.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
txstone12 Gold Member Nikonian since 12th Feb 2012Sat 15-Jun-13 05:53 AM
201 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#34. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 31


Texas, US
          

Thanks, Howard - very informative piece.

David

Visit my Nikonians gallery


Visit my SmugMug Gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
agitater Gold Member Nikonian since 18th Jan 2007Sat 15-Jun-13 10:01 AM
3956 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#35. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 34


Toronto, CA
          

Thanks. It's 6:00 AM EST (-5 GMT) and the sun is just up as I type this. Time to hit the lakeshore walking trails half a km south of my house. Got to practice what I preach!

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
unclemikey Platinum Member Nikonian since 29th Apr 2013Sat 15-Jun-13 01:32 PM
630 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#36. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 31


Henrico, US
          

>>I just saw some great closeups of caterpillers and
>flowers
>>that a young person took with a Canon P&S and they
>were
>>really great. Why then have we all spent $1000s on
>high
>>tech big heavy bodies and lenses?? Just a rhetorical
>>statement - I guess it just feels better to carry a high
>tech
>>device - still the brains behind the camera is the best
>>accessory.
>
>Good question. I think I regularly need to direct a few brain
>cells worth of effort making note of the strengths and
>limitations of any particular D7100 + lens combination I
>choose in order to get the most out of it. I think that goes
>for everybody here too (except the Nikonians who are already
>doing it of course). Understanding the gear we've already got,
>thoroughly, is I think a vastly more rewarding effort than the
>simple expenditure of money on yet another lens or filter or
>some other accessory. Basically I'm saying that as much as we
>all enjoy photography with a D7000 or D7100, actually getting
>the best photos out of the things is more a matter of choosing
>the best body + lens combination in the first place for a
>given subject or scene.
>
>I've got an 18-200 VR II mounted on my own D7100 and the
>results are astonishing to me - as good as it gets, handheld,
>shooting in Manual/Auto ISO at 1/500s of faster, even when
>compared to my D800 + Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 in the exact same
>mode. Basically, when we shoot in light that allows a
>particular zoom lens to flex its muscles anywhere in the
>strongest part of its focal range, and when we work at
>handheld shutter speeds suitable for the high resolution
>sensor to capture sharp images, and when we use stable
>handheld shooting technique, all that's left is interesting
>compositions of interesting subjects (in other words, the gear
>has nothing to do with it - it's all about the photographer).
>
>
>For the past few years, I've been taking notes at all the
>major photography exhibitions. UK Environmental Photograper of
>the Year Awards exhibition, Nat Geo exhibitions in North
>American and Europe, various Wildlife Photographer of the Year
>exhibitions, the annual Sony World Photographer of the Year
>exhibition (most recently in London, UK at Somerset House),
>and dozens of other big exhibitions. Painstaking notes about
>any technical details provided alongside each photo, i.e., the
>camera and lens used to make the photo, and any other details
>about exposure. What I've found, almost without exception, is
>that the vast majority of award winning photos are made with
>camera models that have been on the market for at
>least
three years, often with lenses that have been
>around far longer. The point is that while the most
>experienced and skilled photographers can often hit the ground
>running with any brand new gear, over 90% of the contest
>winners and runners up, and over 90% of the professional shots
>chosen for inclusion in major exhibitions, consist of photos
>made with 'older' gear that the photographers know thoroughly
>well because they've been using the gear and analyzing their
>results and making adaptive changes to their shooting and
>exposure choices all along.
>
>To add insult to injury for all Nikonians suffering from any
>degree of NAS, the youth categories in all of these
>exhibitions which consist of shots made with everything from
>entry level DSLR bodies + kit lenses to advanced
>P&S/prosumer cameras, vary in quality from the shots made
>by older photographers primarily only in the maturity of
>composition and subject choices
. Sharpness, large size
>entries (a benefit derived mainly from sufficient sharpness +
>sufficient sensor resolution I admit) and other factors just
>don't enter into the situation. It's always about composition,
>drama, theme, light, color, symmetry, assymmetry, and
>common-to-unusual subjects captured in interesting ways.
>
>I think the D7100 is a fantastically versatile tool. The 35mm
>f/1.8 is less versatile than the camera. If I use the 35
>strictly for its strengths though, few other lenses (if any)
>can beat it. Same goes for the 18-200 - less versatile than
>the camera, but put it to use in the right light, using a fast
>shutter, and staying away from the weak spots and weak edges
>in its zoom range and its simply very hard to beat. A
>technically better lens won't make a boring or pointless
>composition any less so. It's always the photographer who
>makes a great photo.
>
Howard, very astute. Excellent recitation. Thank you.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
agitater Gold Member Nikonian since 18th Jan 2007Sat 15-Jun-13 01:40 PM
3956 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#38. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 36


Toronto, CA
          

You're welcome. Thanks for your own posts in this thread too. I'm just trying to find ways to improve my own photography. Slowly but surely, slowly but surely.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
mjhach Silver Member Nikonian since 17th Dec 2010Sat 15-Jun-13 02:51 PM
489 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#41. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 31


Simcoe, CA
          

Once thanks again for your always extensive analysis of our questions/concerns.

Mike

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
plankowner110 Silver Member Nikonian since 18th Apr 2004Fri 14-Jun-13 01:39 PM
469 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#24. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 11


Ohio, US
          

>>
>By the way, there is a proposed government regulation that no
>one shall own more than 6 lenses. If you have more than that,
>you have to give them to someone with less, whether or not
>they have a camera. I believe this proposal originated in
>Canada, but we're trying hard to become more like you down
>here.
>
>
>Mick
>http://www.mickklassphoto.com
>or
>Visit
>my nikonians gallery>


This is the Affordable Camera Act!

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Floridian Silver Member Nikonian since 11th Feb 2007Wed 12-Jun-13 02:10 AM
2707 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#12. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 10


Tallahassee, Florida, US
          

>... I don't see the point of having more than
>6 lenses at the most. Could anyone enlighten me please?

I have 11 lenses, including almost all the ones you have. (I used to have a Sigma 10-20mm, but found a good deal on a Nikon 10-24, so sold my Sigma and now have the Nikon.) Why do I have the "extra" lenses?

I have an 18-55 that came with my D50. Probably not worth selling, and using the 18-200 with the pop-up flash on the camera casts a shadow. So, I'll use the 18-55 if I use the pop-up flash, and also for indoor photography when I want to minimize the intimidating visual impact of a large lens.

I have a 10.5mm fisheye. It's not like any other lens.

At the longer end, I have an 80-200 f2.8 I use for indoor sports. the 18-200 is too slow for that. I also have a 50 f1.4 and 85 f1.8 for lower light or shallower depth of field shots. And for longer telephotos, I have a 55-300, which is relatively small and lightweight, and an 80-400 as a long telephoto.

Lots of lenses, but each seems to fill a niche and I use them all.

>... Did the DX format come before the FX?

Not really. The film 35mm SLR cameras that predated digital are FX, though the term wasn't used. When DSLRs came on the scene, they had the smaller DX sensors. But as technology developed and the cost of sensors fell, Nikon started making sensors the size of 35mm film and called them FX.

Randy

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
mjhach Silver Member Nikonian since 17th Dec 2010Wed 12-Jun-13 05:10 PM
489 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#17. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 12


Simcoe, CA
          

Ok, thanks for the rationalization.

Mike

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
mjhach Silver Member Nikonian since 17th Dec 2010Wed 12-Jun-13 05:18 PM
489 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#18. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 12


Simcoe, CA
          

Your comment wrt "each fill a niche and used infrequently make sense. I have many tools and my excuse to having them is the same, the right tool for the specific job makes it so much easier and better. Although the 18-200mm is a good all around lens, the the IQ of the 17-55mm better, without pixel peeping, or is the difference not perceptible at 13X19 enlargments.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
Floridian Silver Member Nikonian since 11th Feb 2007Wed 12-Jun-13 06:03 PM
2707 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#19. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 18


Tallahassee, Florida, US
          

>... Although the 18-200mm is
>a good all around lens, the the IQ of the 17-55mm better,
>without pixel peeping, or is the difference not perceptible at
>13X19 enlargments.

I've made some good-looking 20"x30" prints from my 18-200, and I'm a big fan of that lens. As I see it, the difference isn't so much image quality, but that the 17-55 is an f2.8 lens so will take photos you just can't get with the 18-200. I don't have a 17-55, but I do have a 50mm f1.4, which is two stops faster than the already fast 17-55, and three or more stops faster (depending on where you are in its zoom range) than the 18-200. I've taken photos with my 50 (for example, bands playing in dimly-lit clubs) that I could not have taken with my 18-200, and that might not have worked well even with an f2.8 lens.

The 18-200 works great when you want a versatile lens with a wide zoom range, but when you need a faster aperture... not so great.

Randy

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
billD80 Silver Member Nikonian since 22nd Jan 2007Wed 12-Jun-13 12:10 PM
2141 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#15. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 10


US
          

>LIke the FX lenses 24-70, 70-200 Nikkors, which of the DX's
>are similar in quality and I dont' think there are any that
>are metal construction, are there? and I have to ask why not?
>Does anyone know? Did the DX format come before the FX?

For a number of years, some felt Nikon would NEVER release an FX Digital SLR. Well, never is a very long time...

The so-called FX lenses actually predated the DX ones because they were just the "old" 35mm lenses from the film SLR's.

I am in DX, have a superwide zoom (8-16mm); semi-wide zoom (17-50mm); Portrait-tele (85mm); a standard-tele zoom (50-150); a long tele (300mm) and a 40mm Macro.

While some may sit unused for weeks/months, ALL have definite use in what I like to shoot in a given year.

The Sigma 50-150/2.8 OS is a DX lens that will hold its own against anything. In fact, I'd say that about every other lens I have, because I chose very carefully along the way.

www.billkeane.zenfolio.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
singlerosa Silver Member Charter MemberWed 12-Jun-13 02:31 PM
210 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#16. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 10


St. Louis, US
          

The 17-55 2.8 DX is all metal and the DX equivalent of the 24-70.

I bought a D600 because I wanted a second body to minimize lens swapping and needed better low light performance. I went FX to give my lenses more flexibility. My 50 is a 50 on FX and it's a 75 on my D7K. So now I have all bases (mostly) covered. And yes, I have NAS.

Jim Singler D600/D7K with a bunch of lenses and other assorted stuff

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
km6xz Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, including Portraits and Urban Photography Nikonian since 22nd Jan 2009Thu 13-Jun-13 06:51 AM
3292 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#21. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 10


St Petersburg, RU
          

Differences in lenses are usually found in narrow niches. A good general purpose wide range zoom is really practical for the vast majority of photos but as one specializes more and more, some aspects of less general lenses becomes important enough for many of us to invest in more limited glass that is optimal for a particular subject. Is it worth it? That is a personal decision but for me it has been. For example my most used lens for a while was the kit 18-105vr, surprisingly good and very versatile. I used it for everything even though I had a few primes. Some of my favorite photos that were printed large and framed were done with a D90 and 18-105. I found that most of my shots were people shots so wanted additional capabilities and got a 70-200 2.8 which is still my favorite lens of all. It handled the portrait needs very well and according to a program which counts photos by focal length, I have close to 150,000 frames with that lens. I wanted a ultra wide for the other end so got a 10-20 3.5 Sigma which was very specialized but did what does better than the 18 end of the 18-105. From there I gradually added 9 lenses all in the 1.2-2.8 speed range. None as versatile as the 18-105 but really good for a specialty. My most used lenses are the 70-200, 24-70, 24 1.4, 85 1.4, 50 1.2, Sigma 50 1.4, and a few others. My 17-55 is the least used and sort of a bad investment considering how little it is used. The replacement in my bad was the 24-70 which I like the optics of much more, even on Dx. I also have a 10-24 which hardly gets used.
Luckily I am not a birder so my longest is 200mm which is fine with me. My next lens will be either a 14-24 2.8 or a 14 2.8 Samyang if I do not have the money for the expensive 14-24. I still do not have a single macro lens but the 200 macro Nikkor would be welcome if anyone wants to present one for my birthday, that is if they don't give me my dream lens, a 200 2.0.

So, are these worth the investment. Logically, no, few people can see the difference but I like the more specialized lenses. They give pleasure using them and holding them and as a hobby, the goal is to derive please for myself and possibly impart a little to others. I could have bought a car what some of those lenses cost and gotten more frequent use of it but it all comes down to personal priorities. I think it is best to not have a great deal of money to throw at the hobby, it forces priority balancing frequently and more careful choices and the results are probably more appreciated. If the choice comes down to an vacation to a exotic locale or getting a new lens, it forces one to think about priorities more than one who has the money for both.
You do not need high end glass. A lot of people say they do but what they mean is that they want the high end glass and place having it at a higher priority than other things that could have been gotten with the money. A more creative and effective investment is great lighting, which is cheaper and reaps far more benefits while reaching the very heart of photography; capturing and manipulating light and dark.
Stan
St Petersburg Russia

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

mklass Platinum Member As a semi-professional involved in all manner of photographic genres including portraiture, sports, commercial, and events coverage, Mick is always ready to help Nikonians by sharing his deep knowledge of photography and printing. Nikonian since 08th Dec 2006Tue 11-Jun-13 07:38 PM
5814 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#9. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 0


Tacoma, US
          

Why have I stuck with DX?

For a smaller, lighter travel kit and everyday DSLR. I use my FX bodies for jobs and for situations where I can afford to lug the heavier bodies and glass around, but for a simplier lighter kit, a D7100 and one or 2 lenses cover most everything. Even expanding that to include a 105 fisheye and 35mm f/1.8 doesn't add much weight or space.

Mick
http://www.mickklassphoto.com
or
Visit my nikonians gallery

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

golfercat Silver Member Nikonian since 15th Sep 2012Wed 12-Jun-13 02:26 AM
190 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#13. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 0


Menifee, US
          

Let me begin this by saying that I am in agreement with Stan.

Personally, I changed from DX (D90) to FX (D700) because I was unsatisfied with the performance of the D90 in low light. Other than that I felt it was a very good camera. I gave my D90 to my son. He was complaining about his PS and taking pictures of my grand children and missing shots due to movement, exposure, etc. Unfortunately he hasn't gotten out of Auto or P Modes.


The advantages of a DX (the first sensor size) over FX are weight, cropping (extra reach with a FX lens)and lower cost. File size is smaller on newer bodies.

The FX offers better high ISO with lower noise, wider field of view and better DOF.

Everything else depends on the generation of the body and sensor. I am continuing to use my D700 as it does everything that I need. In all probability, the D700 is better than I am. Then I have almost 70 years on it.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
mickeyb48 Gold Member Nikonian since 08th Oct 2012Wed 12-Jun-13 04:07 AM
65 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#14. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 13


Dacula, US
          

Well I found those two Nikon Ultra wide lens on KEH. I do like there prices.But I've got to admit, I've got that itch to look at a 7100, and maybe will be able to get a lens from KEH also. I sure do appreciate you guys helping me save some money also.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
plankowner110 Silver Member Nikonian since 18th Apr 2004Thu 13-Jun-13 03:24 AM
469 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#20. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 14
Fri 14-Jun-13 08:17 PM by plankowner110

Ohio, US
          

I have been considering the D600, especially since there was no indication that a D400 was forthcoming. But since I prefer a lighter, smaller camera kit for travel, I have finally decided to buy a D7100 and forgo the $2000 D600 or D400 bodies.

I'm not being cheap, as I bought my first brand new Nikon F in 1970, then owned a F3HP before going digital. The D7100 just seems to be the best tool for the money for my current photographic needs.

UPDATE! I just returned home from my local full service Nikon camera store with a new D7100. I got a great trade-in on my pristine D300. Campus Camera & Imaging in Kent, Ohio is a very reputable store- that's why I've been a loyal customer for 25 years. Thank you, Campus Camera!

Bill
D7100

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
unclemikey Platinum Member Nikonian since 29th Apr 2013Fri 14-Jun-13 07:29 PM
630 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#30. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 14
Fri 14-Jun-13 07:33 PM by unclemikey

Henrico, US
          

>Well I found those two Nikon Ultra wide lens on KEH. I do
>like there prices.But I've got to admit, I've got that itch to
>look at a 7100, and maybe will be able to get a lens from KEH
>also. I sure do appreciate you guys helping me save some money
>also.

Mikeyb48, I come out of the age of view cameras and Nikon F2's. Left photography for a long time as the entire digital age passed me by through my own disinterest.

When reentering the world of photography I started with a D-40x and moved to the D-90. I'm now shooting with the d-7100 and love it. I have a variety of both DX and FX lenses and in my professional work use different FL macro lenses. I never owned an FX sensor camera but I can see how it would make a difference when performing PS adjustments although I basically shoot in .jpeg fine large since my work does not allow adjustments other than contrast.

I think Stan's initial advice to you was spot on. What are you doing with all your equipment. If you plan to make photography your only income business then I would suggest you might want to consider the FX format for it increased ability to be adjusted in post production. I have prints in my home from .jpeg enlarged to 20x30 that are just great. Keep in mind the viewing distance of a print that size.

As far as a second body is concerned I almost purchased a second d-7100 until I read a thread regarding the possibility of a d-400. Now I'll just play the waiting game to see what happens. My only concern with the d-7100 is the buffer recording in Continuous Capture. If the d-400 equals everything in the d-7100 but gives me more recording speed as is expected I'll get one. Otherwise, I'll get another 7100 when the d-400 comes out because it will drop several hundred in price.

I don't quite understand what everyone is saying about low light captures with the d-7100. I do just fine I think.... Mostly I use fast FX lenses and with the size of enlargements I make I don't get much noise. (one day I'll learn how to do post production and get a noise reduction program and start shooting in NEF raw.)

Would someone please tell me what NAS means because I'm sure I have it but would like to identify the disorder for my wife. LOL

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
agitater Gold Member Nikonian since 18th Jan 2007Fri 14-Jun-13 09:35 PM
3956 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#32. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 30


Toronto, CA
          

>Would someone please tell me what NAS means because I'm sure I
>have it but would like to identify the disorder for my wife.
>LOL

Nikon Acquisition Syndrome.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
unclemikey Platinum Member Nikonian since 29th Apr 2013Fri 14-Jun-13 10:09 PM
630 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#33. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 32


Henrico, US
          

>>Would someone please tell me what NAS means because I'm
>sure I
>>have it but would like to identify the disorder for my
>wife.
>>LOL
>
>Nikon Acquisition Syndrome.
>

OMG, I'm a sick person. Now how do I explain this to my wife?

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
mjhach Silver Member Nikonian since 17th Dec 2010Sat 15-Jun-13 02:57 PM
489 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#42. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 33


Simcoe, CA
          

Good luck. When I say, "But sweetie, I NEED this lens, or whatever." To which she replies, "No you don't". How does she know this stuff?? It's uncanny. So I wait a few months till the last purchase gets "unnew", and the VISA bills get back to normal, and ask it again.

Sometimes works. Try getting her a central vac or something she wants, and then ask again.

Mike

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
unclemikey Platinum Member Nikonian since 29th Apr 2013Sat 15-Jun-13 03:19 PM
630 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#44. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 42


Henrico, US
          

>Good luck. When I say, "But sweetie, I NEED this lens,
>or whatever." To which she replies, "No you
>don't". How does she know this stuff?? It's uncanny.
>So I wait a few months till the last purchase gets
>"unnew", and the VISA bills get back to normal, and
>ask it again.
>
>Sometimes works. Try getting her a central vac or something
>she wants, and then ask again.
>
>Mike

Mike, give MY wife a vacuum cleaner! I'd rather have root canal. Finance is not my problem. A control freak wife is. Really I'm not being fair. We each have our own money and I don't interfere with her spending nor she with mine. It just that I did most of my professional work for years with just a few pieces of equipment and now I'm trying to expand into other areas of photography that I am sorry to say I left behind for so long and feel I need the extra equipment to accomplish what I'm trying to do. It isn't her hobby so she doesn't understand until I put another photo on the gallery wall in the family room.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
mjhach Silver Member Nikonian since 17th Dec 2010Sun 16-Jun-13 01:03 AM
489 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#45. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 44


Simcoe, CA
          

I hear you. I was trying to make a little bit of extra $$$$ by selling framed landscape prints and that's what I did. LITTLE. I made more doing odd jobs for people (I'm retired and handy.) So I have all these photos hanging in my home gallery (ie- all available wall real estate).

Mike

My first and probably my last gallery show.











Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Attachment #1, (jpg file)
Attachment #2, (jpg file)
Attachment #3, (jpg file)
Attachment #4, (jpg file)

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
unclemikey Platinum Member Nikonian since 29th Apr 2013Sat 15-Jun-13 01:36 PM
630 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#37. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 14


Henrico, US
          

>Well I found those two Nikon Ultra wide lens on KEH. I do
>like there prices.But I've got to admit, I've got that itch to
>look at a 7100, and maybe will be able to get a lens from KEH
>also. I sure do appreciate you guys helping me save some money
>also.

KEH? Mickey please enlighten me...

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
mklass Platinum Member As a semi-professional involved in all manner of photographic genres including portraiture, sports, commercial, and events coverage, Mick is always ready to help Nikonians by sharing his deep knowledge of photography and printing. Nikonian since 08th Dec 2006Sat 15-Jun-13 03:02 PM
5814 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#43. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 37
Sat 15-Jun-13 03:48 PM by mklass

Tacoma, US
          

>>Well I found those two Nikon Ultra wide lens on KEH. I
>do
>>like there prices.But I've got to admit, I've got that
>itch to
>>look at a 7100, and maybe will be able to get a lens from
>KEH
>>also. I sure do appreciate you guys helping me save some
>money
>>also.
>
>KEH? Mickey please enlighten me...

http://www.keh.com A Great source of used camera equipment, especially lenses. They are very reputable.

Mick
http://www.mickklassphoto.com
or
Visit my nikonians gallery

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

PCassidy Gold Member Nikonian since 29th May 2011Thu 13-Jun-13 02:49 PM
142 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#22. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 0


Gainesville, US
          

I purchased my 7100 as an upgrade to my D300. My lens kit for most of my "field trips" is a 50mm f:1.4, a 17-35mm f:2.8 and a 80-200 f:2.8 this is a setup I have put together in one small backpack. So the only other item I carry is my Gitzo tripod.

Paul

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one. Einstein
------------------------------------------------------>
Nikon F, F2, F3, F4, F5 & F100
Nikon D300 D7100

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Al G Registered since 17th Nov 2012Sun 16-Jun-13 11:24 AM
116 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#46. "RE: Why Stick with DX 7100"
In response to Reply # 22
Sun 16-Jun-13 11:25 AM by Al G

US
          

I have the D600 and I do landscapes and candids more than birds and really like the 24 (have the 24-85 lens) over the 18 (27mm in FX) to 105. The difference is huge.

If I did get a D7100, I would opt for the 16-85 lens to get the extra 2mm of focal length. To be honest, I would have got the D7100 had it been announced before the D600. I almost got the D7000 but saw the rumors on D400 and waited.

I have noticed the loss of depth of field with FX so need to pay more attention to the precise focus. I also just take a lot more safety shots.

Al

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Forums Lobby GET TO KNOW YOUR CAMERA & MASTER IT Nikon D7100, D7000 (Public) topic #28091 Previous topic | Next topic


Take the Nikonians Tour and learn more about being a Nikonian Wiki /FAQ /Help Listen to our MP3 photography radio channels Find anything on Nikon and imaging technology - fast!

Copyright © Nikonians 2000, 2014
All Rights Reserved

Nikonians®, NikoScope® and NikoniansAcademy™ are trademarks owned by Nikonians.org.
Nikon®, Nikonos® and Nikkor® are registered trademarks of Nikon Corporation.